circumpolar stars

  • 237 Replies
  • 25927 Views
*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #120 on: February 20, 2015, 11:06:10 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.

That's UA.


You have no direct evidence of gravity.
Read the FAQS.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #121 on: February 20, 2015, 11:07:10 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.

That's UA.


You have no direct evidence of gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

Not only of gravity, but of General Relativity and Special Relativity. All rolled up in one.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #122 on: February 20, 2015, 11:07:26 AM »

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #123 on: February 20, 2015, 11:09:28 AM »
That's UA.


Are you suggesting that it's gravity? If so:




Like I've stated many times before. You have no direct evidence for gravity. Until there's direct evidence for gravity is it just a weak flimsy theory (just like UA). UA is just as valid as gravity.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

Aw, you must be new here. That's cute.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #124 on: February 20, 2015, 11:11:32 AM »
Are you suggesting that it's gravity?
I'm not saying anything. You're the one insisting that, out of everything, it must be UA, not gravity. Please support your claims.

Quote
Like I've stated many times before. You have no direct evidence for gravity. Until there;s direct evidence for gravity is it just a weak flimsy theory.
You'll reject any evidence we give as UA, or celestial gravitation, or whatever else you want to come up with. That's no standard by which to talk.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #125 on: February 20, 2015, 11:11:49 AM »
I forgot, FErs dont accept direct measured evidence of gravity. Sorry.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #126 on: February 20, 2015, 11:12:25 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

You do feel it. When it isn't present you get the sensation of falling.


You made me look.


But really, 'gravity' is always present on Earth. You have no way of backing this statement up. Please don't respond to questions you don't have the answers to. You might as well have just posted a slew of racial slurs, that would have been about as relevant.

You believe that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, therefore any situation where you are not resisting acceleration is identical to being in a situation of no gravity. Thus, being in free fall in any situation tells you what it would feel like.
Made you look at this, too :P
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #127 on: February 20, 2015, 11:16:26 AM »
I'm not saying anything. You're the one insisting that, out of everything, it must be UA, not gravity. Please support your claims.

I don't have to support anything. Evidence for UA is compiled all over these forums. Maybe stop being lazy and do some damn research?

Regardless, it is the Round Earthers that made the claim that gravity does what UA is supposed to do. It's not my claim at all. Please support these claims with evidence. If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so. Stop dodging the question.

You'll reject any evidence we give as UA, or celestial gravitation, or whatever else you want to come up with. That's no standard by which to talk.

You'll reject any evidence of UA as gravity. I don't see how that is any different. Like I've claimed many times before on this site: you are a hypocrite. People never change. If you don't see the error of your ways then there's no hope for you.


I forgot, FErs dont accept direct measured evidence of gravity. Sorry.

Satellites, Lemmiwanks. It's satellites.
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #128 on: February 20, 2015, 11:35:05 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.

That's UA.


You have no direct evidence of gravity.

I see the Moon orbiting the Earth and I have no reason to believe that space travel is a lie.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #129 on: February 20, 2015, 11:38:38 AM »
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #130 on: February 20, 2015, 11:54:35 AM »
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

I don't have any evidence that can't be explained away by a persistent flat eartger who insists that there is a masive conspiracy.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #131 on: February 20, 2015, 12:01:38 PM »
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

I don't have any evidence that can't be explained away by a persistent flat eartger who insists that there is a masive conspiracy.


Direct evidence could not be explained by a conspiracy. The fact that you do not have direct evidence is the reason why it's easy to dismiss your claims. You do know what 'direct evidence' means, right?
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #132 on: February 20, 2015, 12:04:03 PM »
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

I don't have any evidence that can't be explained away by a persistent flat eartger who insists that there is a masive conspiracy.


Direct evidence could not be explained by a conspiracy. The fact that you do not have direct evidence is the reason why it's easy to dismiss your claims. You do know what 'direct evidence' means, right?

Oh wait, I just realized that tides are proof of gravity.  I have seen them first hand and they cannot be explained by UA because there is a measurable gravitational strength difference when the moon is over head.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #133 on: February 20, 2015, 12:17:58 PM »
Tides? Working with your theory of gravity here, the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull. The stars also have a slight pull. This causes tides.

Tides are not direct evidence of gravity though. These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

I am asking for direct evidence of gravity. If you do not have direct evidence for gravity, please say so.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #134 on: February 20, 2015, 12:20:39 PM »
Tides? Working with your theory of gravity here, the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull. The stars also have a slight pull. This causes tides.
How exactly is the moon synchronized with tides, with no care given to the Sun and stars?

