doing away with the conspiracy

Ill wait until you come up with an aether theory for light transfer, as you simply have no clue about what you are saying right now.  Gamma rays are extremely high energy (high frequency) photons, an energy particle.  Much higher frequency than visible light.  Alpha and beta radiation are in fact partial atoms they are different in speed , energy level, spin, charge, plus more.  They are not considered electromagnetic radiation.  Quit getting wrapped around the axle of the photon particle.  It behaves as an energy wave, not a compression wave.   It does not lose energy unless it reacts with something.  So here is where you say aether is space and light reacts with it, causing us to only see a short distance in your model. 
I do not understand why I continue to try, maybe it's because I don't like seeing a train wreck happening and stand by and do nothing.

Ill wait until you come up with an aether theory for light transfer, as you simply have no clue about what you are saying right now.  Gamma rays are extremely high energy (high frequency) photons, an energy particle.  Much higher frequency than visible light.  Alpha and beta radiation are in fact partial atoms they are different in speed , energy level, spin, charge, plus more.  They are not considered electromagnetic radiation.  Quit getting wrapped around the axle of the photon particle.  It behaves as an energy wave, not a compression wave.   It does not lose energy unless it reacts with something.  So here is where you say aether is space and light reacts with it, causing us to only see a short distance in your model. 
I do not understand why I continue to try, maybe it's because I don't like seeing a train wreck happening and stand by and do nothing.

i haven't brought up aether once in this thread. aether is space, and so distance, but i'm only talking about light losing coherency as it crosses long distances.
an energy particle is not a particle of matter. energy disperses as time goes by, this is a well known fact. you cannot simply assert an exception to a well known physical law. perpetual motion is impossible.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 16, 2015, 09:13:40 AM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on April 16, 2015, 05:33:46 AM

Please stop implying that I am using Newton's inertia arguments for light.  Light is an energy particle that propagates as a wave.  It is not like a sound wave that needs a medium to propagate through therefore losing energy as it travels.  Light is energy, not specifically heat.  Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, like light is.  Radiation is energy particles.  Some carry heat.
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic radiation in that way.

alpha and beta radiation are particles. gamma radiation is a wave, of the same kind as light, and it is not composed of particles.
aside from the absurdity of special pleading when it comes to differentiating the waves of light and sound, light is still energy, so the second law of thermodynamics is relevant. it loses coherency as time goes by, no matter what.

What's the formula for the loss of energy for light over time?

try to pay attention to what's being said rather than blindly repeating pointless additions.
i do not have the time or resources to take measurements and come to a formula for something i do not even accept.

"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.

in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.

i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?

"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.

in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.

i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?

you seem to have... some misunderstanding here, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.
energy DOES last forever, newton DOES apply, if you push something and nothing gets in the way, that object will go on forever, it will keep that energy forever.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 14, 2015, 08:51:38 AM

"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.

in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.

i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 14, 2015, 08:51:38 AM

"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.

in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.

i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?

you seem to have... some misunderstanding here, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.
energy DOES last forever, newton DOES apply, if you push something and nothing gets in the way, that object will go on forever, it will keep that energy forever.

moving at a constant speed does not require energy when there are no resistive forces.
newton does not apply to non-matter.

brush up on basic physics.

So an energy particle should not lose energy while moving without some resistance, therefore it will not dissipate.  Thank you for proving yourself wrong there.  Since energy cannot be destroyed it must go somewhere, if it has nowhere to dissipate into, it will in fact travel forever unless something is there for it to transfer into.

