Questions that might destroy your funny theory

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 07, 2015, 02:48:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 07, 2015, 02:44:05 PM

LogicalKiller. Believe me, all these points and more have been raised, resulting in like 20 pages of debate with more and more illogical answers.

The thing is, for the people that really believe in a flat earth, it's like faith. Sure, you can debate it, but can't disprove someone's faith. After all, faith doesn't need evidence or logic.

I'm most sad about fact that pretty no one gave that clear, transparent comment.
BTW: 'debate] - Hahahahah, this discussion doesn't seem as a debate at all, it's rather like a talk between a Texas conservative farmer and a NORMAL person.

you did not refute my faq, you made a list of multiple assertions and nothing else. you argue "oh, everything says it's flat, but it's not!" and neglect a basic tenet of round earther fantasy, that everything is accelerating. if you want to reject your science, go ahead, but that makes my point for me too.
then the rest of what you say is based on asserting a round earth with no basis.
gases do exist, air does not. if you aren't even going to read the faq, don't respond. don't be like ausgeoff.

1. Only medieval idiots used their poor vision as evidence for flatness of the Earth.
2. Round Earth isn't a fantasy, there's hundred of photos from NASA or Roskosmos showing Earth. Even if you don't believe them, make your own camera on balloon and let it go up to 30 km. It'll be like this, if you make a camera on a homemade rocket - " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
3. Space is accelerating, not matter. If you don't understand this REALLY BASIC fact and evidence of BB, then it's your problem.
4. Yes, these gases exist and mixed up they make an air. Simple as that.

most of the FE'ers on here only pretend to believe it.

Why then do you argue with them?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 08:42:44 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 07, 2015, 02:48:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 07, 2015, 02:44:05 PM

LogicalKiller. Believe me, all these points and more have been raised, resulting in like 20 pages of debate with more and more illogical answers.

The thing is, for the people that really believe in a flat earth, it's like faith. Sure, you can debate it, but can't disprove someone's faith. After all, faith doesn't need evidence or logic.

I'm most sad about fact that pretty no one gave that clear, transparent comment.
BTW: 'debate] - Hahahahah, this discussion doesn't seem as a debate at all, it's rather like a talk between a Texas conservative farmer and a NORMAL person.

you did not refute my faq, you made a list of multiple assertions and nothing else. you argue "oh, everything says it's flat, but it's not!" and neglect a basic tenet of round earther fantasy, that everything is accelerating. if you want to reject your science, go ahead, but that makes my point for me too.
then the rest of what you say is based on asserting a round earth with no basis.
gases do exist, air does not. if you aren't even going to read the faq, don't respond. don't be like ausgeoff.

1. Only medieval idiots used their poor vision as evidence for flatness of the Earth.
2. Round Earth isn't a fantasy, there's hundred of photos from NASA or Roskosmos showing Earth. Even if you don't believe them, make your own camera on balloon and let it go up to 30 km. It'll be like this, if you make a camera on a homemade rocket -
3. Space is accelerating, not matter. If you don't understand this REALLY BASIC fact and evidence of BB, then it's your problem.
4. Yes, these gases exist and mixed up they make an air. Simple as that.

the reason i made the faq, and it's to avoid having to repeat myself. you're new, i understand, you think it's going to be easy to refute, but that doesn't mean you don't need to do any research. 1 and 4 are answered, if you really hold 3 i suggest you research physics, and 2 has been answered multiple times on this forum.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 08, 2015, 08:49:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 08:42:44 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 07, 2015, 02:48:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 07, 2015, 02:44:05 PM

LogicalKiller. Believe me, all these points and more have been raised, resulting in like 20 pages of debate with more and more illogical answers.

The thing is, for the people that really believe in a flat earth, it's like faith. Sure, you can debate it, but can't disprove someone's faith. After all, faith doesn't need evidence or logic.

I'm most sad about fact that pretty no one gave that clear, transparent comment.
BTW: 'debate] - Hahahahah, this discussion doesn't seem as a debate at all, it's rather like a talk between a Texas conservative farmer and a NORMAL person.

you did not refute my faq, you made a list of multiple assertions and nothing else. you argue "oh, everything says it's flat, but it's not!" and neglect a basic tenet of round earther fantasy, that everything is accelerating. if you want to reject your science, go ahead, but that makes my point for me too.
then the rest of what you say is based on asserting a round earth with no basis.
gases do exist, air does not. if you aren't even going to read the faq, don't respond. don't be like ausgeoff.

