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.
You forgot "light bends downwards".
WTF ?!?!?as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by Snell's Law bent downwards towards the earth;
Then you need to come up with a sensible source of that power. So far you haven't. That is unless I missed it where you've shown evidence of a large supply of stable mesons in the sun and a process by which those mesons are broken down into unbound quarks and antiquarks for annihilation.
I never suggested there was a large supply of stable mesons within the Sun.
Quotesince you are much more familiar with the resources and have them at hand, perhaps you could give me the specific details?
that way I won't be able to misinterpret them.
The resources are available in my signature link.
Rowbotham outlines what the particulars of the experiment need to be in Earth Not a Globe.since you are much more familiar with the resources and have them at hand, perhaps you could give me the specific details?
You would, but I wouldn't. There is a difference between observing the raw materials of a reaction in a natural state and controlling the reaction under laboratory conditions.
I take it, then, that you do not believe in neutron stars? You see, neutrons have never been observed in a stable state without protons mixed in.
Incorrect.Because unbound quarks have never been observed for more than a few nanoseconds.
And nuclear fusion has never been performed in such a way as to liberate more energy than is required to initiate the reaction without blowing itself to pieces. I'd say FET is on a level footing with RET on this one.
There are a number of theories dealing with plate tectonics. According to the "infinite plane" theory proposed by Username, the Ice Wall extends on forever, so there is always a place for the plates to go. As for the mountains, that's not "confirmed" as being part of FET, as some people believe tha there is only ice. I'm not sure if any FE'ers would agree with me, but one thought that I've had is that there may be a mountain range on the outskirts of the Ice Wall, then an infinite glacier of ice on the other side.
I subscribe to the idea that there is a cave leading to a lush prehistoric jungle. I call this area the Savage Land.
Prove me wrong.
Thank you for adding to the discussion immensely. I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.explain the hawain islands. they have been formed over a hotspot in the earth's mantle and is clearly visible from the chain of islands and the tectonics movement
What are you talking about? Hawaii was formed from volcanic activity, not plate tectonics.
RET just makes more sense than FET.
Why's that? Because you've been brainwashed to feel comfortable with it?1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)
Let's draw comparisons to RET, shall we?
1. Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2. The intergalactic medium (could people live without a source of gravitation?)
3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4. "Gravitons" and "black holes" (srsly?)
5. Antarctica (look out or the 200 K winters will getcha)
6. The Super-Ultra-Powered Space Race (again, srsly?)
But we're getting off topic here. This thread is not about why you don't believe in FET, it's about why you do believe in RET.
When I read it synoptically with consideration of the cultural context of the publication, I thought, 'great job, Dr Rowbotham, a nod to religion will net you a far greater level of support from a large potential audience which might otherwise abhor you'.
Hmm. So you thought Rowbotham was (deliberately) lying, and you somehow knew he was lying. Yet you though it was OK for him to lie in order to aquire a following that might not have occured if Rowbotham had not lied. In todays cultural context we call that deception.
Interesting.
Same could be said for di vinci. He made many works for churches and many religious paintings, but inside them you can find many intentional discrepancies hinting at his more atheist view.
