We have talked about this. I've shown you the evidence already. Mercurys periphelion orbit, gravitational lensing, the measurement of atomic clocks in space vs. Earth and many more predictive instances.
By relative sequence events I mean exactly what it sounds like. Events taking place in a particular order and how they are relative. The rate at which events take place is as affected by mass as space is.
So basically you have no clue what gravity is, just that you are told a load of flannel that actually makes no sense and proves absolutely nothing with not a scrap of evidence.
Incorrect. I've just shown you evidence. It is evidence that you can see yourself with a telescope. The fact that you aren't interested in at least attempting to understand any of this and see for yourself is very telling. You aren't interested in the truth. You're just a sensationalist with an appetite for grasping at any straw that contradicts the truth.
Actually I'm extremely interested in the truth. What I'm not interested in is the fantastical bull crap that's been spewed to us over our entire lives
My argument is not with you or anyone on here over that. Mine is to get to the truth by bypassing the fed bull crap.
You say there is evidence because you are told tehre is; nothing more than that. You can not see gravity with a telescope or see it's effects. You can see illuminations in the dark sky and you can assume that what they tell us is correct, that's all you can go on.
Why believe in something that cannot be explained as to what it actually is, by anyone?
If you took the time to understand the power of atmospheric pressure, I believe you would take a different stance. You're certainly far from illogical and appear to have the thinking power to do this.
Your major obstacle is your reliance on scientific explanations that in many cases you have known to be so wrong by scientific people themselves backtracking.
My theory explains EVERYTHING that happens on Earth. It can't explain what happens in space or your rotating Earth, so the question is, WHY?
There's a very good reason why. It's because the space you see is not what you are told. The problem is, it's a mass view against very few, so that wins the day for anyone not willing to actually look at the other avenues.
Even as an experiment for one year, I think it would benefit you and others to actually take a different view and expend a little of your time analysing it to see what really does make more logical sense.
It's far too easy to simply call those who think outside the box; nutters, I'm well aware of that.
I can tell you one thing for absolute certain. If I was adamant on a rotating Earth and all of the scientific bull crap that's been spewed to me and followed it unconditionally, I would not come anywhere near any forum to argue in its favour. I would simply go about my business knowing what I know and be in simple acceptance.
I certainly would not be coming to a forum to try and make people believe in a rotating globe, so my question is this: What makes a person want to argue against someone they believe is a stark raving lunatic with a theory if they believe that theory to be so pathetic that it deserves total ridicule?
It makes no sense for people to come on just about every day to argue against this stuff. i can understand a drive by person signing up just to pm you and call you a nutter or someone coming on to lull you into answering a question, then typing out something ridiculous to me then flitting away.
Anyone arguing with me or other people they think are lunatics can only be one of two things.
1. They see something in the thought process and are interested in actually piecing it together.
2. They are unstable and are actually as nutty as the people they believe are nuts.
Which one are you?
In fact, which one are all of you naive globulites?