The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Misero on February 28, 2015, 09:52:29 AM

Title: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on February 28, 2015, 09:52:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on February 28, 2015, 10:42:37 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:08:34 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.
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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 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?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 01, 2015, 08:22:34 AM
You need to stop using the word "theories". These are untested notions at best.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:01:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 01, 2015, 09:31:21 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:33:06 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 01, 2015, 09:33:53 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?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:37:18 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 01, 2015, 09:39:01 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 01, 2015, 09:43:44 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 01, 2015, 11:00:20 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 12:19:14 PM

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?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:23:08 PM

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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 01, 2015, 12:40:47 PM

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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:51:20 PM

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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 01, 2015, 01:04:34 PM

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
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 01:17:56 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 01:27:02 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'.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 02:25:10 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)?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 02:31:56 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 01, 2015, 02:40:47 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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 09:14:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: neimoka on March 01, 2015, 11:56:44 PM
air does not exist
priceless, sig'd
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 03:11:03 AM
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.

i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work. i suggest you try reading. if this is not acceptable evidence for you, why do you accept gravity?
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 02, 2015, 07:34:36 AM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work. i suggest you try reading. if this is not acceptable evidence for you, why do you accept gravity?
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Aether doesn't explain squat unless you mathematically discribe it's properties.  That would also mean that it's possible to prove or disprove the aether.  Do you know what math is?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 07:53:48 AM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work. i suggest you try reading. if this is not acceptable evidence for you, why do you accept gravity?
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Aether doesn't explain squat unless you mathematically discribe it's properties.  That would also mean that it's possible to prove or disprove the aether.  Do you know what math is?

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information. i suggest you read threads before embarrassing yourself, i know i've said this several times before. think.
i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 02, 2015, 08:06:24 AM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work. i suggest you try reading. if this is not acceptable evidence for you, why do you accept gravity?
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Aether doesn't explain squat unless you mathematically discribe it's properties.  That would also mean that it's possible to prove or disprove the aether.  Do you know what math is?

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information. i suggest you read threads before embarrassing yourself, i know i've said this several times before. think.
i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 08:10:02 AM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work. i suggest you try reading. if this is not acceptable evidence for you, why do you accept gravity?
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Aether doesn't explain squat unless you mathematically discribe it's properties.  That would also mean that it's possible to prove or disprove the aether.  Do you know what math is?

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information. i suggest you read threads before embarrassing yourself, i know i've said this several times before. think.
i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 02, 2015, 09:16:47 AM
when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.

Until you have math supporting the aether you are wasting your time.  Either shot up or get to work.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 12:52:12 PM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

There is detailed math that accurately describes what gravity does. This mathematical model has been verified in countless experiments and is used to successfully predict the motions of masses in the presence of gravity with great accuracy. So, I have to disagree with your statement in the first quote above. You do not have more evidence of aether than we have of gravity. You have untested ideas. Nothing more.

i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

You've described in vague terms what you think it does.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 01:06:21 PM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

There is detailed math that accurately describes what gravity does. This mathematical model has been verified in countless experiments and is used to successfully predict the motions of masses in the presence of gravity with great accuracy. So, I have to disagree with your statement in the first quote above. You do not have more evidence of aether than we have of gravity. You have untested ideas. Nothing more.

i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

You've described in vague terms what you think it does.

making up an equation doesn't mean what it's said to apply to exists. aether explains the downwards force. coming up with figures doesn't mean there isn't another explanation.
i have described what it does. i have described the effects from which we conclude it exists. you do not need detailed math to know something is there. i know the proposed explanations for many things are not true (explained many other places), so aether is the simple conclusion. my personal evidence and experience also makes me certain.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 01:10:44 PM
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?

How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.

Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 01:28:07 PM
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?

How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.

Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.

there is no atmospheric refraction. don't appeal to round earth fantasies as an excuse. this isn't going to be a proof, it is just an example of how the aether refracts light. the further we go up, the more whirlpools we'll pass (i suspect there is at least one) giving a irregularity, possibly a jump. it is only to get data to deduce more about the aether. i can't say what to expect until i see the results, that is the zetetic method, not the obstinate nature of your science method.
i don't know how to measure refraction, but if there is no way, my point is made. you ask absurdities.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 01:45:43 PM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

There is detailed math that accurately describes what gravity does. This mathematical model has been verified in countless experiments and is used to successfully predict the motions of masses in the presence of gravity with great accuracy. So, I have to disagree with your statement in the first quote above. You do not have more evidence of aether than we have of gravity. You have untested ideas. Nothing more.

i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

You've described in vague terms what you think it does.

making up an equation doesn't mean what it's said to apply to exists.
"Making up" an equation doesn't do squat. If you create a mathematical model (in the simplest form, an equation) that accurately describes what is known to happen and can reliably predict what will happen, then there's an excellent chance that the model has physical meaning (that is, it realistically describes what is happening).

Quote
aether explains the downwards force. coming up with figures doesn't mean there isn't another explanation.
No it doesn't, and there is another explanation. Gravity. It explains the downward force, and explains, in detail, why it varies from place to place on and off earth. It explains orbits. Your aether explanation can do none of this beyond "it makes stuff go down, but we don't know why it changes from place to place".
 
Quote
i have described what it does. i have described the effects from which we conclude it exists. you do not need detailed math to know something is there. i know the proposed explanations for many things are not true (explained many other places), so aether is the simple conclusion. my personal evidence and experience also makes me certain.
Your descriptions are of effects that are better described using other phenomena like gravity and the rotating, orbiting earth. These explanations are better because they can be used to make predictions that actually prove correct. Change in acceleration of gravity due to elevation change corresponds to the distance from the center of the Earth changing. With aether it's apparently "whirlpools or something like that". Change in acceleration of gravity with latitude is a combination of changing distance from the center of the ellipsoidal Earth and centrifugal acceleration. With aether it's ??? . So why would aether-based downward force change with latitude, being weakest at the equator, midway from center to edge? More whirlpools? Not a lot of predictability there.

So follow up on the personal evidence. Can you demonstrate your evidence is real and not explained better by another model?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 01:52:24 PM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

There is detailed math that accurately describes what gravity does. This mathematical model has been verified in countless experiments and is used to successfully predict the motions of masses in the presence of gravity with great accuracy. So, I have to disagree with your statement in the first quote above. You do not have more evidence of aether than we have of gravity. You have untested ideas. Nothing more.

i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

You've described in vague terms what you think it does.

making up an equation doesn't mean what it's said to apply to exists.
"Making up" an equation doesn't do squat. If you create a mathematical model (in the simplest form, an equation) that accurately describes what is known to happen and can reliably predict what will happen, then there's an excellent chance that the model has physical meaning (that is, it realistically describes what is happening).

Quote
aether explains the downwards force. coming up with figures doesn't mean there isn't another explanation.
No it doesn't, and there is another explanation. Gravity. It explains the downward force, and explains, in detail, why it varies from place to place on and off earth. It explains orbits. Your aether explanation can do none of this beyond "it makes stuff go down, but we don't know why it changes from place to place".
 
Quote
i have described what it does. i have described the effects from which we conclude it exists. you do not need detailed math to know something is there. i know the proposed explanations for many things are not true (explained many other places), so aether is the simple conclusion. my personal evidence and experience also makes me certain.
Your descriptions are of effects that are better described using other phenomena like gravity and the rotating, orbiting earth. These explanations are better because they can be used to make predictions that actually prove correct. Change in acceleration of gravity due to elevation change corresponds to the distance from the center of the Earth changing. With aether it's apparently "whirlpools or something like that". Change in acceleration of gravity with latitude is a combination of changing distance from the center of the ellipsoidal Earth and centrifugal acceleration. With aether it's ??? . So why would aether-based downward force change with latitude, being weakest at the equator, midway from center to edge? More whirlpools? Not a lot of predictability there.

