Flying off the disc

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:19:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:10:51 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:03:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:43:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

Have you actually done that experiment? The night sky looks dark except for the star we can see. If there is nothing to get in lights way it will get to it's destination.

The destination is your eye seeing the light at it's first point, which is it's first direct emittance, there is no travel, like you think.

The speed of ligh has been measured by experimentation. Ideas do not trump experiments. And WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THE LINKS. I've already explained them at the top of this page.

What an absolute load of tosh.
The speed of light has never...and never will be measured, because it does NOT exist. It's a fallacy. It's just made up mumbo jumbo.

It's been measured, you denying it doesn't change anything. Opinions do not trump experiments.

So light doesn't travel?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today.

Too bad none of them are actually true.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:02:04 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 09:58:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 08:12:03 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 13, 2013, 07:33:25 PM

Uh Sceptimatic, know I explained the links are you going to answer them or did you miss them?
Also, you said that it is impossible for there to be dust in space, why is this.

Is dust heavier than helium?
The answer is no, correct?

Would you still like me to explain why there isn't any dust in space?

Dust is denser then helium. Please explain. And ANSWER THE LINKS ALREADY.

If dust in denser than helium, then the dust will be on the ground as it is. We see dust whipped up by winds, but it soon falls. It's because it denser than the molecules ABOVE it. So do you still need me to tell you why there is no dust in space?

You can have swirling mountain dust and all that stuff, but it isn't in space. So where did you see this dust at?

Why does being denser then helium stop it from being in space how does helium stop the dust from being in space. For the dust to get to the ground it has to be accreted first, to do that it had to pass near the earth. Most of the dust is not near the Earth.

Here's what you would be wise doing.

Stop thinking of a rotating ball in a vacuum, with dust in it and think why helium and hydrogen and stuff like that breaks free from the matter it's in and rises to the top of the earth.

Then ask yourself, WHY it would do this. Then ask yourself, why would anything rest on helium, like dust and what not. Then ponder, why it makes sense that there is no dust and rocky planets in a vacuum of what you think is space.
Then have a think about your vacuum and have a think as to why little specks of dust simply cannot just float about in free space as if it was people on bikes just gliding everywhere, when there is no up, nor down or any other way...because the reason for it, should be very simple and that is....space DOES NOT EXIST.
It's a figment of your imagination but put there by the people who want you to believe in this absolute nonsense.
You are either scared to look at an alternative or you are too far gone to even contemplate even giving it a 1 second thought, because you simply cannot comprehend anything other than this magical universe that does not exist and cannot exist.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:22:02 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:19:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:10:51 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:03:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:43:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

Have you actually done that experiment? The night sky looks dark except for the star we can see. If there is nothing to get in lights way it will get to it's destination.

The destination is your eye seeing the light at it's first point, which is it's first direct emittance, there is no travel, like you think.

The speed of ligh has been measured by experimentation. Ideas do not trump experiments. And WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THE LINKS. I've already explained them at the top of this page.

What an absolute load of tosh.
The speed of light has never...and never will be measured, because it does NOT exist. It's a fallacy. It's just made up mumbo jumbo.

It's been measured, you denying it doesn't change anything. Opinions do not trump experiments.

If you want to believe its been measured, then knock yourself out. I know it hasn't, so it's pointless mentioning experiments that you will never, ever get to see.

So light doesn't travel?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today.

Too bad none of them are actually true.

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.
Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.

For starters............how do you know they ARE true? Experiments.............I don't think so.

And to answer your question.........I know they aren't true because I am considering the unreliable, completely idiotic source.

Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

Yeah......on one hand I have some super intelligent scientist who have tested these things and verified them. And not just one scientist......a plethora of scientist. Tested over and over again and verified over and over again.

On the other hand I have...............you. Someone that has admittedly done no experiments and has contributed nothing more than words on a message board to the field of science.

Who am I gonna believe? This is a tough one.

Quote from: Umurweird on November 15, 2013, 10:32:46 AM

So light doesn't travel?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today.

Too bad none of them are actually true.

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.
Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

The speed of light has been measured MANY times before. It's been measured for hundreds of years with ever increasing accuracy.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

I will not deduce that because your deductions are garbage. An object 1 meter tall and ten meter away will appear the same size an object 2 meters tall and 20 meters away.  As an aside, the phrase "common sense" being completely subjective, means absolutely nothing to me in the realm of observation, empiricism and logic.

Quote

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.

For starters............how do you know they ARE true? Experiments.............I don't think so.