Quote
I am asking for direct evidence of gravity. If you do not have direct evidence for gravity, please say so.
By your standards, direct evidence of anything does not exist. Purposefully deciding that you'll never accept something means you can reject any evidence.
If you disagree, please give me just one thing, no matter what it is, that you think you have direct evidence of, and please share what that evidence is.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #135 on: February 20, 2015, 12:23:32 PM »
Please, BiJane. Stop making assumptions.

There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.

Direct evidence is not a hard concept to understand.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #136 on: February 20, 2015, 12:27:20 PM »
There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.
Prove it. I say it's all simply a hallucination you're having. Audio and visual hallucinations are well-known, and tactile hallucinations exist. Anyone who you think corroborates your story is either also a hallucination, or finds it hilarious that you think you have a cat. The latter group of people are also responsible for any physical actions Digit does.
Prove me wrong. They're just two competing hypotheses.

All we can observe, of anything, is consequences. Consequences can have many possible causes: direct evidence, as you define it, does not exist. It's just a matter of sorting out the most likely explanation.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #137 on: February 20, 2015, 12:30:22 PM »
There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.
Prove it. I say it's all simply a hallucination you're having. Audio and visual hallucinations are well-known, and tactile hallucinations exist. Anyone who you think corroborates your story is either also a hallucination, or finds it hilarious that you think you have a cat. The latter group of people are also responsible for any physical actions Digit does.
Prove me wrong. They're just two competing hypotheses.

All we can observe, of anything, is consequences. Consequences can have many possible causes: direct evidence, as you define it, does not exist. It's just a matter of sorting out the most likely explanation.

You're making a strawman argument here. If you really want me to prove it to you then PM me. I will give you my address and you can come over to my home and pet him yourself. It is easily provable provided you put in the effort. Gravity is not so easy to prove.

Please try to stay on topic. I am not claiming that anyone here is delusional. That is completely irrelevant. You are being disingenuous with your assertions, and it's unprofessional to say the least. You have no direct evidence of gravity so you are now resorting to "you're crazy your cat does not exist" as if that is comparable at all to gravity or what we are even talking about. I will not debate with you unless you stay on topic, BiJane.
Read the FAQS.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #138 on: February 20, 2015, 12:37:21 PM »
There is plenty of direct evidence that my cat (Digit) exists. I can touch him. I can hear him. I can see him. That's more than you can say for gravity.
Prove it. I say it's all simply a hallucination you're having. Audio and visual hallucinations are well-known, and tactile hallucinations exist. Anyone who you think corroborates your story is either also a hallucination, or finds it hilarious that you think you have a cat. The latter group of people are also responsible for any physical actions Digit does.
Prove me wrong. They're just two competing hypotheses.

All we can observe, of anything, is consequences. Consequences can have many possible causes: direct evidence, as you define it, does not exist. It's just a matter of sorting out the most likely explanation.

You're making a strawman argument here. If you really want me to prove it to you then PM me. I will give you my address and you can come over to my home and pet him yourself. It is easily provable provided you put in the effort. Gravity is not so easy to prove.

Please try to stay on topic. I am not claiming that anyone here is delusional. That is completely irrelevant. You are being disingenuous with your assertions, and it's unprofessional to say the least. You have no direct evidence of gravity so you are now resorting to "you're crazy your cat does not exist" as if that is comparable at all to gravity or what we are even talking about. I will not debate with you unless you stay on topic, BiJane.

Wait, your cat doesn't exist?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #139 on: February 20, 2015, 12:40:34 PM »
You're making a strawman argument here. If you really want me to prove it to you then PM me. I will give you my address and you can come over to my home and pet him yourself. It is easily provable provided you put in the effort. Gravity is not so easy to prove.
Prove it's your house I'll be going to, not some friend who actually has a cat, who you're paying to pretend to be you. Prove I'm not hallucinating.
Quote
Please try to stay on topic. I am not claiming that anyone here is delusional. That is completely irrelevant. You are being disingenuous with your assertions, and it's unprofessional to say the least. You have no direct evidence of gravity so you are now resorting to "you're crazy your cat does not exist" as if that is comparable at all to gravity or what we are even talking about. I will not debate with you unless you stay on topic, BiJane.
I'm simply proving that your concept of direct evidence is meaningless. I said as much in my message. There are always going to be alternative explanations: you just refer to an ever-increasing number to try and omit gravity, when gravity alone is a neater, simpler, and more justified response.
We know things exist by the effect they have on the world. That is the only way we know things exist: that is direct evidence. You can always choose alternative explanations, but are they really more likely? the onus is on you to show that.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #140 on: February 20, 2015, 12:46:33 PM »
Tides? Working with your theory of gravity here, the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull. The stars also have a slight pull. This causes tides.

