Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

  • 295 Replies
  • 42175 Views
*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #270 on: July 19, 2010, 11:05:49 PM »


No they haven't. Parsifal just gave us one BS equation that basically said, derp light moves here. what he failed to do was describe the actual forces behind it, i.e. the location and nature of the force. Finally, he never explained how the force acted upon the light not only mattered for the position, but the velocity of the photon as well.

So what? Just because he can't prove the mechanism behind it, doesn't mean he can't understand how it functions. I'm pretty sure RE'ers do the exact same thing for gravity.

No. Wrong Again. First, no one requires a proof of the mechanism. Second, Newton did describe the force of gravity universally. Third, you'll have to demonstrate to us that he does understandus how it functions.
Newton did not understand gravity. Newton was 100% wrong.
1) Did anyone claim that Newton understood gravity? 2) Based on your FET, do tell us how you know that Newton was 100% wrong.
You implied Newton understood gravity.

2. Newton was wrong because objects are not attracted to eachother.
Where did I imply that?

2. You're obviously wrong. Objects are attracted to each other.
Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.

My high school physics teacher did an experiment that proved they are 0.o.


^ this explains the idea

Your high school physics teacher was teaching entanglement!?  :o

I thought there was only a dozen or so people in the world that fully understand how it works.
That's incredible!

He touched upon the basic idea, and he did an experiment inolving.... 2 masses on a stick on a string hanging from the cieling
with a laser pointing toward the board. you mark where it was originally keep the distances of the masses constant(?) and the laser moves in the direction of the object after an hour or so showing that the two masses moved closer toward on another. This is just me explaining the experiment off the top of my head, it was awhile ago.

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #271 on: July 20, 2010, 08:41:40 AM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #272 on: July 20, 2010, 11:11:46 AM »
The earth is not flat, stop talking absolute bullshit.  It's been proved that the earth is a sphere and all your theories can not be backed up by any REAL proof or evidence.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #273 on: July 20, 2010, 11:19:35 AM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #274 on: July 20, 2010, 11:21:42 AM »
The earth is not flat, stop talking absolute bullshit.  It's been proved that the earth is a sphere and all your theories can not be backed up by any REAL proof or evidence.
No one thinks the earth is a sphere.

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #275 on: July 20, 2010, 11:25:42 AM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.
If you don't believe your own FAQ, then I suggest you take up the issue with FES. I have yet to see any evidence of your claim that Newton was 100% wrong. Since your claim came before mine, I'll let you go first in providing proof.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #276 on: July 20, 2010, 11:34:23 AM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.
If you don't believe your own FAQ, then I suggest you take up the issue with FES. I have yet to see any evidence of your claim that Newton was 100% wrong. Since your claim came before mine, I'll let you go first in providing proof.
Newton's law of gravitation fails to predict the orbit of mercury. There is only one correct answer in science, so Newton was wrong.

You might not be aware of this, but I am barred from using the Flat Earth Believers for some reason.

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #277 on: July 20, 2010, 11:52:37 AM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.
If you don't believe your own FAQ, then I suggest you take up the issue with FES. I have yet to see any evidence of your claim that Newton was 100% wrong. Since your claim came before mine, I'll let you go first in providing proof.
Newton's law of gravitation fails to predict the orbit of mercury. There is only one correct answer in science, so Newton was wrong.

You might not be aware of this, but I am barred from using the Flat Earth Believers for some reason.
Are you saying that Mercury orbits the Sun? Please tell us how Newton is wrong? What is the mass of the Sun? What is the mass of Mercury? What is distance (minimum, maximum, and mean) between the center of Mercury and the center of the Sun? Without those answers, how can you know that Newton was wrong about the orbit of Mercury. (And BTW, Newton's Law is probably still correct. History shortened his Law moving the mass of the Sun out from under the integral. Once you use his original form, his Law agrees with reality still.)

I have no control over your use of a section. You'll just have to make suggestions in whatever section FES will permit. Sorry about your luck.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #278 on: July 20, 2010, 02:02:50 PM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.
If you don't believe your own FAQ, then I suggest you take up the issue with FES. I have yet to see any evidence of your claim that Newton was 100% wrong. Since your claim came before mine, I'll let you go first in providing proof.
Newton's law of gravitation fails to predict the orbit of mercury. There is only one correct answer in science, so Newton was wrong.

