The Space Travel Conspiracy is Another Assumption

[David]

This is exactly what I'm saying.

No matter what I assume, it has no impact on what happened.

You put such a huge emphasis on observation but you dismiss the observations of everyone who has travelled to space or downloaded satellite imagery.

The observations you trust most are your own, above anything else that is quoted to you as scientific fact. Well we have first hand witness accounts of a spherical earth being observed, not the findings of an experiment but the first hand witnessing.

You conclude space travel is a lie because it doesn't fit your model. But you haven't proven that it can't fit your model, you haven't observed that it can't fit your model, you have experimented about whether or not it can fit your model.

So your observations are very weak at this point. The people you claim are lying have done a whole lot more experimentation and observation than you have but you just dismiss it without just cause.

[JRowe]

I have proven that it cannot fit in my model; I explain as much in the overview. The transition between whirlpools at higher altitudes, where the discontinuity is greater, would tear any objects apart. Space travel is wholly and entirely impossible. I conclude it is a lie because it cannot work within the model.
The observations of people who have claimed to have been to space, or have witnessed data claimed to have been arrived at from space are accounted for. You may not like the explanation, but you cannot deny that it is there.
Your argument remains rooted in the assumption that people have been to space. Saying "the observations of everyone who has travelled to space," doesn't mean anyone actually occupies that group. All we have is people who claim to have. Why are you saying they're honest? You have yet to prove that, and as such my claim is precisely as valid as yours. The difference is mine is justified by part of DET, while yours is not; RET doesn't imply people have been to space, while DET implies people cannot.

[David]

Jun 12, 2017 18:04:27 GMT JRowe said:

I have proven that it cannot fit in my model; I explain as much in the overview. The transition between whirlpools at higher altitudes, where the discontinuity is greater, would tear any objects apart. Space travel is wholly and entirely impossible. I conclude it is a lie because it cannot work within the model.
The observations of people who have claimed to have been to space, or have witnessed data claimed to have been arrived at from space are accounted for. You may not like the explanation, but you cannot deny that it is there.
Your argument remains rooted in the assumption that people have been to space. Saying "the observations of everyone who has travelled to space," doesn't mean anyone actually occupies that group. All we have is people who claim to have. Why are you saying they're honest? You have yet to prove that, and as such my claim is precisely as valid as yours. The difference is mine is justified by part of DET, while yours is not; RET doesn't imply people have been to space, while DET implies people cannot.

You've proven nothing. How do you know these "whirlpools" would tear objects apart?

Have you placed any objects in or around these whirlpools?

Have you tried leaving the atmosphere yourself?

How do you know it cannot work?

You account for no observation, you just say it can't be the case. You have not proved it is not case not have you attempted to prove it is not the case.

The people you so readily dismiss have at the very least attempted space travel and according to their own observation have succeeded. You have nothing with which to compare.

You dismiss any and all presented evidence of space travel do to an assumption you've made that it cannot be done. Your assumption has no substance whatsoever.

[JRowe]

If one part of an object is moving with a certain speed relative to another part of the same object, it'll be torn apart. We observe this with, for example, meteor showers; one rock shatters into pieces before it reaches the Earth's surface. I don't need to hit every mug I own with a hammer to be sure that it'll break them. The DE model specifically predicts, as a conclusion, that space travel is not possible because of this. I do demonstrate why this is the case; I explain the principles at work, this is all that happens.
Again, you cannot say "according to their own observation have succeeded." You do not know if it was their own observation. You are just assuming that it really happened with no evidence beyond empty words. How many times must I repeat that?

[David]

Jun 12, 2017 22:13:02 GMT JRowe said:

If one part of an object is moving with a certain speed relative to another part of the same object, it'll be torn apart. We observe this with, for example, meteor showers; one rock shatters into pieces before it reaches the Earth's surface. I don't need to hit every mug I own with a hammer to be sure that it'll break them. The DE model specifically predicts, as a conclusion, that space travel is not possible because of this. I do demonstrate why this is the case; I explain the principles at work, this is all that happens.
Again, you cannot say "according to their own observation have succeeded." You do not know if it was their own observation. You are just assuming that it really happened with no evidence beyond empty words. How many times must I repeat that?

Which meteor showers have you observed this in? Why should I believe this phenomenon with no evidence beyond empty words?

Have you completed any experiments in or around the aether whirlpools?

Have you made any observations in or around the whirlpools?

And again,I don't have to assume anything. My assumptions don't change reality, I do not have that power I'm afraid. A spherical earth being observed has still been observed whether or not you or I believe it.

[JRowe]

You're more than welcome to verify it yourself. It is accepted and observed by countless people that this is how meteor showers typically form, singular meteors breaking up in the atmosphere. I personally do not need to do something, I can appeal to the work and experiments of others. Widely corroborated, accessibly verifiable statements are perfectly reasonable to accept. The overview gives the traits and consequences of the whirlpools, common sense will tell you the experiments that have confirmed them.

"A spherical earth being observed has still been observed." Prove it. You keep saying this, but it is pointless. I could just as easily say "A flat Earth has still been observed." Words alone are empty. Why do you believe that a spherical Earth has been observed? Don't evade by saying your beliefs don't change reality, that is not what I am asking. You are making the clear and specific claim about reality, that a spherical Earth has been observed, yet all you have done is assert this. It is simply not true; I at least explain why I think that.

[David]

Jun 13, 2017 14:26:24 GMT JRowe said:

You're more than welcome to verify it yourself. It is accepted and observed by countless people that this is how meteor showers typically form, singular meteors breaking up in the atmosphere. I personally do not need to do something, I can appeal to the work and experiments of others. Widely corroborated, accessibly verifiable statements are perfectly reasonable to accept. The overview gives the traits and consequences of the whirlpools, common sense will tell you the experiments that have confirmed them.

"A spherical earth being observed has still been observed." Prove it. You keep saying this, but it is pointless. I could just as easily say "A flat Earth has still been observed." Words alone are empty. Why do you believe that a spherical Earth has been observed? Don't evade by saying your beliefs don't change reality, that is not what I am asking. You are making the clear and specific claim about reality, that a spherical Earth has been observed, yet all you have done is assert this. It is simply not true; I at least explain why I think that.

It is accepted and observed by countless people that space travel has occurred. I personally do not need to do something, I can appeal to the work and experiments of others. Widely corroborated, accessibly verifiable statements are perfectly reasonable to accept. The written history of man makes many references to a spherical earth, common sense will tell you the experiments that have confirmed them.

You could say a flat earth has been observed, have you observed a flat earth?

The testimony of far too many individuals can not be ignored when it comes to space travel. Every single picture taken from space and every single person who's been in space have all said the same thing, the earth is a sphere.

You don't explain why you think it. You haven't explained anything. You are comparing meteors entering the atmosphere from outer space with whirlpools attacking a rocket ship from earth.

You have stated a though, but you have not backed it up apart from to use the arguments you have been arguing against, as I demonstrated with my first paragraph.

[JRowe]

We never observe things directly, we observe consequences. As I go into on the section on evidence, all of those observations may have more than one observation. The history of mankind references things that, from a simpler perspective, suggested a round earth. However, in the modern era science has advanced to the point where we are familiar with such subjects as relativity, and we see clearly that there are a multitude of alternative explanations. No experiment confirms RET, they confirm specific observations only, and countless FE models are just as capable of explaining them.
The problem is, you are not appealing to any of that for space travel. You are not appealing to experiments, you are not appealing to tests, you are appealing to a stranger's word. That just is not as reliable.
Your first paragraph was a transparent straw man. How, exactly, is space travel 'accessibly verifiable?' You are more than welcome to tell me how you would accessibly build your own spaceship.

