|
Post by JRowe on Jan 28, 2018 2:37:57 GMT
I don't understand the question. Are you asking what happens when a rocket crosses the equator? In which case, the answer's the same as everything else. I didn't answer that question because it was another waste of time, you are perfectly capable of googling the sizes of meteors and the width of a rocket's hull. And no, we haven't observed any meteors that haven't broken apart through whirlpools.
Then you are lying, and there is nothing more to say. Even a simple ctrl f for experiment would find the right section. The overview, in the evidence section as referenced, explicitly states: "2. This one is easier to test, and is based on the existence of the whirlpools above the Earth. These will affect both the refraction of light in the vertical direction, and the downwards force caused by gravity. Vertical refraction will increase with altitude, due to peering through more air. Gravity will decrease with altitude: under DET, this is due to fewer whirlpools pushing down. It will be possible to verify that the alteration will occur discontinuously: instead of a smooth progression, we will observe jumps at the altitude of each whirlpool. The test itself would be simple. If you have the means to measure refraction or gravity, and you can notice a change to several significant figures between ground level, and a set altitude, then if you slowly ascend, a jump in the amount of refraction or gravity should be visible. This will be easier to test with gravity. The downwards force should remain more or less constant, except at the jumps."
I am not going to be patient with you given your behaviour over the past threads. You are constantly wasting time, and now you have moved on to openly lying. In that post, of your three points, one was a lie. One was a waste of time you could easily answer for yourself. And the last appears to be a situation incredibly trivially answered given the model, and if I was charitable I could put it down to perhaps a misunderstanding, but given how you have acted and the kinds of posts you have made I am not inclined to be charitable. I do not have endless patience. There are enough people and sites out there that will happily let you troll FEers, this is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 28, 2018 9:06:09 GMT
Again, any and all insults will be ignored thank you.
So crossing the equator high in the sky or low on the ground is treated the same? Thanks for the clarification.
I can Google meteors yes, but those measurements are based on space travel science which you have denounced as a lie so assumingly the measurements would also be a lie? Unless I have misunderstood your premise.
I'm pretty sure you said you didn't have the resources to carry out such an experiment thus the experiment has not yet happened, unless you have a benefactor who has enabled such a test to take place?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 28, 2018 13:21:53 GMT
It is not an insult to state the objective fact that you lied. It is a consistent trait of your posts. Stop posturing, again, stop acting like you are above all this, and instead act like someone interested in honest discussion. A plane would tell you that you can cross the equator high in the sky. There are a staggering number of meteors that reach the ground.
As far as the rest goes, you are moving the goalposts. You asked for an experiment that could confirm the existence of whirlpools, ie that they were testable. If you wanted experiments that indicated there existence that have been performed, we have already been over that when you asked for the evidence in favour of them. Again, stop making me repeat myself.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 28, 2018 13:58:54 GMT
Again, I'll ignore any and all insults.
That matter if the equator has been clarified so needs no more discussion, thanks.
No full sized meteors have ever landed on Earth have they not? So without measuring the width of a full sized meteor how can we compare it to a space rocket?
I haven't shifted any goalposts. I asked about any experiments that prove the existence of the whirlpools, you replied with something yet to be experimented so that's not really a sufficient answer for my curiosity.
The impossibility of space travel relies on both existence of these whirlpools and the property that will destroy matter passing through them.
All I have so far to back up these two claims is a Google search of an object measures in space (which can't happen) and an experiment yet to be carried out.
I'm sure you can understand my reservations.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 28, 2018 15:29:34 GMT
It is not an insult, again. You are making it clear you are trying to win points based on appearance rather than logic, and I am not interested in that kind of dishonesty. You have already won on the grounds of appearance, most readers will side with you automatically because you are arguing against the concept of a flat earth. Stop it, stop posturing, stop openly ignoring every word I say.
Meteors aren't going to grow while they descend. And the numerous experiments already given, that you are openly ignoring now given you pretend as though we have never discussed evidence, provide evidence of the whirlpools.
Cease this dishonesty, or stop posting. You have had countless pages dedicated to you and yet you have wanted nothing beyond me repeating myself, and I will not put up with it any longer. Stop this posturing, stop these claims of 'insults.' You say your reservations are understandable, do you see mine? Do you see how regularly you do nothing but waste my time, ask me to repeat myself, and ignore me when I do? Stop it, or we are done.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 28, 2018 16:34:24 GMT
I will continue to ignore any and all insults plus any and all tangents.
My question about meteors is a genuine question. How do we know a full size meteor is bigger than a rocket if no full size asteroids have ever survived the journey through the whirlpools.