Tides are not direct evidence of gravity though. These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

I am asking for direct evidence of gravity. If you do not have direct evidence for gravity, please say so.

And you (falsely) accuse us for only taking gravity into account when it's convenient...  You call gravity fake but then the moment I bring up direct evidence of gravity you say that "the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull", which is basically saying "well that is an exception, gravity only exists when it's convenient for me".  Also, tides occur on opposite sides of the Earth, one high tide is when the Moon is over head and the other is when the Moon is over the opposite side of the Earth.  If the Earth were flat then just imagine where the high and low tides would be and tell me how that would be possible if it were caused by the Moon's gravity.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #141 on: February 20, 2015, 12:49:26 PM »
You haven't proven anything. I assure you that direct evidence is a thing, and it's not "meaningless". You have no direct evidence of gravity. Any "evidence" that you have is not "direct evidence". Your idea that the sun and moon are held in orbit because of gravity is a scientific fallacy if you're basing this simply on how the Sun and Moon look in the sky or tides. You have not proven that it is gravity that is responsbile for these things. UA could also be responsible, so could Invisible Crookeedon holding up the planets. How would you know the difference?

We know things exist by the effect they have on the world. That is the only way we know things exist: that is direct evidence. You can always choose alternative explanations, but are they really more likely? the onus is on you to show that.

I agree with this except for the fact that you say it's "direct evidence". Do you honestly think tides or seeing something in the sky proves an invisible force is responsible for it all? Really? Do you not see the huge leap in logic here? I'm sorry to have to do this to you, BiJane... but I'm going to have to use the roll eyes:  ::)


Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.


And you (falsely) accuse us for only taking gravity into account when it's convenient...  You call gravity fake but then the moment I bring up direct evidence of gravity you say that "the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull", which is basically saying "well that is an exception, gravity only exists when it's convenient for me".  Also, tides occur on opposite sides of the Earth, one high tide is when the Moon is over head and the other is when the Moon is over the opposite side of the Earth.  If the Earth were flat then just imagine where the high and low tides would be and tell me how that would be possible if it were caused by the Moon's gravity.

I also included this bit that you seemed to ignore:


These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

What this means it that while I did use gravity to explain the tides; I didn't say that it was direct evidence of gravity, and I certainly didn't say I was right. I simply made the statement that: this could be possible. I'm not going to jump from that to "IT'S CERTAINLY A FACT!" like you because there is no direct evidence. What is so hard to understand here??
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #142 on: February 20, 2015, 12:55:33 PM »
You haven't proven anything. I assure you that direct evidence is a thing, and it's not "meaningless". You have no direct evidence of gravity. Any "evidence" that you have is not "direct evidence". Your idea that the sun and moon are held in orbit because of gravity is a scientific fallacy if you're basing this simply on how the Sun and Moon look in the sky or tides. You have not proven that it is gravity that is responsbile for these things. UA could also be responsible, so could Invisible Crookeedon holding up the planets. How would you know the difference?
We know the difference because one is more likely than the other.
Quote
I agree with this except for the fact that you say it's "direct evidence". Do you honestly think tides or seeing something in the sky proves an invisible force is responsible for it all? Really? Do you not see the huge leap in logic here? I'm sorry to have to do this to you, BiJane... but I'm going to have to use the roll eyes:  ::)
Tides and the Sun and moon do prove something is responsible for them being there. Gravity explains all of them neatly and (along with the Cavendish experiment, which you don't accept, but you could likely perform yourself with enough evidence) is justified by yet more means. So why suppose numerous other explanations?

Quote
Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.
Sure: when you tell me how you are assured it isn't one great big hallucination or pretension. It's an illustration you've yet to acknowledge. You're saying that everything that's been given to you as proof of gravity isn't enough because it could be explained away by numerous other proposed concepts: but that's true of everything. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #143 on: February 20, 2015, 12:58:58 PM »
Tides and the Sun and moon do prove something is responsible for them being there.

You're right. But it doesn't prove beyond a doubt that gravity is responsible. That's where you're fumbling.