You might not be aware of this, but I am barred from using the Flat Earth Believers for some reason.
Are you saying that Mercury orbits the Sun? Please tell us how Newton is wrong? What is the mass of the Sun? What is the mass of Mercury? What is distance (minimum, maximum, and mean) between the center of Mercury and the center of the Sun? Without those answers, how can you know that Newton was wrong about the orbit of Mercury. (And BTW, Newton's Law is probably still correct. History shortened his Law moving the mass of the Sun out from under the integral. Once you use his original form, his Law agrees with reality still.)

I have no control over your use of a section. You'll just have to make suggestions in whatever section FES will permit. Sorry about your luck.
I have already answered your question. Newtons's law is wrong because objects are not attracted to each-other.

Mercury travels along its own nexus ring. Read about it in FE wiki.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #279 on: July 20, 2010, 02:12:13 PM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.
If you don't believe your own FAQ, then I suggest you take up the issue with FES. I have yet to see any evidence of your claim that Newton was 100% wrong. Since your claim came before mine, I'll let you go first in providing proof.
Newton's law of gravitation fails to predict the orbit of mercury. There is only one correct answer in science, so Newton was wrong.

You might not be aware of this, but I am barred from using the Flat Earth Believers for some reason.
Are you saying that Mercury orbits the Sun? Please tell us how Newton is wrong? What is the mass of the Sun? What is the mass of Mercury? What is distance (minimum, maximum, and mean) between the center of Mercury and the center of the Sun? Without those answers, how can you know that Newton was wrong about the orbit of Mercury. (And BTW, Newton's Law is probably still correct. History shortened his Law moving the mass of the Sun out from under the integral. Once you use his original form, his Law agrees with reality still.)

I have no control over your use of a section. You'll just have to make suggestions in whatever section FES will permit. Sorry about your luck.
I have already answered your question. Newtons's law is wrong because objects are not attracted to each-other.

Mercury travels along its own nexus ring. Read about it in FE wiki.

The moon is in fact made of chocolate. Read about it in my diary.

That is about as usefull and true as a FE wiki. (biased much mebbe?)
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #280 on: July 20, 2010, 02:39:29 PM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.
If you don't believe your own FAQ, then I suggest you take up the issue with FES. I have yet to see any evidence of your claim that Newton was 100% wrong. Since your claim came before mine, I'll let you go first in providing proof.
Newton's law of gravitation fails to predict the orbit of mercury. There is only one correct answer in science, so Newton was wrong.

You might not be aware of this, but I am barred from using the Flat Earth Believers for some reason.
Are you saying that Mercury orbits the Sun? Please tell us how Newton is wrong? What is the mass of the Sun? What is the mass of Mercury? What is distance (minimum, maximum, and mean) between the center of Mercury and the center of the Sun? Without those answers, how can you know that Newton was wrong about the orbit of Mercury. (And BTW, Newton's Law is probably still correct. History shortened his Law moving the mass of the Sun out from under the integral. Once you use his original form, his Law agrees with reality still.)

I have no control over your use of a section. You'll just have to make suggestions in whatever section FES will permit. Sorry about your luck.
I have already answered your question. Newtons's law is wrong because objects are not attracted to each-other.

Mercury travels along its own nexus ring. Read about it in FE wiki.
So now we're right back where you were a few posts ago. You claim Newton is 100%. You provide one example that you can't explain. You claim objects are not attracted to each other. You provide no evidence of that. You claim the Mercury travels along its own nexus ring, only after claiming the Mercury orbits the Sun. You don't accept the FAQ when it disagrees with your claim, and then point us to FE Wiki. Over all, you've failed epically.

There are many cases of objects being attracted to each other: Raindrops coalesce. Magnets pick up iron filings. The moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter. Comets and asteroids are attracted to crash on Jupiter. Don't forget I need only one counter-example to invalidate your claim that "objects are not attracted to each-other[sic]."
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #281 on: July 20, 2010, 04:02:42 PM »

Provide proof of electrically neutral objects being attracted to each other.
Please read the FAQ.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
I didn't write the faq, and I have yet to see any proof of that claim.
If you don't believe your own FAQ, then I suggest you take up the issue with FES. I have yet to see any evidence of your claim that Newton was 100% wrong. Since your claim came before mine, I'll let you go first in providing proof.
Newton's law of gravitation fails to predict the orbit of mercury. There is only one correct answer in science, so Newton was wrong.

You might not be aware of this, but I am barred from using the Flat Earth Believers for some reason.
Are you saying that Mercury orbits the Sun? Please tell us how Newton is wrong? What is the mass of the Sun? What is the mass of Mercury? What is distance (minimum, maximum, and mean) between the center of Mercury and the center of the Sun? Without those answers, how can you know that Newton was wrong about the orbit of Mercury. (And BTW, Newton's Law is probably still correct. History shortened his Law moving the mass of the Sun out from under the integral. Once you use his original form, his Law agrees with reality still.)