So follow up on the personal evidence. Can you demonstrate your evidence is real and not explained better by another model?

how exactly do you think equations are found? they're not handed down by angels, scientists take numbers and make up relationships until it works for their sample size. sounds like making up to me.

aether explains orbits (the whirlpool above the earth).

if we have mapped the location of the whirlpools nearer to the earth, and their degree of tilt, then it would be perfect for predicting behavior. this isn't done, because no scientist respects the idea of aether. it's that simple. i suspect the force is weakest at the equator because the sun's path goes there, weakening the pull of the denser aether above. (aether wants to be whole and combine its various densities again).

you don't understand the concept of personal evidence do you? of course i can't demonstrate it to someone else, it's personal. you can't prove one of your conversations takes place beyond "take our word for it."
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?

How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.

Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.

there is no atmospheric refraction. don't appeal to round earth fantasies as an excuse. this isn't going to be a proof, it is just an example of how the aether refracts light. the further we go up, the more whirlpools we'll pass (i suspect there is at least one) giving a irregularity, possibly a jump. it is only to get data to deduce more about the aether. i can't say what to expect until i see the results, that is the zetetic method, not the obstinate nature of your science method.
i don't know how to measure refraction, but if there is no way, my point is made. you ask absurdities.

What do you mean, there's no atmospheric refraction? Bullshit! Sorry, honey, but it's been measured, and you can even see its effects yourself. Simply denying it exists is meaningless unless you can back up your claim with data.

And, no, there's never going to be proof. Science doesn't deal in proof, just data that supports and refutes models. So in what way do you expect these postulated whirlpools to affect the passage of light? [That's your hypothesis.] If you don't know what to expect, how are you going to tell if the effect is there?

If you don't know how to measure refraction, then what's the point in going up in a balloon (other than it being a fun thing to do!) in an attempt to measure it? I was going to suggest taking measurements driving up a tall mountain like Pikes Peak (if you're in the US) as an alternative, but if you don't have any measurements to make, there's no point.

This all sounds very poorly thought out. Fun thought exercise, but not science. Not even Zetetic "science".
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 02:16:15 PM
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?

How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.

Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.

there is no atmospheric refraction. don't appeal to round earth fantasies as an excuse. this isn't going to be a proof, it is just an example of how the aether refracts light. the further we go up, the more whirlpools we'll pass (i suspect there is at least one) giving a irregularity, possibly a jump. it is only to get data to deduce more about the aether. i can't say what to expect until i see the results, that is the zetetic method, not the obstinate nature of your science method.
i don't know how to measure refraction, but if there is no way, my point is made. you ask absurdities.

What do you mean, there's no atmospheric refraction? Bullshit! Sorry, honey, but it's been measured, and you can even see its effects yourself. Simply denying it exists is meaningless unless you can back up your claim with data.

And, no, there's never going to be proof. Science doesn't deal in proof, just data that supports and refutes models. So in what way do you expect these postulated whirlpools to affect the passage of light? [That's your hypothesis.] If you don't know what to expect, how are you going to tell if the effect is there?

If you don't know how to measure refraction, then what's the point in going up in a balloon (other than it being a fun thing to do!) in an attempt to measure it? I was going to suggest taking measurements driving up a tall mountain like Pikes Peak (if you're in the US) as an alternative, but if you don't have any measurements to make, there's no point.

This all sounds very poorly thought out. Fun thought exercise, but not science. Not even Zetetic "science".
appealing to a fictional atmosphere to explain aetheric refraction is dishonest. aether refracts light (by observation of the contradiction between common sense and observation, and the spectroscopic analysis of the sun, as well as what you blame on some fantasy atmosphere). an increased density of aether, which forms the whirlpools, is going to therefore further refract. it's very simple.

i could find out how to measure refraction if i had a reason to, i suspect. what is the point in learning the details for half an experiment when i am never going to have the money or equipment to do the other half?
think.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 02:49:44 PM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

There is detailed math that accurately describes what gravity does. This mathematical model has been verified in countless experiments and is used to successfully predict the motions of masses in the presence of gravity with great accuracy. So, I have to disagree with your statement in the first quote above. You do not have more evidence of aether than we have of gravity. You have untested ideas. Nothing more.

i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

You've described in vague terms what you think it does.

making up an equation doesn't mean what it's said to apply to exists.
"Making up" an equation doesn't do squat. If you create a mathematical model (in the simplest form, an equation) that accurately describes what is known to happen and can reliably predict what will happen, then there's an excellent chance that the model has physical meaning (that is, it realistically describes what is happening).

Quote
aether explains the downwards force. coming up with figures doesn't mean there isn't another explanation.
No it doesn't, and there is another explanation. Gravity. It explains the downward force, and explains, in detail, why it varies from place to place on and off earth. It explains orbits. Your aether explanation can do none of this beyond "it makes stuff go down, but we don't know why it changes from place to place".
 
Quote
i have described what it does. i have described the effects from which we conclude it exists. you do not need detailed math to know something is there. i know the proposed explanations for many things are not true (explained many other places), so aether is the simple conclusion. my personal evidence and experience also makes me certain.
Your descriptions are of effects that are better described using other phenomena like gravity and the rotating, orbiting earth. These explanations are better because they can be used to make predictions that actually prove correct. Change in acceleration of gravity due to elevation change corresponds to the distance from the center of the Earth changing. With aether it's apparently "whirlpools or something like that". Change in acceleration of gravity with latitude is a combination of changing distance from the center of the ellipsoidal Earth and centrifugal acceleration. With aether it's ??? . So why would aether-based downward force change with latitude, being weakest at the equator, midway from center to edge? More whirlpools? Not a lot of predictability there.

So follow up on the personal evidence. Can you demonstrate your evidence is real and not explained better by another model?

how exactly do you think equations are found? they're not handed down by angels, scientists take numbers and make up relationships until it works for their sample size. sounds like making up to me.
I'd say "uncover" relationships is a better description. To "Make up" a relationship means inventing one without a basis in fact.

Quote
aether explains orbits (the whirlpool above the earth).
What whirlpool? You just speculate, without evidence, that one, in something with unknown properties, might exist. That's not much of an explanation.

Quote
if we have mapped the location of the whirlpools nearer to the earth, and their degree of tilt, then it would be perfect for predicting behavior. this isn't done, because no scientist respects the idea of aether. it's that simple.
If you're not sure what aether is and what effect it has on matter, then what behavior is it going to predict? No scientist respects the idea of aether because it hasn't been detected and simply isn't necessary to explain what we see.

Quote
i suspect the force is weakest at the equator because the sun's path goes there, weakening the pull of the denser aether above. (aether wants to be whole and combine its various densities again).
That's actually pretty good! Gravity is weakest at the equator, so "weakening the pull of the denser aether above" would seem to have the opposite effect, but I think I see what you're trying to say. Still, why wouldn't this effect change with the seasons? Stronger further north in June and further south in December? The real effect doesn't actually do that.

Quote
you don't understand the concept of personal evidence do you? of course i can't demonstrate it to someone else, it's personal. you can't prove one of your conversations takes place beyond "take our word for it."
I understand the concept, but if it's personal revelations, like "talking with God"? No, I don't believe these things actually happen. Many people honestly do believe
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?

How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.

Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.

there is no atmospheric refraction. don't appeal to round earth fantasies as an excuse. this isn't going to be a proof, it is just an example of how the aether refracts light. the further we go up, the more whirlpools we'll pass (i suspect there is at least one) giving a irregularity, possibly a jump. it is only to get data to deduce more about the aether. i can't say what to expect until i see the results, that is the zetetic method, not the obstinate nature of your science method.
i don't know how to measure refraction, but if there is no way, my point is made. you ask absurdities.

What do you mean, there's no atmospheric refraction? Bullshit! Sorry, honey, but it's been measured, and you can even see its effects yourself. Simply denying it exists is meaningless unless you can back up your claim with data.

And, no, there's never going to be proof. Science doesn't deal in proof, just data that supports and refutes models. So in what way do you expect these postulated whirlpools to affect the passage of light? [That's your hypothesis.] If you don't know what to expect, how are you going to tell if the effect is there?

If you don't know how to measure refraction, then what's the point in going up in a balloon (other than it being a fun thing to do!) in an attempt to measure it? I was going to suggest taking measurements driving up a tall mountain like Pikes Peak (if you're in the US) as an alternative, but if you don't have any measurements to make, there's no point.