So an energy particle should not lose energy while moving without some resistance, therefore it will not dissipate.  Thank you for proving yourself wrong there.  Since energy cannot be destroyed it must go somewhere, if it has nowhere to dissipate into, it will in fact travel forever unless something is there for it to transfer into.

energy is not mass. did you miss that?
energy will dissipate by the second law of thermodynamics.

if you truly believe that however, look at the night sky, and see that light does fade. if it did not, the sky should be entirely white, by round earth theory, due to the vast number of stars. if light continues unimpeded, the majority of the sky should be shining white (especially in hubble photographs). unless the light is affected by the distance it travels.
so, are you going to admit photographs from space are fake, round earth theory's predictions in how many galaxies are wrong, or that light does alter with distance to become unseen, even through vacuum?

No, distance has no effect on light, matter does.  Since there is matter in the universe, everywhere, even in the vacuum.  You were saying that energy dissipates into nothing due to time or distance traveled (same thing at light speed).  Even with the second law of thermodynamics, in a closed system energy has to have somewhere to go, light will move forever.
Once again you are being obtuse.
I will not claim photos from space are fake, your logic is once again wrong. 
I will claim that dual Earth idea is completely wrong.  Will you now agree that your model is incorrect?  There is no sun in the middle of the Earth.  Will you now agree that space travel is possible?
No, you will not, because you will now get angry and claim I can't read, or I refuse to listen to your arguments, or I have some failure in my logic.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on April 20, 2015, 05:23:26 AM

So an energy particle should not lose energy while moving without some resistance, therefore it will not dissipate.  Thank you for proving yourself wrong there.  Since energy cannot be destroyed it must go somewhere, if it has nowhere to dissipate into, it will in fact travel forever unless something is there for it to transfer into.

energy is not mass. did you miss that?
energy will dissipate by the second law of thermodynamics.

if you truly believe that however, look at the night sky, and see that light does fade. if it did not, the sky should be entirely white, by round earth theory, due to the vast number of stars. if light continues unimpeded, the majority of the sky should be shining white (especially in hubble photographs). unless the light is affected by the distance it travels.
so, are you going to admit photographs from space are fake, round earth theory's predictions in how many galaxies are wrong, or that light does alter with distance to become unseen, even through vacuum?

Yes, light does "dissipate" in a vacuum and that's why you need bigger telescopes to see things from further away but with the right equipment there is no limit to how far you can see.

No, distance has no effect on light, matter does.  Since there is matter in the universe, everywhere, even in the vacuum.  You were saying that energy dissipates into nothing due to time or distance traveled (same thing at light speed).  Even with the second law of thermodynamics, in a closed system energy has to have somewhere to go, light will move forever.
Once again you are being obtuse.
I will not claim photos from space are fake, your logic is once again wrong. 
I will claim that dual Earth idea is completely wrong.  Will you now agree that your model is incorrect?  There is no sun in the middle of the Earth.  Will you now agree that space travel is possible?
No, you will not, because you will now get angry and claim I can't read, or I refuse to listen to your arguments, or I have some failure in my logic.

what on earth are you talking about? of course the energy of light has somewhere to go. do you understand what 'dissipates' means?!

if you can give the slightest bit of evidence for what you say, as i have done, then what you say has merit. until you can do that, you're just wasting time.

Sure sure, once again projecting your failures onto others, what evidence have you ever given?  You give only assumptions, then get mad, say everyone else is getting mad, then you stop reading or start ignoring parts of posts refuting your claims and you start claiming they can't read.  Someone asks for clarification and you spout off about repeating yourself when you never say anything.
Like i said before, you are a colossal waste of time.

Sure sure, once again projecting your failures onto others, what evidence have you ever given?  You give only assumptions, then get mad, say everyone else is getting mad, then you stop reading or start ignoring parts of posts refuting your claims and you start claiming they can't read.  Someone asks for clarification and you spout off about repeating yourself when you never say anything.
Like i said before, you are a colossal waste of time.

i am not the one who ignore sposts. you're clearly the oen projecting here. we're done.
read the thread, moron.

