What am I seeing when I look up?

Well, that's pretty conclusive. Still, it wasn't my argument. I beleive the ISS must be a very advanced form of conspiracy technology- the expenditure would be justified given the extent to which it subliminally creates unquestioning belief in the globu-fallacy.

Well, that's pretty conclusive. Still, it wasn't my argument. I beleive the ISS must be a very advanced form of conspiracy technology- the expenditure would be justified given the extent to which it subliminally creates unquestioning belief in the globu-fallacy.

Translation: "Damn, you're absolutely right, and there's no logical way to refute that, so there must be some other, even more far-fetched explanation - maybe involving holograms - that proves my point. Therefore you are still wrong"

Well, that's pretty conclusive. Still, it wasn't my argument. I beleive the ISS must be a very advanced form of conspiracy technology- the expenditure would be justified given the extent to which it subliminally creates unquestioning belief in the globu-fallacy.

translation:  I have been beaten, I concede defeat. 

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 12, 2008, 01:35:28 PM

Well, that's pretty conclusive. Still, it wasn't my argument. I beleive the ISS must be a very advanced form of conspiracy technology- the expenditure would be justified given the extent to which it subliminally creates unquestioning belief in the globu-fallacy.

Translation: "Damn, you're absolutely right, and there's no logical way to refute that, so there must be some other, even more far-fetched explanation - maybe involving holograms - that proves my point. Therefore you are still wrong"

From my very first post in this discussion, I made it clear I did not agree with Hardhead. I was questioning your points, not supporting his, and I had no problem saying you were correct when you backed it up.

translation:  I have been beaten, I concede defeat.

However, I have never asserted that I believe the ISS to be an aircraft. It was not my argument to begin with, as I stated very clearly from the first.

No, your arguement seems to be, I don't know / magic. 

lol@thisthread

No, your arguement seems to be, I don't know / magic. 

No admission of your error. I see.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 02:42:18 AM

No, your arguement seems to be, I don't know / magic. 

No admission of your error. I see.

When did I ever say it was your argument?  You loose because you have no argument. 

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 02:59:06 AM

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 02:42:18 AM

No, your arguement seems to be, I don't know / magic. 

No admission of your error. I see.

When did I ever say it was your argument?  You loose because you have no argument. 

I lose because I have no argument? What does that even mean?

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 03:23:03 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 02:59:06 AM

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 02:42:18 AM

No, your arguement seems to be, I don't know / magic. 

No admission of your error. I see.

When did I ever say it was your argument?  You loose because you have no argument. 

I lose because I have no argument? What does that even mean?

it means you loose, you have not even attempted to explain it, you just say 'conspiracy technology' (aka, I don't know/magic) and leave it at that. 

(aka, I don't know/magic)

Oh, you mean like the mechanism for gravitation in RET, right?

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 04:02:03 AM

(aka, I don't know/magic)

Oh, you mean like the mechanism for constant acceleration in FET, right?

fixed that for ya. 

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 04:29:47 AM

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 04:02:03 AM

(aka, I don't know/magic)

Oh, you mean like the mechanism for constant acceleration in FET, right?

fixed that for ya. 

So you accept the UA is as good an explanation for gravitation as RET's 'mass x magic'?

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 04:31:06 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 04:29:47 AM

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 04:02:03 AM

(aka, I don't know/magic)

Oh, you mean like the mechanism for constant acceleration in FET, right?

fixed that for ya. 

So you accept the UA is as good an explanation for gravitation as RET's 'mass x magic'?

Do you?  doesn't FE rely on gravity from the stars to explain all the effects caused by the rotation of the earth?  so you have magic acceleration + mass x magic when mass != Earth

how about I submit this for now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity, and when you write as much on magical upwards acceleration, then i'll get out a textbook. 

So is that a yes, or a no?

So is that a yes, or a no?

That's a no. 

What's your opinion? 

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 04:56:44 AM

So is that a yes, or a no?

That's a no. 

What's your opinion? 