This all sounds very poorly thought out. Fun thought exercise, but not science. Not even Zetetic "science".
appealing to a fictional atmosphere to explain aetheric refraction is dishonest. aether refracts light (by observation of the contradiction between common sense and observation, and the spectroscopic analysis of the sun, as well as what you blame on some fantasy atmosphere). an increased density of aether, which forms the whirlpools, is going to therefore further refract. it's very simple.

i could find out how to measure refraction if i had a reason to, i suspect. what is the point in learning the details for half an experiment when i am never going to have the money or equipment to do the other half?
think.
them, but I suspect they're hallucinations, dreams, an overactive imagination, or just plain wishful thinking. If it's some personal insight into a physical phenomenon because you observed it, then if there were no other observers and it can't be replicated, then it goes into the category of "unconfirmed" at best, often depending on the improbability of what is reported (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: "I just saw five bright meteors in two minutes!" "Wow, that's really cool!" "I was abducted by an alien spacecraft and Elvis was on it!" "Um... OK?? See 'ya!") and the reliability of the reporter.

It's not difficult to "prove" a conversation takes place if there are witnesses, recordings, or a written record. What's your point?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 02:57:59 PM
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?

How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.

Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.

there is no atmospheric refraction. don't appeal to round earth fantasies as an excuse. this isn't going to be a proof, it is just an example of how the aether refracts light. the further we go up, the more whirlpools we'll pass (i suspect there is at least one) giving a irregularity, possibly a jump. it is only to get data to deduce more about the aether. i can't say what to expect until i see the results, that is the zetetic method, not the obstinate nature of your science method.
i don't know how to measure refraction, but if there is no way, my point is made. you ask absurdities.

What do you mean, there's no atmospheric refraction? Bullshit! Sorry, honey, but it's been measured, and you can even see its effects yourself. Simply denying it exists is meaningless unless you can back up your claim with data.

And, no, there's never going to be proof. Science doesn't deal in proof, just data that supports and refutes models. So in what way do you expect these postulated whirlpools to affect the passage of light? [That's your hypothesis.] If you don't know what to expect, how are you going to tell if the effect is there?

If you don't know how to measure refraction, then what's the point in going up in a balloon (other than it being a fun thing to do!) in an attempt to measure it? I was going to suggest taking measurements driving up a tall mountain like Pikes Peak (if you're in the US) as an alternative, but if you don't have any measurements to make, there's no point.

This all sounds very poorly thought out. Fun thought exercise, but not science. Not even Zetetic "science".
appealing to a fictional atmosphere to explain aetheric refraction is dishonest. aether refracts light (by observation of the contradiction between common sense and observation, and the spectroscopic analysis of the sun, as well as what you blame on some fantasy atmosphere). an increased density of aether, which forms the whirlpools, is going to therefore further refract. it's very simple.

i could find out how to measure refraction if i had a reason to, i suspect. what is the point in learning the details for half an experiment when i am never going to have the money or equipment to do the other half?
think.
Appealing to fictional aether to explain what's much more simply explained by conventional cosmology is silly unless you can demonstrate 1) it exists and 2) has the properties you need. All you do is arm wave and give excuses why you can't test your hypothesis.

"I'm unable to conduct any experiments to demonstrate what I believe" is not a compelling reason to believe what you say.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 03:00:41 PM
i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

There is detailed math that accurately describes what gravity does. This mathematical model has been verified in countless experiments and is used to successfully predict the motions of masses in the presence of gravity with great accuracy. So, I have to disagree with your statement in the first quote above. You do not have more evidence of aether than we have of gravity. You have untested ideas. Nothing more.

i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.

You've described in vague terms what you think it does.

making up an equation doesn't mean what it's said to apply to exists.
"Making up" an equation doesn't do squat. If you create a mathematical model (in the simplest form, an equation) that accurately describes what is known to happen and can reliably predict what will happen, then there's an excellent chance that the model has physical meaning (that is, it realistically describes what is happening).

Quote
aether explains the downwards force. coming up with figures doesn't mean there isn't another explanation.
No it doesn't, and there is another explanation. Gravity. It explains the downward force, and explains, in detail, why it varies from place to place on and off earth. It explains orbits. Your aether explanation can do none of this beyond "it makes stuff go down, but we don't know why it changes from place to place".
 
Quote
i have described what it does. i have described the effects from which we conclude it exists. you do not need detailed math to know something is there. i know the proposed explanations for many things are not true (explained many other places), so aether is the simple conclusion. my personal evidence and experience also makes me certain.
Your descriptions are of effects that are better described using other phenomena like gravity and the rotating, orbiting earth. These explanations are better because they can be used to make predictions that actually prove correct. Change in acceleration of gravity due to elevation change corresponds to the distance from the center of the Earth changing. With aether it's apparently "whirlpools or something like that". Change in acceleration of gravity with latitude is a combination of changing distance from the center of the ellipsoidal Earth and centrifugal acceleration. With aether it's ??? . So why would aether-based downward force change with latitude, being weakest at the equator, midway from center to edge? More whirlpools? Not a lot of predictability there.

So follow up on the personal evidence. Can you demonstrate your evidence is real and not explained better by another model?

how exactly do you think equations are found? they're not handed down by angels, scientists take numbers and make up relationships until it works for their sample size. sounds like making up to me.
I'd say "uncover" relationships is a better description. To "Make up" a relationship means inventing one without a basis in fact.

Quote
aether explains orbits (the whirlpool above the earth).
What whirlpool? You just speculate, without evidence, that one, in something with unknown properties, might exist. That's not much of an explanation.

Quote
if we have mapped the location of the whirlpools nearer to the earth, and their degree of tilt, then it would be perfect for predicting behavior. this isn't done, because no scientist respects the idea of aether. it's that simple.
If you're not sure what aether is and what effect it has on matter, then what behavior is it going to predict? No scientist respects the idea of aether because it hasn't been detected and simply isn't necessary to explain what we see.

Quote
i suspect the force is weakest at the equator because the sun's path goes there, weakening the pull of the denser aether above. (aether wants to be whole and combine its various densities again).
That's actually pretty good! Gravity is weakest at the equator, so "weakening the pull of the denser aether above" would seem to have the opposite effect, but I think I see what you're trying to say. Still, why wouldn't this effect change with the seasons? Stronger further north in June and further south in December? The real effect doesn't actually do that.

Quote
you don't understand the concept of personal evidence do you? of course i can't demonstrate it to someone else, it's personal. you can't prove one of your conversations takes place beyond "take our word for it."
I understand the concept, but if it's personal revelations, like "talking with God"? No, I don't believe these things actually happen. Many people honestly do believe
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment.  Stop making excuses.  If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it.  You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form.  What are you waiting for?

when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.

i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?

How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.

Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.

there is no atmospheric refraction. don't appeal to round earth fantasies as an excuse. this isn't going to be a proof, it is just an example of how the aether refracts light. the further we go up, the more whirlpools we'll pass (i suspect there is at least one) giving a irregularity, possibly a jump. it is only to get data to deduce more about the aether. i can't say what to expect until i see the results, that is the zetetic method, not the obstinate nature of your science method.
i don't know how to measure refraction, but if there is no way, my point is made. you ask absurdities.

What do you mean, there's no atmospheric refraction? Bullshit! Sorry, honey, but it's been measured, and you can even see its effects yourself. Simply denying it exists is meaningless unless you can back up your claim with data.

And, no, there's never going to be proof. Science doesn't deal in proof, just data that supports and refutes models. So in what way do you expect these postulated whirlpools to affect the passage of light? [That's your hypothesis.] If you don't know what to expect, how are you going to tell if the effect is there?

If you don't know how to measure refraction, then what's the point in going up in a balloon (other than it being a fun thing to do!) in an attempt to measure it? I was going to suggest taking measurements driving up a tall mountain like Pikes Peak (if you're in the US) as an alternative, but if you don't have any measurements to make, there's no point.