Ok if you are not ignoring posts then you clearly do not understand them.  Just because you do not like what is being said about your comments does not mean that the person saying it is ignoring you,  Just because someone says you are not right about a failure of your logic process does not mean that they are stupid, or that they are attacking you.  You go to the same thing every time.  You claim people can't read, you get mad, then you start calling people names.  Obviously do not know what assumptions and assertions are since you do them constantly and claim others are.  Obviously you do not know what ignoring someones statements are because you do it all the time when what is said doesn't suit you and you then claim they are ignoring you.  You obviously do not know what projecting is because you now think because you are mad you can just say I am doing it to you for telling you that you are. 
Your premise is incorrect again. 
You have never, ever given evidence.  You claim observational evidence, but your interpretation of what you observed is not observational evidence, it is what you think is causing things you see to happen.  Not to mention the things you see happening have already been explained but you do not want to accept that so you make up some other mechanism for it and call it observational evidence.  This is wrong.
So you resort once again to name calling ans possibly putting me on your ignore list.  Please fell free to hide if it make you feel better.

BTW, your signature line, you think you are making fun of logicalkiller but his statement is essentially correct, only magnifying you lack of understanding of the physics of the real world. 
Matter is not technically made up of atoms.  Atoms are matter, so are subatomic particles.  So really atoms are made of matter, not the other way around

Ok if you are not ignoring posts then you clearly do not understand them.  Just because you do not like what is being said about your comments does not mean that the person saying it is ignoring you,  Just because someone says you are not right about a failure of your logic process does not mean that they are stupid, or that they are attacking you.  You go to the same thing every time.  You claim people can't read, you get mad, then you start calling people names.  Obviously do not know what assumptions and assertions are since you do them constantly and claim others are.  Obviously you do not know what ignoring someones statements are because you do it all the time when what is said doesn't suit you and you then claim they are ignoring you.  You obviously do not know what projecting is because you now think because you are mad you can just say I am doing it to you for telling you that you are. 
Your premise is incorrect again. 
You have never, ever given evidence.  You claim observational evidence, but your interpretation of what you observed is not observational evidence, it is what you think is causing things you see to happen.  Not to mention the things you see happening have already been explained but you do not want to accept that so you make up some other mechanism for it and call it observational evidence.  This is wrong.
So you resort once again to name calling ans possibly putting me on your ignore list.  Please fell free to hide if it make you feel better.

i am mad when you blatantly lie as you just have. i am sick of round earthers attributing my theories to others, insulting me, rejecting what i have to say on principle, and the doing as you have just done and ignored pages of discussion to just outright lie.
i gave evidence. i used laws that govern energy, i gave an example of how the sky should be primarily white in the round earth model of light could continue endlessly through vacuum. (mikeman also agreed that light does disperse in vacuum).
you are lying. end of.

observational evidence means a theory explains observations. accepting a theory requires two steps. first, to show it explains observations. second, to show it requires fewer assumptions than an alternative. my theory achieves the first step: i believe it does the latter, but that is an entirely different debate.
do you disagree with those two steps and, if so, why?

Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on April 22, 2015, 12:29:22 PM

Ok if you are not ignoring posts then you clearly do not understand them.  Just because you do not like what is being said about your comments does not mean that the person saying it is ignoring you,  Just because someone says you are not right about a failure of your logic process does not mean that they are stupid, or that they are attacking you.  You go to the same thing every time.  You claim people can't read, you get mad, then you start calling people names.  Obviously do not know what assumptions and assertions are since you do them constantly and claim others are.  Obviously you do not know what ignoring someones statements are because you do it all the time when what is said doesn't suit you and you then claim they are ignoring you.  You obviously do not know what projecting is because you now think because you are mad you can just say I am doing it to you for telling you that you are. 
Your premise is incorrect again. 
You have never, ever given evidence.  You claim observational evidence, but your interpretation of what you observed is not observational evidence, it is what you think is causing things you see to happen.  Not to mention the things you see happening have already been explained but you do not want to accept that so you make up some other mechanism for it and call it observational evidence.  This is wrong.
So you resort once again to name calling ans possibly putting me on your ignore list.  Please fell free to hide if it make you feel better.