I have no control over your use of a section. You'll just have to make suggestions in whatever section FES will permit. Sorry about your luck.
I have already answered your question. Newtons's law is wrong because objects are not attracted to each-other.

Mercury travels along its own nexus ring. Read about it in FE wiki.
So now we're right back where you were a few posts ago. You claim Newton is 100%. You provide one example that you can't explain. You claim objects are not attracted to each other. You provide no evidence of that. You claim the Mercury travels along its own nexus ring, only after claiming the Mercury orbits the Sun. You don't accept the FAQ when it disagrees with your claim, and then point us to FE Wiki. Over all, you've failed epically.

There are many cases of objects being attracted to each other: Raindrops coalesce. Magnets pick up iron filings. The moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter. Comets and asteroids are attracted to crash on Jupiter. Don't forget I need only one counter-example to invalidate your claim that "objects are not attracted to each-other[sic]."
I don't have to provide proof that something DOESN'T happen. The burden of proof is on you to prove gravity exists. Iron fillings being picked up by a magnet is not due to gravity, and you know this too. All of your examples have nothing to do with gravity.

or?bit 
?noun
1.
the curved path, usually elliptical, described by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.

It just so happens that nexus rings usually are observed around planets.


*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #282 on: July 20, 2010, 04:06:17 PM »
Arguing with "the burden of proof" is fail.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #283 on: July 20, 2010, 04:11:10 PM »
Arguing with "the burden of proof" is fail.
Telling people to prove something doesn't exist is fail.

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #284 on: July 20, 2010, 04:18:29 PM »
I don't have to provide proof that something DOESN'T happen. The burden of proof is on you to prove gravity exists. Iron fillings being picked up by a magnet is not due to gravity, and you know this too. All of your examples have nothing to do with gravity.

or?bit?
?noun
1.
the curved path, usually elliptical, described by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.

It just so happens that nexus rings usually are observed around planets.


You must support your claims. If you claim something doesn't happen than you get to face the challenge.

Do tell us where anyone has observed these alleged nexus rings around planets, preferably in a peer-reviewed astronomy journal, please.

I love your definition BTW, especially the spaceship in orbit. When did you see a spaceship in orbit? A second citation by parsec in one thread that disproves FET is really appreciated!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #285 on: July 20, 2010, 04:45:18 PM »
Arguing with "the burden of proof" is fail.
Telling people to prove something doesn't exist is fail.
Still doesn't change my statement.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #286 on: July 20, 2010, 05:16:11 PM »
I don't have to provide proof that something DOESN'T happen. The burden of proof is on you to prove gravity exists. Iron fillings being picked up by a magnet is not due to gravity, and you know this too. All of your examples have nothing to do with gravity.

or?bit?
?noun
1.
the curved path, usually elliptical, described by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.

It just so happens that nexus rings usually are observed around planets.


You must support your claims. If you claim something doesn't happen than you get to face the challenge.

Do tell us where anyone has observed these alleged nexus rings around planets, preferably in a peer-reviewed astronomy journal, please.

I love your definition BTW, especially the spaceship in orbit. When did you see a spaceship in orbit? A second citation by parsec in one thread that disproves FET is really appreciated!
You are telling me gravity exists. You need to prove it. Don't they teach children anything in elementary school anymore?

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #287 on: July 20, 2010, 05:22:28 PM »
I don't have to provide proof that something DOESN'T happen. The burden of proof is on you to prove gravity exists. Iron fillings being picked up by a magnet is not due to gravity, and you know this too. All of your examples have nothing to do with gravity.

or?bit?
?noun
1.
the curved path, usually elliptical, described by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.

It just so happens that nexus rings usually are observed around planets.


You must support your claims. If you claim something doesn't happen than you get to face the challenge.

Do tell us where anyone has observed these alleged nexus rings around planets, preferably in a peer-reviewed astronomy journal, please.

I love your definition BTW, especially the spaceship in orbit. When did you see a spaceship in orbit? A second citation by parsec in one thread that disproves FET is really appreciated!
You are telling me gravity exists. You need to prove it. Don't they teach children anything in elementary school anymore?
Where did I tell you that gravity exists? Why would I need to prove something I didn't claim? Why don't you post another reference that disproves FET? You're really quite good at it.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us about these nexus rings that you claim exist. You need to prove it. No, they don't teach children in elementary school that there are nexus rings. They do teach that the Earth orbits the Sun though. Maybe you missed that lesson.