This all sounds very poorly thought out. Fun thought exercise, but not science. Not even Zetetic "science".
appealing to a fictional atmosphere to explain aetheric refraction is dishonest. aether refracts light (by observation of the contradiction between common sense and observation, and the spectroscopic analysis of the sun, as well as what you blame on some fantasy atmosphere). an increased density of aether, which forms the whirlpools, is going to therefore further refract. it's very simple.

i could find out how to measure refraction if i had a reason to, i suspect. what is the point in learning the details for half an experiment when i am never going to have the money or equipment to do the other half?
think.
them, but I suspect they're hallucinations, dreams, an overactive imagination, or just plain wishful thinking. If it's some personal insight into a physical phenomenon because you observed it, then if there were no other observers and it can't be replicated, then it goes into the category of "unconfirmed" at best, often depending on the improbability of what is reported (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: "I just saw five bright meteors in two minutes!" "Wow, that's really cool!" "I was abducted by an alien spacecraft and Elvis was on it!" "Um... OK?? See 'ya!") and the reliability of the reporter.

It's not difficult to "prove" a conversation takes place if there are witnesses, recordings, or a written record. What's your point?

the whirlpool is a logical deduction. aether accelerates the earth, and the earth must split the flow. when the flow meets again above us, the result is a whirlpool.
i have explained the properties of aether. obviously the degree varies with density, but it refracts light like all mediums, and interacts with matter to impart force: acceleration, or resistance.
there are several whirlpools, one for each density of aether. obviously thicker densities go inwards slower. aether wants to become whole, so the thinner densities on the earths surface are tilted or pulled upwards. at the equator, the whirlpool stays lower, so there is no upwards force, so the force of acceleration is not weakened by the pull of the aether. seasons depend on the location of the sun, so it is logical gravity would shift with them.

my point is that you can't confirm many things that do happen. i communicate with the aether so i am certain of its existence and assured what i deduce is accurate, and what i see matches perfectly with the aether. this is not going to convince you because you have not shared the experience, but i would hope the fact this model perfectly explains the world, and does away with existing flaws, holds at least some credibility.

the evidence for the aether is its effects, like your so-called evidence for gravity. aether better explains them, and requires fewer assumptions.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 02, 2015, 03:01:52 PM
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Everyone, everyone. Lets back up a second.

You talk to the aether?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 03:04:32 PM
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Everyone, everyone. Lets back up a second.

You talk to the aether?

i would not call it talking.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 02, 2015, 03:22:26 PM
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Everyone, everyone. Lets back up a second.

You talk to the aether?

i would not call it talking.

Like, mind melding or shared vision or what?

It didn't tell you to have sex with a baby turtle did it? Because I can tell you what that is.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 03:26:36 PM
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Everyone, everyone. Lets back up a second.

You talk to the aether?

i would not call it talking.

Like, mind melding or shared vision or what?

It didn't tell you to have sex with a baby turtle did it? Because I can tell you what that is.

i have no idea what you're talking about, i simply hear its voice. it wants to be whole, again. i did not know it was aether when i first heard it, but since learning, i see that is the only possible explanation for something that i can hear anywhere on earth, and that knows what it does.
it's very simple.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 02, 2015, 03:32:14 PM
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

I have a few things to say to that:

You are embarrassing yourself.

You do know you look like a fool, don't you?

exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 03:40:13 PM
the evidence for the aether is its effects, like your so-called evidence for gravity. aether better explains them, and requires fewer assumptions.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

Everything about the aether is an assumption.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 03:41:24 PM
the evidence for the aether is its effects, like your so-called evidence for gravity. aether better explains them, and requires fewer assumptions.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

Everything about the aether is an assumption.

the only assumption, by your definition, is the aether itself, and i have constructed it only from the properties of what we observe.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 03:48:49 PM
the evidence for the aether is its effects, like your so-called evidence for gravity. aether better explains them, and requires fewer assumptions.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

Everything about the aether is an assumption.

the only assumption, by your definition, is the aether itself, and i have constructed it only from the properties of what we observe.

That's what I said. The aether itself is an assumption. Since you can't even be sure, or tell, it exists, everything about it is also an assumption.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 02, 2015, 03:53:25 PM
the evidence for the aether is its effects, like your so-called evidence for gravity. aether better explains them, and requires fewer assumptions.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

Everything about the aether is an assumption.

the only assumption, by your definition, is the aether itself, and i have constructed it only from the properties of what we observe.

That's what I said. The aether itself is an assumption. Since you can't even be sure, or tell, it exists, everything about it is also an assumption.

by that logic, everything is an assumption. you can't be sure gravity exists because there could be another explanation. you learn about things from their effects, this is pretty basic science.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 02, 2015, 04:01:03 PM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2015, 04:51:32 PM
the evidence for the aether is its effects, like your so-called evidence for gravity. aether better explains them, and requires fewer assumptions.

i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.

See the problem?

Everything about the aether is an assumption.

the only assumption, by your definition, is the aether itself, and i have constructed it only from the properties of what we observe.

That's what I said. The aether itself is an assumption. Since you can't even be sure, or tell, it exists, everything about it is also an assumption.

by that logic, everything is an assumption. you can't be sure gravity exists because there could be another explanation. you learn about things from their effects, this is pretty basic science.
Nope. The force proportional to mass and inversely-squared with distance for gravity is not assumed. It's been measured. We use those known (not assumed) characteristics to make predictions of the motion of masses. If these predictions failed, the relationship would be invalidated, but they don't fail; that alone doesn't prove gravity, but it damn sure well supports it. One of the effects of the inverse-squared property is that two objects with mass will orbit each other in elliptical (actually, more generally, conic) orbits about their common center of mass. No assumptions necessary; it's what's predicted and is what happens.

If you want to claim that aether has those properties, too, then aether is indistinguishable from gravity, just has a different name, so we might as well stick to the traditional one. That's not what you're claiming, though. You've been claiming that aether is blowing the sun, moon and stars around in a circle (or two circles, I've lost track) in a flat plane (or planes) above us; we can see it happening (actually, we don't see that at all, but you assume that's what's going on and defer the discrepancies to later) but we don't know what's doing it (so you make up the name aether) or why this aether is behaving that way (you assume it's a whirlpool, because you can't come up with anything more plausible). This "explanation" fails to explain why the Sun and Moon set below a distinct horizon, so you assume additional properties for your aether to bend light in specific ways to make the Sun, Moon and stars to appear lower in the sky than they actually are in some cases, and at the same time you assume it also has additional optical properties that magnify the Sun (and to a very slightly lesser extent, the Moon) as it gets further away. This still doesn't explain why the Sun "sets" in the direction it is known to do at various time of year from a given location (unless you're Mr. Bloomington, who seems to think the Sun sets wherever it damn well feels like, but I digress...), so that's going to need some additional new and interesting properties to fix, without introducing even more new and interesting problems.

Which model requires more assumptions?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 02, 2015, 04:58:18 PM
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.

Everyone, everyone. Lets back up a second.

You talk to the aether?

i would not call it talking.

Like, mind melding or shared vision or what?

It didn't tell you to have sex with a baby turtle did it? Because I can tell you what that is.

i have no idea what you're talking about, i simply hear its voice. it wants to be whole, again. i did not know it was aether when i first heard it, but since learning, i see that is the only possible explanation for something that i can hear anywhere on earth, and that knows what it does.
it's very simple.

Well yes, I guess that and schizophrenia are the only two possible solutions to hearing a voice everywhere on earth.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 05:48:10 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 03, 2015, 05:57:13 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

False!
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 05:57:57 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

False!

typical round earther tactic. try more than just assertion.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 03, 2015, 06:09:46 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

False!

typical round earther tactic. try more than just assertion.

Conjecture! I demand a reading of the transcripts.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 06:11:04 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

False!

typical round earther tactic. try more than just assertion.

Conjecture! I demand a reading of the transcripts.

if you have something worthwhile to say, then say it. otherwise shut up.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 03, 2015, 06:12:57 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

False!

typical round earther tactic. try more than just assertion.

Conjecture! I demand a reading of the transcripts.

if you have something worthwhile to say, then say it. otherwise shut up.
I did. I said you didn't explain your communication with the æther enough and then said you were wrong and wanted to see proof that what I was doing was a common round earth tactic.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 06:13:59 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

False!

typical round earther tactic. try more than just assertion.