i am mad when you blatantly lie as you just have. i am sick of round earthers attributing my theories to others, insulting me, rejecting what i have to say on principle, and the doing as you have just done and ignored pages of discussion to just outright lie.
i gave evidence. i used laws that govern energy, i gave an example of how the sky should be primarily white in the round earth model of light could continue endlessly through vacuum. (mikeman also agreed that light does disperse in vacuum).
you are lying. end of.

observational evidence means a theory explains observations. accepting a theory requires two steps. first, to show it explains observations. second, to show it requires fewer assumptions than an alternative. my theory achieves the first step: i believe it does the latter, but that is an entirely different debate.
do you disagree with those two steps and, if so, why?

Yes I said light would propagate through a perfect vacuum forever, mikeman would even agree with that. The thing is space is not a perfect vacuum, that is what mikeman said also, it has some stuff to absorb it over time and distance.  But the matter that is in space is so thinly scattered that light will travel a very very very long time before the last photon is absorbed.  You are suggesting that energy, light, will just dissipate to nothing.  This violates the laws of conservation.  Energy and matter cannot be destroyed, just changed.  Your logic is flawed in so many ways, this is why people have disagreed with you and tried to show you where you are wrong but you choose to ignore them, then get upset.  You are misusing the law of entropy in many ways, heat will appear to cool but in fact it is spreading out, it needs something to pass into the equalize.  In space there simply not enough stuff there for it to equalize very quickly.  This is why astronauts in space experience a vast swing of temperatures depending if they are in the sunlight or in the shadow if something, like Earth. 
Your ideas show way more assumptions than what you are trying to replace.  I am not attacking your idea directly, hence not picking apart your theory very often or commenting on you faq.  I have been trying to show you what you need to figure things out, you decide to skip developing math, experiments, gather evidence, etc. to test your hypothesis.  You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time.  You think you are explaining things by yelling or claiming you are having to repeat yourself over and over again.  The reason you are repeating yourself is that you have not explained anything yet. 
Accepting a theory requires evidence, experiments, the theory to be able to predict outcomes, the experiments to be repeatable and give the same results for different people, and needs to have the mathematical framework needed to stand up on its own.  You have no theory yet, you have a hypothesis.  You think something and are getting mad when you claim observational evidence, but you are observing things already explained and attributing assumptions to them.  You hypothesis is all assumptions, nothing more at this point.  You are being lazy and wanting to go from hypothesis directly to accepted theory without doing any of the work.  You claim it is too hard, or you can't do it.  Well if you can't do it then you hypothesis will remain where it is.  It is by far nowhere near being a theory.  Right now it is only assumptions.  Cry all you like, that doesn't change that fact.  Your observational evidence you claim to have is only your assumptions of causes of things that are already explained.  You started this whole thing because you saw where the aether whirlpools couldn't explain the southern circumpolar stars, and the distances on the flat Earth map don't match up with reality, but you didn't want to accept the spherical Earth reality so you started coming up with another model, but you keep having problems and you keep changing your model to fill holes that changes keep making.  This is why its not at all defined much less well defined.

Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.

completely irrelevant. i was talking about the images you say are from space, and  said it is not the case because light disperses.

mikey is apparently unable to understand this concept. if light only does not disperse in a perfect vacuum, where exactly is this perfect vacuum he insists must be allowing light to continue endlessly?
it doesn't exist, so what i am saying is perfectly true. light, on earth, will not go on forever. it will dissipate. that seems to be yet another word he is inacapable of understanding. dissipate does not mean 'vanish', it means 'fade', 'disperse', 'spread out' until it is so thinly spread that it is essentially invisible.