What is great about nexus rings is that they aren't even stable. moving about, springing up here and there, guiding comet fragments into Jupiter, and so many astonishing feats. And parsec claims they exist!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #288 on: July 20, 2010, 06:26:29 PM »
I don't have to provide proof that something DOESN'T happen. The burden of proof is on you to prove gravity exists. Iron fillings being picked up by a magnet is not due to gravity, and you know this too. All of your examples have nothing to do with gravity.

or?bit?
?noun
1.
the curved path, usually elliptical, described by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.

It just so happens that nexus rings usually are observed around planets.


You must support your claims. If you claim something doesn't happen than you get to face the challenge.

Do tell us where anyone has observed these alleged nexus rings around planets, preferably in a peer-reviewed astronomy journal, please.

I love your definition BTW, especially the spaceship in orbit. When did you see a spaceship in orbit? A second citation by parsec in one thread that disproves FET is really appreciated!
You are telling me gravity exists. You need to prove it. Don't they teach children anything in elementary school anymore?
Where did I tell you that gravity exists? Why would I need to prove something I didn't claim? Why don't you post another reference that disproves FET? You're really quite good at it.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us about these nexus rings that you claim exist. You need to prove it. No, they don't teach children in elementary school that there are nexus rings. They do teach that the Earth orbits the Sun though. Maybe you missed that lesson.

What is great about nexus rings is that they aren't even stable. moving about, springing up here and there, guiding comet fragments into Jupiter, and so many astonishing feats. And parsec claims they exist!
What reference have I posted that disproves FET? I said newton's law doesn't predict the orbit of mercury. Even if it did predict the orbit of mercury it might be false, but because it doesn't even predict the orbit of mercury it is certainly false.

No scientist has ever posted credible evidence electrically neutral objects are magically attracted to each other.

Where did you read that nexus rings are unstable ???  ???

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #289 on: July 20, 2010, 06:56:02 PM »
What reference have I posted that disproves FET? I said newton's law doesn't predict the orbit of mercury. Even if it did predict the orbit of mercury it might be false, but because it doesn't even predict the orbit of mercury it is certainly false.

No scientist has ever posted credible evidence electrically neutral objects are magically attracted to each other.

Where did you read that nexus rings are unstable ???  ???
The definition of orbit and the RADAR citation are two of your great posting. Thanks again.

You have to face the claims you make. You said the Mercury orbited. You said that it didn't even match Newton's ULoG and yet you claim that no scientist ever posted credible evidence that electrically neutral objects are attached to each other. You seem to cite plenty of evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth.

I didn't read that nexus rings are unstable.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #290 on: July 20, 2010, 11:33:41 PM »
What reference have I posted that disproves FET? I said newton's law doesn't predict the orbit of mercury. Even if it did predict the orbit of mercury it might be false, but because it doesn't even predict the orbit of mercury it is certainly false.

No scientist has ever posted credible evidence electrically neutral objects are magically attracted to each other.

Where did you read that nexus rings are unstable ???  ???
The definition of orbit and the RADAR citation are two of your great posting. Thanks again.

You have to face the claims you make. You said the Mercury orbited. You said that it didn't even match Newton's ULoG and yet you claim that no scientist ever posted credible evidence that electrically neutral objects are attached to each other. You seem to cite plenty of evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth.

I didn't read that nexus rings are unstable.
What made you claim "What is great about nexus rings is that they aren't even stable" then?

When have I ever claimed the moon orbits the earth  ???

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #291 on: July 20, 2010, 11:51:06 PM »
Johannes, you're incredible. So Newton's laws are wrong because they didn't predict the exact movement of Mercury around the sun... But, then Mercury orbits the sun? How is this? I thought that the Sun were 3000 miles over Earth... To disprove Newton's theory you are using data provided by telescopes, astronomers and other scientists that believe the sun is larger than Earth and that that Earth is a globe! All your information comes from the sources of REs, is based in our observations and theories. You have no observations, no proofs of anything! Your map, for example... where have you take the data to make it? From the data of OUR SATELLITES, that things that, according to you, don't exist!! Do you want to prove gravity? Go to an observatory, look for yourselt at Jupiter, or Saturn... See their satellites orbiting them. What makes then orbit? If you do not do so, if you never look at the sky with anything more than your eyes, it's your problem. You tell us to prove gravity... well, I have evidence. What evidence do you have on the existence of UA? Tell me, answer me with more than "it isn't", "that's illogic" or things like that. For once, only for once, prove something!

