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.


Messages - LogicalKiller

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are we able to see the Moon?
« on: April 02, 2015, 10:00:18 AM »
You see, sokarul? Responding to JRowe is feeding a troll. Stop doing this, seriously.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are we able to see the Moon?
« on: April 02, 2015, 09:31:55 AM »
Explain why acceleration is meaningless in space.

Remove this post, if we stop responding to him, he'll stop trolling and doing ad-hoc aether.

63

(and about that rocket just going straight up, it still cant get you into an orbit, only out of earth's sphere of influence. And by the way, I dont think we have any rockets that have enough fuel to do something like that.)
Pioneer, voyager..

Well, I meant manned spacecraft. And pioneer and voyager still got into orbit around earth before they shot out into space, didn't they?

Yes, they did. Flying straight up even if would be so possible, would be uneffective as hell.

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 02, 2015, 07:34:29 AM »
i see logicalkiller is still whining. amazing how he can go for pages, then when i get tired of his self-righteousness, repetition and inability to debate and block him, he suddenly decides no one should talk to me. it's the toddler mindset. he wants to be the center of attention, whinges, then when he isn't he tries to break everything.
i don't care what shape you think the world is, that behavior's pathetic.

onto topic:

i accept conservation laws, why?

it's nothing to do with attitude. when there is nothing i can do without far more resources than i have, what do you expect? i have considered multiple experiments, proposed them on this forum, and none are in my abilities.
as it stands, the theory may not be relying on detailed equations, but there is clearly space for them, and the theory works. listing multiple details to the theory does not mean it's based on assumptions: many of those details are conclusions. for example, it is clear that the typical model of all the world being on top of one flat surface can be rejected due to circumpolar stars, and the coriolis force. the conclusion is that there are two aspects to the world: either two hemispheres, or two discs. the aetheric attraction is a logical conclusion, in the latest refinement of the model: the current inside the world is the thinnest we experience. as all things flow from high concentrations to low, then aether will flow down to this lack of concentration (explaining gravity), meanwhile the existence of thin space there, exposed at the equator (and to answer your question: only at the equator), means we cross it immediately, explaining transmission.
in the end, the theory is actually rather elegant. the only thing you could call an assumption is my definition of aether, and the properties assigned to it, but they are all basic deductions from the notion of space. you could complain that they might not be in the arrangements i have, but those arrangements explain the world completely: it's no more of an assumption than the round earth model and how matter happens to be attracted to itself, and some just happened to form a sun, some made a black hole about which the sun rotates, and then planets and moons...
all the details follow simply from the common-sense properties of aether. i suppose you could argue that the idea that matter comes from aether is an assumption, but it's not necessary to the theory. if you want to suppose matter came about from another source, it would still be caught up in aetheric currents and given much the same result, as it flows with the aether. i merely tried to simplify the theory.

gravity is not understood, by the admission of every scientist: there is no explanation offered for how it so much as works. space, however, is known to exist by everyone, and it is known to be how we define distance.

the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model. you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.

You're the only pathetic shit who uses ad hoc aether which doesn't exist. I say to not respond to you because you are useless toy of peasants which could insert something very deeply to reach your stomach.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 02, 2015, 07:23:31 AM »
Most interesting "theory" (haha, it's not a theory, if you don't know what's a theory then check its definition) based on a freaking ad hoc aether, which gains new properties each time it gets destroyed.

This is not news.

Quote
And also, aether doesn't exist and you still want to fight with JRowe. Everything you say, he completes with "aether done it".

I am not fighting with him.  Why are you so mad?

Quote
Just don't respond to him.

Conversely, you can move on and let the people who want to be here do there thing without harassment.  I don't particularly care either way, but you appear to have strong emotions regarding the content of this thread so I think you should take care of your needs.

Okay, if you so like to take a shit-bath I let you to do so. But remember - after having a shit-bath you will be smelly (responding to JRowe makes his topic in top and I still see his quotes).

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 02, 2015, 07:07:53 AM »
DON'T BE STUPID!!! DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO HIM, HE WILL SHUT UP!!!

It is actually the most interesting FE theory in a while. If you don't want to participate, please move on.

Most interesting "theory" (haha, it's not a theory, if you don't know what's a theory then check its definition) based on a freaking ad hoc aether, which gains new properties each time it gets destroyed. And also, aether doesn't exist and you still want to fight with JRowe. Everything you say, he completes with "aether done it". Just don't respond to him.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 02, 2015, 06:59:14 AM »
DON'T BE STUPID!!! DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO HIM, HE WILL SHUT UP!!!

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Video] Moon landing faked? Not possible.
« on: April 02, 2015, 06:56:51 AM »
Everything explained here (time adjusted) : #t=21m06s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=21m06s

I've just stumbled upon this nice video :
HUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
]

This whole video is utter shit and I don't want even to say why, because there is just too much shit.

cheers

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Video] Moon landing faked? Not possible.
« on: April 02, 2015, 06:35:48 AM »
Haha, now everybody realises that we wrecked 'em FE'ers!