You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time
that is utter bs. i get annoyed with statements like this which are nothing except uneducated assertion and blatant misrepresentation. dual earth theory has been simplified. there is not one alteration which increased complexity. the only tangible element of it that any round earther could have a problem with is aether, but aether is well-defined (it is existing space, with traits logically deduced, as i've gone into multiple times), and everything is a consequence of this. what you take issue with are conclusions, not premises: they are not assumptions, they are consequences.
if a implies b, and b implies c and d, my worldview contains all four of those things. however, the only thing that could be called an assumption is a: everything else necessarily follows. is that clear?

A belief in an illuminati NWO type conspiracy is required because surveyors, electronics experts, astronomers, pilots,  seamen and navigators generally,  all know the world is round and therefore when an educated person attempts to reason with the Flat earther the educator can be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

   

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 23, 2015, 07:33:21 AM

Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.

completely irrelevant. i was talking about the images you say are from space, and  said it is not the case because light disperses.

mikey is apparently unable to understand this concept. if light only does not disperse in a perfect vacuum, where exactly is this perfect vacuum he insists must be allowing light to continue endlessly?
it doesn't exist, so what i am saying is perfectly true. light, on earth, will not go on forever. it will dissipate. that seems to be yet another word he is inacapable of understanding. dissipate does not mean 'vanish', it means 'fade', 'disperse', 'spread out' until it is so thinly spread that it is essentially invisible.

You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time
that is utter bs. i get annoyed with statements like this which are nothing except uneducated assertion and blatant misrepresentation. dual earth theory has been simplified. there is not one alteration which increased complexity. the only tangible element of it that any round earther could have a problem with is aether, but aether is well-defined (it is existing space, with traits logically deduced, as i've gone into multiple times), and everything is a consequence of this. what you take issue with are conclusions, not premises: they are not assumptions, they are consequences.
if a implies b, and b implies c and d, my worldview contains all four of those things. however, the only thing that could be called an assumption is a: everything else necessarily follows. is that clear?

No I understood you completely, light will travel until it hits or is deflected by something.  Plain and simple.  You claimed it wouldn't.  You thought you could say it was heat and it obeyed the second law of thermodynamics and would dissipate away.  You were wrong on both counts.  About light being heat, and what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says.  We continued arguing about whether light would indeed travel forever in a vacuum.  This is what it does.  Space however is not a perfect vacuum, but it is really close.  So yes light will be absorbed by the matter in space, but it will not be absorbed away enough to make your statement of the light just fades away into nothing before reaching from one side of the Earth to the other.  You do remember you said that maybe the pictures from space are not all faked and they were on the edge of space and the light just faded away before coming to the camera, giving the rounded look of the Earth.
you premise, like all your premises is completely flawed again.  You logic is flawed.  Light traveling through the near vacuum of space would take trillions of years to fully dissipate and that's if it hit a lot of dust clouds along the way.  The sky would not be white either.  Light can travel forever but what is out there for it to reflect off of, and if there is anything, we are looking at stars and galaxy like structures now with telescopes that are almost as far away in light years as the universe is old.
I've never said that space is a perfect vacuum.  You assumed as much because you can't understand the basic physics of the world and seek to insert assumptions for all of it.  Now you are having doubts about this huge conspiracy theory nonsense and you know that you can't do away with the conspiracy and your model survive.  Well it hasn't survived beyond your own mind.  This is why you decided to make up the dual Earth idea also, you were having doubts about the  southern circumpolar stars and flight times.  You thought you could wrap those things up, since you thought that was the main arguments against the flat Earth notion.  You were in fact wrong.  Now you own model has more holes than flat Earth ever did.  It was an interesting distraction, I was willing to help you out, yet you turned on me a month or so ago and I don't care if they flame you in your FAQ thread, actually I don't care, period.  You are such a closed minded person as it is easier to talk to 3 year old about poop and get a more serious conversation.

No I understood you completely, light will travel until it hits or is deflected by something.  Plain and simple.  You claimed it wouldn't.