I have a lengthy overview where I explain what it is my model states. Whirlpools do not 'attack' a rocket ship, they just damage anything that passes through them from either direction, as the transition would tear anything apart, for reasons previously explained here and in the overview. I then proceed to give the evidence, and explain why I think it: it is a model that explains everything, and relies on fewer assumptions. Despite your best efforts, you have not demonstrated otherwise. The impossibility of space travel remains a conclusion of the model, as it follows from the model itself. You seemed to have then changed tactics to trying to show it was an unjustified conclusion, but despite being asked several times you provide no more justification for that than "Take them at their word."

[David]

Jun 14, 2017 14:14:29 GMT JRowe said:

We never observe things directly, we observe consequences. As I go into on the section on evidence, all of those observations may have more than one observation. The history of mankind references things that, from a simpler perspective, suggested a round earth. However, in the modern era science has advanced to the point where we are familiar with such subjects as relativity, and we see clearly that there are a multitude of alternative explanations. No experiment confirms RET, they confirm specific observations only, and countless FE models are just as capable of explaining them.
The problem is, you are not appealing to any of that for space travel. You are not appealing to experiments, you are not appealing to tests, you are appealing to a stranger's word. That just is not as reliable.
Your first paragraph was a transparent straw man. How, exactly, is space travel 'accessibly verifiable?' You are more than welcome to tell me how you would accessibly build your own spaceship.

I have a lengthy overview where I explain what it is my model states. Whirlpools do not 'attack' a rocket ship, they just damage anything that passes through them from either direction, as the transition would tear anything apart, for reasons previously explained here and in the overview. I then proceed to give the evidence, and explain why I think it: it is a model that explains everything, and relies on fewer assumptions. Despite your best efforts, you have not demonstrated otherwise. The impossibility of space travel remains a conclusion of the model, as it follows from the model itself. You seemed to have then changed tactics to trying to show it was an unjustified conclusion, but despite being asked several times you provide no more justification for that than "Take them at their word."

A lot of experiments confirm the earth being spherical. Space travel is the most obvious one as it involves direct witness accounts. There is also satellite pictures that confirm this. As well as that there is observations of the earth's curvature over any unobstructed distance long enough. As well as that there is the lack of observations of distances beyond the alleged curvature of the earth. On top of that there is the modern reliance on GPS which wouldn't work without satellite technology. Furthermore there is flight paths which rely on the earth being curved to minimise distance travelled and hence money and time spent.

Space travel being the first example I used is verifiable by any number of means. You can speak to someone who has been to space themselves. You can speak to the engineers involved in the journeys. You can speak to anyone who is involved in the logistics of such journeys. You can dedicate your life to space engineering and apply for a job at NASA yourself. You can watch the videos of space travel, you can learn the mathematics behind space travel, you can observe all of the pictures taken from space travel. The possibilities of verifying space travel are almost infinite but there's a few to chew on.

I've not used a straw man argument, I've used your argument. You have said you don't need your own observation, you can appeal to evidence.

You have no reason to state the whirlpool damages anything that passes through it. You have made an assumption, not a conclusion based in evidence. You have never witnessed this damage occuring and you have no mathematics or experimental evidence to back up this claim.

I haven't changed tactics once. I've maintained from the begin that space travel has proven your model false. I've maintained that the men involved in space travel have knowledge of the earth's shape and that knowledge exists regardless of your belief of it. I've also maintained your belief in space travel being impossible is not a conclusion but an assumption and one that is I'll founded on both a logical and mathematical front.

If you are to make a claim "space travel is impossible" the burden of proof is on you to prove it and a half baked assumption is not proof by any logical assertion.

[JRowe]

Direct witness accounts are the least reliable of scientific evidence; people lie. Observations do not. GPS is another topic, lengthy, and your claim there still goes unjustified as it is trivial to simulate transmitters that seem higher up. Flight paths, and other arguments of that ilk, are an entirely separate topic.
Once again, you are making circular arguments. You can claim that if I went through everything and joined NASA, even ignoring how absurd an ask from just a financial perspective to move and get a degree in space engineering, I'd get confirmation, but it's also possible I'd do all that and find out that there's no more to it than calculating logistics. That doesn't prove anything. All the calculations in the world do not mean something actually happened, and pictures can be faked.

