Why doubt RE Theory?

  • 36 Replies
  • 7692 Views
?

jdoe

  • 388
Why doubt RE Theory?
« on: November 12, 2007, 03:46:02 PM »
What are some good reasons to doubt Round Earth Theory?  RE explains curved horizons, seasons, days, eclipses, motions of stars and planets, the Foucault pendulum, and many other observations simply and predictably.  What better does FE have to offer?
Mars or Bust

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2007, 03:52:44 PM »
Magic, Shadow Object, Tom Bishop.

You can't beat that.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2007, 04:09:16 PM »
Most would argue that we doubt it because we think it's wrong...But you know...


~D-Draw

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2007, 05:42:30 PM »
RE Theory is wrong because experimental evidence demonstrates that the earth is flat.

RE Theory fails to present experimental evidence to support its model. Therefore the earth is flat.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2007, 05:47:07 PM »
RE Theory is wrong because experimental evidence demonstrates that the earth is flat.

RE Theory fails to present experimental evidence to support its model. Therefore the earth is flat.
Both wrong Tom Bulshit.

Please explain why RE evidence supports FE.

I won't even bother why your wrong on your second sentence.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2007, 05:49:16 PM »
RE Theory is wrong because experimental evidence demonstrates that the earth is flat.

RE Theory fails to present experimental evidence to support its model. Therefore the earth is flat.
Both wrong Tom Bulshit.

Please explain why RE evidence supports FE.

I won't even bother why your wrong on your second sentence.

No way. Tom is totally right. He's got me believing...
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2007, 05:58:23 PM »
RE Theory is wrong because experimental evidence demonstrates that the earth is flat.

RE Theory fails to present experimental evidence to support its model. Therefore the earth is flat.
Both wrong Tom Bulshit.

Please explain why RE evidence supports FE.

I won't even bother why your wrong on your second sentence.

No way. Tom is totally right. He's got me believing...
[/sarcasm]
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2007, 06:27:27 PM »
Quote
Both wrong Tom Bulshit.

Please explain why RE evidence supports FE.

I won't even bother why your wrong on your second sentence.

There is zero RE experimental evidence. RE is made up of a series of observations and interpretations.

The sinking ship effect? Observational. Easily explained by perspective. This effect can actually be reversed with a telescope, which is proof for a Flat Earth.

The lunar eclipse? Observational. Easily explained by a celestial body in the multiple star system which intersects the light between the sun and moon twice a year.

These are the only two real "proofs" for a Round Earth. Observations and interpretations. There is nothing even approaching a controlled experiment which suggests that the earth is a globe.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 11:19:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2007, 06:31:13 PM »
Quote
Both wrong Tom Bulshit.

Please explain why RE evidence supports FE.

I won't even bother why your wrong on your second sentence.

There is zero RE experimental evidence. RE is made up of a series of observations and interpretations.

The sinking ship effect? Observational. Easily explained by perspective. THis effect can actually be reversed with a telescope, which is proof for a Flat Earth.

The lunar eclipse? Observational. Easily explained by a celestial body in in multiple star system which intersects the light between the sun and moon twice a year.

These are the only two real "proofs" for a Round Earth. Observations and interpretations. There is nothing even approaching a controlled experiment which suggests that the earth is a globe.

So, what about the Focault pendulum?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2007, 06:33:18 PM »
The earth does not rotate. All spinning phenomenas (Coriolis effect, Focault Pendulum, gyroscope) are caused by the gravitation of the close multiple system above our heads, 4000 miles above the surface of the earth. Bodies will be captured geometrically and propelled in the direction and apogee of the close stars overhead, which make one rotation around the hub per twenty four hours.

The South Celestial systems over the Southern Hemisphere are spinning in the opposite direction and so bodies in the south will be deflected in the opposite direction.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 06:35:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2007, 06:35:06 PM »
All spinning phenomenas (Coriolis effect, Focault Pendulum, gyroscope) are caused by the gravitation of the close multiple system above our heads, 4000 miles above the surface of the earth. Bodies will be captured geometrically and propelled in the direction and apogee of the close stars overhead, which make one rotation around the hub per twenty four hours.