And to answer your question.........I know they aren't true because I am considering the unreliable, completely idiotic source.

Quote

Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

Yeah......on one hand I have some super intelligent scientist who have tested these things and verified them. And not just one scientist......a plethora of scientist. Tested over and over again and verified over and over again.

On the other hand I have...............you. Someone that has admittedly done no experiments and has contributed nothing more than words on a message board to the field of science.

Who am I gonna believe? This is a tough one.

I'm not interested what or who you believe. It does not bother me. All I do, is type what I think and type what I believe. If you want to dismiss it as lunacy, go right ahead.
To be honest, you shouldn't even be corresponding with me, because surely, you know and trust the people who SAID they have done experiments, so that's good enough for you.
I'm obviously a fruit and nut case, so why would you even bother debating with me?

Let me guess: it's for fun, because you are bored, or you enjoy seeing a nut job type ridiculous things...or something like that.
Yeah, yeah, I've seen it all before.

The thing is. I can't prove anything I say with experiments that can conclusively say, "there you go, it's nailed on."
The trouble is though: YOU! cannot prove to me that I'm wrong by anything other than SAYING, "you are wrong, because BRILLIANT scientists have experimented on these things."

All you are doing, is copying what you are given, then spouting it off to me as legitimate, whilst telling me that I have no proof and yet you have a library of books to hide behind and I have none and yet, even with your stacked dice, you still can't throw a winning shot.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on November 15, 2013, 10:32:46 AM

So light doesn't travel?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today.

Too bad none of them are actually true.

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.
Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

The speed of light has been measured MANY times before. It's been measured for hundreds of years with ever increasing accuracy.

No, it hasn't been measured at all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:43:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

I will not deduce that because your deductions are garbage. An object 1 meter tall and ten meter away will appear the same size an object 2 meters tall and 20 meters away.  As an aside, the phrase "common sense" being completely subjective, means absolutely nothing to me in the realm of observation, empiricism and logic.

I'm in two minds here.
On the one hand, I'm hoping that you reach your life time not knowing the real truth, but on the other hand, I'm hoping you do, yet I hope it doesn't destroy your mind and thinking how much of your life you spent believing in basically, fairy tales, told to you, through channels, by some really clever thinkers and story tellers.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:51:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on November 15, 2013, 10:32:46 AM

So light doesn't travel?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today.

Too bad none of them are actually true.

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.
Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

The speed of light has been measured MANY times before. It's been measured for hundreds of years with ever increasing accuracy.

No, it hasn't been measured at all.

So you are calling untold numbers of scientists liars, back up your assumptions.

I will take your silence on the issue of my links ( explanation at the top of page 6) as a concession. I guess your ideas cannot answer these issues at all. I win you lose

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 11:05:45 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:51:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on November 15, 2013, 10:32:46 AM

So light doesn't travel?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today.

Too bad none of them are actually true.

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.
Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

The speed of light has been measured MANY times before. It's been measured for hundreds of years with ever increasing accuracy.

No, it hasn't been measured at all.

So you are calling untold numbers of scientists liars, back up your assumptions.

I'm not calling UNTOLD numbers of scientists liars, at all.
Most so called scientists simply live off what they have absorbed into their brains, just like you have.
Go and ask any scientist that's studied all this stuff and ask them 2 questions.

1. Ask them to explain the speed of light and what not.

2. Ask them to physically demonstrate an absolute physical proof to you that they can show without doubt the reality of what they have in their heads.

You will gain the answer to number 1, by most of not all who deal in this nonsense story, but your number 2 question will leave you with a head full of fluff. No further forward and devoid of any physical proof other than some clown bouncing a laser or something off of an object and saying, "there you go , look." Which will leave you ...well I was going to say, leave you scratching your head, but in truth, you would probably just say, "gee mister, that's swell."

I will take your silence on the issue of my links ( explanation at the top of page 6) as a concession. I guess your ideas cannot answer these issues at all. I win you lose

How about A nice game of chess.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:11:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 11:05:45 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:51:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on November 15, 2013, 10:32:46 AM

So light doesn't travel?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today.

Too bad none of them are actually true.

How do you know they aren't true? Experiments?...I don't think so.
Telling me about experiments for this stuff is meaningless. It's pointless, because I can guarantee you, right now, that you have not seen any experiment that shows you the speed of light, except what you have been TOLD.

The speed of light has been measured MANY times before. It's been measured for hundreds of years with ever increasing accuracy.