For many decades after Hubbles law arose in the 1920's, there was a theory that light could 'get tired' and account for the reduction in energy creating the red shift observed by Hubble.    If you search on 'tired light' you will find that there is an astronomical 'proof' invalidating 'tired light'.

Tired light theory has never been invalidated.  Please, do not just make up your "facts" and try to pass them off as being real. 

Tired light theory has never been invalidated.  Please, do not just make up your "facts" and try to pass them off as being real.

What are you talking about?  It certainly has. Please don't try and pass your delusions off as facts.

The sky would not be white either.

Did JRowe claim that in RE Theory the sky should be white (because of light not dispersing)?

That's really cute. Why? He just discovered Olbers' Paradox. And since that is not so trivial to solve you failed in realizing that he made a good point. But since I do not find his original post my guess what he means may be wrong.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 24, 2015, 12:34:15 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 23, 2015, 07:33:21 AM

Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.

completely irrelevant. i was talking about the images you say are from space, and  said it is not the case because light disperses.

mikey is apparently unable to understand this concept. if light only does not disperse in a perfect vacuum, where exactly is this perfect vacuum he insists must be allowing light to continue endlessly?
it doesn't exist, so what i am saying is perfectly true. light, on earth, will not go on forever. it will dissipate. that seems to be yet another word he is inacapable of understanding. dissipate does not mean 'vanish', it means 'fade', 'disperse', 'spread out' until it is so thinly spread that it is essentially invisible.

You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time
that is utter bs. i get annoyed with statements like this which are nothing except uneducated assertion and blatant misrepresentation. dual earth theory has been simplified. there is not one alteration which increased complexity. the only tangible element of it that any round earther could have a problem with is aether, but aether is well-defined (it is existing space, with traits logically deduced, as i've gone into multiple times), and everything is a consequence of this. what you take issue with are conclusions, not premises: they are not assumptions, they are consequences.
if a implies b, and b implies c and d, my worldview contains all four of those things. however, the only thing that could be called an assumption is a: everything else necessarily follows. is that clear?

No I understood you completely, light will travel until it hits or is deflected by something.  Plain and simple.  You claimed it wouldn't.  You thought you could say it was heat and it obeyed the second law of thermodynamics and would dissipate away.  You were wrong on both counts.  About light being heat, and what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says.  We continued arguing about whether light would indeed travel forever in a vacuum.  This is what it does.  Space however is not a perfect vacuum, but it is really close.  So yes light will be absorbed by the matter in space, but it will not be absorbed away enough to make your statement of the light just fades away into nothing before reaching from one side of the Earth to the other.  You do remember you said that maybe the pictures from space are not all faked and they were on the edge of space and the light just faded away before coming to the camera, giving the rounded look of the Earth.
you premise, like all your premises is completely flawed again.  You logic is flawed.  Light traveling through the near vacuum of space would take trillions of years to fully dissipate and that's if it hit a lot of dust clouds along the way.  The sky would not be white either.  Light can travel forever but what is out there for it to reflect off of, and if there is anything, we are looking at stars and galaxy like structures now with telescopes that are almost as far away in light years as the universe is old.
I've never said that space is a perfect vacuum.  You assumed as much because you can't understand the basic physics of the world and seek to insert assumptions for all of it.  Now you are having doubts about this huge conspiracy theory nonsense and you know that you can't do away with the conspiracy and your model survive.  Well it hasn't survived beyond your own mind.  This is why you decided to make up the dual Earth idea also, you were having doubts about the  southern circumpolar stars and flight times.  You thought you could wrap those things up, since you thought that was the main arguments against the flat Earth notion.  You were in fact wrong.  Now you own model has more holes than flat Earth ever did.  It was an interesting distraction, I was willing to help you out, yet you turned on me a month or so ago and I don't care if they flame you in your FAQ thread, actually I don't care, period.  You are such a closed minded person as it is easier to talk to 3 year old about poop and get a more serious conversation.