And BiJane, the invitation to come over to my home is always open. Digit will be waiting for you. I will have ID, my IP, and evidence that Vauxhall is my username when you come over. Until then, please drop the cat point. It is a strawman argument and it is very very bad form. It just makes you look desperate, like I've said.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2015, 01:05:20 PM by Vauxhall »
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #144 on: February 20, 2015, 01:02:56 PM »
And you (falsely) accuse us for only taking gravity into account when it's convenient...  You call gravity fake but then the moment I bring up direct evidence of gravity you say that "the Sun and Moon disc have a slight 'gravitational' pull", which is basically saying "well that is an exception, gravity only exists when it's convenient for me".  Also, tides occur on opposite sides of the Earth, one high tide is when the Moon is over head and the other is when the Moon is over the opposite side of the Earth.  If the Earth were flat then just imagine where the high and low tides would be and tell me how that would be possible if it were caused by the Moon's gravity.

I also included this bit that you seemed to ignore:


These are just working theories that are just as valid as Space Monkey Sam causing the big bang by accidentally time hopping to the past and blowing out one of his engines causing a chain reaction of explosions leading to the big bang.

What this means it that while I did use gravity to explain the tides; I didn't say that it was direct evidence of gravity, and I certainly didn't say I was right. I simply made the statement that: this could be possible. I'm not going to jump from that to "IT'S CERTAINLY A FACT!" like you because there is no direct evidence. What is so hard to understand here??

Yeah, and those theories perfectly explain and predict things, so even if there is not enough evidence to say that they are 100% correct they are the best theories we have.  FET can't even explain why the sun sets, why solar eclipses are not seen everywhere at the same time, why lunar eclipses happen, why tides happen, why boats disappear bottom first as they go away from you, how southern constellations can't be seen from the northern hemisphere, why the angular size between stars is constant, why the Moon has phases, why mountains have weaker gravity then at sea level, why mountains can cast shadows on clouds in the right conditions, why objects in the sky stay in the sky, why objects in the sky move the way they do, where the Sun gets it's energy, why clouds appear to meet the horizon, why I can't see mount Everest from here, and many more things about which I could go on about for a long time.  The point is, even if RET is wrong it's 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times better then FET
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #145 on: February 20, 2015, 01:04:54 PM »
FET explains all these points. You just don't accept the explanations. Just as we don't accept the RE explanations. We are not so different. And you still have no direct evidence of gravity.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #146 on: February 20, 2015, 01:05:15 PM »
You're right. But it doesn't prove beyond a doubt that gravity that is responsible. That's where you're fumbling.
Hence my point on your cat. As you did:  ::)
Any proof like you ask for, for gravity, is impossible. You can always come up with an alternative. Your job is still to show the alternative's more likely.

Quote
And BiJane, the invitation to come over to my home is always open. Digit will be waiting for you. I will have ID, my IP, and evidence that Vauxhall is my username when you come over. Until then, please drop the cat point. It is a strawman argument and it is very very bad form. It just makes you look desperate, like I've said.
It's not a straw man, it is exactly the point you're making. You can't prove your cat isn't being hallucinated by you, by me, by everyone: you can't prove you don't go on this forum at a friend's house... What kind of evidence are you going to bring up that you can unequivocally show is genuine and not hallucinated? You could give your friend a password easily: you could buy a cat (or what you think is a cat) for the express purpose of making a point. There is always going to be another explanation, no matter how ludicrous it is to hold. This is the point: this is your point. I'm simply showing it's not a good one. You seem to agree.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #147 on: February 20, 2015, 01:10:55 PM »
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.

And you still have no direct evidence for gravity, and you're still unwilling to admit that fact.

I will freely admit that UA could be completely wrong. Aether is not observable. I have no direct evidence for it. But I believe it's there and have come up with theories that attempt to explain it. You've done the same thing with gravity, but you come from a long line of RE scientists that have so much hubris that you now believe everything is scientific fact the moment you come up with a small explanation for something. You are leaving no room for error, which then turns into religious dogma at that point... not science. There is more in heaven and Earth than in your philosophy (unless you're a nihilist), and you need to be willing to admit that you are wrong.

There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #148 on: February 20, 2015, 01:17:15 PM »
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.
I know what it is. I'm not making one, I'm applying your standard.
Quote
There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
By your definition, I'm happy to admit it: because you make it so there is no direct evidence of anything. As I have said.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #149 on: February 20, 2015, 01:19:38 PM »
FET explains all these points. You just don't accept the explanations. Just as we don't accept the RE explanations. We are not so different. And you still have no direct evidence of gravity.

OK, enlighten me.  How does the sun appear to go below the horizon in the west and then come back up in the east if it should have never left my line of sight according to your model?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.