All I wanted was an experiment that proved these whirlpools exist and the only experiment you mention has never been carried out.
My only focus is these two points, no tangents nor straw men.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 28, 2018 17:20:42 GMT
Again, not insults, not tangents. You are objectively ignoring all of my responses. I answered your meteor question: they are not going to get bigger before they land. We can easily measure the results of meteor showers. I'm not saying we can measure the exact size, just that they're bigger than the hull of rockets which is, again, easy for you to google and verify and compare meteorites with hulls. And I gave multiple experiments that verify the existence of whirlpools the first time you asked, in this and the previous thread.
I am done. You are openly ignoring every word I say, this is a waste of time. We have had six pages of discussion and not once have you done anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Francisco on Jan 30, 2018 7:21:26 GMT
I see my ban has now come to an end.
If we are allowed to rely on Google as verification then I can use Google to search the existence of these whirlpools right?
You seemed to have lost it the other day, I was concerned for you. Hope all is well now.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2018 14:09:21 GMT
There are consequences for repeated dishonesty, I will not let this forum devolve the way other FE forums have, dens for nothing except provocation and mockery. I expect a basic standard of honesty here, which you repeatedly broke. All you can verify is the consequences. We observe large rocks and chunks of metal breaking up as they approach Earth, and observe it directly. We observe gravity decreasing with altitude. We observe the coriolis effect.
|
|
|
Post by Fernando on Jan 30, 2018 15:34:47 GMT
Yes the effects are all we can observe of such a force.
That does not mean observations of the effects if proof of the force being in existence though.
But now my questions are all answered. Travelling low at the equator is the same as travelling high at the equator. We know meteorites break up because we can see them. There is no direct evidence of the whirlpools.
But to remain on topic for this particular thread, so can observe a meteor breaking up into smaller fragments, how do we know that is due to transition of the whirlpools? Because without verifying that aspect of the phenomenon we don't need to assume traversing the higher whirlpools is impossible.
I would like to be able to use my name again please.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2018 15:43:19 GMT
It is all there is. Direct evidence IS observation of the effects. There is nothing else, all you can observe is the effects of something. Ask the same question of anything else. That's what they do, they're in the right place, it's the logical conclusion. It's how we verify anything. If you want this illustrated, think of something you find the evidence to be overwhelming for, as simple as you want. I'll demonstrate it there. Again, this is yet another thing covered in the evidence section.
I'm not stopping you using your name.
|
|
|
Post by David2 on Jan 30, 2018 17:10:34 GMT
It keeps saying my username is taken.
OK I can see my door in front of me, I don't have to rely on the effects the door has on its surroundings.
I can feel my phone as I type this.
I can hear the cars driving past.
I disagree with your definition of evidence because it is too vague. How do we know this isn't also evidence of a sentient being tearing apart meteors as they encroach his person space? How do we know it isn't intense radio waves obliterating objects at high altitude?
There's too many unknowns to accept these whirlpools in my opinion. Let alone to accept the only conclusion is nothing can traverse them at altitude.
That is my issue, I don't think your model indicates space travel is impossible, I don't think that's the only conclusion to be rendered. The problem is space travel does indicate your model is impossible because once we allow it we can see there aren't actually two discs.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2018 17:59:02 GMT
It shouldn't do; the way banned names work for this forum is to prevent both that name and anything that includes it. If 'David' were banned so would 'David2' be. I'll see if I can find anything else behind the scenes.
For hearing the cars driving past, it could be a recording. For feeling your phone, it could be random neurons firing; more esoteric but some people feel phantom limbs, it's possible to feel things that aren't there. You brought up a sentient being tearing apart meteors, said being could be making you think you hear traffic or feel a phone. It's a problem that goes all the way back to Descartes, who postulated that it might be possible that there exists an evil genius or demon with supernatural powers exclusively dedicated to fooling you, and if that were the case you would never know. There is never a situation where evidence points to just one eventuality, never. It is a double standard to expect DET to attain that when nothing else does or can. Again, all you are doing is asking me to repeat the evidence section. There are always going to be countless explanations for any one observation. That isn't a problem unique to whirlpools, I don't see why you're bringing it up.
I am telling you, this is the model. Absolutely, space travel and DET is contradictory, the only way DET can be true is if space travel is not. The same can be said of a lot of things; the only way DET can be true is if RET is not, and vice versa. So? That doesn't change the implication within the model. if anything it strengthens it.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 30, 2018 19:55:33 GMT
It seems my last post was deleted.
Shame.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2018 19:59:59 GMT
No post was made. There may have been an issue with uploading it. I don't delete posts unless they are trolls or people trying to circumvent a ban.
|
|