what exactly are you responding to? you cannot make up my post, you have to actually respond to what i'm saying.
i said light cannot continue forever in reality (i did not specify in reality, i thought that was obvious, i do not talk about made up realms). unless you are saying a perfect vacuum exists, then you agree that light cannot continue forever.
case closed.
you can argue about the time it takes for light to disperse, but that is a minor detail in comparison.

i did give alternative explanations for how and why light would disperse, but they are simply unnecessary as you yourself have admitted light does fade with distance, as perfect vacuums do not exist. is it really that hard for you to admit you agree with me?
i turned on you because you were laughing at me. patronization is not at all the same as helping me out. why did you think i wouldn't grow sick of that?

i have no doubts about the conspiracy, it is a logical conclusion, i was simply curious as to how necessary it was. you have derailed this thread with dishonesty.
the conspiracy may not be required, by classical flat earthers. i believe space travel is impossible, as the aether grows too thick so i conclude the conspiracy must exist, but for flat earthers they could indeed allow for scientists to simply be mistaken. are you saying it is impossible for humans to make misakes? i would very much hope not.

Actually, I was generally interested in you actually developing something close to a theory.  It was an interesting concept,even if I did not agree with it.  I did ask that people leave you alone, I did say that you were at least trying to think, I did back off and ask simple questions to give you a little hint now and again as to where you would be questioned on your theory. 
You on the other hand decided to start claiming I was hounding people, well before I started doing just that.  You are the motivation for my most recent shift in how I deal with people on this forum.  You decided to call me a liar because you have seen that I really dislike that.  But hey, no worries. 
I have no problem agreeing with you.  Light does, over time finally get absorbed away, you thought it does so in a near vacuum within a few thousand miles, well it really really doesn't.
I just will not agree with something so blatantly wrong.  I figured we had to back up and get the basics correct first, as you were wrong about what light was.  I see now it is a colossal waste of time with you.  You refuse to listen to any logic, instead you want scream and cry because people are not agreeing with you.
I will leave you with this.  You are wrong about how logic works, you are wrong about so many things, and you cannot admit it when you even know it.

Keep arguing, pretty soon JRS will scream in size 72 font with bold, underlined, italicized words and get banned. That's a good thing.

Actually, I was generally interested in you actually developing something close to a theory.  It was an interesting concept,even if I did not agree with it.  I did ask that people leave you alone, I did say that you were at least trying to think, I did back off and ask simple questions to give you a little hint now and again as to where you would be questioned on your theory. 
You on the other hand decided to start claiming I was hounding people, well before I started doing just that.  You are the motivation for my most recent shift in how I deal with people on this forum.  You decided to call me a liar because you have seen that I really dislike that.  But hey, no worries. 
I have no problem agreeing with you.  Light does, over time finally get absorbed away, you thought it does so in a near vacuum within a few thousand miles, well it really really doesn't.
I just will not agree with something so blatantly wrong.  I figured we had to back up and get the basics correct first, as you were wrong about what light was.  I see now it is a colossal waste of time with you.  You refuse to listen to any logic, instead you want scream and cry because people are not agreeing with you.
I will leave you with this.  You are wrong about how logic works, you are wrong about so many things, and you cannot admit it when you even know it.

you happily agree with me on the crucial issue. our only point is disagreement is whether it could happen in the limited scale of distance. i am not sure why you are reacting with such venom to that notion, but regardless, please note i am not proposing it, this is simply an interetsing thought experiment to see if flat earth theory could exist with honest mistakes, rather than a conspiracy.
i call you a liar only when you are clearly being dishonest and acting as though a point hasn't been addressed when it's been dealt with multiple times. i have never claimed you hounded anyone, my frustration with you is simply because of how patronizing you were being.

Nobody is interested in Olbers' Paradox. 

Nobody is interested in Olbers' Paradox. 

round earthers don't like to admit they're wrong. i've only seen one do so.