1. Only medieval idiots used their poor vision as evidence for flatness of the Earth.
2. Round Earth isn't a fantasy, there's hundred of photos from NASA or Roskosmos showing Earth. Even if you don't believe them, make your own camera on balloon and let it go up to 30 km. It'll be like this, if you make a camera on a homemade rocket -
3. Space is accelerating, not matter. If you don't understand this REALLY BASIC fact and evidence of BB, then it's your problem.
4. Yes, these gases exist and mixed up they make an air. Simple as that.

the reason i made the faq, and it's to avoid having to repeat myself. you're new, i understand, you think it's going to be easy to refute, but that doesn't mean you don't need to do any research. 1 and 4 are answered, if you really hold 3 i suggest you research physics, and 2 has been answered multiple times on this forum.

How 1 and 4 are answered? Because from what I've seen in the topic "Since air doesn't exist" nothing has been answered at all.
3. Haha, you're going to teach me physics? YOU?! Admit that you know nothing about it and admit that the space is accelerating, not matter.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 08:55:53 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 08, 2015, 08:49:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 08:42:44 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 07, 2015, 02:48:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 07, 2015, 02:44:05 PM

LogicalKiller. Believe me, all these points and more have been raised, resulting in like 20 pages of debate with more and more illogical answers.

The thing is, for the people that really believe in a flat earth, it's like faith. Sure, you can debate it, but can't disprove someone's faith. After all, faith doesn't need evidence or logic.

I'm most sad about fact that pretty no one gave that clear, transparent comment.
BTW: 'debate] - Hahahahah, this discussion doesn't seem as a debate at all, it's rather like a talk between a Texas conservative farmer and a NORMAL person.

you did not refute my faq, you made a list of multiple assertions and nothing else. you argue "oh, everything says it's flat, but it's not!" and neglect a basic tenet of round earther fantasy, that everything is accelerating. if you want to reject your science, go ahead, but that makes my point for me too.
then the rest of what you say is based on asserting a round earth with no basis.
gases do exist, air does not. if you aren't even going to read the faq, don't respond. don't be like ausgeoff.

1. Only medieval idiots used their poor vision as evidence for flatness of the Earth.
2. Round Earth isn't a fantasy, there's hundred of photos from NASA or Roskosmos showing Earth. Even if you don't believe them, make your own camera on balloon and let it go up to 30 km. It'll be like this, if you make a camera on a homemade rocket -
3. Space is accelerating, not matter. If you don't understand this REALLY BASIC fact and evidence of BB, then it's your problem.
4. Yes, these gases exist and mixed up they make an air. Simple as that.

the reason i made the faq, and it's to avoid having to repeat myself. you're new, i understand, you think it's going to be easy to refute, but that doesn't mean you don't need to do any research. 1 and 4 are answered, if you really hold 3 i suggest you research physics, and 2 has been answered multiple times on this forum.

How 1 and 4 are answered? Because from what I've seen in the topic "Since air doesn't exist" nothing has been answered at all.
3. Haha, you're going to teach me physics? YOU?! Admit that you know nothing about it and admit that the space is accelerating, not matter.

faq. again, read. there's no point in talking if you're not going to read a word or if you refuse to admit you're wrong. you seem so confident in what you say, please provide a source for the assertion that no matter is accelerating, and space alone is, and explain how we can move a certain distance and not be accelerating: after all, the earth is not getting wider with this expansion of space, so somehow we're either immune to it, or we're caught up and move with it.

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 08, 2015, 09:11:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 08:55:53 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 08, 2015, 08:49:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 08:42:44 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 07, 2015, 02:48:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 07, 2015, 02:44:05 PM

LogicalKiller. Believe me, all these points and more have been raised, resulting in like 20 pages of debate with more and more illogical answers.

The thing is, for the people that really believe in a flat earth, it's like faith. Sure, you can debate it, but can't disprove someone's faith. After all, faith doesn't need evidence or logic.

I'm most sad about fact that pretty no one gave that clear, transparent comment.
BTW: 'debate] - Hahahahah, this discussion doesn't seem as a debate at all, it's rather like a talk between a Texas conservative farmer and a NORMAL person.

you did not refute my faq, you made a list of multiple assertions and nothing else. you argue "oh, everything says it's flat, but it's not!" and neglect a basic tenet of round earther fantasy, that everything is accelerating. if you want to reject your science, go ahead, but that makes my point for me too.
then the rest of what you say is based on asserting a round earth with no basis.
gases do exist, air does not. if you aren't even going to read the faq, don't respond. don't be like ausgeoff.