Explain yours first. The UA is just as good an explanation as 'mass x magic'. If it is not, explain why.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 05:01:35 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 04:56:44 AM

So is that a yes, or a no?

That's a no. 

What's your opinion? 

Explain yours first. The UA is just as good an explanation as 'mass x magic'. If it is not, explain why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#General_relativity

I just submitted this, now you post something the same length on UA...  then we can move on to more detail if you want...

Wow, you wrote everything in that article did you? I see. There are endless debates all over this site explaining why the UA is just as reasonable an explanation for gravitation as mass x magic. Furthermore, I have seen you participate in some of them. So at this point, either you were paying attention and understand, or you do not understand despite having it explained to you several times, meaning you do not have sufficient intellect to do so and that hence it would be a waste of my time, and indeed yours, to make any further attempt.

Wow, you wrote everything in that article did you? I see. There are endless debates all over this site explaining why the UA is just as reasonable an explanation for gravitation as mass x magic. Furthermore, I have seen you participate in some of them. So at this point, either you were paying attention and understand, or you do not understand despite having it explained to you several times, meaning you do not have sufficient intellect to do so and that hence it would be a waste of my time, and indeed yours, to make any further attempt.

no, people have argued about the possibility of such things, but no one has ever posted a comprehensive theory that encompasses downward force and the movement of all heavenly bodies and accounts for force measurements taken on earth. 

If I am mistaken post a link now. 

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 05:46:25 AM

Wow, you wrote everything in that article did you? I see. There are endless debates all over this site explaining why the UA is just as reasonable an explanation for gravitation as mass x magic. Furthermore, I have seen you participate in some of them. So at this point, either you were paying attention and understand, or you do not understand despite having it explained to you several times, meaning you do not have sufficient intellect to do so and that hence it would be a waste of my time, and indeed yours, to make any further attempt.

no, people have argued about the possibility of such things, but no one has ever posted a comprehensive theory that encompasses downward force and the movement of all heavenly bodies and accounts for force measurements taken on earth. 

If I am mistaken post a link now. 

Comprehensive? No, I'll grant that. As I have openly admitted on a number of occassions, cosmology is a grossly underdeveloped part of FET. That said, I believe our theory is a much more reasonable explanation for gravitation on earth, and I eagerly await the day when cosmological breakthroughs will be made.


My point was merely to show that RET relies on 'magic/we don't know' to no greater an extent than FET.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 06:07:33 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 05:46:25 AM

Wow, you wrote everything in that article did you? I see. There are endless debates all over this site explaining why the UA is just as reasonable an explanation for gravitation as mass x magic. Furthermore, I have seen you participate in some of them. So at this point, either you were paying attention and understand, or you do not understand despite having it explained to you several times, meaning you do not have sufficient intellect to do so and that hence it would be a waste of my time, and indeed yours, to make any further attempt.

no, people have argued about the possibility of such things, but no one has ever posted a comprehensive theory that encompasses downward force and the movement of all heavenly bodies and accounts for force measurements taken on earth. 

If I am mistaken post a link now. 

Comprehensive? No, I'll grant that. As I have openly admitted on a number of occassions, cosmology is a grossly underdeveloped part of FET. That said, I believe our theory is a much more reasonable explanation for gravitation on earth, and I eagerly await the day when cosmological breakthroughs will be made.


My point was merely to show that RET relies on 'magic/we don't know' to no greater an extent than FET.

UA, EA, lesser/greater ice walls, sub-heavens, light refracting the wrong way.

Yup, FET has so much more solid evidence than RET.   