Conjecture! I demand a reading of the transcripts.

if you have something worthwhile to say, then say it. otherwise shut up.
I did. I said you didn't explain your communication with the æther enough and then said you were wrong and wanted to see proof that what I was doing was a common round earth tactic.

that is an assertion. i have explained as much as is relevant.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 03, 2015, 07:05:00 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

False!

typical round earther tactic. try more than just assertion.

Conjecture! I demand a reading of the transcripts.

if you have something worthwhile to say, then say it. otherwise shut up.
I did. I said you didn't explain your communication with the æther enough and then said you were wrong and wanted to see proof that what I was doing was a common round earth tactic.

that is an assertion. i have explained as much as is relevant.

I think conjecture fits better.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 03, 2015, 05:17:22 PM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

I want the juicy, embarrassing details. Last time someone was asked to go in to detail about their interaction/ communication with something, it turned into a tale of hallucinated pedophilic bestiality.
So you should try to top that or something,
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:15:57 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

I want the juicy, embarrassing details. Last time someone was asked to go in to detail about their interaction/ communication with something, it turned into a tale of hallucinated pedophilic bestiality.
So you should try to top that or something,

it is nothing like that, it simply informed me of certain facts. it took learning about the flat earth for me to fully understand. usually it sounds like a rushing, but sometimes words can be made out. you need to relax and open your mind to hear it. i don't know anyone personally who's experienced it, but there are many stories online of people hearing words and voices, often attributed to a god, which i suspect are the aether. it wants to be whole, to combine all of its strands into one being again. it is very simple.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: neimoka on March 04, 2015, 01:35:59 AM
Hearing voices certainly explains a lot about how you came to believe what you believe.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 04, 2015, 08:13:26 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

I want the juicy, embarrassing details. Last time someone was asked to go in to detail about their interaction/ communication with something, it turned into a tale of hallucinated pedophilic bestiality.
So you should try to top that or something,

it is nothing like that, it simply informed me of certain facts. it took learning about the flat earth for me to fully understand. usually it sounds like a rushing, but sometimes words can be made out. you need to relax and open your mind to hear it. i don't know anyone personally who's experienced it, but there are many stories online of people hearing words and voices, often attributed to a god, which i suspect are the aether. it wants to be whole, to combine all of its strands into one being again. it is very simple.

No JRowe, its typically attributed to schizophrenia. You should seek help before you hurt yourself or someone around you.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:17:56 AM
Can we hear more about your communication with the aether?

i have explained myself well enough.

I want the juicy, embarrassing details. Last time someone was asked to go in to detail about their interaction/ communication with something, it turned into a tale of hallucinated pedophilic bestiality.
So you should try to top that or something,

it is nothing like that, it simply informed me of certain facts. it took learning about the flat earth for me to fully understand. usually it sounds like a rushing, but sometimes words can be made out. you need to relax and open your mind to hear it. i don't know anyone personally who's experienced it, but there are many stories online of people hearing words and voices, often attributed to a god, which i suspect are the aether. it wants to be whole, to combine all of its strands into one being again. it is very simple.

No JRowe, its typically attributed to schizophrenia. You should seek help before you hurt yourself or someone around you.

i know that what i experience is real, as it explains the world, and did so before i even possessed the knowledge of aether. everything made sense after i learnt of it, the knowledge has to come from somewhere. are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 04, 2015, 08:42:07 AM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 12:26:58 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Mikey T. on March 04, 2015, 12:31:42 PM
While I'm not going to say anyone who talks to God is schizophrenic since I do believe in God.  I talk with him all the time.  As for hearing his actual voice in my ears, no I do not. 
But someone who hears voices when no one else is around and its not coming from some electronic gadget, well they might be schizophrenic.  Its actually a pretty good indication of that particular mental disorder.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 04, 2015, 12:38:21 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 12:43:50 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 04, 2015, 01:18:08 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.

That, or you are schizophrenic.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:19:08 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.

That, or you are schizophrenic.

if you have nothing of relevance to say, shut up.
if i'm imagining this, i would not have gained new, true information.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 04, 2015, 01:26:28 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.

That, or you are schizophrenic.

if you have nothing of relevance to say, shut up.
if i'm imagining this, i would not have gained new, true information.

No, if you were not imagining it, you would have the ability to prove what you are saying.

You only know its true because some voice in your head told you that it was true.

Ergo, schizophrenic.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:31:57 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.

That, or you are schizophrenic.

if you have nothing of relevance to say, shut up.
if i'm imagining this, i would not have gained new, true information.

No, if you were not imagining it, you would have the ability to prove what you are saying.

You only know its true because some voice in your head told you that it was true.

Ergo, schizophrenic.

i've given evidence and an explanation and application. your refusal to accept anything other than your round earth fantasy is entirely on you.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 04, 2015, 01:35:51 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.

That, or you are schizophrenic.

if you have nothing of relevance to say, shut up.
if i'm imagining this, i would not have gained new, true information.

No, if you were not imagining it, you would have the ability to prove what you are saying.

You only know its true because some voice in your head told you that it was true.

Ergo, schizophrenic.

i've given evidence and an explanation and application. your refusal to accept anything other than your round earth fantasy is entirely on you.

No, when asked for evidence of anything you either say because it sounds true, you think the opposite is too crazy to be true or just for me to think.

You have never produced any experiments that could verify what you say, math that explains what you are saying or videos or pictures of what you are describing being shown.

All of your proof has boiled down to "Because I say so." And even that now is being further boiled down to "Because a voice in my head says so."
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:38:44 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.

That, or you are schizophrenic.

if you have nothing of relevance to say, shut up.
if i'm imagining this, i would not have gained new, true information.

No, if you were not imagining it, you would have the ability to prove what you are saying.

You only know its true because some voice in your head told you that it was true.

Ergo, schizophrenic.

i've given evidence and an explanation and application. your refusal to accept anything other than your round earth fantasy is entirely on you.

No, when asked for evidence of anything you either say because it sounds true, you think the opposite is too crazy to be true or just for me to think.

You have never produced any experiments that could verify what you say, math that explains what you are saying or videos or pictures of what you are describing being shown.

All of your proof has boiled down to "Because I say so." And even that now is being further boiled down to "Because a voice in my head says so."

there is more to evidence than experimentation: but i have offered some, regardless. for example, i have shown that the idea that everything in the world accelerates from one point, the cause of the big bang for a round earther, would prevent a spherical object from forming, and would force a flat one. you can test this with sugar or flour or anything you have spare.
from many observations like that, we deduce what must instead be an explanation. knowledge of aether simply allowed me to fit in the final few pieces.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 04, 2015, 05:01:35 PM
There is more to evidence than experimentation: but i have offered some, regardless. for example, i have shown that the idea that everything in the world accelerates from one point, the cause of the big bang for a round earther, would prevent a spherical object from forming, and would force a flat one.

Until recently, lead shot was made using a shot tower around 50m to 100m in height.  Molten lead was poured through a sieve from the top of the tower, and by the time it had fallen into the water bath below, the lead had taken the shape of..... a perfect sphere.

This works because of the surface tension of the liquid lead, and the force of gravity.  Ain't science wonderful?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 04, 2015, 05:48:01 PM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

There was a guy talking to God on the subway today. He hears God's voice as well as you hear the Aether's, and he is clearly crazy. How do you know that you aren't the same way?

how do you know how he hears, and how do you know the degree to which i hear?
fraught with assertion, again.

i know because the information given to me was correct. i did not know of the aether to begin with, but it explains everything. if it is split, if it seeks to recombine, every detail of the world we see becomes crystal clear. that is what i have heard, that is obviously what is the case.


He made it very, very clear, as he didn't stop talking to god for about an hour.

I'm sure he also thought that the information he was getting from God was obviously true and crystal clear. A million people could say otherwise, and he would keep asserting that it was true and everyone else was idiots.

Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 03:05:51 AM
There is more to evidence than experimentation: but i have offered some, regardless. for example, i have shown that the idea that everything in the world accelerates from one point, the cause of the big bang for a round earther, would prevent a spherical object from forming, and would force a flat one.