The South Celestial systems over the Southern Hemisphere are spinning in the opposite direction and so bodies in the south will be deflected in the opposite direction.

But do you have controlled experiments that can prove this? Or did you just make it up?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2007, 06:37:46 PM »
Tom, no, wrong, incorrect, invalid...no.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2007, 06:39:33 PM »
Quote
But do you have controlled experiments that can prove this? Or did you just make it up?

I never claimed to have controlled experiments to prove this. The gravitation of the stars in the FE model is what is interpreted to be the root cause for the spinning phenomenas on earth. We've matched the RE interpretation of a spinning earth with the FE interpretation of spinning stars.

We can confirm that the gravitation of the stars exists, affecting bodies near the earth, by ascending into the atmosphere in an airplane with specialized instruments to detect the level of g. As we ascend in altitude we will see that the level of g becomes modified, lessened as the stars attempt to pull us in. The level of g changes with altitude, giving us reason to believe that the 4,000 mile distant stars are producing a type of gravitational field.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 06:41:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2007, 06:41:48 PM »
Quote
But do you have controlled experiments that can prove this? Or did you just make it up?

I never claimed to have controlled experiments to prove this. The gravitation of the stars in the FE model is what is interpreted to be the root cause for the spinning phenomenas on earth. We've matched the RE interpretation of a spinning earth with the FE interpretation of spinning stars.

We can confirm that the gravitation of the stars exists, affecting bodies near the earth, by ascending into the atmosphere in an airplane with specialized instruments to detect the level of g. As we ascend in altitude we will see that the level of g becomes modified, lessened as the stars attempt to pull us in. The level of g changes with altitude, giving us reason to believe that the 4,000 mile distant stars are producing a type of gravitational field.


no
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2007, 06:53:04 PM »
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR ROUND EARTH:

Foucalt Pendulum (oh wait, antimoon, which we can't disprove because it's conveniently UNDER the Earth)
Pictures (can't use those)
Sinking Ship Effect (oh wait, Tom claims he can see ships come back.  He doesn't have any proof, but oh well)
Apollo Moon Missions, seeing Round Earth (oh wait, faked)
Mapping (Oh wait, conspiracy) "So explain the distorted Southern Hemisphere."  "SHUT UP!"
Perpetual Daylight in South Pole (oh wait, the light is reflected off ice crystals.)
Sunlight patterns in equinoxes/solstices (oh wait, that crazy refraction)
Lesser Gs at higher altitudes (oh wait, stars)
Lesser Gs at the equator (...)
...

?

eric bloedow

Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2007, 06:53:59 PM »
"easily explained", IF AND ONLY IF YOU WOULD SOONER DIE THAN SEE THE TRUTH!!!!!

ahem.

so where does Tom Bishop get the idea that the "shadow object" is MORE likely or reasonable or logical than the MUCH simpler RE model, which has NO unknowns, NO assumptions, NO "must be true in spite of the facts", etc.

so let me get this straight: a GIANT disk with "stars" attached to it, rotating over the "center" of the FE, AND a larger disk, rotating in the OPPOSITE direction, with NO GAPS in between whatsoever? and it doesn't fly apart? and it's only 4000 miles above?

and Tom bishop thinks that's more plausible than the earth rotating?

and that completely ignores the EXISTENCE of Mars, Jupiter, etc.
not to mention that the UA would push earth into it...
or that someone ON the equator would notice the difference...

reminds me of a cartoon quote: this weirdo thought he was a re-incarnated UNICORN, and someone else thought he WAS a WEREWOLF: "they'll believe anything EXCEPT the mirror".
Tom Bishop will believe ANYTHING except the FACT that earth is round.
he'd rather talk about the "conspiracy" than consider logic...

Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2007, 10:42:01 PM »
Look in all honesty, as much as I really love debating this stuff for and against, and simply coming up with different theories that could actually support the existence of a Flat Earth, and will continue to do so, one major thing remains...

Predictability.

I've read the original and the revised FAQ thoroughly, and have of course read through post upon post of very interesting and even very well argued information for a Flat Earth, but no matter how I slice it, the model cannot predict things in the sky nor our own environment in the same fashion that a Round Earth model does.

You can turn on your TV or radio and find out exactly what time the sun will rise or set wherever. You can pre-determine the phase of the moon. You can find out any time you want via the web when and where to look for a particular planet through your telescope. Even find out when it will be closest and easiest to view.

If you want to know what the sea/lake/water levels will be that day, and when the tides will be, just call up the local appropriate information line for your area. Spot on.

The major issue that is hardest to get past is that in a Round Earth model, everything just plain works. In a Flat Earth model it is still all theoretical and *most* observations are not something that allow for consistent predictions of our solar system that are predicted every day - and then observed by even grade school students that happen to love astronomy, or oceanography, or what have you.

My 2 cents.

Take care,
John



*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2007, 10:53:53 PM »
Quote
You can turn on your TV or radio and find out exactly what time the sun will rise or set wherever. You can pre-determine the phase of the moon. You can find out any time you want via the web when and where to look for a particular planet through your telescope. Even find out when it will be closest and easiest to view.

If you want to know what the sea/lake/water levels will be that day, and when the tides will be, just call up the local appropriate information line for your area. Spot on.

The fact that any of those phenomenas recur says nothing about their root cause. A tide chart says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the water moves up and down in patterns. There is no mechanism implied by the existence of that chart.

The same goes for the observations of the cosmos. The eclipse, for example, is predicted entirely on recurring charts and tables based upon historical accounts. It's nothing more than pattern recognition. Aristotile in 350 B.C. could use the previous patterns of lunar eclipses to predict a future eclipse. But his ability to do that says nothing about the shape of the earth. Those charts work for both RE and FE.

See the Eclipse Chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony.

The fact that a planet spirals around the hub of the earth at a predictable rate says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the planet moves at a predictable pattern.

There is nothing inherent in a recurring phenomenon which implies a mechanism. The mechanism is entirely interpreted. There are no controlled experiments which demonstrate that the shadow on the moon during an eclipse comes from the earth. That's assumed. There are no controlled experiments demonstrating that the spinning of the pendulum occurs due to a rotating earth verses the result of rotating stars overhead. The spinning of the earth is assumed. There are no controlled experiments showing that the earth is a sphere. That's assumed as well.

It's all observation and interpretation. The fact that certain phenomenas recur over a period says nothing about the truth or accuracy of one model over another. The predictability of earth based phenomenas is as equally applicable to both models.

Quote
The major issue that is hardest to get past is that in a Round Earth model, everything just plain works. In a Flat Earth model it is still all theoretical and *most* observations are not something that allow for consistent predictions of our solar system that are predicted every day - and then observed by even grade school students that happen to love astronomy, or oceanography, or what have you.

No, the Round Earth model does not "just work." Linked in my signature are a number of works which demonstrates, quite clearly, that the Round Earth model is in error.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 11:09:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2007, 10:55:15 PM »
Quote
You can turn on your TV or radio and find out exactly what time the sun will rise or set wherever. You can pre-determine the phase of the moon. You can find out any time you want via the web when and where to look for a particular planet through your telescope. Even find out when it will be closest and easiest to view.

If you want to know what the sea/lake/water levels will be that day, and when the tides will be, just call up the local appropriate information line for your area. Spot on.

The fact that any of those phenomenas recur says nothing about their root cause. A tide chart says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the water moves up and down in patterns. There is no mechanism implied by the existence of that chart.

The same goes for the movements of the cosmos. The eclipse, for example, is predicted entirely on recurring charts and tables based upon historical accounts. It's nothing more than pattern recognition. The fact that we can use the previous patterns of lunar eclipses to predict the next eclipse says nothing about the shape of the earth. Those charts work for both RE and FE.

