Observing the ISS

Still no answer.

Any debate professor would declare this a win for me.

*applauds*

The ISS has already been observed, photographed and filmed by amateur astronomers all around the world. The ISS is indeed real.

http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2009-05/iss2009-05-23blr.jpg
http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2007-06/iss07-06-18pre.jpg
http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2008-02/iss2008-02-09-dhr.jpg
http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2005-07/iss2005-07-02lr.jpg

Furthermore, you can track the ISS using the NASA Skywatch Sightings Calculator. Yes, it is programmed by NASA, but I use it all the time to watch the ISS and it appears in the sky at the time it was predicted by this program! It is awesome, isn't?

Still waiting for an answer from you guys.  Ignoring it will not make the Space Station go away.

And as long as it exists, and you all can fit the explanation of it's existence in to your little FE theory, then there is really no reason for any of this, right?  It means that all of your theories are wrong.  It means everything this site pretends to stand for is wrong.

Why don't you all do the right thing and just take it down....if for no other reason to save bandwidth.

Hummm still nothing?

Been lots of other posts in other thread over this time, so I know you all are here.

Very interesting that you have nothing further of any use to say on this topic.

But here's a bump to give you all a fair chance.

It's a hologram.

Can you show me the technology that would make a hologram of that nature possible?

Can you show me the technology that would make a hologram of that nature possible?

No.

Ok so I can't show you what god looks like, I can't prove that Mary existed, and I can't prove anything in the bible basically.  A world full of people believe the book word for word they take it quite literally and not as a life lesson which it was originally intended as.  But I have no empirical evidence to support any of the claims in the bible, there is a nearly endless list of different ways just that one book as been interpreted.  Forget about all the other flavors of religion!  How can they all be right?  How can any one of them be right?  They are not they are just examples to help the less moral people...the people who it takes a bit longer to get stuff...the weak people that just don't have the time or capicity to think about it all.  So much easier to have someone else do all your thinking for you.  But that's no way to live.  That and the fact none of it can be proved is the reason I'm an Agnostic/Atheist.

I don't need a made up entity to make me a moral person.  All you need is the Golden Rule.  Don't do crap to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you.

I like science because a scientist can create an experiment that anyone that has the means can recreate themselves.  This may shock you all, but I don't believe that anything is absolute fact.  There are kind of grades of believing in facts, so yes from that standpoint science is certainly sort of belief at some levels in some instances.  Anything that can happen will happen, and even some things that we thought couldn't happen before, do sometimes happen.  What I look for is things that can be observed, tested and proven my myself or anyone one else that chooses to do it.  These things we are referring to as fact and empirical evidence, is only considered that, because it can and has been tested by countless other people.  All using the same scientific processes, scientists can test, record results, and time and time again come up with the same numbers, then you can be content to live your life knowing that thing as fact, keeping in mind that the reasons that make something a fact could change, as we learn more about how the world works, but observations, testing, and repeating results are very hard to argue with on a day to day basis.

I've already read some of the book and I still see nothing I would even come close to considering evidence.  And I have yet to have any of you show me any evidence that what I'm seeing with my own eyes is a blimp or a hologram or whatever crazy crap you all have to offer next with no proof or way of testing what you tell us.  That means you are really saying nothing.

So anyone else wanna give it a shot?

Ok so I can't show you what god looks like, I can't prove that Mary existed, and I can't prove anything in the bible basically.  A world full of people believe the book word for word they take it quite literally and not as a life lesson which it was originally intended as.  But I have no empirical evidence to support any of the claims in the bible, there is a nearly endless list of different ways just that one book as been interpreted.  Forget about all the other flavors of religion!  How can they all be right?  How can any one of them be right?  They are not they are just examples to help the less moral people...the people who it takes a bit longer to get stuff...the weak people that just don't have the time or capicity to think about it all.  So much easier to have someone else do all your thinking for you.  But that's no way to live.  That and the fact none of it can be proved is the reason I'm an Agnostic/Atheist.

I don't need a made up entity to make me a moral person.  All you need is the Golden Rule.  Don't do crap to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you.

I like science because a scientist can create an experiment that anyone that has the means can recreate themselves.  This may shock you all, but I don't believe that anything is absolute fact.  There are kind of grades of believing in facts, so yes from that standpoint science is certainly sort of belief at some levels in some instances.  Anything that can happen will happen, and even some things that we thought couldn't happen before, do sometimes happen.  What I look for is things that can be observed, tested and proven my myself or anyone one else that chooses to do it.  These things we are referring to as fact and empirical evidence, is only considered that, because it can and has been tested by countless other people.  All using the same scientific processes, scientists can test, record results, and time and time again come up with the same numbers, then you can be content to live your life knowing that thing as fact, keeping in mind that the reasons that make something a fact could change, as we learn more about how the world works, but observations, testing, and repeating results are very hard to argue with on a day to day basis.