Until recently, lead shot was made using a shot tower around 50m to 100m in height.  Molten lead was poured through a sieve from the top of the tower, and by the time it had fallen into the water bath below, the lead had taken the shape of..... a perfect sphere.

This works because of the surface tension of the liquid lead, and the force of gravity.  Ain't science wonderful?

uh huh...
surface tension. right. so a completely irrelevant description to what i was talking about. loose matter has no surface tension, a sphere would not form.
use your brain. if you're going to add something, at least think.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Mainframes on March 05, 2015, 04:42:38 AM
there is more to evidence than experimentation: but i have offered some, regardless. for example, i have shown that the idea that everything in the world accelerates from one point, the cause of the big bang for a round earther, would prevent a spherical object from forming, and would force a flat one. you can test this with sugar or flour or anything you have spare.
from many observations like that, we deduce what must instead be an explanation. knowledge of aether simply allowed me to fit in the final few pieces.

they form discs because they are resting on a surface under the influence of a downward gravitational field. This simply cannot be applied to a cloud of matter collapsing under its own gravity in the absence of any surface or other gravitational field.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 05, 2015, 04:54:33 AM
Besides, that's not even evidence, it's simply a flawed thought expirement.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 05:15:39 AM
there is more to evidence than experimentation: but i have offered some, regardless. for example, i have shown that the idea that everything in the world accelerates from one point, the cause of the big bang for a round earther, would prevent a spherical object from forming, and would force a flat one. you can test this with sugar or flour or anything you have spare.
from many observations like that, we deduce what must instead be an explanation. knowledge of aether simply allowed me to fit in the final few pieces.

they form discs because they are resting on a surface under the influence of a downward gravitational field. This simply cannot be applied to a cloud of matter collapsing under its own gravity in the absence of any surface or other gravitational field.

that's obvious bs. if the up and down forces weren't there, you'd get a more pronounced disc in that direction. the only point i'm making is that pushing it along does not net you a surface which pushes back against the force and making a sphere (or circle, in this case). you get a flattened line.

kman, this is evidence, it shows that your sphere could not come into being.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 05, 2015, 09:21:48 AM
that's obvious bs. if the up and down forces weren't there, you'd get a more pronounced disc in that direction. the only point i'm making is that pushing it along does not net you a surface which pushes back against the force and making a sphere (or circle, in this case). you get a flattened line.

kman, this is evidence, it shows that your sphere could not come into being.

This video explains how it's possible for the Earth and the solar system to form like it did from a massive cloud of gas and dust:

(http://)
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 09:30:54 AM
that's obvious bs.

This is a very telling argument, and is difficult to refute satisfactorily.  With such intellectual depth, astuteness, and sheer scientific acumen, you've shot down his entire premise with just three words.

Obviously a true giant amongst flat earthers.  Your mom should be very proud indeed.    ;D
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 03:33:48 AM
that's obvious bs.

This is a very telling argument, and is difficult to refute satisfactorily.  With such intellectual depth, astuteness, and sheer scientific acumen, you've shot down his entire premise with just three words.

Obviously a true giant amongst flat earthers.  Your mom should be very proud indeed.    ;D

your inability to read beyond three words in a comment speaks as to your intelligence. you are incapable of understanding that something may be justified after it is stated, or indeed of understanding the concept of justification at all, as you persistently ignore it when it is given, and refuse to give any of your own beyond appealing to others who you trust blindly.

such a giant among round earthers, unable to address any logic provided and giving the same fall back without fail, no matter how many times it is shown to be pointless.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 03:34:20 AM
that's obvious bs. if the up and down forces weren't there, you'd get a more pronounced disc in that direction. the only point i'm making is that pushing it along does not net you a surface which pushes back against the force and making a sphere (or circle, in this case). you get a flattened line.

kman, this is evidence, it shows that your sphere could not come into being.

This video explains how it's possible for the Earth and the solar system to form like it did from a massive cloud of gas and dust:

(https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM)

it does not take into account the acceleration that we were under. do you now hold that never happened?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2015, 05:18:22 AM
Such a giant among round earthers, unable to address any logic provided and giving the same fall back without fail, no matter how many times it is shown to be pointless.

LOL... do you ever think about actually writing any of your own stuff, you know, something that's original rather than simply a variation or a regurgitation of other peoples' prior comments?

I don't think any of us have ever seen an innovative proposal or an original thought from you in any of the stuff you've posted.  You seem to spend most of your time putting down other people and their ideas with cheap insults, but at the same time never putting forward any new ideas of your own.  And I've seldom seen you post one single accredited reference (other than silly third-party YouTube videos) to support any of your bizarre notions since you started infesting these forums.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 05:21:00 AM
Such a giant among round earthers, unable to address any logic provided and giving the same fall back without fail, no matter how many times it is shown to be pointless.

LOL... do you ever think about actually writing any of your own stuff, you know, something that's original rather than simply a variation or a regurgitation of other peoples' prior comments?

I don't think any of us have ever seen an innovative proposal or an original thought from you in any of the stuff you've posted.  You seem to spend most of your time putting down other people and their ideas with cheap insults, but at the same time never putting forward any new ideas of your own.  And I've seldom seen you post one single accredited reference (other than silly third-party YouTube videos) to support any of your bizarre notions since you started infesting these forums.

i have never used a youtube video as a reference. please stop lying. this is another lie you have been caught out on.
if you disagree, please provide some of your evidence that i have indeed posted a youtube video.

i provide logic. just because you have a problem with logic and an inability to respond to it, does not mean you get to reject it in favor of blind adherence to whatever a few other people say.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2015, 07:00:47 AM
I provide logic. just because you have a problem with logic and an inability to respond to it, does not mean you get to reject it in favor of blind adherence to whatever a few other people say.

No you don't.  You merely keep on repeating this hollow mantra time and again on these forums.  You seem to think—like a little child—that if you say it enough times it'll become the truth.

Your common MO seems to encompass personal insults, ridicule of science, a lack of supporting evidence, ignorance of acknowledged facts, philosophical inconsistencies, and logical fallacies, all held together with the glue of an over-inflated ego.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 08:17:26 AM
that's obvious bs. if the up and down forces weren't there, you'd get a more pronounced disc in that direction. the only point i'm making is that pushing it along does not net you a surface which pushes back against the force and making a sphere (or circle, in this case). you get a flattened line.

kman, this is evidence, it shows that your sphere could not come into being.

This video explains how it's possible for the Earth and the solar system to form like it did from a massive cloud of gas and dust:

(https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM)

it does not take into account the acceleration that we were under. do you now hold that never happened?

It doesn't have to, every atom is being accelerated the same amount in the same direction and so everything behaves just as it does when there is no acceleration at all.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
I provide logic. just because you have a problem with logic and an inability to respond to it, does not mean you get to reject it in favor of blind adherence to whatever a few other people say.

No you don't.  You merely keep on repeating this hollow mantra time and again on these forums.  You seem to think—like a little child—that if you say it enough times it'll become the truth.

Your common MO seems to encompass personal insults, ridicule of science, a lack of supporting evidence, ignorance of acknowledged facts, philosophical inconsistencies, and logical fallacies, all held together with the glue of an over-inflated ego.

and your mo seems to be an inability to provide any evidence for your assertions whatsoever. i answer questions with explanations, and evidence whenever i bring in new details (rarely). you offer 'duhhhhh'. try saying something of value.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:20:01 AM
that's obvious bs. if the up and down forces weren't there, you'd get a more pronounced disc in that direction. the only point i'm making is that pushing it along does not net you a surface which pushes back against the force and making a sphere (or circle, in this case). you get a flattened line.

kman, this is evidence, it shows that your sphere could not come into being.

This video explains how it's possible for the Earth and the solar system to form like it did from a massive cloud of gas and dust:

(https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s4iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM)

it does not take into account the acceleration that we were under. do you now hold that never happened?

It doesn't have to, every atom is being accelerated the same amount in the same direction and so everything behaves just as it does when there is no acceleration at all.

that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 08:23:27 AM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:24:47 AM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?

gravity accelerates every atom towards each other, according to you. and 'friction of molecules'. try reading. molecules touch, they have friction. they slow, molecules behind get pushed into them, a disc forms.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 09:28:39 AM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?

gravity accelerates every atom towards each other, according to you. and 'friction of molecules'. try reading. molecules touch, they have friction. they slow, molecules behind get pushed into them, a disc forms.