The fact that a planet spirals around the hub of the earth at a predictable rate says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the planet moves at a predictable pattern.

There is nothing inherent in a recurring phenomenon which says one thing about the mechanism for that phenomenon. The mechanism is interested. There are no controlled experiments which demonstrate that the shadow on the moon during an eclipse comes from the earth. There are no controlled experiments demonstrating that the spinning of the pendulum occurs due to a rotating earth verses rotating stars. There are no controlled experiments showing that the earth is a sphere.

It's all observation and interpretation. The fact that certain phenomenas recur over a period says nothing about the truthness of one model over another. Those predictability of phenomenas is as equally applicable to both models.
Too short; didn't read.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2007, 11:10:18 PM »
Quote
Too short; didn't read.

Read the Flat Earth Literature linked in my signature. You will notice that we actually have controlled experiments which demonstrates that the surface of the earth is flat in direct opposition to the Round Earth model

Where is your experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is, in fact, round?

Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2007, 11:13:08 PM »
Quote
You can turn on your TV or radio and find out exactly what time the sun will rise or set wherever. You can pre-determine the phase of the moon. You can find out any time you want via the web when and where to look for a particular planet through your telescope. Even find out when it will be closest and easiest to view.

If you want to know what the sea/lake/water levels will be that day, and when the tides will be, just call up the local appropriate information line for your area. Spot on.

The fact that any of those phenomenas recur says nothing about their root cause. A tide chart says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the water moves up and down in patterns. There is no mechanism implied by the existence of that chart.

The same goes for the movements of the cosmos. The eclipse, for example, is predicted entirely on recurring charts and tables based upon historical accounts. It's nothing more than pattern recognition. The fact that we can use the previous patterns of lunar eclipses to predict the next eclipse says nothing about the shape of the earth. Those charts work for both RE and FE.

See the Eclipse Chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony.

The fact that a planet spirals around the hub of the earth at a predictable rate says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the planet moves at a predictable pattern.

There is nothing inherent in a recurring phenomenon which implies a mechanism. The mechanism is entirely interpreted. There are no controlled experiments which demonstrate that the shadow on the moon during an eclipse comes from the earth. There are no controlled experiments demonstrating that the spinning of the pendulum occurs due to a rotating earth verses rotating stars. There are no controlled experiments showing that the earth is a sphere.

It's all observation and interpretation. The fact that certain phenomena recur over a period says nothing about the truthness of one model over another. Those predictability of phenomena is as equally applicable to both models.

Actually lunar phases can't just be taken from 'historical documents' and repeated forever. Changes occur and have to be accounted for.

You seem awfully centred around the moon as proof lately, and to be honest the phases of the moon and being able to view them the same at any point on earth (that they are visible at the same time) in the same fashion within 1.4 degrees from east to west coast of the U.S. for example - doesn't hold water with your summation. (in fact, the 1.4 degrees adds to your discrepancy)
And aside from all of that, I never included pendulums into the equation although it does provide something of interest that counter-rotating gravitational celestial bodies do not account for.

Precisely timed tides are not going to happen on a sloshing motion earth since that would create a more uniform tidal structure from one 'side' of the flat earth to the other and could not possibly account for the way in which tides work. In accordance with the moon.

And yes, as a matter of fact - the fact that a planet 'spirals around the earth' is exactly a way to observe how it works within the RE model. And does not work within a FE model. If you can't see this and proclaim you honestly and truly do not see how this can't work with a FE model then I can't imagine a way to explain it to you as an adult individual. By your own constant contradictions throughout this forum I don't know if you even believe this truly, but if you do - I can't really help you.

And besides, if you really want a ball buster on your earth motion tides... that wouldn't effect lake or river levels in the same fashion whatsoever. Rivers would be most often the same observationally, but larger inland lakes are still affected by the moon, and if they are at much higher elevations, then the earth's wobble would be slightly more noticeable and the levels would vary quite drastically when compared to simple tidal variances.