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JRowe omniscient?
« on: April 02, 2015, 06:32:43 AM »
I'm obsessed with why he hasn't blocked me. I have done far more than most of the blocked people on his list and he still jumps in to talk at me.

He loves you and he would love to jump on your towbar, bud.

71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why believe in flat earth?
« on: April 02, 2015, 06:30:30 AM »
Why would every scientist, captain, pilot, necessarily know the shape of the Earth?

Because it's freaking obvious.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 01, 2015, 01:04:34 PM »
Question:

As the moon can be seen at the same time in both hemispheres, there must be two moons in your model yes?

most likely correct. i came to that conclusion through eclipses, but that would make sense too.

however, i am working on refining the theory further. i may have been too hasty in disregarding the original single-sun model. aetheric transmission could, with a cursory thought, render the second obsolete. it may also provide a better explanation for sunsets, which have been a minor complaint of round earthers from what i have seen.
the main reason i rejected the one-sun model was to allow the sun to shine from over points on the earth. however, a change in angle might also accomplish that.

at present however, yes, my model contains two moons.

You know how dumb it sounds?
Occam's razor - objective is simplicity, and in your DFE model simplicity isn't existing. Also - 2 suns on both hemispheres showing off at the same distance should collapse in some time and as we see that doesn't happen. And also - if there were 2 suns, then there would be day all day, bud!

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Video] Moon landing faked? Not possible.
« on: April 01, 2015, 12:47:44 PM »
this only works if you assume a moon landing is possible. the video's not worth arguing against because it only works if you assume round earth theory.

You are confronted with two conclusions: the moon landing is either faked or real.  The video presents an argument that faking such a thing would be impossible with the technology of the time and so you are left with the conclusion that the moon landing is real.

If the moon landing is real, then you are left with the conclusion that the moon must be in the place that it is observed to be, and was arrived at after departing a round Earth.

And after that you come to conclusion that Earth is round because it's pictured on photos.
Ah, and also. You also come to conclusion that space travel is possible, so Earth is round and FE idea just falled apart.

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are we able to see the Moon?
« on: April 01, 2015, 11:36:19 AM »
Matter is defined as anything with mass and volume. So it's not just exclusively atoms.

Photons are also matter and they do not have mass.

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JRowe omniscient?
« on: April 01, 2015, 08:38:02 AM »
I'm not obsessed, he's just an idiot I want to laugh at.

Uh, making multiple things for someone who's not going to see them is pretty much obsession. Sorry.
Don't feel bad, the fairies are wily.

He unblocked me recently.

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JRowe omniscient?
« on: April 01, 2015, 08:28:53 AM »
Why does everyone on this site become obsessed once JRowe blocks them?
I blame fairies.

I'm not obsessed, he's just an idiot I want to laugh at.

77
Flat Earth Debate / Is JRowe omniscient?
« on: April 01, 2015, 08:00:15 AM »
Look - every question we ask him is answered (no matter if he comes up with another unproved assertion). Old truth says that some idea can be true if a person who's stating this idea don't knows everything about it - as we see, JRowe seems to know everything about FE or DFE, so it must mean these both are untrue.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Auroras Prove Air exists
« on: April 01, 2015, 07:58:12 AM »
Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

i answered that, the low pressure is what causes the world. it's the cause.

i very much doubt that, given how little understanding you seem to have. please educate yourself before you make a post, and make sure it is actually relevant (and has more substance than your "i talk to gravity, and am parodying an argument that was never actually made!" insanity).

I clearly asked - why is the low pressure area at the equators? Cause of something and a position of something - I see no coincidence.
And I communicated with gravity, learn to read you moron. I refer you to this topic -

if you have nothing to offer except repeating yourself, shut up. i am not interested in your bs. i am trying to engage in a discussion, i don't want to waste my time with someone who thinks delusion is an argument. i have never once proposed by communication with aether was meant to convince everyone, you need to get a life and to grow up.
i have answered every one of your questions. if you have a problem with the answers, tell me why, stop repeating the same bs. it's pathetic.

No, you haven't yet answered to question "Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?". You came up with another assertion and also doing no job for discussion.
PS: Have you got a question on what you have no answer?

79
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 01, 2015, 07:52:23 AM »
logical killer, you are officially blocked again, i'm not wasting any more time on you. if you had read anything about my theory (for example, the basic fact that aether is space, that aetheric transmission is movement through space which we do all the time) you would see how pathetic everything you say is. you offer nothing except a waste of time, stop talking to me.

the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.

Not sure how this relates to the observation of density change in the Ęther. Can you explain and the provide your evidence?

Quote
what do you mean 'so i say'?


