« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Aether

  • 65 Replies
  • 16049 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45080
  • +87/-109
Re: Aether
« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2008, 04:58:35 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.

Wordsmith, I know that I shouldn't do this, but you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

Quote
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed [1] in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) [2] of sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light in vacuum.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2008, 10:09:17 AM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.
There is no such thing as a vacuum.  Your claim is meaningless.
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2008, 01:44:38 PM »
Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.

Wordsmith, I know that I shouldn't do this, but you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

Quote
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed [1] in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) [2] of sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light in vacuum.

I stand corrected. Except on the part where aether would alter the way light interacts within it.
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2008, 02:48:52 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 17, 2008, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.

Wordsmith, I know that I shouldn't do this, but you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

Quote
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed [1] in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) [2] of sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light in vacuum.

I stand corrected. Except on the part where aether would alter the way light interacts within it.

If there is no such thing as a vacuum, and matter affects the speed of light, how can you defend the claim that the space medium doesn't affect the speed of light?
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6863
  • +0/-0
Re: Aether
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2008, 02:56:16 PM »
I've read up on this ultra slow light business and it seems to me that the light doesn't stay light the whole time.
Logged
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2008, 01:07:50 PM »
Quote from: Username on June 17, 2008, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 17, 2008, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.

Wordsmith, I know that I shouldn't do this, but you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

Quote
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed [1] in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) [2] of sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light in vacuum.

I stand corrected. Except on the part where aether would alter the way light interacts within it.

If there is no such thing as a vacuum, and matter affects the speed of light, how can you defend the claim that the space medium doesn't affect the speed of light?

However you'd like to misrepresent the facts, you cannot ignore the fact that light comming to us from a point beyond our earth does not behave in a manner consistent with it moving through an aether.
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Aether
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2008, 01:14:55 PM »
You think it dodges aether?
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2008, 02:50:26 PM »
Quote from: Ski on June 18, 2008, 01:14:55 PM
You think it dodges aether?

No, it doesn't dodge aether. It cannot dodge aether because aether does not exist.
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2008, 02:51:05 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 01:07:50 PM
Quote from: Username on June 17, 2008, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 17, 2008, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.

Wordsmith, I know that I shouldn't do this, but you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

Quote
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed [1] in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) [2] of sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light in vacuum.

I stand corrected. Except on the part where aether would alter the way light interacts within it.

If there is no such thing as a vacuum, and matter affects the speed of light, how can you defend the claim that the space medium doesn't affect the speed of light?

However you'd like to misrepresent the facts, you cannot ignore the fact that light comming to us from a point beyond our earth does not behave in a manner consistent with it moving through an aether.
What facts am I misrepresenting?  It behaves in a manner consistent with it moving through a space medium.

Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 18, 2008, 01:14:55 PM
You think it dodges aether?

No, it doesn't dodge aether. It cannot dodge aether because aether does not exist.
So, you think space is a vacuum?  Thats not really a defensible stance, fair warning.
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2008, 02:57:55 PM »
Quote from: Username on June 18, 2008, 02:51:05 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 01:07:50 PM
Quote from: Username on June 17, 2008, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 17, 2008, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.

Wordsmith, I know that I shouldn't do this, but you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

Quote
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed [1] in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) [2] of sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light in vacuum.

I stand corrected. Except on the part where aether would alter the way light interacts within it.

If there is no such thing as a vacuum, and matter affects the speed of light, how can you defend the claim that the space medium doesn't affect the speed of light?

However you'd like to misrepresent the facts, you cannot ignore the fact that light comming to us from a point beyond our earth does not behave in a manner consistent with it moving through an aether.
What facts am I misrepresenting?  It behaves in a manner consistent with it moving through a space medium.

Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 18, 2008, 01:14:55 PM
You think it dodges aether?

No, it doesn't dodge aether. It cannot dodge aether because aether does not exist.
So, you think space is a vacuum?  Thats not really a defensible stance, fair warning.


From a FE "theorists" point of view, i'm sure it is.

Out here in the real world however ....
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #40 on: June 18, 2008, 03:28:49 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: Username on June 18, 2008, 02:51:05 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 01:07:50 PM
Quote from: Username on June 17, 2008, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 17, 2008, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 16, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
light does not slow one itoa in vaccum. it stretches, it refracts, it bends, but it doesn't slow.

Wordsmith, I know that I shouldn't do this, but you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

Quote
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed [1] in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) [2] of sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light in vacuum.

I stand corrected. Except on the part where aether would alter the way light interacts within it.

If there is no such thing as a vacuum, and matter affects the speed of light, how can you defend the claim that the space medium doesn't affect the speed of light?

However you'd like to misrepresent the facts, you cannot ignore the fact that light comming to us from a point beyond our earth does not behave in a manner consistent with it moving through an aether.
What facts am I misrepresenting?  It behaves in a manner consistent with it moving through a space medium.

Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 18, 2008, 01:14:55 PM
You think it dodges aether?

No, it doesn't dodge aether. It cannot dodge aether because aether does not exist.
So, you think space is a vacuum?  Thats not really a defensible stance, fair warning.


From a FE "theorists" point of view, i'm sure it is.