That's all I have to say on the matter, if you wish to respond I won't argue with you about it, but continue to offer supporting possible theories and disproofs that might lead to others as I have done so thus far.

Take care,
John




*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2007, 11:15:18 PM »
Quote
Too short; didn't read.

Read the Flat Earth Literature linked in my signature. You will notice that we actually have controlled experiments which demonstrates that the surface of the earth is flat in direct opposition to the Round Earth model
Sure, controlled experiments that require a round Earth to be done. Rowbotham was standing on a round Earth doing his experiments to prove a flat Earth.

Where is your experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is, in fact, round?
Ask Eric Bloedow, as he said there are 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons of evidences to prove a round Earth. He gave one, so now there's 5,971,999,999,999,999,999,999 metric tons of evidences left (assuming each evidence waits 1 metric ton - see, I'm giving him so many advantages).

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2007, 11:16:24 PM »
Oh, how much money I would pay the Russians to send Tom Bishop to the International Space Station.

Quote
Where is your experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is, in fact, round?
Mars or Bust

Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2007, 11:25:11 PM »
You replied before I had finished Tom, to be honest... all of the proofs in your literature you have posted. Including the movies (which I don't think you've watched at least one of them. It's actually a large pun) none of the experimental 'proofs' you refer to were done according to any sort of empirical standard, and the results in most cases are assumed, not supported by the data.

My best.
John

Oh what evidence or proofs do we have? The same kind you do I suppose. None that you would believe. Moreover, none that you would not simply write off, dismiss, counter with blasphemous claims against FE or the like. Just simple scientific observations, tests, and recorded data from recent history, and history past.

Go stick some pencils in the ground 100 miles apart. Watch the shadows. At high noon on the one in the middle when the shadow is nearly non-existent, go to the others. Mark off the differences in lengths of shadows out to a good 500 miles each direction.

Now calculate the distance between those pencils, the length of their shadows, and figure out if the ground you've covered could possibly be a 'flat' surface. That is a solid, recordable experiment you can do all by yourself on any budget on a 3-day weekend.

Oh and if you still feel the earth could be just slightly curved or something? Go ahead and figure out what the rest of the circle is, then see if it comes out to what all of our RE records say it is... you will probably faint. Good day.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2007, 01:41:11 AM »
The sinking ship effect? Observational. Easily explained by perspective. This effect can actually be reversed with a telescope, which is proof for a Flat Earth.

Tom,

You talk about observations and interpretation, then give observational accounts???   To use your own language, these accounts are worthless because they are unscientific in their approach.

The chapter on perspective in EnaG has be discredited on these forums many times.   As I've said before, only the observer (first person) experiences perspective.  To draw lines of perspective from a second observer to the horizon is laughably incorrect.

Remember, all "perspective" does is make an object's observed size smaller when it is further away.  Nothing else.  That's it.

Anything else is just a drawing aid for artists.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 02:18:17 AM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2007, 04:16:52 AM »
Why doubt RE theory?

One word: Conspiracy.

Two words: The Antimoon

The antimoon is made of solid gold.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Admiral Motti

  • 5
  • Look out of the window
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2007, 05:21:05 AM »
Until this antimoon is fully operational we are vulnerable. The Round Earth Alliance is too well equipped. They're more dangerous than you realize.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 05:34:24 AM by Admiral Motti »

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • Screw you.
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2007, 06:52:52 AM »
You seem awfully centred around the moon as proof lately

that's cause Tom goes through phases. When I was last active, his favourite theme or topic was gravitation vs. gravity.


Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1525
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2007, 07:09:18 AM »
Tom you believe an the infinite plane thoery for some reason.  If this is true how are tides formed?  How can an infinite plane wobble like the faq suggests?
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Why doubt RE Theory?
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2007, 07:42:48 AM »
I'm sorry, but your REbellion friends will not disable the antimoon in time. This theory will be quite operational when your fleet arrives.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.