I've already read some of the book and I still see nothing I would even come close to considering evidence.  And I have yet to have any of you show me any evidence that what I'm seeing with my own eyes is a blimp or a hologram or whatever crazy crap you all have to offer next with no proof or way of testing what you tell us.  That means you are really saying nothing.

So anyone else wanna give it a shot?

This may shock you, but you're not the only scientist here. So get off your high horse.

Quote from: bobofett on September 06, 2009, 09:31:23 PM

Ok so I can't show you what god looks like, I can't prove that Mary existed, and I can't prove anything in the bible basically.  A world full of people believe the book word for word they take it quite literally and not as a life lesson which it was originally intended as.  But I have no empirical evidence to support any of the claims in the bible, there is a nearly endless list of different ways just that one book as been interpreted.  Forget about all the other flavors of religion!  How can they all be right?  How can any one of them be right?  They are not they are just examples to help the less moral people...the people who it takes a bit longer to get stuff...the weak people that just don't have the time or capicity to think about it all.  So much easier to have someone else do all your thinking for you.  But that's no way to live.  That and the fact none of it can be proved is the reason I'm an Agnostic/Atheist.

I don't need a made up entity to make me a moral person.  All you need is the Golden Rule.  Don't do crap to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you.

I like science because a scientist can create an experiment that anyone that has the means can recreate themselves.  This may shock you all, but I don't believe that anything is absolute fact.  There are kind of grades of believing in facts, so yes from that standpoint science is certainly sort of belief at some levels in some instances.  Anything that can happen will happen, and even some things that we thought couldn't happen before, do sometimes happen.  What I look for is things that can be observed, tested and proven my myself or anyone one else that chooses to do it.  These things we are referring to as fact and empirical evidence, is only considered that, because it can and has been tested by countless other people.  All using the same scientific processes, scientists can test, record results, and time and time again come up with the same numbers, then you can be content to live your life knowing that thing as fact, keeping in mind that the reasons that make something a fact could change, as we learn more about how the world works, but observations, testing, and repeating results are very hard to argue with on a day to day basis.

I've already read some of the book and I still see nothing I would even come close to considering evidence.  And I have yet to have any of you show me any evidence that what I'm seeing with my own eyes is a blimp or a hologram or whatever crazy crap you all have to offer next with no proof or way of testing what you tell us.  That means you are really saying nothing.

So anyone else wanna give it a shot?

This may shock you, but you're not the only scientist here. So get off your high horse.

And even yet more deflection from the actual matter at hand.  You have yet to address with any proof what we are seeing when viewing ISS with our own eyes.

You have just started the debate and you have already lost, because you refuse to address the meat of this topic, and instead it's just a way to get people to not think about this topic.

Listen I'm going to go ahead and take my few wins here tonight....and hope you sensible people still left in here, carry the torch and keep the flame on them about this ISS question...And go back to the world of sane people now.

It was fun playing with you all tonight.

Enjoy yourselves....don't fall off the edge!

And even yet more deflection from the actual matter at hand.  You have yet to address with any proof what we are seeing when viewing ISS with our own eyes.

You have just started the debate and you have already lost, because you refuse to address the meat of this topic, and instead it's just a way to get people to not think about this topic.

Listen I'm going to go ahead and take my few wins here tonight....and hope you sensible people still left in here, carry the torch and keep the flame on them about this ISS question...And go back to the world of sane people now.

It was fun playing with you all tonight.

Enjoy yourselves....don't fall off the edge!

I'm not the one who decided to write a completely irrelevant three-paragraph rant about how I'm so much better than my opponent because I follow the scientific method. For your information, the hologram projections are administered by the Conspiracy using technology developed in the 1930s and installed around the world during World War II, which served as a convenient ruse for this preparation for the space race. Unfortunately, the Conspiracy has not shared this technology with any of us, so we have no direct evidence that it exists.

I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way.

A few weeks ago I woke up early in the morning to watch the International Space Station pass over my city. The ISS is one of the brightest objects in space. So could someone please tell me what I saw?

duhh - anything which blatantly contradicts the concept of a flat earth is obviously part of "the conspiracy"

I search the word "Stratolite" with google. Nothing found. What is a "Stratolite"?