If your theories are so good, predict me something with them. Tell me: when will happen the next solar eclipse in Spain? And please, show me your method, don't search the internet about the information that provides General Relativity or Newton's laws. If your theories don't explain anything, don't predict anything, and ours do, then our theories are better and more correct (not perfect).

Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #292 on: July 21, 2010, 12:05:22 AM »
What reference have I posted that disproves FET? I said newton's law doesn't predict the orbit of mercury. Even if it did predict the orbit of mercury it might be false, but because it doesn't even predict the orbit of mercury it is certainly false.

No scientist has ever posted credible evidence electrically neutral objects are magically attracted to each other.

Where did you read that nexus rings are unstable ???  ???
The definition of orbit and the RADAR citation are two of your great posting. Thanks again.

You have to face the claims you make. You said the Mercury orbited. You said that it didn't even match Newton's ULoG and yet you claim that no scientist ever posted credible evidence that electrically neutral objects are attached to each other. You seem to cite plenty of evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth.

I didn't read that nexus rings are unstable.
What made you claim "What is great about nexus rings is that they aren't even stable" then?

When have I ever claimed the moon orbits the earth  ???
Simple logic given my observations of the planets and their moons provide the basis for my claim that the nexus rings cannot be stable. They must move independent of the Sun, Moon and planets and recast themselves with each retrograde motion of the outer planets.

I never said that you made such a claim, did I? You have presented an excellent, peer-reviewed journal article that provides very convincing evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth and at the distance that RET says it does. Oh, and again, we thank you for the excellent effort.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #293 on: July 21, 2010, 12:11:59 AM »
What reference have I posted that disproves FET? I said newton's law doesn't predict the orbit of mercury. Even if it did predict the orbit of mercury it might be false, but because it doesn't even predict the orbit of mercury it is certainly false.

No scientist has ever posted credible evidence electrically neutral objects are magically attracted to each other.

Where did you read that nexus rings are unstable ???  ???
The definition of orbit and the RADAR citation are two of your great posting. Thanks again.

You have to face the claims you make. You said the Mercury orbited. You said that it didn't even match Newton's ULoG and yet you claim that no scientist ever posted credible evidence that electrically neutral objects are attached to each other. You seem to cite plenty of evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth.

I didn't read that nexus rings are unstable.
What made you claim "What is great about nexus rings is that they aren't even stable" then?

When have I ever claimed the moon orbits the earth  ???
Simple logic given my observations of the planets and their moons provide the basis for my claim that the nexus rings cannot be stable. They must move independent of the Sun, Moon and planets and recast themselves with each retrograde motion of the outer planets.

I never said that you made such a claim, did I? You have presented an excellent, peer-reviewed journal article that provides very convincing evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth and at the distance that RET says it does. Oh, and again, we thank you for the excellent effort.
Are you high?

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #294 on: July 21, 2010, 12:17:51 AM »
What reference have I posted that disproves FET? I said newton's law doesn't predict the orbit of mercury. Even if it did predict the orbit of mercury it might be false, but because it doesn't even predict the orbit of mercury it is certainly false.

No scientist has ever posted credible evidence electrically neutral objects are magically attracted to each other.

Where did you read that nexus rings are unstable ???  ???
The definition of orbit and the RADAR citation are two of your great posting. Thanks again.

You have to face the claims you make. You said the Mercury orbited. You said that it didn't even match Newton's ULoG and yet you claim that no scientist ever posted credible evidence that electrically neutral objects are attached to each other. You seem to cite plenty of evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth.

I didn't read that nexus rings are unstable.
What made you claim "What is great about nexus rings is that they aren't even stable" then?

When have I ever claimed the moon orbits the earth  ???
Simple logic given my observations of the planets and their moons provide the basis for my claim that the nexus rings cannot be stable. They must move independent of the Sun, Moon and planets and recast themselves with each retrograde motion of the outer planets.

I never said that you made such a claim, did I? You have presented an excellent, peer-reviewed journal article that provides very convincing evidence that the Moon orbits the Earth and at the distance that RET says it does. Oh, and again, we thank you for the excellent effort.
Are you high?

Thanks for the low-content and unnecessary post, please be frank about your opinion and respond in an acceptable manner.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.
« Reply #295 on: November 03, 2010, 08:09:30 PM »
newton was not right, and einstein was only right about large objects.  newton was close however.  there are different mechanics in quantum worlds for gravity i believe

note, i am a RE believer, but im stating facts
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy