Composition of the Sun?

I'm just working on a profile theory and model of JRowe....it's going to have a lot of woolly language plus lots of incoherent sections, that won't make much sense......and of course it will be devoid of any evidence. But apparently, that the way he likes it.

It's really great writing stuff that you don't have to justify......instead you just tell them to read it again.....and again.....etc

And as everyone can see JRowe has evaded all my questions again.....he's a slippery customer.

Why is it acceptable for you to answer like that, but suddenly unacceptable for me to?

You're being a hypocrite. You expect me to regurgitate a lengthy, advanced part of my model at your whim. I refuse. You know where to read it, do so. if you have an actual objection to what's presented then explain it rather than "Ha ha, it's different, ha ha," or "Ha ha, isn't it ludicrous? i'm not saying why. But ha ha!"

prizes for those who can spot any evidence

Hmm. You know, it's almost as if there's an entirely different section dedicated to the evidence, which you consistently evade refuting?

When anyone presents a lecture, they always have a Q and A where the audience are given the chance to ask questions

Yes, and what happens to hecklers?

How can your conjecture explain planetary transits?....as you missed that bit out.

Uh... the planets pass in front of the Sun? Don't see the difficulty here.

Come to think of it, as you fail to mention it in any part of your conjecture, which type of stone and what metals do you think the Sun are composed of ?

No idea. You have the same resources as me, let me know if you have any way to test.

Odd. My objection contained multiple questions which you attempt to answer below, so what on earth are you talking about?

Your posts are huge rants with maybe two lines of valid questions, and they're still mostly assumptions. This is my problem. if you want to make an argument then make the fucking argument. You don't need your self-righteous "Ha ha you're so stupid ha ha FEers are dumb," whinging.

How can I "personally" attack your aether?

What are you even taking about? if I'm talking about personal attacks, it's pretty damn clear I'm not talking about aether.

What flow? Flow of aether? Flow of the whirlpool?
What direction?
Is the sun a spheroid in your world, or is it a spotlight? I ask because because when you say the lit face of the Sun, that implies to me that sun either isn't always shining or it's a spotlight.

Again, these bland, detail-free "explanations" aren't satisfactory in the slightest.

Flow of aether, the direction of the Sun's light. The explanations aren't detail free, I'm just assuming you actually read your own question. And yes, the Sun's a spotlight, are you seriously asking about the model when you aren't even aware of that? I provide a diagram of the damn thing. i explicitly state as much on multiple occasions.

So... just to reiterate: the unlit face cutting off the lit... from my perspective. I have no idea what this means. It is meaningless gibberish even taking in the entire context of your "model".

Hold a torch. Rotate it so the light moves away from you. The unlit plastic cuts off your view of the light. What is hard about this?
Leave aside all your moronic babbling, have you considered that I might actually have answers? You seem to just be going in with the goal of intentionally misinterpreting every word I say; take that transparent 'personal attack' straw man. It just makes you look stupid.

It's really great writing stuff that you don't have to justify......instead you just tell them to read it again.....and again.....etc

You know, it's almost as though there are justifications you're completely missing because you refuse to even read the model and then lie about what you didn't even try to look at. Gosh, who'd have thought?
Still waiting for you to respond to my question about your objection to the evidence. You just have to supply

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Tell you what, I'm going to stop responding to all of your questions until you either answer this, or concede you can't. And after that, you are no longer allowed to criticize the evidence because you are unable to justify your claims. How does that sound?

Quote

And as everyone can see JRowe has evaded all my questions again.....he's a slippery customer.

Why is it acceptable for you to answer like that, but suddenly unacceptable for me to?

You're being a hypocrite. You expect me to regurgitate a lengthy, advanced part of my model at your whim. I refuse. You know where to read it, do so. if you have an actual objection to what's presented then explain it rather than "Ha ha, it's different, ha ha," or "Ha ha, isn't it ludicrous? i'm not saying why. But ha ha!"

Quote

prizes for those who can spot any evidence

Hmm. You know, it's almost as if there's an entirely different section dedicated to the evidence, which you consistently evade refuting?

Quote

When anyone presents a lecture, they always have a Q and A where the audience are given the chance to ask questions

Yes, and what happens to hecklers?

Quote

How can your conjecture explain planetary transits?....as you missed that bit out.

Uh... the planets pass in front of the Sun? Don't see the difficulty here.

Quote

Come to think of it, as you fail to mention it in any part of your conjecture, which type of stone and what metals do you think the Sun are composed of ?

No idea. You have the same resources as me, let me know if you have any way to test.

Quote

Odd. My objection contained multiple questions which you attempt to answer below, so what on earth are you talking about?

Your posts are huge rants with maybe two lines of valid questions, and they're still mostly assumptions. This is my problem. if you want to make an argument then make the fucking argument. You don't need your self-righteous "Ha ha you're so stupid ha ha FEers are dumb," whinging.

Quote

How can I "personally" attack your aether?

What are you even taking about? if I'm talking about personal attacks, it's pretty damn clear I'm not talking about aether.

Quote

What flow? Flow of aether? Flow of the whirlpool?
What direction?
Is the sun a spheroid in your world, or is it a spotlight? I ask because because when you say the lit face of the Sun, that implies to me that sun either isn't always shining or it's a spotlight.

Again, these bland, detail-free "explanations" aren't satisfactory in the slightest.

Flow of aether, the direction of the Sun's light. The explanations aren't detail free, I'm just assuming you actually read your own question. And yes, the Sun's a spotlight, are you seriously asking about the model when you aren't even aware of that? I provide a diagram of the damn thing. i explicitly state as much on multiple occasions.

Quote

So... just to reiterate: the unlit face cutting off the lit... from my perspective. I have no idea what this means. It is meaningless gibberish even taking in the entire context of your "model".

Hold a torch. Rotate it so the light moves away from you. The unlit plastic cuts off your view of the light. What is hard about this?
Leave aside all your moronic babbling, have you considered that I might actually have answers? You seem to just be going in with the goal of intentionally misinterpreting every word I say; take that transparent 'personal attack' straw man. It just makes you look stupid.

Quote

It's really great writing stuff that you don't have to justify......instead you just tell them to read it again.....and again.....etc

You know, it's almost as though there are justifications you're completely missing because you refuse to even read the model and then lie about what you didn't even try to look at. Gosh, who'd have thought?
Still waiting for you to respond to my question about your objection to the evidence. You just have to supply

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Tell you what, I'm going to stop responding to all of your questions until you either answer this, or concede you can't. And after that, you are no longer allowed to criticize the evidence because you are unable to justify your claims. How does that sound?

Answers and evidence....none to be seen.

How can you speak of planetary transits when you claim the sun is at the centre of the earth?

So JRowe has no idea about either the nature of the stone or metal that he says makes up the sun! That appears to cast doubt on his actual claim if he has no idea what the material actually is.  If he is not sure about that how can he be sure about anything he's written in his conjecture, imps aside?

The thing is I could tell him exactly what the sun is composed off.

Here's another thing the model I subscribe to can tell where all the elements come from, all those that make up stone, and all the metals. I wonder if JRowe can account for the creation of all the materials in his conjecture? I think that's very unlikely as he doesn't even know the materials he's dealing with. ......so if he doesn't actually know the materials, how can he be so sure they are metal and stone?

Another point of confusion is his claim of the sun being at the centre of the earth....yet he is happy with Venus transiting the sun..........when it's located at the earth's centre, sorry I'm confused.....I think it's party to do with his lack of detail or evidence.....I wonder if he's a bit confused about his claim as well. That could account for him thinking he's included evidence, when he's not!

Still waiting for you to respond to my question about your objection to the evidence. You just have to supply

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Tell you what, I'm going to stop responding to all of your questions until you either answer this, or concede you can't. And after that, you are no longer allowed to criticize the evidence because you are unable to justify your claims. How does that sound?

Quote

Still waiting for you to respond to my question about your objection to the evidence. You just have to supply

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Tell you what, I'm going to stop responding to all of your questions until you either answer this, or concede you can't. And after that, you are no longer allowed to criticize the evidence because you are unable to justify your claims. How does that sound?

Now this thread is looking at JRowe conjecture as relates  to the structure and composition of the Sun. Rather than answering any questions about it he's run of with his tail set well between his legs taking the cowards way out.......

Quote

Still waiting for you to respond to my question about your objection to the evidence. You just have to supply

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Tell you what, I'm going to stop responding to all of your questions until you either answer this, or concede you can't. And after that, you are no longer allowed to criticize the evidence because you are unable to justify your claims. How does that sound?

If you look at and read his footnote....again his words not mine this is what he says....

Moved to a forum where DET, a working FE model is explained and discussed. All welcome: account not needed.
dualearththeory.proboards.com/

He says his conjecture, its not a theory doesn't even come close, is explained and discussed! Well that's a laugh as he has neither discussed it or explained it on this or any other thread..........click the link is his favourite phrase.

....he's gone.....nowhere to be seen.....evidence free conjecture in tatters.....

Your posts are huge rants with maybe two lines of valid questions, and they're still mostly assumptions. This is my problem. if you want to make an argument then make the fucking argument. You don't need your self-righteous "Ha ha you're so stupid ha ha FEers are dumb," whinging.

Well, I do make arguments... I just happen to also include some derisive commentary on the shit I'm responding to.

Feel free to get over it.

What are you even taking about? if I'm talking about personal attacks, it's pretty damn clear I'm not talking about aether.

Show me where I personally attacked you.

Flow of aether, the direction of the Sun's light. The explanations aren't detail free, I'm just assuming you actually read your own question. And yes, the Sun's a spotlight, are you seriously asking about the model when you aren't even aware of that? I provide a diagram of the damn thing. i explicitly state as much on multiple occasions.

You provide a child-like, 2D drawing which is hardly helpful. That's literally all everyone who reads your "model" has to go off: An incoherent wall-of-text, no experiments, no mathematics and a few childish drawings... and  you wonder why people are beyond confused.

So, the "flow of aether" provides the reflection we see in the sky and also "cuts off" the sun's light when it "rotates out of view" (but only ever at the horizon). Ok then, this is unsubstantiated piffle with zero backing, but I'll just go with it.

My next question is: We know half the world is always receiving sunshine, so I assume there must be more than one "flow of aether", right? I mean, your bland explanations are ambiguous enough to suggest that once it "rotates out of view", the world would be left in darkness. Of course this doesn't happen, so it must be that the spotlight sun's lit face must always face the "flow of aether", correct?

Following on from this, could you explain the mechanism for why the aether carries the light from the sun to both hemispheres but at completely different points in the hemispheres? This obviously has to be the way it works for anyone living even remotely close to the equator because, according to you, they are literally on opposite sides of the world but can agree on a fixed position of the sun in the sky. Once again, a diagram of this would be really helpful.

Then again, no one has any idea where anything is, how high up the stars are or the distances between things so... nothing can really be falsified here, can it?

Hold a torch. Rotate it so the light moves away from you. The unlit plastic cuts off your view of the light. What is hard about this?
Leave aside all your moronic babbling, have you considered that I might actually have answers? You seem to just be going in with the goal of intentionally misinterpreting every word I say; take that transparent 'personal attack' straw man. It just makes you look stupid.

Just remember JR, you're the one with a fantasy DE "model" so I'd really consider eating some humble pie before I would consider calling others stupid.

Again I ask, why does this cutting off only coincide with the physical horizon? The aether apparently can achieve this phenomenon for all locations on earth perfectly, except for the Midnight sun in the Arctic and Antarctic, and then of course the added complication of polar nights. I truly wonder how someone would go trying to map out all of the angles for this, again with the complication of it matching angles observed in both hemispheres, then include all of the aforementioned polar phenomenon.

Seems incredibly complicated to my simple mind. Just remember JR:

there is a much simpler and much more elegant explanation for this so... just let me know if you'd like for me to explain that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt regarding overlooking this, but just to remind you:

Everything you ascribe to aether already has very well-defined phenomena and, better yet, actually has a rigorous mathematical framework that works and from which we can make predictions about, so what need is there for your aether?

To finish, if you could also respond to this, I'd appreciate it:

Apparently, the sun, moon & most/all of the observable universe exists in a "low concentration of aether" at the center of the Earth, between our two pizza-hemidisks. You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all. I'm using your own logic here and taking it to its own logical conclusion. If no space (ie. "distance") exists between the hemidisks, how can objects exist in this no space? It should be noted that you don't even say, for instance, infinitesimally small distance/space between these two points; you literally say no distance/space.

Now this thread is looking at JRowe conjecture as relates  to the structure and composition of the Sun. Rather than answering any questions about it he's run of with his tail set well between his legs taking the cowards way out.......

Still unable to respond to my simple request I see. i'll wait.

So, the "flow of aether" provides the reflection we see in the sky and also "cuts off" the sun's light when it "rotates out of view" (but only ever at the horizon).

The flow of aether doesn't cut off anything. Aether is just space; you're looking at the Sun, it's there, then it rotates and you can no longer see the lit face. I do not understand why you're acting like this is somehow absurd, it's common sense. And of course it'd happen at the horizon, where else could it happen? Just basic timing given it has to cover the entire world in its rotation.
There is only one flow of aether, I provide the diagram in the model. It always flows as presented. The issue is simply that the Sun faces in different directions, and so can only be seen from the directions that it is shining.

Following on from this, could you explain the mechanism for why the aether carries the light from the sun to both hemispheres but at completely different points in the hemispheres? This obviously has to be the way it works for anyone living even remotely close to the equator because, according to you, they are literally on opposite sides of the world but can agree on a fixed position of the sun in the sky. Once again, a diagram of this would be really help

I suggest reading the part of the overview that covers how people walk over the equator. Functionally it is just the same thing; obviously people can walk across the equator, planes can fly across it... logically objects far higher up will also cross the equator, getting further towards the inside of the Earth. And so the converse holds; an object right in the middle will exist on either side. Think of the Sun as a person with one foot on either side of the equator; they can easily exist on both sides.
The only difference is that the Sun exists in the pocket of space right in the middle of the Earth (where the flows from above and below converge). Thus, it exists there, but as it's still inside it is also on either side of the equator.

You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all.

This doesn't follow. most of the observable universe does not exist inside the Earth, I do not understand the chain of reasoning which led you to this, it bears no similarity to anything I've ever said. The Sun moon and planets exist in a pocket, the stars exist above and below the Earth, all of this is explicitly stated.
(And as a side note, no space is shorthand, I've been upfront about the fact it's just a negligible concentration, so much so it functionally makes no different. But, again, it is explicitly stated that the Earth is like an eye; the disks are the white, the negligible space the iris, and there's a pupil of space right in the middle where the Sun, moon and planets are, at the point where space flowing down from above and up from below meet).

So JRowe has no idea about either the nature of the stone or metal that he says makes up the sun! That appears to cast doubt on his actual claim if he has no idea what the material actually is.  If he is not sure about that how can he be sure about anything he's written in his conjecture, imps aside?

The thing is I could tell him exactly what the sun is composed off.

Here's another thing the model I subscribe to can tell where all the elements come from, all those that make up stone, and all the metals. I wonder if JRowe can account for the creation of all the materials in his conjecture? I think that's very unlikely as he doesn't even know the materials he's dealing with. ......so if he doesn't actually know the materials, how can he be so sure they are metal and stone?

Another point of confusion is his claim of the sun being at the centre of the earth....yet he is happy with Venus transiting the sun..........when it's located at the earth's centre, sorry I'm confused.....I think it's party to do with his lack of detail or evidence.....I wonder if he's a bit confused about his claim as well. That could account for him thinking he's included evidence, when he's not!

The whole point of this thread was to examine JROWE's claim regarding the nature of the Sun as proposed in his very flakey conjecture.

In his conjecture he states the sun is made from stone and metal of an unknown type. I asked for evidence to support this claim...........and nothing....

I asked about the transit of Venus and how he explains that...........more silence....

I asked how did his conjecture explain sun spots and coronal mass ejections........more silence........

The point is if you present an idea to the world for comment you should have the balls to take any questions that are related to it and answer them.

JRowe has obviously had his removed as he fails consistently to answer my questions.

I have another question for him that will be on a new thread, let's see how he responds.....

JRowe has obviously had his removed as he fails consistently to answer my questions.

I literally answered all of those, you're just openly lying now. But, yet again, if you want me to give more details, I will be happy to when you answer my one question. You get to spam three and whine when you don't like my answers, but asking you to answer just one simple little question is unacceptable, funny how that works.
As you know full well by now:

Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot. Then you can shut up about the evidence. 

Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.

Literally the most stupid request I have ever seen.

A piece of evidence supporting a model will always be an observation in line with said model. Hence why it is supporting evidence.

Speaking of evidence though; emission and absorption spectroscopy and its ability to determine the chemical make up of an object have been around since the mid 1800s. The application of this field to light from the sun (and all other stars) determined their make up to be primarily hydrogen and helium, with a scattering of other elements.

The emergence of nuclear physics showed that nuclear fusion would create neutrinos. Measurement of the sun eventually determined that the amount of neutrinos emitted by the sun directly correlated with a mass of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. This mass also directly fits with the gravitational effect exerted on the local solar system.

This is how proper science works. Multiple disciplines of science that are not in themselves connected but that all very precisely provide conclusive evidence of the suns structure and behaviour.

Quote

JRowe has obviously had his removed as he fails consistently to answer my questions.

I literally answered all of those, you're just openly lying now. But, yet again, if you want me to give more details, I will be happy to when you answer my one question. You get to spam three and whine when you don't like my answers, but asking you to answer just one simple little question is unacceptable, funny how that works.
As you know full well by now:

Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot. Then you can shut up about the evidence.

Yet again you fail......provide a link to your detailed answers of ALL my questions and we will see who deals in lies.

[quote author=JRoweSkeptic link=topic=70762.msg1913704#msg1913704 date=1495842153
Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.

Literally the most stupid request I have ever seen.

A piece of evidence supporting a model will always be an observation in line with said model. Hence why it is supporting evidence.

Speaking of evidence though; emission and absorption spectroscopy and its ability to determine the chemical make up of an object have been around since the mid 1800s. The application of this field to light from the sun (and all other stars) determined their make up to be primarily hydrogen and helium, with a scattering of other elements.

The emergence of nuclear physics showed that nuclear fusion would create neutrinos. Measurement of the sun eventually determined that the amount of neutrinos emitted by the sun directly correlated with a mass of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. This mass also directly fits with the gravitational effect exerted on the local solar system.

This is how proper science works. Multiple disciplines of science that are not in themselves connected but that all very precisely provide conclusive evidence of the suns structure and behaviour.
[/quote]

JRowe does not deal in anything that could be described as science..........he operates more in make believe with a sprinkling of scientific terms of which he has little understanding......in his mind it is this combination that passes for, let's call it 'flat science'.

No response from JRowe.....maybe he's doing some research into friction behind closed doors?

When you think about it this whole thread is totally bonkers in that we know exactly what  the sun is made from and a whole host of other things. There are university departments around the world who study the sun, such as UCL in London one of the top five universities in Europe.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/solar

The other problem is round earthers let the flat earthers get away with 'murder' in the way we allow them to discount this type of evidence. If it's from a university then the evidence is inadmissible, while if it's from the mind of a flat earth believer with no educational credentials...then that's ok.

Imagine a pair of scales on the one side we put UCL one of the top universities in Europe for science and on the other we put JRowe.

He thinks due to the 'alleged conspiracy' we should discount the output of a whole university and take his word instead. For me this makes no sense whatsoever. If you really want to know about the nature/composition of solar flares for example look here at some up to date research, not at the incredibly stupid ranting of a silly man who imagines his ranting should be taken seriously. This is what real research looks like, warning it's pretty complex, but life is complex.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/solar/publications/#2017

JRowe.....that friction research is taking a long time.....I think you should be careful.

JROWE is back.....but still refuses to answer my questions...same old same old.....

We will have more answers about the sun next year thank to this;

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/31/nasa-to-announce-details-of-hotly-anticipated-mission-to-the-sun-solar-probe-plus

When are you launching yours JRowe?

I don't believe in DET either...and I am all for some constructive debate with its creator.  But...making dozens of posts by yourself grandstanding about your opinions on the argument and talking to yourself about how if your opponent hasn't responded in a little while, it must be because he's been irrecoverably devastated by your logic (I mean it's not like anyone could possibly have other things to do with their life, right?) just makes you look like an insecure bully.  I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, but...there it is.

I don't believe in DET either...and I am all for some constructive debate with its creator.  But...making dozens of posts by yourself grandstanding about your opinions on the argument and talking to yourself about how if your opponent hasn't responded in a little while, it must be because he's been irrecoverably devastated by your logic (I mean it's not like anyone could possibly have other things to do with their life, right?) just makes you look like an insecure bully.  I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, but...there it is.

It's not a question of caring...it's a question of questions......in that JRowe never answers them. The multiple posting is to allow him a chance of replying before the thread is consigned to the flat earth graveyard.

This is a great theory! I never thought about it this way before! The sun looks just like a sunflower, but sunflowers can only grow on rocks. Therefore, the sun must be covered in sunflowers and must therefore be a rock! As for the metal on the inside, I think it's obvious that only metal could make that much heat. I mean, have you ever touched a pot that's been heated on a stove? It's hot!

Metal is pretty hot, but wouldn't it make more sense if the metal inside was more of a molten composition. The sunflowers could draw molten metal from the inside and be able to project it out kind of like a lava lamp.

This is a great theory! I never thought about it this way before! The sun looks just like a sunflower, but sunflowers can only grow on rocks. Therefore, the sun must be covered in sunflowers and must therefore be a rock! As for the metal on the inside, I think it's obvious that only metal could make that much heat. I mean, have you ever touched a pot that's been heated on a stove? It's hot!

Metal is pretty hot, but wouldn't it make more sense if the metal inside was more of a molten composition. The sunflowers could draw molten metal from the inside and be able to project it out kind of like a lava lamp.

I guess I have a question. If the sun is really a sunflower...then what are sunflowers?

Lonegranger, I am not interested in your grandstanding and your spamming. From my perspective I've answered most of your questions, whether directly or in the overview you claim to have read. After everything it seems like you're just trolling. If you're not, then consider this a token of good faith. You want me to answer floods of questions, I am asking you to respond to one. You have objected to my evidence multiple times, I am still awaiting for you either to justify or concede.
But, yet again, if you want me to give more details, I will be happy to when you answer my one question. You get to spam three and whine when you don't like my answers, but asking you to answer just one simple little question is unacceptable, funny how that works.
As you know full well by now:

Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot.
When this is done we can firmly close the book on this topic and move on to your other questions. If you refuse to, then it is clear to everyone that you are a troll, interested in spamming and never in answering or justifying.

Lonegranger, I am not interested in your grandstanding and your spamming. From my perspective I've answered most of your questions, whether directly or in the overview you claim to have read. After everything it seems like you're just trolling. If you're not, then consider this a token of good faith. You want me to answer floods of questions, I am asking you to respond to one. You have objected to my evidence multiple times, I am still awaiting for you either to justify or concede.
But, yet again, if you want me to give more details, I will be happy to when you answer my one question. You get to spam three and whine when you don't like my answers, but asking you to answer just one simple little question is unacceptable, funny how that works.
As you know full well by now:

Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot.
When this is done we can firmly close the book on this topic and move on to your other questions. If you refuse to, then it is clear to everyone that you are a troll, interested in spamming and never in answering or justifying.

Wow...you must be really tired after penning that response. It must have really worked your originality centres really hard, well it would if you had any!

No where in any of your 'posts' did you answer my question in regard to the primary energy source of your ludicrous 'con-jackture'....you say Friction......but what causes it?

Actually there is little point in answering my question as I doubt you have the creative capacity to construct yet another tall story.

Made from stone and metal and heated by friction!........or could it be your magnetic imps causing all the friction!

And after all this time still no answer.....to make this post legal and fit with current guidelines I suppose I should add.......reserved!