No, it hasn't been measured at all.

So you are calling untold numbers of scientists liars, back up your assumptions.

I'm not calling UNTOLD numbers of scientists liars, at all.
Most so called scientists simply live off what they have absorbed into their brains, just like you have.
Go and ask any scientist that's studied all this stuff and ask them 2 questions.

1. Ask them to explain the speed of light and what not.

2. Ask them to physically demonstrate an absolute physical proof to you that they can show without doubt the reality of what they have in their heads.

You will gain the answer to number 1, by most of not all who deal in this nonsense story, but your number 2 question will leave you with a head full of fluff. No further forward and devoid of any physical proof other than some clown bouncing a laser or something off of an object and saying, "there you go , look." Which will leave you ...well I was going to say, leave you scratching your head, but in truth, you would probably just say, "gee mister, that's swell."

You have called an UNTOLD numbers of scientists liars by claiming the speed of light has not been measured. Time delays due to the speed of light being finite have been measured many times. What evidence due you have that light doesn't travel.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:16:34 AM

I will take your silence on the issue of my links ( explanation at the top of page 6) as a concession. I guess your ideas cannot answer these issues at all. I win you lose

How about A nice game of chess.

And you can't answer them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 11:20:54 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:16:34 AM

I will take your silence on the issue of my links ( explanation at the top of page 6) as a concession. I guess your ideas cannot answer these issues at all. I win you lose

How about A nice game of chess.

And you can't answer them.

What's the questions?
Use your own type, do not post links.

All I do, is type what I think and type what I believe.

The problem is you provide no substantial backing for the things you promote. Except to say there is an ice dome because there must be. Why must there be?

If your thoughts followed at least the smallest bit of logical thought then maybe there would be something to cling on to. But they don't so there isn't.

To be honest, you shouldn't even be corresponding with me, because surely, you know and trust the people who SAID they have done experiments, so that's good enough for you.

The reason I turned my back on religion at a young age is because religion tells you to believe in things only using faith. You don't have to see or hear god or see proof of anything.........just believe.

Kinda like your ice dome idea and the other things you say. No experiment or proof needed. Just believe.

Science is the exact OPPOSITE of that. Things have to be tested in order to be believed. No scientist has ever said "This is what I believe is true, now you all must believe it". No. They promote ideas and then test them. And then test them again. And later on other scientist come around and test the same thing. They show their work and produce their findings for the whole world to look at and verify.

So your whole "you know what you've been told", "what you memorized from books" and "sheep" spiels ring hollow.

The fact of that matter is you know very little aside from what you makeup and you think that makes you some sort of free thinker. When all you are is someone of limited mental capacity.

The trouble is though: YOU! cannot prove to me that I'm wrong by anything other than SAYING, "you are wrong, because BRILLIANT scientists have experimented on these things."

You've been proven wrong repeatedly on these boards. The fact you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't change that.

Reality proves you wrong.

Quote

All I do, is type what I think and type what I believe.

The problem is you provide no substantial backing for the things you promote. Except to say there is an ice dome because there must be. Why must there be?

If your thoughts followed at least the smallest bit of logical thought then maybe there would be something to cling on to. But they don't so there isn't.

Quote

To be honest, you shouldn't even be corresponding with me, because surely, you know and trust the people who SAID they have done experiments, so that's good enough for you.

The reason I turned my back on religion at a young age is because religion tells you to believe in things only using faith. You don't have to see or hear god or see proof of anything.........just believe.

Kinda like your ice dome idea and the other things you say. No experiment or proof needed. Just believe.

Science is the exact OPPOSITE of that. Things have to be tested in order to be believed. No scientist has ever said "This is what I believe is true, now you all must believe it". No. They promote ideas and then test them. And then test them again. And later on other scientist come around and test the same thing. They show their work and produce their findings for the whole world to look at and verify.

So your whole "you know what you've been told", "what you memorized from books" and "sheep" spiels ring hollow.

The fact of that matter is you know very little aside from what you makeup and you think that makes you some sort of free thinker. When all you are is someone of limited mental capacity.

Quote

The trouble is though: YOU! cannot prove to me that I'm wrong by anything other than SAYING, "you are wrong, because BRILLIANT scientists have experimented on these things."

You've been proven wrong repeatedly on these boards. The fact you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't change that.

Reality proves you wrong.

Would you like to add anything to that?

All I seen was you saying that all the stuff has been tested.
Tested where?
What's been physically tested?

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:34:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 11:20:54 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:16:34 AM

I will take your silence on the issue of my links ( explanation at the top of page 6) as a concession. I guess your ideas cannot answer these issues at all. I win you lose

How about A nice game of chess.

And you can't answer them.

What's the questions?
Use your own type, do not post links.

Top of page 6. I keep getting error messages when I try to quote.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 11:36:13 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:34:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 11:20:54 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:16:34 AM

I will take your silence on the issue of my links ( explanation at the top of page 6) as a concession. I guess your ideas cannot answer these issues at all. I win you lose

How about A nice game of chess.

And you can't answer them.

What's the questions?
Use your own type, do not post links.

Top of page 6. I keep getting error messages when I try to quote.

Just type out the basic questions what you want me to answer. Make them clear as to what you want.

How do your ideas explain the Estov effect and the curvature experiments here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.msg1516831.html#msg1516831

All I seen was you saying that all the stuff has been tested.
Tested where?
What's been physically tested?

Look it up. Use google or Bing.

This whole" put it in childlike terms for me" and pretending to be ignorant is getting old.

Quote

All I seen was you saying that all the stuff has been tested.
Tested where?
What's been physically tested?

Look it up. Use google or Bing.

This whole" put it in childlike terms for me" and pretending to be ignorant is getting old.

You mean, I'm to look up stuff that I'm dead set against, to get the answers that I know I'll get,anyway?
are you kidding me?

Show me stuff that been PHYSICALLY tested. Come on, I'm sure there must be bucket loads of it. Just pick out 5 things that are definitive proof beyond doubt.
If you can't, it's ok.

How do your ideas explain the Estov effect and the curvature experiments here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.msg1516831.html#msg1516831

I'm not sure what you want here.

Go to that thread and type out exactly what you want me to answer for you. Don't keep saying it's in that thread.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:52:22 AM

How do your ideas explain the Estov effect and the curvature experiments here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.msg1516831.html#msg1516831

I'm not sure what you want here.

Go to that thread and type out exactly what you want me to answer for you. Don't keep saying it's in that thread.

I already explained everyhing at the top of page 6 of this thread. How do tor ideas explain the Estov effect.

You mean, I'm to look up stuff that I'm dead set against, to get the answers that I know I'll get,anyway?
are you kidding me?

You keep asking people to explain things that are readily available for anyone to research on their own.

How can you be dead set against something when you have no knowledge of it in the first place?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Show me stuff that been PHYSICALLY tested.

Why? You'd just deny it's true.

Come on, I'm sure there must be bucket loads of it.

Indeed there is. And even the most simple simpleton can find it.

Just pick out 5 things that are definitive proof beyond doubt.

Again, no. You will simply reject as you have already admitted to being dead set against these things..........despite the fact you haven't researched them. You have made up your mind before the fact and no one can argue against that kind of blatant stupidity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:08:40 PM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 11:52:22 AM

How do your ideas explain the Estov effect and the curvature experiments here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.msg1516831.html#msg1516831

I'm not sure what you want here.

Go to that thread and type out exactly what you want me to answer for you. Don't keep saying it's in that thread.

I already explained everyhing at the top of page 6 of this thread. How do tor ideas explain the Estov effect.

Who's tor?
I haven't seen anyone called tor. If tor is in a thread, point me to it, because I can't recall any of his/her ideas.

Quote

You mean, I'm to look up stuff that I'm dead set against, to get the answers that I know I'll get,anyway?
are you kidding me?

You keep asking people to explain things that are readily available for anyone to research on their own.

How can you be dead set against something when you have no knowledge of it in the first place?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Quote

Show me stuff that been PHYSICALLY tested.

Why? You'd just deny it's true.

Quote

Come on, I'm sure there must be bucket loads of it.

Indeed there is. And even the most simple simpleton can find it.

Quote

Just pick out 5 things that are definitive proof beyond doubt.

Again, no. You will simply reject as you have already admitted to being dead set against these things..........despite the fact you haven't researched them. You have made up your mind before the fact and no one can argue against that kind of blatant stupidity.

Exactly the answers I thought I would get.
That should stop you harping on about you having proof and me not having any, shouldn't it, because I can threaten to provide proof and then say, "no, you'll only deny it."

It's an easy way out.
The top and bottom of it, is...you don't have any proof and cannot provide physical proof.
You can, however, provide a whole host of shoehorned bull crap and bring that to the table, backed up by these brilliant scientists who say this, that and the other.