1. Only medieval idiots used their poor vision as evidence for flatness of the Earth.
2. Round Earth isn't a fantasy, there's hundred of photos from NASA or Roskosmos showing Earth. Even if you don't believe them, make your own camera on balloon and let it go up to 30 km. It'll be like this, if you make a camera on a homemade rocket -
3. Space is accelerating, not matter. If you don't understand this REALLY BASIC fact and evidence of BB, then it's your problem.
4. Yes, these gases exist and mixed up they make an air. Simple as that.

the reason i made the faq, and it's to avoid having to repeat myself. you're new, i understand, you think it's going to be easy to refute, but that doesn't mean you don't need to do any research. 1 and 4 are answered, if you really hold 3 i suggest you research physics, and 2 has been answered multiple times on this forum.

How 1 and 4 are answered? Because from what I've seen in the topic "Since air doesn't exist" nothing has been answered at all.
3. Haha, you're going to teach me physics? YOU?! Admit that you know nothing about it and admit that the space is accelerating, not matter.

faq. again, read. there's no point in talking if you're not going to read a word or if you refuse to admit you're wrong. you seem so confident in what you say, please provide a source for the assertion that no matter is accelerating, and space alone is, and explain how we can move a certain distance and not be accelerating: after all, the earth is not getting wider with this expansion of space, so somehow we're either immune to it, or we're caught up and move with it.

Don't rely on your crappy FAQ, it bases on utter shit and science fiction. If you can write, then write it here or copy the thing you think might be answer for my questions. Matter isn't accelerating, space is. That's why universe is expanding faster than light. If matter had been accelerating, then all galaxies and objects from BB to now would have disintegrated. Matter is accelerating seemingly, but objectively it's doing no movement if we're talking if it accelerates or no.

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

i'm secure in what i know: that doesn't mean i won't offer clarification (they having to keep repeating myself does get grating).
it would be nice is round earthers would do the same courtesy. mikeman used to, before a recent thread. you tend to, misero tends to. otherwise there's the likes of ausgeoff, and now logicalkiller's just ignored my post utterly.
thank you for being one of the few. 

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 08, 2015, 09:25:43 AM

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

i'm secure in what i know: that doesn't mean i won't offer clarification (they having to keep repeating myself does get grating).
it would be nice is round earthers would do the same courtesy. mikeman used to, before a recent thread. you tend to, misero tends to. otherwise there's the likes of ausgeoff, and now logicalkiller's just ignored my post utterly.
thank you for being one of the few.

I only read your FAQ, I'm not going to read all 15 pages of useless discussion. And 70% of your FAQ is the fictional aether part, so I'm not going to read it too.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 09:32:14 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 08, 2015, 09:25:43 AM

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

i'm secure in what i know: that doesn't mean i won't offer clarification (they having to keep repeating myself does get grating).
it would be nice is round earthers would do the same courtesy. mikeman used to, before a recent thread. you tend to, misero tends to. otherwise there's the likes of ausgeoff, and now logicalkiller's just ignored my post utterly.
thank you for being one of the few.

I only read your FAQ, I'm not going to read all 15 pages of useless discussion. And 70% of your FAQ is the fictional aether part, so I'm not going to read it too.

by 15 pages, i assume you mean 2 posts?

if you're not going to read up on the theory, or going to understand the basic principle of observation, why do you insist on criticizing? by your own admission you know nothing about it.
just stop. please.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 09:32:14 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 08, 2015, 09:25:43 AM

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

i'm secure in what i know: that doesn't mean i won't offer clarification (they having to keep repeating myself does get grating).
it would be nice is round earthers would do the same courtesy. mikeman used to, before a recent thread. you tend to, misero tends to. otherwise there's the likes of ausgeoff, and now logicalkiller's just ignored my post utterly.
thank you for being one of the few.

I only read your FAQ, I'm not going to read all 15 pages of useless discussion. And 70% of your FAQ is the fictional aether part, so I'm not going to read it too.

Einstein believed in aether.  So did Tesla.  What makes you think you are so much smarter than those two geniuses? 