Your claim about whirlpools is no more than an outright lie. Passing through a whirlpool at higher altitude means part of an object is moving at a different speed relative to the rest of said object. That is the definition of what is required for something to tear apart; and we do observe this. As I brought up before, this is what is responsible for a meteor breaking up to cause meteor showers, a well-established fact. All of what I am saying follows from the model, it is not an assumption.
I have demonstrated why space travel is impossible under the DE model. Before this point all you did was say that it happened and claim that the astronauts knew, but you provided no evidence; that was an assumption, this is a conclusion. Even now however, your evidence is lacking.

[David]

Jun 14, 2017 23:48:12 GMT JRowe said:

Direct witness accounts are the least reliable of scientific evidence; people lie. Observations do not. GPS is another topic, lengthy, and your claim there still goes unjustified as it is trivial to simulate transmitters that seem higher up. Flight paths, and other arguments of that ilk, are an entirely separate topic.
Once again, you are making circular arguments. You can claim that if I went through everything and joined NASA, even ignoring how absurd an ask from just a financial perspective to move and get a degree in space engineering, I'd get confirmation, but it's also possible I'd do all that and find out that there's no more to it than calculating logistics. That doesn't prove anything. All the calculations in the world do not mean something actually happened, and pictures can be faked.

Your claim about whirlpools is no more than an outright lie. Passing through a whirlpool at higher altitude means part of an object is moving at a different speed relative to the rest of said object. That is the definition of what is required for something to tear apart; and we do observe this. As I brought up before, this is what is responsible for a meteor breaking up to cause meteor showers, a well-established fact. All of what I am saying follows from the model, it is not an assumption.
I have demonstrated why space travel is impossible under the DE model. Before this point all you did was say that it happened and claim that the astronauts knew, but you provided no evidence; that was an assumption, this is a conclusion. Even now however, your evidence is lacking.

Direct witness accounts are observations. As in those witnesses observed a spherical earth. I know they're different subjects, as I said there are many different ways the earth has been proven to be spherical.

You don't have to join NASA, I'm just saying that space travel is verifiable and if you were really bothered enough you could verify it yourself.

So you are using a meteor shower to prove that space travel is impossible? So you realise how scientifically lacking logic that thought process is?

Again you are not concluding anything, you are assuming that space travel cannot happen. That's an assumption you need to prove. Otherwise you would also be able to look at the logic behind rockets levaing the atmosphere and system it's a conclusion that space travel has happened.

The thread is here for all to see, your attempts at distorting are so fruitless I don't even need to respond in any detail to them.

You say I'm lacking evidence but that's because you dismiss anything that contradicts your model as impossible. Doing that contradicts your own model itself as you said it should be falsifiable and although it has been proven to be false you won't accept it anyway.

As I said, your model relies on the impossibility of space travel. Prove that space travel is impossible and we can discuss it further.

[JRowe]

Direct witness accounts can be lies; that is why scientists usually repeat experiments before making any solid claims.

In what way are meteor showers remotely the same thing as manmade rockets? My claim is and has always been nothing will survive going to space due to the fact it will need to pass through greater discontinuities (the whirlpools) at higher altitudes. In what way does that stop meteors descending to Earth? In fact it makes perfect sense for them to shatter.
I have proven that space travel is impossible under DET. That's all I'm concerned about, I don't accept RET. You are claiming that it is unproven, but I have explained why it happens and the overview explains in some detail why the whirlpools form. The impossibility of space travel is an immediate consequence, and so conclusion, of how the world is set up.
You, however, have provided no more than assertion. You say people have been to space, you say if I joined NASA I'd be given the chance, but you do not know any of that to be true, you are just saying it. If you have evidence, I am still waiting for it. I am distorting nothing, you are making the empty claim that astronauts have been to space and observed a round Earth, and you are providing no evidence for that except your word. I have proven the impossibility of space travel under DET, multiple times now, and you have not provided any issue with the explanation, you just claim it is not enough.

