Impossibility of space travel

[JRowe]

1. Not an answer. There are multiple traits of the whirlpools you would need to justify and multiple properties of the monster that go unmentioned. You are being foolish, intentionally so I suspect as you know full well it is a ludicrous idea. Put it like this: if one person was to say to you that there was a spaghetti monster up in the sky that causes the coriolis effect, tears apart meteors, grabs and rips apart spaceships etc, and another person was to say that there was a solitary strand of spaghetti somewhere in the sky that did nothing but was just there and probably falling, would you believe those two statements were equivalently dumb, or is one rather more stupid than the other? And yet according to your logic here, they're both just one assumption. Stop this blatant trolling, I have had enough. Don't act like this is some minor, innocent misunderstanding when a child could see through this timewasting.
2. Blatantly not an answer. You know the two ways to demonstrate an issue with my definition, how does that even come close to either of them?
3. So, you cannot. Hence, I trust those motivations.

So, when at last you are pushed to actually provide an answer, you evade two and concede one. I just want you to realise that. That is what you insist is unreasonable, and yet when asked to explain why you have nothing to say.

4. Assuming you mean 'and survive intact,' already answered as you well know. We had this discussion, it ended up at question 2, I will not repeat it and waste yet more time with you.
5. First off, science isn't meant to stand alone, the impossibility of space travel is part of the model so will be accepted so long as DET is the logically preferred position, thus any indication otherwise would suffice. if you want to be specific to space travel though, let's tie this back to question 3: motive. When it becomes possible for an amateur rather than organisation to observe a rocket ascend to space and not break apart, or for that matter go to space themselves, and they are in a situation with no motive to lie, that's satisfactory evidence.

So, this is where we are. You waste time, evading two questions still, agreeing I was right on one, and then asking me to repeat myself twice more. 

[David]

Not an answer. There are multiple traits of the whirlpools you would need to justify and multiple properties of the monster that go unmentioned. You are being foolish, intentionally so I suspect as you know full well it is a ludicrous idea. Put it like this: if one person was to say to you that there was a spaghetti monster up in the sky that causes the coriolis effect, tears apart meteors, grabs and rips apart spaceships etc, and another person was to say that there was a solitary strand of spaghetti somewhere in the sky that did nothing but was just there and probably falling, would you believe those two statements were equivalently dumb, or is one rather more stupid than the other? And yet according to your logic here, they're both just one assumption. Stop this blatant trolling, I have had enough. Don't act like this is some minor, innocent misunderstanding when a child could see through this timewasting.
2. Blatantly not an answer. You know the two ways to demonstrate an issue with my definition, how does that even come close to either of them?
3. So, you cannot. Hence, I trust those motivations.

So, when at last you are pushed to actually provide an answer, you evade two and concede one. I just want you to realise that. That is what you insist is unreasonable, and yet when asked to explain why you have nothing to say.

4. Assuming you mean 'and survive intact,' already answered as you well know. We had this discussion, it ended up at question 2, I will not repeat it and waste yet more time with you.
5. First off, science isn't meant to stand alone, the impossibility of space travel is part of the model so will be accepted so long as DET is the logically preferred position, thus any indication otherwise would suffice. if you want to be specific to space travel though, let's tie this back to question 3: motive. When it becomes possible for an amateur rather than organisation to observe a rocket ascend to space and not break apart, or for that matter go to space themselves, and they are in a situation with no motive to lie, that's satisfactory evidence.

So, this is where we are. You waste time, evading two questions still, agreeing I was right on one, and then asking me to repeat myself twice more.

1) Yes it is. A big spaghetti monster who mimics your whirlpool's abilities. I agree it is a ridiculous notion as the body if evidence does not indicate there is a monster nor a whirlpool.

2) your definition is wrong, I've shown you what the definition is. Why do you make me repeat myself.

3) trust what you want, I trust the words of astronauts and everyone else involved in the space industry.

4) as I've you said, impossible space travel is not a valid conclusion of your model. Other than your deus ex machina.

5) DET is not the logically preferred option, for starters only 1 person out of 7 billion thinks its an apt description of our planet. But if you want to watch a space rocket go into space do your own research go to a location and watch it yourself, unless of course you don't trust your own motives?

[JRowe]

1. Completely evading my explanation.
2. Completely evading the question.
3. Completely evading all talk of motive.
4. Ignoring my answer.
5. Ignoring my answer.

Why should I talk to you?
I tried to be polite when we began, but you have long since exhausted any benefit of the doubt I could give you. Time and time again you do nothing but openly waste time.