So you are saying that two molecules "touching" each other will somehow magicaly start slowing down because of friction?  Friction only slows things down relative to each other when they are touching, it doesn't just make everything slow down in some universal reference frame.  The molecules behind would not get pushed into the molecules in front because they are all accelerating the exact same amount, nothing would get pushed into anything.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 09:34:41 AM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?

gravity accelerates every atom towards each other, according to you. and 'friction of molecules'. try reading. molecules touch, they have friction. they slow, molecules behind get pushed into them, a disc forms.

So you are saying that two molecules "touching" each other will somehow magicaly start slowing down because of friction?  Friction only slows things down relative to each other when they are touching, it doesn't just make everything slow down in some universal reference frame.  The molecules behind would not get pushed into the molecules in front because they are all accelerating the exact same amount, nothing would get pushed into anything.
moelcules that brush will impart friction. they cannot keep moving at the same speed, basic physics. double mass, velocity halves even if they were going at the same speed with constant energy. this is simple.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 09:51:59 AM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?

gravity accelerates every atom towards each other, according to you. and 'friction of molecules'. try reading. molecules touch, they have friction. they slow, molecules behind get pushed into them, a disc forms.

So you are saying that two molecules "touching" each other will somehow magicaly start slowing down because of friction?  Friction only slows things down relative to each other when they are touching, it doesn't just make everything slow down in some universal reference frame.  The molecules behind would not get pushed into the molecules in front because they are all accelerating the exact same amount, nothing would get pushed into anything.
moelcules that brush will impart friction. they cannot keep moving at the same speed, basic physics. double mass, velocity halves even if they were going at the same speed with constant energy. this is simple.

I never said anything about speed, I said acceleration.  If molecules touch each other and cause friction then their net acceleration would be different but the acceleration due to dark energy would be the same.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 10:04:45 AM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?

gravity accelerates every atom towards each other, according to you. and 'friction of molecules'. try reading. molecules touch, they have friction. they slow, molecules behind get pushed into them, a disc forms.

So you are saying that two molecules "touching" each other will somehow magicaly start slowing down because of friction?  Friction only slows things down relative to each other when they are touching, it doesn't just make everything slow down in some universal reference frame.  The molecules behind would not get pushed into the molecules in front because they are all accelerating the exact same amount, nothing would get pushed into anything.
moelcules that brush will impart friction. they cannot keep moving at the same speed, basic physics. double mass, velocity halves even if they were going at the same speed with constant energy. this is simple.

I never said anything about speed, I said acceleration.  If molecules touch each other and cause friction then their net acceleration would be different but the acceleration due to dark energy would be the same.

acceleration and velocity are related. if velocity changes suddenly and irregularly, acceleration changes. and net acceleration is all that matters, but who cares? velocity is more practically relevant, and it makes my point.

but sure, let's get onto dark energy. do you have any evidence for that which isn't "my theory does not account for everything, so i must include this entity whose sole trait is to explain that which i don't now."
i suspect not since that is all any scientist offers in support of it. i've removed the need for that assumption.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 10:57:02 AM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?

gravity accelerates every atom towards each other, according to you. and 'friction of molecules'. try reading. molecules touch, they have friction. they slow, molecules behind get pushed into them, a disc forms.

So you are saying that two molecules "touching" each other will somehow magicaly start slowing down because of friction?  Friction only slows things down relative to each other when they are touching, it doesn't just make everything slow down in some universal reference frame.  The molecules behind would not get pushed into the molecules in front because they are all accelerating the exact same amount, nothing would get pushed into anything.
moelcules that brush will impart friction. they cannot keep moving at the same speed, basic physics. double mass, velocity halves even if they were going at the same speed with constant energy. this is simple.

I never said anything about speed, I said acceleration.  If molecules touch each other and cause friction then their net acceleration would be different but the acceleration due to dark energy would be the same.

acceleration and velocity are related. if velocity changes suddenly and irregularly, acceleration changes. and net acceleration is all that matters, but who cares? velocity is more practically relevant, and it makes my point.

but sure, let's get onto dark energy. do you have any evidence for that which isn't "my theory does not account for everything, so i must include this entity whose sole trait is to explain that which i don't now."
i suspect not since that is all any scientist offers in support of it. i've removed the need for that assumption.

Dark matter and dark energy are not assumptions, they are place holder names for what we don't understand.  How many times do I have to tell you this?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Rama Set on March 06, 2015, 12:36:18 PM

but sure, let's get onto dark energy. do you have any evidence for that which isn't "my theory does not account for everything, so i must include this entity whose sole trait is to explain that which i don't now."
i suspect not since that is all any scientist offers in support of it. i've removed the need for that assumption.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are properly described as a hypothesis to explain an observation.  Nothing more, nothing less. 
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Misero on March 06, 2015, 12:45:57 PM
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.
Yeah. Stupid winter, it's getting me off my game  :P
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Mikey T. on March 06, 2015, 12:54:29 PM
Dark energy and Dark matter are hypothesized to account for some observations.   They are a placeholder for observations that need this for further explanation.  In this way they are much like the aether proposed by some FET models.  The main difference is that aether is being seemingly incorrectly used to explain many things that have already been explained by other means already accepted.  This part of the aether argument will have to endure much heavier debate due to it breaking a tested model.  Dark matter/energy effects do not explain anything already accepted. 
I still assert that without the conspiracy theory the FET is completely debunked.  But for now the discussion continues due to the fact that there is no possible way to argue against conspiracy theories since any evidence is dismissed as part of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 12:55:58 PM
that clearly can't be true, that requires an extreme amount of order; an impossible amount, even. plus you need to take the friction of molecules into effect.

Gravity does the same thing, it accelerates every atom the exact same amount.  And friction against what?  Empty space?

gravity accelerates every atom towards each other, according to you. and 'friction of molecules'. try reading. molecules touch, they have friction. they slow, molecules behind get pushed into them, a disc forms.

So you are saying that two molecules "touching" each other will somehow magicaly start slowing down because of friction?  Friction only slows things down relative to each other when they are touching, it doesn't just make everything slow down in some universal reference frame.  The molecules behind would not get pushed into the molecules in front because they are all accelerating the exact same amount, nothing would get pushed into anything.
moelcules that brush will impart friction. they cannot keep moving at the same speed, basic physics. double mass, velocity halves even if they were going at the same speed with constant energy. this is simple.

I never said anything about speed, I said acceleration.  If molecules touch each other and cause friction then their net acceleration would be different but the acceleration due to dark energy would be the same.

acceleration and velocity are related. if velocity changes suddenly and irregularly, acceleration changes. and net acceleration is all that matters, but who cares? velocity is more practically relevant, and it makes my point.

but sure, let's get onto dark energy. do you have any evidence for that which isn't "my theory does not account for everything, so i must include this entity whose sole trait is to explain that which i don't now."
i suspect not since that is all any scientist offers in support of it. i've removed the need for that assumption.

Dark matter and dark energy are not assumptions, they are place holder names for what we don't understand.  How many times do I have to tell you this?

aside from your swift evasion, that is the point. from observation, we see certain things must be the case. even if we do not fully understand every property, we understand that something is there, and we know at the bare minimum it must be able to do the one thing necessary to complete our observations.
do you disagree?

the aether is a necessary explanation, on a flat earth (which we can deduce from other factors).
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Rama Set on March 06, 2015, 01:02:42 PM
the aether is a necessary explanation, on a flat earth (which we can deduce from other factors).

Well get back to us when you can prove the Earth is round!
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 01:04:40 PM
the aether is a necessary explanation, on a flat earth (which we can deduce from other factors).

Well get back to us when you can prove the Earth is round!

i'm assuming you mean flat. it's been done elsewhere. i'm not interested in changing the topic yet more.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 05:37:22 PM
aside from your swift evasion, that is the point. from observation, we see certain things must be the case. even if we do not fully understand every property, we understand that something is there, and we know at the bare minimum it must be able to do the one thing necessary to complete our observations.
do you disagree?

the aether is a necessary explanation, on a flat earth (which we can deduce from other factors).