[David]

Jun 15, 2017 15:26:43 GMT JRowe said:

Direct witness accounts can be lies; that is why scientists usually repeat experiments before making any solid claims.

In what way are meteor showers remotely the same thing as manmade rockets? My claim is and has always been nothing will survive going to space due to the fact it will need to pass through greater discontinuities (the whirlpools) at higher altitudes. In what way does that stop meteors descending to Earth? In fact it makes perfect sense for them to shatter.
I have proven that space travel is impossible under DET. That's all I'm concerned about, I don't accept RET. You are claiming that it is unproven, but I have explained why it happens and the overview explains in some detail why the whirlpools form. The impossibility of space travel is an immediate consequence, and so conclusion, of how the world is set up.
You, however, have provided no more than assertion. You say people have been to space, you say if I joined NASA I'd be given the chance, but you do not know any of that to be true, you are just saying it. If you have evidence, I am still waiting for it. I am distorting nothing, you are making the empty claim that astronauts have been to space and observed a round Earth, and you are providing no evidence for that except your word. I have proven the impossibility of space travel under DET, multiple times now, and you have not provided any issue with the explanation, you just claim it is not enough.

Again with your double standards. What experiments have you made prior to your claims in support of this model?

You have not proven space travel is impossible. That is a lie if that is your claim.

I listed a large portion of evidence but you said I was going into different issues that were off topic.

I have told you explicitly what my issue is with your theory about aether whirlpools. You have no basis upon which to say space travel is impossible. You have not witnessed anything being destroyed in these whirlpools. You have not done any experiments within these whirlpools. You have not even proven the existence of these whirlpools.

Any proof given to you, you dismiss. You are being very close minded and just accepting vague unsubstantiated claims at face value.

[JRowe]

I provide the evidence in the overview, I am not going to repeat it all in every post I make. All of DET follows on from it, and as such DET is supported by evidence. The whirlpools and their effects are part of the model, and the evidence for the model is given.
I am not being closed-minded, you are just refusing to acknowledge when a point has been refuted. You are outright lying about the whirlpools now. I have defined them, described them, and justified their existence both here and in the overview, and provided an example of how they destroy matter that passes through them, and yet you are not moving on from the same dealt-with point. My claims are not unsubstantiated, you are just ignoring the justification.
The evidence I dismissed as off topic were 'flight paths' which have nothing to do with space travel. The other instances you gave simply have a multitude of other explanations, and space travel shouldn't be assumed.

[David]

Jun 16, 2017 15:46:49 GMT JRowe said:

I provide the evidence in the overview, I am not going to repeat it all in every post I make. All of DET follows on from it, and as such DET is supported by evidence. The whirlpools and their effects are part of the model, and the evidence for the model is given.
I am not being closed-minded, you are just refusing to acknowledge when a point has been refuted. You are outright lying about the whirlpools now. I have defined them, described them, and justified their existence both here and in the overview, and provided an example of how they destroy matter that passes through them, and yet you are not moving on from the same dealt-with point. My claims are not unsubstantiated, you are just ignoring the justification.
The evidence I dismissed as off topic were 'flight paths' which have nothing to do with space travel. The other instances you gave simply have a multitude of other explanations, and space travel shouldn't be assumed.

There is no evidence in the overview. There is a theory on what you think happens, but there's no evidence.

The whirlpools are not a natural condition of your model at all, your model is a flow of aether from high to low, where does that dictate a whirlpool?

How fast do these whirlpools travel?

Why are these whirlpools more damaging​ than travelling through the centre of the earth?

Why don't we all travel to the whirlpools with the aether as it flows back up again?

There isn't any practical, scientific nor observational evidence that stands up to any scrutiny.

You say you are sick of answering but no answers have been given.

There is nothing in your overview proving the impossibility of space travel. Even less proving the impossibility of satellites.

You're close mindedness is staggering to me you dismiss anything in support of the real earth model as irrelevant or unsubstantiated.

I am trying my hardest to take you seriously and intelligently debate this with you but you are demonstrating a clear double standard on what you will and will not accept as evidence.