Quote from: bobofett on September 06, 2009, 09:41:31 PM

And even yet more deflection from the actual matter at hand.  You have yet to address with any proof what we are seeing when viewing ISS with our own eyes.

You have just started the debate and you have already lost, because you refuse to address the meat of this topic, and instead it's just a way to get people to not think about this topic.

Listen I'm going to go ahead and take my few wins here tonight....and hope you sensible people still left in here, carry the torch and keep the flame on them about this ISS question...And go back to the world of sane people now.

It was fun playing with you all tonight.

Enjoy yourselves....don't fall off the edge!

I'm not the one who decided to write a completely irrelevant three-paragraph rant about how I'm so much better than my opponent because I follow the scientific method. For your information, the hologram projections are administered by the Conspiracy using technology developed in the 1930s and installed around the world during World War II, which served as a convenient ruse for this preparation for the space race. Unfortunately, the Conspiracy has not shared this technology with any of us, so we have no direct evidence that it exists.

I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way.

Can I ask you why do you think that man has never been to the Moon, for example? Or why the ISS cannot exists? Do you think that NASA photos and videos of the moon mission are fake? Why? I mean, don't tell me "cause the hoax", i want to know why it is scientifically impossible to do all that stuff.

Another thing: how can you claim that "I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Are you an astrophisic? What is your degree? What this phrase mean: "In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way."  Explain why. For example, Betelgeuse, that you can see with naked eyes, has a ray 1000 times bigger than the sun. Do you think it is not enough? If yes, why? How much a star has to be big to explode in a supernova? And why someone have to fake a supernova explosion?

Can I ask you why do you think that man has never been to the Moon, for example? Or why the ISS cannot exists? Do you think that NASA photos and videos of the moon mission are fake? Why? I mean, don't tell me "cause the hoax", i want to know why it is scientifically impossible to do all that stuff.

If the Earth is flat, then sustained spaceflight is impossible with current technology.

Another thing: how can you claim that "I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Are you an astrophisic? What is your degree? What this phrase mean: "In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way."  Explain why. For example, Betelgeuse, that you can see with naked eyes, has a ray 1000 times bigger than the sun. Do you think it is not enough? If yes, why? How much a star has to be big to explode in a supernova? And why someone have to fake a supernova explosion?

According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away as the Sun. They are far smaller than it; the biggest ones can't possibly be more than about 100 metres across. The supernova explosion was faked to lend credibility to the idea that stars are actually extremely massive balls of plasma, fusing many millions of tonnes of hydrogen into helium each second just to remain luminous. The far simpler truth is that the Sun heats the stars as it passes by on its daily orbit, and they then radiate this energy away at night.

Quote from: SSSavio on September 07, 2009, 11:10:49 AM

Can I ask you why do you think that man has never been to the Moon, for example? Or why the ISS cannot exists? Do you think that NASA photos and videos of the moon mission are fake? Why? I mean, don't tell me "cause the hoax", i want to know why it is scientifically impossible to do all that stuff.

If the Earth is flat, then sustained spaceflight is impossible with current technology.

Quote from: SSSavio on September 07, 2009, 11:10:49 AM

Another thing: how can you claim that "I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Are you an astrophisic? What is your degree? What this phrase mean: "In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way."  Explain why. For example, Betelgeuse, that you can see with naked eyes, has a ray 1000 times bigger than the sun. Do you think it is not enough? If yes, why? How much a star has to be big to explode in a supernova? And why someone have to fake a supernova explosion?

According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away as the Sun. They are far smaller than it; the biggest ones can't possibly be more than about 100 metres across. The supernova explosion was faked to lend credibility to the idea that stars are actually extremely massive balls of plasma, fusing many millions of tonnes of hydrogen into helium each second just to remain luminous. The far simpler truth is that the Sun heats the stars as it passes by on its daily orbit, and they then radiate this energy away at night.

So what you're saying is, science is all a big lie and every scientist and astronomer is out to get you, for no reason.
I guess you never grew up.

So what you're saying is, science is all a big lie and every scientist and astronomer is out to get you, for no reason.

I don't know where you get that impression from. If I was of the opinion that science were all a big lie, I'd hardly be studying towards a Bachelor of Science degree, now would I?

If the Earth is flat, then sustained spaceflight is impossible with current technology.

Why? You know, the Sun is the proof that sustained spaceflight is possible. In fact, it stay constantly in the sky. Why something made by men cannot stay in space exactly the same way as the sun?