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 08, 2015, 09:41:57 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 09:32:14 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 08, 2015, 09:25:43 AM

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

i'm secure in what i know: that doesn't mean i won't offer clarification (they having to keep repeating myself does get grating).
it would be nice is round earthers would do the same courtesy. mikeman used to, before a recent thread. you tend to, misero tends to. otherwise there's the likes of ausgeoff, and now logicalkiller's just ignored my post utterly.
thank you for being one of the few.

I only read your FAQ, I'm not going to read all 15 pages of useless discussion. And 70% of your FAQ is the fictional aether part, so I'm not going to read it too.

by 15 pages, i assume you mean 2 posts?

if you're not going to read up on the theory, or going to understand the basic principle of observation, why do you insist on criticizing? by your own admission you know nothing about it.
just stop. please.

Two posts? What 2 posts? Your FAQ is placed in 1 post.

cheers

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 08, 2015, 09:41:57 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 09:32:14 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 08, 2015, 09:25:43 AM

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

i'm secure in what i know: that doesn't mean i won't offer clarification (they having to keep repeating myself does get grating).
it would be nice is round earthers would do the same courtesy. mikeman used to, before a recent thread. you tend to, misero tends to. otherwise there's the likes of ausgeoff, and now logicalkiller's just ignored my post utterly.
thank you for being one of the few.

I only read your FAQ, I'm not going to read all 15 pages of useless discussion. And 70% of your FAQ is the fictional aether part, so I'm not going to read it too.

Einstein believed in aether.  So did Tesla.  What makes you think you are so much smarter than those two geniuses?

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. Additionally, lies, as the substance they referred to as aether was not the same stuff FE'rs are now using as the Theory Of Everything.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 08, 2015, 09:41:57 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 09:32:14 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 08, 2015, 09:25:43 AM

Whatever you think of his answers, JRowe does at least attempt to directly answer most questions. You've got to admire his persistence.

i'm secure in what i know: that doesn't mean i won't offer clarification (they having to keep repeating myself does get grating).
it would be nice is round earthers would do the same courtesy. mikeman used to, before a recent thread. you tend to, misero tends to. otherwise there's the likes of ausgeoff, and now logicalkiller's just ignored my post utterly.
thank you for being one of the few.

I only read your FAQ, I'm not going to read all 15 pages of useless discussion. And 70% of your FAQ is the fictional aether part, so I'm not going to read it too.

Einstein believed in aether.  So did Tesla.  What makes you think you are so much smarter than those two geniuses?

First off - Einstein USED TO believe in aether.
Second off - they believed in aether as in a substance filling up the world, not the shit filler for everything that is problematic to FE.

I only read your FAQ, I'm not going to read all 15 pages of useless discussion. And 70% of your FAQ is the fictional aether part, so I'm not going to read it too.
[/quote]

Einstein believed in aether.  So did Tesla.  What makes you think you are so much smarter than those two geniuses?
[/quote]

Einstein used the term ether, but not in the sense it's being used here.

Concerning ether
If we talk about ether here, then of course we don't talk about the bodily ether of the mechanical theory of undulation, which obeys the law of Newton's mechanics, and whose single points have velocities assigned to them. This theoretical construct has, in my opinion, found its definite end in the special theory of relativity. Instead, we talk about those things considered as physically-real, which, apart from ponderable matter consisting of electrical elementary particles, play a role in the causal nexus of physics. Instead of 'ether', we could as well talk about 'physical qualities of space'. Well, one could be of the opinion that this definition applies to all objects of physics, because according to strict field theory, also the ponderable matter (i.e. the elementary particles that constitute it) can be considered as 'fields' of a special kind, i.e. as special 'states of space'. However, one will have to admit that, in the current state of physics, such an opinion would be premature, because all effort of theoretical physics directed at this goal, has so far been in vain. As things are today, we are factually forced to discriminate between 'matter' and 'ether', but we may hope that later generations will overcome this dualistic picture and replace it with a uniform field theory, as field theory in our day has tried in vain.

Albert Einstein (letters)

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/did-einstein-accept-the-ether.4021/

All those fake NASA generated Planets don't exist.
The ROmans and Greeks worshipped the alleged Planets...God simply Created Earth.

Einstein believed in aether.  So did Tesla.   

Is there any reason you constantly refer to 100-year-old science in support of your arguments jroa?  It might just be time to give some credence to 21st century science for a change?

All those fake NASA generated Planets don't exist.
The ROmans and Greeks worshipped the alleged Planets...God simply Created Earth.

God doesn't exist, farmer!