Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm not forced into any corner. All I see is you raising irellevent issues and then demanding that some sort of choice be made between them.
Feel free to point out where I did either of those things.
Go back and reread my posts.
All I see is you reciting the mantra "false dilemma" every time I force you into a corner.
Then you'll stop making false dilemma demands?
I never made any to begin with.
Okay good. We're back to the false dilemma again. Round and round we go.
We don't have any sort of dilemma, let alone a false one.
How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?
Ask the Conspiracy.
What kind of orbit are the moon and sun in (according to FE theory) and what stops other objects from doing the same?
They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits, it is likely that they are charged objects, kept in orbit by the Earth's magnetic field. In order to place a spacecraft into orbit, we would not only need to launch it into space, but also give it kinetic energy and an electric charge, which would mean that it would need to be that much heavier to accommodate the technology to do so, requiring a lot more fuel to launch it in the first place.
Okay, good. Now that we've established that:Do you have any evidence that an inertial frame of reference for light is the same as an inertial frame of reference for mass?
No one knows the personal finances of the NASA workers. How could they?
The money needs to be spent somehow. If NASA employees were disposing of billions a year we'd probably know about it. Strange.
How?
Light is only observed to travel in straight lines in inertial frames of reference.
Sorry, I should have said that geocentric orbit is not possible.
It wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if I did, now would it?
No one knows the personal finances of the NASA workers. How could they?
You know what? I'm sick and tired of your crap. This insolence had better stop and it had better stop right now. You're making a mockery of this website with your behavior. You are a complete disgrace.
What are the two alternatives being considered in this situation, and what are the other options?
And then it has to go out of their pockets.
I don't know what they spend it on if that's what you're asking.
It goes directly into their pockets. Oh, and it's "accounted for" alright.
I do not have the power to edit the FAQ. Furthermore, while sustained spaceflight may be possible in FET, orbit is not possible,
http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600
This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.
I still maintain that it is a hologram.
From your source:
"The informal fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."
A situation in which only two alternatives are considered is a dilemma. Therefore, in order for a false dilemma to arise, there must be a dilemma to speak of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Read it. Learn it. Survive.
A false dilemma requires a dilemma to begin with.
I don't think you really understand what a "false dilemma" is, despite being directed to the appropriate resources.
off the universe?
What about certain areas of the atmosphere?
Could they not be bounced to produce the illusion that they are in a different location?
The orange certainly did not move itself. In that 'experiment' I would have to move the orange. Now, if the orange was sitting on a tree, it may grow, then get smaller by, relative to such forceful moving, itself by way of natural processes.
How is it a false dilemma if I didn't provide you with any sort of dilemma at all? Is just saying "false dilemma" in the hope that your opponent thinks you understand the situation better than they do and goes away your trump card?
All I said was:
"If Theory A is true, then we would see Observation B."
And you are turning it into:
"Observation B is evidence that Theory A is correct."
Please don't put words in my mouth, or try and coat me with your own false analogies.
True, must is also too harsh of a word. However, I should rephrase again - between the two choices, it seems that the data points towards expansion. I'll get to the more valid responses to my thread after I've slept for the day.
That's like saying "the sky would be blue on a round Earth, therefore the sky being blue is evidence for the Earth being round".
Do you have any evidence that an inertial frame of reference for light is the same as an inertial frame of reference for mass?
We were specifically discussing my assertion that a horizon would be visible on a Round Earth
Feel free to quote me where I said "Maxwell's equations provide a complete description of light."
If light is known to behave in ways not described by Maxwell's equations, then how do Maxwell's equations prove that light does not behave in a certain way?
Yes, I'm pretty sure you're not an extremely famous organization composed of tons of trusted scientists and engineers. Once you are, then I'll listen to you.
Your theory is that the Earth is round. You've observed an earth which matches the round theory. This includes, but not limited to, a horizon that varies according to altitude.
I have a theory. There are millions of luminous blue faeries who live underground, and at sunrise they all fly up into the sky and this is why the sky is blue. If this is true, then you would expect to see a blue sky during the day. Observation matches my theory; does this make my theory correct?