According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away as the Sun. They are far smaller than it; the biggest ones can't possibly be more than about 100 metres across. The supernova explosion was faked to lend credibility to the idea that stars are actually extremely massive balls of plasma, fusing many millions of tonnes of hydrogen into helium each second just to remain luminous. The far simpler truth is that the Sun heats the stars as it passes by on its daily orbit, and they then radiate this energy away at night.

Ok. So, what is a star? The sun is not a star, I understand this from your post. What is the sun? How is it possible that a star "radiate this energy away at night"? If the stars are the same distance away as the sun, the sun it's not a spotligh pointing the earth, am I right? What is the difference between a planet and a star? According to FEt, i think there are no other planetes other than earth.

Why? You know, the Sun is the proof that sustained spaceflight is possible. In fact, it stay constantly in the sky. Why something made by men cannot stay in space exactly the same way as the sun?

I didn't say sustained spaceflight wasn't possible. I said it wasn't possible with current technology. We would need to go a lot higher than the Low Earth Orbit proposed by RET to achieve it, and the acceleration we would need to overcome would remain relatively constant throughout the journey, unlike in RET where it would be expected to drop off more rapidly and could be countered by orbital motion.

So, what is a star?

A star is a small object of unknown shape and composition, though it is most likely made up of some sort of dense rocky material with a high specific heat capacity that behaves very much like an ideal black body. It would also be expected to have a warm, thin, partly ionised atmosphere made up of hydrogen and a few other gases which create the stellar line spectra we observe.

What is the sun?

The Sun is an extremely large, roughly spherical collection of particles and antiparticles in dynamic equilibrium. Their strong attraction to one another is balanced by the slow, steady annihilation of particles with antiparticles in its core, which produces its energy output. It, too, has a thin, partly ionised atmosphere which creates the line spectrum we see coming from the Sun. This atmosphere would have formed from the same celestial gases as those of the stars, which is why the Sun was originally mistaken to be a star - their line spectra look identical.

How is it possible that a star "radiate this energy away at night"?

In the same way that the filament in an incandescent light bulb radiates light when heated by an electric current.

If the stars are the same distance away as the sun, the sun it's not a spotligh pointing the earth, am I right?

That is correct. Not all Flat Earthers believe that the Sun is a spotlight.

What is the difference between a planet and a star?

A planet is different in that it has a far lower heat capacity, is probably much less dense and is also rather larger than a star. It is also different in that its orbit follows the ecliptic, whereas stars are evenly spread across the celestial plane.

According to FEt, i think there are no other planetes other than earth.

According to FET, the Earth is not a planet.

I didn't say sustained spaceflight wasn't possible. I said it wasn't possible with current technology. We would need to go a lot higher than the Low Earth Orbit proposed by RET to achieve it, and the acceleration we would need to overcome would remain relatively constant throughout the journey, unlike in RET where it would be expected to drop off more rapidly and could be countered by orbital motion.

Quite vague, don't you think? In REt, we have tons of data and numbers and maths that demonstrate how space flights are possible. You have at least to say some numbers and some mathematical explanation of the reason why with the current technology we cannot go trough space.

A star is a small object of unknown shape and composition, though it is most likely made up of some sort of dense rocky material with a high specific heat capacity that behaves very much like an ideal black body. It would also be expected to have a warm, thin, partly ionised atmosphere made up of hydrogen and a few other gases which create the stellar line spectra we observe.

Your first sentence says it all: you dunno what a star is.

The Sun is an extremely large, roughly spherical collection of particles and antiparticles in dynamic equilibrium. Their strong attraction to one another is balanced by the slow, steady annihilation of particles with antiparticles in its core, which produces its energy output. It, too, has a thin, partly ionised atmosphere which creates the line spectrum we see coming from the Sun. This atmosphere would have formed from the same celestial gases as those of the stars, which is why the Sun was originally mistaken to be a star - their line spectra look identical.

Why the sun is the only celestial body having this charateristics? Don't you think it's more simple thinking that it is only a star like tons of others in the universe? I am interested in what is the FEt theory for the creation of the universe.

A planet is different in that it has a far lower heat capacity, is probably much less dense and is also rather larger than a star. It is also different in that its orbit follows the ecliptic, whereas stars are evenly spread across the celestial plane.

So, you think planetes are larger than stars. Mmmmm. Did you make some measurement? In what way you can measure a star? So, the stars stand still, and the planetes moves? Moves why and around what?

of others in the universe? I am interested in what is the FEt theory for the creation of the universe.

According to FET, the Earth is not a planet.

And what is it?