In the absence of evidence or a working mathematical model, there is no way to scrutinize your assertions. You are asking us to take your word for it.

Quote
aether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?

I never said anything would lose properties. Do you need me to clarify anything I said?

Quote
there's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.

Why can't we see that at different places light is being carried across dense or less dense patches of Aether?

the evidence is logical. when things rejoin, they're not going to immediately smash together, movement takes time, so they'll continue in their initial direction, slowly turn, then reconnect. it's behavior we observe everywhere, and the end result would be what is like a dome shape. the aetheric whirlpools are formed about this motion.

there's a working model, it doesn't have detailed equations because it takes resources which i do not have to find those numbers (as i have repeatedly said. until you can give me the budget and the time to take measurements, stop asking for things which are beyond anyone's ability. that's like me asking you to build a rocket, and see if space travel is possible, yourself).

you are proposing that space will behave differently at the equator. i don't see why that would be the case, unless you're over complicating and adding in more properties. at the equator, the distance between two points is essentially made zero. if you knew the real length of that distance (as i do), then you would be able to see the effects. if you don't know what that distance is meant to be, how can you judge how it looks?
you're asking after theoretical elements which do not exist in my model. at the equator, the distance between two points is made zero, allowing for instantaneous transmission. they go a huge distance at once, but you don't know what that distance is just from standing there. from our perspective, it might as well just be regular space. why wouldn't it look like that?

Fuck yeah, something is crushing my theory so I'm just ignoring it, how lovely.

80
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are we able to see the Moon?
« on: April 01, 2015, 07:50:51 AM »
fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being :P

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

Exactly. That's why space can't be thicker or thinner.
And - matter isn't composed of atoms, matter is just a particle with energy.

matter isn't composed of atoms? are you serious?
oh, so it's just particles. particles obviously aren't made of atoms... what are you smoking?

you're not providing evidence for your repeated assertion "that's why space can't be thicker or thinner." i am explaining my model. if you have a problem with it, provide more than assertion, otherwise you're just whinging like usual.

Are photons atoms? No. Are photons matter? Hell yeah. Are free protons atoms? No. Are free photons matter? Hell yeah. And so on, you physical dilletante.

81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Running Out?
« on: April 01, 2015, 07:47:54 AM »
If it is possible for there to be no space and just matter, does that not destroy your argument of "space must be something"?

i never said that was possible. space would be stretched out to the point distance would basically stop existing, however.

Space can't be stretched out, stretching space also means streatching matter in it.

82
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 01, 2015, 05:53:46 AM »
How will you explain this?

83
.. The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOl
I have noticed this. Why don't they go straight up?

OMG, ROCKETS FLY UP IN A CURVED WAY, NOT STRAIGHT, THAT MUST MEAN THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!
Seriously - that's because "curved" way is:
a) easier,
b) they are preparing to enter the apoapsis and then stretch the orbit,
c) as neimoka said.

84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 01, 2015, 04:11:36 AM »
the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools

Prove it, because I see you don't have any evidences, only assertions and assumptions.

85
Daf**k! earth must be a Cone then!

Or genitalia.

On the main question, I fancy going old fashioned and blaming the laws of perspective.

Nah, Earth is a Moebius strip. Moebius strip ftw!

86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Auroras Prove Air exists
« on: April 01, 2015, 03:48:45 AM »
Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

i answered that, the low pressure is what causes the world. it's the cause.

i very much doubt that, given how little understanding you seem to have. please educate yourself before you make a post, and make sure it is actually relevant (and has more substance than your "i talk to gravity, and am parodying an argument that was never actually made!" insanity).

I clearly asked - why is the low pressure area at the equators? Cause of something and a position of something - I see no coincidence.
And I communicated with gravity, learn to read you moron. I refer you to this topic - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63275.0#.VRvNBI4XFco

87
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are we able to see the Moon?
« on: April 01, 2015, 03:45:51 AM »
fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being :P

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

Exactly. That's why space can't be thicker or thinner.
And - matter isn't composed of atoms, matter is just a particle with energy.

88
I see JRowe isn't responsing.

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: March 31, 2015, 12:56:24 PM »
Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Ęther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Ęther density?  Why don't humans perceive a change in Ęther density?  It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Ęther then it should be possible to predict.

the aether forms a kind of dome over the earth, it's hard to put into words why. light, wind, anything that moves through space will be moved across the equator.
there is no way to tell the thickness of the space you're in, from within the space. you need an external perspective to see the difference, then you'd be able to see something unusual in the speed things take to happen.
don't make it any more special than it is. aetheric transmission is simply a matter of moving through space, which we do all the time. all that changes is the thickness of the space, but that change only makes sense when you have something to compare it to. from within, it might as well be the same.

Have you got something more than assertion?

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Auroras Prove Air exists
« on: March 31, 2015, 12:55:06 PM »
Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19