A curve in the earth you can't see unless you're in space, a magic force that holds all matter together for some reason, dark energy and matter that were invented as a reason to explain gaping holes in RET- and all this despite years of research and huge spending.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 06:07:33 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 05:46:25 AM

Wow, you wrote everything in that article did you? I see. There are endless debates all over this site explaining why the UA is just as reasonable an explanation for gravitation as mass x magic. Furthermore, I have seen you participate in some of them. So at this point, either you were paying attention and understand, or you do not understand despite having it explained to you several times, meaning you do not have sufficient intellect to do so and that hence it would be a waste of my time, and indeed yours, to make any further attempt.

no, people have argued about the possibility of such things, but no one has ever posted a comprehensive theory that encompasses downward force and the movement of all heavenly bodies and accounts for force measurements taken on earth. 


If I am mistaken post a link now. 

Comprehensive? No, I'll grant that. As I have openly admitted on a number of occassions, cosmology is a grossly underdeveloped part of FET. That said, I believe our theory is a much more reasonable explanation for gravitation on earth, and I eagerly await the day when cosmological breakthroughs will be made.


My point was merely to show that RET relies on 'magic/we don't know' to no greater an extent than FET.

No, it doesn't, FE relies on that explanation for everything, RE relies on we don't know for a tiny amount of things.  

RE gravity explains the movement of all the planets and the sun, and only relies on dark matter for a detail in the movement of galaxies.  And it is consistant and makes sense.

UA relies on dark influx and dark energy to explain even simple falling, and then it fails to account for differences in gravity measurements at the equator and poles, for the difference in gravity at altitude, and gravitational measurements of mountains etc.  it also doesn't explain the movement of any heavenly bodies.  

UA fails to explain gravitation on earth.  Gravity explained all gravitation effects on earth over 100 years ago.  

UA does not fail to explain gravitation on earth. Gravity does not exist.


And DA/DM are essential to RET; without them the universe wouldn't work. The universe not working is more than a 'detail'.


RET relies on 'magic x mass' to "explain even simple falling". Is there a difference?

Downward force.  

RE Gravity: masses attract each other
UA:  The earth accelerates upwards

Downward force lower at equator than poles

RE Gravity: centrifugal force of earth
UA: don't know / magic

Downward force lower at high altitude than low

RE Gravity: Atraction is weaker at greater distance
UA: don't know / magic

Force is measured towards mountains

RE Gravity: Gravity of the mountain
UA: Don't know / magic

And DA/DM are essential to RET; without them the universe wouldn't work. The universe not working is more than a 'detail'.

What you are refering to are small discrepencies in measurements on objects millions of light years away, which UA cannot explain even the aproximate positions of.  Newtonian mechanic explains the movements of every object ever measured on the face of the earth, UA fails at even that point. 

Downward force.  

RE Gravity: masses attract each other because of magic
UA:  The earth accelerates upwards

Downward force lower at equator than poles

RE Gravity: centrifugal force of earth because of magic (this is another ficticious force)
UA: don't know / magic

Downward force lower at high altitude than low

RE Gravity: Atraction is weaker at greater distance presuming magical force exists
UA: don't know / magic

Force is measured towards mountains

RE Gravity: Gravity of the mountain because again, mass x magic = gravity
UA: Don't know / magic

Corrections included.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 07:15:56 AM

And DA/DM are essential to RET; without them the universe wouldn't work. The universe not working is more than a 'detail'.

What you are refering to are small discrepencies in measurements on objects millions of light years away, which UA cannot explain even the aproximate positions of.  Newtonian mechanic explains the movements of every object ever measured on the face of the earth, UA fails at even that point. 

You've been here this long, and you're still arguing with Newtonian theories?

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 07:22:51 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 13, 2008, 07:15:56 AM

And DA/DM are essential to RET; without them the universe wouldn't work. The universe not working is more than a 'detail'.

What you are refering to are small discrepencies in measurements on objects millions of light years away, which UA cannot explain even the aproximate positions of.  Newtonian mechanic explains the movements of every object ever measured on the face of the earth, UA fails at even that point. 

You've been here this long, and you're still arguing with Newtonian theories?

No, the point is that even newtonian theories explain the movement of all objects on earth, subsequent theories are only needed to explain movement of celestial objects.  UA has not even got as far as explaining that. 

UA is not even in the same league untill it can do that.