Quite vague, don't you think? In REt, we have tons of data and numbers and maths that demonstrate how space flights are possible. You have at least to say some numbers and some mathematical explanation of the reason why with the current technology we cannot go trough space.

I tried to come up with some mathematics for you, but after midnight probably isn't the best time to be messing around with calculus. I'll come up with something for you tomorrow.

Your first sentence says it all: you dunno what a star is.

That's true, I don't. Nor does anybody else.

Why the sun is the only celestial body having this charateristics? Don't you think it's more simple thinking that it is only a star like tons of others in the universe?

How is a source of energy which has never been shown to be sustainable powering billions of stars all over the Universe simpler than a single body with an unverified power generation mechanism? FET has one unknown source of energy; RET has billions.

I am interested in what is the FEt theory for the creation of the universe.

Probably some sort of Big Bang.

So, you think planetes are larger than stars. Mmmmm. Did you make some measurement? In what way you can measure a star?

According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away from us as the planets. I have observed Jupiter and Saturn, amongst other planets, using a telescope, and they appear larger in angular diameter than stars. Therefore, if they are the same distance away, they must be larger.

So, the stars stand still, and the planetes moves? Moves why and around what?

No, the stars move too. They all move around the north celestial pole, except for Mercury and Venus which appear to orbit the Sun. The cause is likely to be either gravitational or electromagnetic; it has not yet been demonstrated one way or the other.

And what is it?

It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.

I tried to come up with some mathematics for you, but after midnight probably isn't the best time to be messing around with calculus. I'll come up with something for you tomorrow.

Ok.

That's true, I don't. Nor does anybody else.

Mmmmm. Not really true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

How is a source of energy which has never been shown to be sustainable powering billions of stars all over the Universe simpler than a single body with an unverified power generation mechanism? FET has one unknown source of energy; RET has billions.

Again, not really true. Ret has a decent explanation. Fet does not. What is the difference in having an "unkown source of energy" instead of billions, if they are all stars?

Probably some sort of Big Bang.

Why a big bang sholud produce things that are so different and unique? You know, you take an enormous and ultra-dense ball of matter, and make them blow: the phisic laws are the one that we can see, so why the big bang produces this odd things? I think it's more natural thinking that in the space there a re tons of galaxy and stuffs like that, quite similar one to another. It is a more realistic scenario. What sort of big bang projects things only "upwards", while there is nothing "downwards"?

According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away from us as the planets. I have observed Jupiter and Saturn, amongst other planets, using a telescope, and they appear larger in angular diameter than stars. Therefore, if they are the same distance away, they must be larger.

Ok. So, I'm now putting the fingers here, just near my eyes, and I see that it is much more big than the Sforza Castle. Accordig to FEt, my finger is bigger than a castle.

No, the stars move too. They all move around the north celestial pole, except for Mercury and Venus which appear to orbit the Sun. The cause is likely to be either gravitational or electromagnetic; it has not yet been demonstrated one way or the other.

I think you, as some other FEt, like relativity. It happens because of gravitation.

It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.

My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.

Quote

It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.

My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.

How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?

How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?

Luckily, over the past few hundred years or so, we have had people who aren't as defeatist as you are and have put themselves out to discover the true nature of the earth. There are still people, who, instead of reading an inaccurate, poorly written book by some 'zeteticist' (let's start a new science as we are not capable of working withing the bounds of normal science (I seem to remember he couldn't even get the value of pi accurate)) get off their backsides and go and find out for themselves about the earth.  I doubt there were any who found the earth to be either infinite or flat.

Others, sit on a computer and dream up ideas as to how the earth could possibly be a different shape and then fail to argue their case convincingly.

I know who I believe but I have to admit I enjoy the way you make fools of yourselves.

Quote from: SSSavio on September 08, 2009, 08:05:06 AM

Quote

It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.

My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.

How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?

The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.

Quote from: John Davis on September 08, 2009, 08:48:08 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on September 08, 2009, 08:05:06 AM

Quote

It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.

My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.

How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?

The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.

It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.

Quote from: SSSavio on September 08, 2009, 10:01:52 AM

The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.

It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.

Which phenomena would an infinite FE explain that an RE (or even a finite FE) wouldn't?

To begin, the lack of gravitational difference due solely to altitude. 

However, I'll post a complete list in a bit.  I was actually working on compiling a list from a few sources that are often ignored. 

I'll post it here and it will also be available at the news site.

To begin, the lack of gravitational difference due solely to altitude. 

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Hafele-Keating and the attempt to surpress it.  If one looks at the original data, one sees clearly no change happens where is predicted.