|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 11:19:32 GMT
Moving on from the previous debate.
Let's discuss just one aspect in detail.
How do you know matter would be ripped apart between the aether whirlpools?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 12:58:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 15:25:16 GMT
I'd rather not address the previous debate as that was closed.
This is a fresh debate now with just one item on the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 15:42:39 GMT
Is your only interest in making me repeat myself? You did so repeatedly over the course of the last thread, and you are doing the same here. The answer has been given and linked.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 16:46:59 GMT
I'm. Interested in intellectual debate.
This is what you have said to back up your claim
"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"
Can you please tell me
1) how can you demonstrate there are various whirlpools close enough such that matter would have to pass between more than one of them to escape the atmosphere?
2) how do you know the speeds involved are such that nothing could survive the transition?
3) do you have evidence as to the existence of any of these whirlpools.
As I've said we are focusing only on the whirlpools now, you closed the previous thread so let's leave that in the past and debate this one aspect of your model.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 17:51:23 GMT
That thread is closed because you ignored every word I said, and you are doing the exact same thing here. We have had this exact discussion before. There is an entire section of the model devoted to the evidence, as I told you previously. If you want to leave it in the past, stop repeating it.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 20:02:14 GMT
There's nothing to ignore because you haven't addressed my post.
Are you interested in defending your model or are you interested in questioning its validity?
You have provided an overview, but it doesn't go into near enough scientific detail.
The 3 questions I posed in this thread are 3 issues that are not dealt with in the overview.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 20:32:38 GMT
Questions as to the evidence behind aspects of the model are explicitly covered in the overview. I have said this. I have addressed your post since long before you ever wrote it, I have linked you to where it was addressed, and where you have done the exact same thing and repeatedly wasted time. You ignore everything explained to you and ask the same question again, even when it is answered. There is an entire section devoted to the evidence. That is all three questions of "How do you know..." dealt with. Read the evidence section. That is your answer. dualearththeory.proboards.com/post/7 Evidence is how I know there are multiple whirlpools, how I know they tear objects that pass through them apart, how I know they exist... The answer will always be evidence. It matches observations, and that is all evidence is. Stop posturing. It makes discussion impossible. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the claim you are interested in debate when it is belied by your actions. If all you are going to do is start threads that you will never let die and will drag on endlessly while adding nothing new, please do not post on this site. I wish discussion to actually be possible here. Your questions are and have always been answered. They were, in this thread and the previous, addressed in the overview before you wrote even the frist word. If you are not going to contribute anything, if you are not going to give any reason beyond insistence why you have a problem, then you are wasting everybody's time. Mine, yours, and all the readers. Nothing is being gained from this.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 20:49:36 GMT
There is no posturing, I've never spoke to you before my first post on this site so I have no reason to be obtuse.
Most FET fall apart because they cannot answer certain questions.
The questions yours cannot answer is the impossibility of space travel.
That impossibility is due to the whirlpools.
I have read every word of your evidence section "an observation that is in line with what a theory states" this is your definition of evidence.
What observations have you seen that are in line with these whirlpools?
I am not ignoring anything you say, I am asking you to explain your theory and examine it in further detail than you have done so far.
I know you theorise these whirlpools exist and they will tear apart anything that travels between them but how do we know something would have to travel between them and how do we know that something would be tore apart?
They are two questions, I'll drop my previous third question, just those two interest me.
This is your site, this is your theory, this is your duty to answer questions about such things otherwise why bother with the site in the first place.
Readers will want to know why you deem space travel impossible and this si your chance to explain that beyond doubt.
Why do things have to pass between multiple whirlpools.
Why would such an event result in the thing being torn apart.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 21:01:56 GMT
I am not interested in this holier-than-thou posturing that you are doing here and previously, this was answered the last time you asked it and is still answered in the overview. I specifically explain what it is whirlpools do, and thus what we would observe. If you are here for intellectual debate, as you claim, then act it.
The whirlpools are responsible for multiple phenomenon. For example, the decrease in gravity as you increase in altitude; that is explained by passing through whirlpools. Thus, several exist at just the height of mountains. Rockets are intended to go considerably higher, thus they will pass through several. Similarly, the rate at which gravity decreases tells us the intensity of the transition increases with each whirlpool passed on ascent. This, in addition to various other phenomenon mentioned in the overview, tell us both that the whirlpools exist and that there are lots of them over the course of a rocket's projected journey. Logic tells us what would happen when you go through a more intense transition. Part of you would be moving at a different rate to the rest of you, if that rate outweighs the force holding a body together then the body would be torn apart, quite literally. We also observe meteor showers, often one large body falling to Earth that suddenly gets torn to shreds and falls as countless small chunks. Deduced, and confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 23:09:25 GMT
Thank you for finally addressing a question I've posed.
So are your whirlpools stacked vertically or horizontally, and does space exist between these whirlpools?
Something is ripped apart if the force applied outweighs the force keeping it together, but that isn't always the case. For example a chinese burn will hurt, but it won't break your arm. How does know the force out these whirlpools will be sufficient enough to break the rocket apart?
I appreciate what you have is a theory but in how many ways can these whirlpools be substantiated? I'm not talking about observation in line with, I'm talking about a scientific experiment to prove the existence of these whirlpools.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 23:23:51 GMT
As I said, this was answered long ago. It was answered in the previous thread, it was answered in the overview. I could answer by just copy-pasting the overview if you wanted. I do not appreciate having my time wasted. Do not act as though you are do anything other than asking me to repeat myself. I appreciate the opportunity to develop and explain new things, but this is not that. You are wilfully ignorant of the overview and you are expecting me to do all the work for you.
Yes, there is distance between each whirlpool. I have already answered as to how we can determine there is sufficient force to break objects apart. Meteors are an example; solid chunks of rock and metal, many thicker than the hull of a rocket, that just can't survive the approach to Earth. Please stop ignoring me. There is an experiment in the evidence section of the overview. Several, in fact.
Kindly stop making me repeat myself. Read the overview, actually read the posts I make in this thread, then ask your questions. I have lost count of how many times I have asked this of you. This is a basic courtesy.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 23:53:39 GMT
I will proceed to ignore any and all insults as they do not help to further this debate.
As I said my only interest in this thread is to debate the whirlpools.
Would it be possible for rockets to negotiate the gaps between these whirlpools as a way of escaping the atmosphere?
How do you know the meteors are thicker than the hull of a rocket? Have we experienced meteors that did not break apart through the whirlpools?
I will read through your overview again but I do not recall any experiments made specifically to verify the existence of said whirlpools. That's strange for me because I have a near photographic memory, but perhaps I skimmed a certain section and didn't take the information in. I will read again as I said and address it further in my next response to you.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 28, 2018 0:23:05 GMT
These are not insults. It is a simple request that you do not ask me to repeat myself. The insult is that you think the sheer frequency with which you ignore me is an acceptable way to act, and still act superior when you post. The whirlpools cover the entirety of the Earth, there are no gaps to navigate between. The only gaps are in the vertical direction. There is one at each altitude.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 28, 2018 1:04:04 GMT
OK so the whirlpools are stacked horizontally. So what is a rocket is at a low enough altitude to not be tore apart by the whirlpools, but instead continue in a forward trajectory toward the edge of your dual disk, what is the situation then.
You haven't answered my question about the size of the meteors and how they compare to the size of a rocket.
I read your overview again BTW, word for word, I did not find mention of any experiments which prove the existence of the whirlpools.
|
|