Speaking of the aether, do you have any math describing it?  I thought not, I close my case.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Vitalux on March 06, 2015, 06:48:45 PM
So when can we go and get our Utopian society? But seriously, is the UA infinite energy? What is it's origins?.

Our universe, in my humble opinion all comprised of energy, and the universe is infinite.
So your theses in that regards is quite correct.

However, our access to it, is strictly monitored and regulated.

Lets face it, the human being at present is quite a stupid animal. We simply are not allowed to play with the fires of such potential energies. :-\

Most human beings would fail an idiot test?


(http://www.v-nessa.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/idiot-picture.jpg)
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 08:03:07 PM
Our universe, in my humble opinion all comprised of energy, and the universe is infinite.

So you admit that your views are just an opinion and then you call us all stupid for not believing them.  You can't even provide math to support any of your shots in the dark you call theories, and yet you claim that logic backs you up which it clearly doesn't sense math is logic in written form.

Lets face it, the human being at present is quite a stupid animal.

You mean that everyone is stupid compared to your vast intellect?  Sounds just like something a vain idiot who thinks he is a genius would say.  The smarter you are the slower you are to admit you are smart, and you seem to think that everyone else can't change a light bulb while you can single handedly deduce all of physics without even using experiments and math.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2015, 12:36:51 AM
Moelcules that brush will impart friction. they cannot keep moving at the same speed, basic physics. Double mass, velocity halves even if they were going at the same speed with constant energy.

Friction is not and can not be "imparted" by any scientific definition.  It's more than obvious you're (apparently?) unaware of exactly what friction even is.

So... other than as a guess, can you tell us what the frictional coefficient is between a sodium chloride molecule and a carbon molecule?  And is this friction force static or kinetic?  Or can it be either, and if so why?

The frictional force can be expressed as:

    Ff = μ N       

    where

    Ff = frictional force (N, lb)

    μ = static (μs) or kinetic (μk) frictional coefficient

    N = normal force (N, lb)

—I await your considered opinion, along with your calculations.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 01:45:12 AM
aside from your swift evasion, that is the point. from observation, we see certain things must be the case. even if we do not fully understand every property, we understand that something is there, and we know at the bare minimum it must be able to do the one thing necessary to complete our observations.
do you disagree?

the aether is a necessary explanation, on a flat earth (which we can deduce from other factors).

Speaking of the aether, do you have any math describing it?  I thought not, I close my case.

stop repeating yourself in every thread on this site. i am talking to you elsewhere, i do not want to have to copy and paste the response in every single thread.
and now you've got geoff doing it too. i'm not even sure what he's trying to say.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: sevenhills on March 07, 2015, 01:46:52 AM
are you saying everyone you has heard god is schizophrenic?

Absolutely.

think for yourself. just because someone hears voices does not mean they are schizophrenic.

talk to someone sometime. do you hear what they have to say? you're either deaf or you hear speaking.

You need help..
Im not joking or caling you a whack-job....
but you really do show signs of illness- Its nothing to be ashamed of, it happens to a lot of people.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2015, 02:50:55 AM
...and now you've got Geoff doing it too. I'm not even sure what he's trying to say.

So you're apparently unable to understand even common English now JRoweSkeptic?

I asked you a very simple question:  Can you tell us what the frictional coefficient is between a sodium chloride molecule and a carbon molecule?  And is this friction force static or kinetic?  Or can it be either, and if so why?

Or can you not answer this question in order to support the many claims you've made about friction being "imparted" from one substance to another (such as sodium chloride and carbon for example) so as to cause heat?  You've now based several of your claims solely on the mechanics of friction, so isn't it about time you detailed what exactly you understand about friction, and how it works?

Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Vitalux on March 07, 2015, 04:48:15 AM

Lets face it, the human being at present is quite a stupid animal.

You mean that everyone is stupid compared to your vast intellect? 

No Mike, I include myself as a dumb stupid animal. I am just as delusional as the rest.
Some are aware of this limitation, most are not.

However an interesting behavior trait that human beings do is projecting their fears and insecurities onto others.

Just as a understanding parent is aware of why a child has a tantrum, the child is incapable of being aware of the parents patient awareness and  understanding of the child's mind. 




Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 09:27:46 AM
ausgeoff, you seem to be posting in every thread i've talked with you in. i explicitly told you that you are blocked, and my signature should prove a reminder. i'm not going to spend time talking with you as you're only interested in insults and repeated assertion. the fact you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the concept of 'ignored' is proof of that.
don't be a sore loser, repeatedly throwing what i can only assume are more insults at me safe in the knowledge i refuse to waste more time reading your posts is just childish behavior.
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: mikeman7918 on March 07, 2015, 11:01:48 AM

Lets face it, the human being at present is quite a stupid animal.

You mean that everyone is stupid compared to your vast intellect? 

No Mike, I include myself as a dumb stupid animal. I am just as delusional as the rest.
Some are aware of this limitation, most are not.

However an interesting behavior trait that human beings do is projecting their fears and insecurities onto others.

Just as a understanding parent is aware of why a child has a tantrum, the child is incapable of being aware of the parents patient awareness and  understanding of the child's mind.

And yet the alleged conspirators are so smart that they can run a conspiracy involving at least a billion people that supposedly has lasted hundreds of years and involves lying to everyone about everything?  Do you have any idea how impossible that is?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 08, 2015, 03:16:06 AM
ausGeoff, you seem to be posting in every thread I've talked with you in. i explicitly told you that you are blocked, and my signature should prove a reminder.

LOL... frankly I couldn't care less if you block me or not.  And how is it that you're aware that I "seem to be posting in every thread I've talked with you in"?  At any rate, you need to understand that even if you've got me blocked—which I suspect is untrue—then that doesn't preclude me talking about the rubbish you post with other members does it?  Your powers of logic seem to be a little lacking.

Quote
I'm not going to spend time talking with you as you're only interested in insults and repeated assertion.

Please don't feel that you need "to spend time" talking with me;  your "talking" usually amounts to irrelevant pseudo-scientific nonsense totally unsupported by any empirical scientific evidence, plus a complete lack of any accredited citations.  I note that you seem to be really hung up on this term of yours "assertion" which you repeatedly seem to think has negative connotations;  it doesn't of course.  The term means simply to assert oneself, or declare one's views forcefully by reinforcing one's opinion, usually with viable supporting evidence.  An assertion is normally considered a positive statement.

Quote
The fact you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the concept of 'ignored' is proof of that.

As I said, I don't give a stuff whether or not you're ignoring me LOL.  You really are putting labels on yourself aren't you?

Quote
Don't be a sore loser, repeatedly throwing what i can only assume are more insults at me safe in the knowledge i refuse to waste more time reading your posts is just childish behavior.

This is so funny! This poor excuse of a debater blocks me, and then claims I'm the "loser".  This is a major issue for too many flat earthers—rather than see a debate as an exercise in learning, for both parties, they see it as some sort of "battle", with winners and losers.  And that's exactly why people such as JRoweSkeptic will never learn anything outside of their closed mindset—they just stubbornly refuse to even contemplate for a moment that there may be at least some justification for opinions contrary to their own.

The only pity is that JRoweSkeptic won't be reading this, but at least the more open-minded of the flat earthers will be able to see why I regard him as such an unworthy opponent in any debate.

Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 08, 2015, 09:55:06 AM
you seem to be posting in every thread i've talked with you in.

Does anyone beside me find this statement bizarre?
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: kman on March 08, 2015, 09:55:39 AM
Hahahahaha!  ;D
Title: Re: Infinite Energy!
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2015, 05:27:06 AM
you seem to be posting in every thread I've talked with you in.

Does anyone beside me find this statement bizarre?

JRoweSkeptic apparently has not the faintest idea of what the term "self contradictory" means LOL.  Maybe he's suggesting he'd rather talk to himself?  And if he did do that, at least he might be capable of understanding the responses to his whack-job claims.

    ;D    ;D    ;D