Clouds and UA

  • 39 Replies
  • 7476 Views
?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Clouds and UA
« on: April 10, 2012, 06:47:59 PM »
So with UA, how exactly do clouds stay up for observable periods?
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2012, 07:31:17 PM »
If everything in the universe accelerated equally, truly nothing would be accelerating at all. We would all float away endlessly. Thus, we are given to the fact that everything on the earth is not universally accelerated. Only the lower earth and the celestial bodies receive the force directly. All other bodies on earth are then given the acceleration by, for example, the ground, or air. This leads us to some strange phenomenon, such as atmolayer thinning and clouds. Both of these events are actually due to Celestial Gravitation.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2012, 09:46:00 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2012, 09:54:07 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.
Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".



You used to at least make some sense.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.
Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2012, 10:00:20 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.
Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.
That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2012, 10:37:00 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.
Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.
That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.
I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2012, 10:40:36 PM »
Google turns up nothing because they're gibberish.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2012, 10:47:14 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.
Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.
That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.
I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.
When Google can't find a term that you've used, I don't give up at all. Instead I turn to you to define it.

When you don't define a term rarely seen in all of the Internet, you're just talking gibberish.

Oh, and you still have my challenge to show how you know that visiting any two places will result in one uniform field mean. Have you visited every place? I think not.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2012, 11:05:03 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.
Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.
That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.
I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.
When Google can't find a term that you've used, I don't give up at all. Instead I turn to you to define it.

When you don't define a term rarely seen in all of the Internet, you're just talking gibberish.

Oh, and you still have my challenge to show how you know that visiting any two places will result in one uniform field mean. Have you visited every place? I think not.

I never claimed that I have, nor did I claim that the uniform field mean requires such an event. The uniform field mean only requires two places to be visited.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PM »
Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2012, 11:09:58 PM »
Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.

Have you performed such a task yourself?

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2012, 11:17:30 PM »
Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.

Have you performed such a task yourself?

Not at the equator, but I have measured gravity in two different places in the northern hemisphere using a pendulum.

Oh, and have you tried it to see if the mean is always the same?
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2012, 11:25:31 PM »
Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.

Have you performed such a task yourself?

Not at the equator, but I have measured gravity in two different places in the northern hemisphere using a pendulum.

Oh, and have you tried it to see if the mean is always the same?

Always? No. I have measured it in plenty of places though.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2012, 11:26:22 PM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.
Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.
Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.
That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.
I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.
When Google can't find a term that you've used, I don't give up at all. Instead I turn to you to define it.

When you don't define a term rarely seen in all of the Internet, you're just talking gibberish.

Oh, and you still have my challenge to show how you know that visiting any two places will result in one uniform field mean. Have you visited every place? I think not.

I never claimed that I have, nor did I claim that the uniform field mean requires such an event. The uniform field mean only requires two places to be visited.
Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2012, 11:30:28 PM »
Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)

Nope. I said "you will find..." well, did you find? Did you even try? I assume you did not. I certainly didn't claim that I knew anything.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2012, 11:33:16 PM »
Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)

Nope. I said "you will find..." well, did you find? Did you even try? I assume you did not. I certainly didn't claim that I knew anything.
Just to assist you with English and Science... When you make a claim that something will happen, you're making a claim that you know something.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2012, 11:35:04 PM »
What counts as a different place?

If I go ten feet from here, the gravity is going to measure the same, and the average will just be the gravity measurement I already took for the first spot.

For the average to always be the same no matter what two places you go, the gravity field must be uniform.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2012, 11:40:18 PM »
Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)

Nope. I said "you will find..." well, did you find? Did you even try? I assume you did not. I certainly didn't claim that I knew anything.
Just to assist you with English and Science... When you make a claim that something will happen, you're making a claim that you know something.

Whether I know something will happen is not dependent on whether it will happen or not. I'm not sure where you have derived such crazed logic.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2012, 11:47:23 PM »
Lol, so this thing you know will happen might not happen.  Okay.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2012, 12:26:48 AM »
Lol, so this thing you know will happen might not happen.  Okay.
Yep, Rushy has real trouble with that post, doesn't he?

He claims that he can know something to be true even if it isn't. I guess we have a new candidate for the FES motto.

Whether I know something will happen is not dependent on whether it will happen or not.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2012, 05:21:04 AM »
they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA
Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.
You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.
You might make better headway in convincing people if you were not such a smarmy prat.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2012, 07:38:19 PM »
I have a thread that I think does a pretty good job at disproving UA here.

Here are the experiments that are used to disprove UA.

1. The Cavendish Experiment

- A counter argument of The Cavendish Experiment here

2. Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity

3. On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation

4. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos Page 41

5.
GOING DEEP: A SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR DETECTING 
DEEPLY BURIED FACILITIES FROM SPACE
Chapter 4

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2012, 07:46:07 PM »
I have a thread that I think does a pretty good job at disproving UA here.

Here are the experiments that are used to disprove UA.

1. The Cavendish Experiment

- A counter argument of The Cavendish Experiment here

2. Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity

3. On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation

4. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos Page 41

5.
GOING DEEP: A SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR DETECTING 
DEEPLY BURIED FACILITIES FROM SPACE
Chapter 4

I think you don't understand how a proof might work. Providing evidence for one theory does not disprove the other.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Clouds and UA
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2012, 07:46:19 PM »
scavs fails to realise that most people believe in good science and DO take the word of others. the experiments have been done and the papers have been published. there is no need to do it again.
if we didnt move forward like that then we would all be inventing the wheel every week