Out here in the real world however ....
Flat earthers don't hold space to be a vacuum and neither do round earthers...
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #41 on: June 18, 2008, 03:36:08 PM »
Indeed, it is not a "total" vaccum, but close counts. i'd say 3-5 atoms per cubic centimeter is the closest you'll ever get.

Space is a vaccum.

"Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. It has effectively no friction, allowing stars, planets and moons to move freely along ideal gravitational trajectories."
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-31
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Aether
« Reply #42 on: June 18, 2008, 03:37:58 PM »
Is basically a vacuum like basically straight? Oh dear oh dear
Logged
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #43 on: June 18, 2008, 04:04:02 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 18, 2008, 03:36:08 PM
Indeed, it is not a "total" vaccum, but close counts. i'd say 3-5 atoms per cubic centimeter is the closest you'll ever get.

Space is a vaccum.

"Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. It has effectively no friction, allowing stars, planets and moons to move freely along ideal gravitational trajectories."

"Space being not a perfect vacuum, its different regions are defined by the various atmospheres and "winds" that dominate within them, and extend to the point at which those winds give way to those beyond."
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2008, 02:26:51 PM »
Close counts here.
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Aether
« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2008, 03:11:10 PM »
There has to be something in a complete vacuum or subatomic virtual particles couldn't spontaneously appear. Hence vacuum energy or aether. And vacuum energy must effect light.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Aether
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2008, 03:21:29 PM »
Explain why subatomic particles couldn't appear.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Aether
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2008, 03:24:16 PM »
You don't believe in the principle of conservation of energy?
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2008, 03:42:09 PM »
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 03:11:10 PM
There has to be something in a complete vacuum or subatomic virtual particles couldn't spontaneously appear. Hence vacuum energy or aether. And vacuum energy must effect light.

Too bad it doesn't in any measurable way. Gravity sure does tho ....
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
?

jdoe

  • 388
  • +0/-0
Re: Aether
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2008, 03:49:21 PM »
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 03:24:16 PM
You don't believe in the principle of conservation of energy?

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Uncertainty Principle permit violations of the conservation of energy on extremely small time scales, allowing particles to pop into and out of existence?
Logged
Mars or Bust
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2008, 07:51:40 PM »
You can almost hear a pin drop ...

But alas, dis iz da internetz ...

C'mon FErs, think harder!
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Aether
« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2008, 08:48:26 PM »
Sure, by using magic or vacuum energy. Which effects light.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2008, 12:44:58 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 19, 2008, 03:42:09 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 03:11:10 PM
There has to be something in a complete vacuum or subatomic virtual particles couldn't spontaneously appear. Hence vacuum energy or aether. And vacuum energy must effect light.

Too bad it doesn't in any measurable way. Gravity sure does tho ....
How is the Casimir effect not measurable? How is the background temperature of space not measurable?  How are photons not observable? How is the lamb shift not observable?  How is zero-point energy not measurable, when it has been measured in laboratories?  How is space dust not measurable or space winds?

More importantly, we cannot know if it affects it in a meaningful way because we are not a third party observer.
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2008, 12:52:13 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 19, 2008, 07:51:40 PM
You can almost hear a pin drop ...

But alas, dis iz da internetz ...

C'mon FErs, think harder!

I don't visit this site 5 times a day, everyday.  I have a life and things to do.
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: Aether
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2008, 01:56:54 PM »
Quote from: Username on June 20, 2008, 12:52:13 PM
I don't visit this site 5 times a day, everyday.  I have a life and things to do.
... and a paper to write! He is still waiting to have a while to write a paper on aether, but the weeks have turned to months and we are all still waiting!

Apart from the speculation that there is something in what we call a vacuum, there is still no theory where this something has any measurable effect on anything. If you say vacuum has permeability and permitivity or you say it is aether the one who has permeability and permitivity, nobody has made an experiment that discerns one from the other.

The aether eddies that username thinks might keep the satellites hovering over Earth could be easily tested and integrated into the other physical theories you will find in textbooks, but, what a shock, username cannot come up with anything.

From now on, I declare that vacuum is really filled with "upmyss" and that every effort to understand its properties has been thwarted by the Conspiracy. Anything that has to stay up is held up by "upmyss". Every refraction, diffraction or reflection or mirage that makes us think the Earth is round is caused by "upmyss".
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Aether
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2008, 02:17:36 PM »
Being a prick doesn't make you smarter than anyone. It just makes you a prick.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: Aether
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2008, 02:56:44 PM »
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Aether
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2008, 03:45:55 PM »
Quote from: Username on June 20, 2008, 12:44:58 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 19, 2008, 03:42:09 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 03:11:10 PM
There has to be something in a complete vacuum or subatomic virtual particles couldn't spontaneously appear. Hence vacuum energy or aether. And vacuum energy must effect light.

Too bad it doesn't in any measurable way. Gravity sure does tho ....
How is the Casimir effect not measurable? How is the background temperature of space not measurable?  How are photons not observable? How is the lamb shift not observable?  How is zero-point energy not measurable, when it has been measured in laboratories?  How is space dust not measurable or space winds?

More importantly, we cannot know if it affects it in a meaningful way because we are not a third party observer.

I'm curious. You invoke physics that you'd like to have support your theory, despite the fact that that same book of physics also patently  rules out FE "theory" when it no longer serves your purpose.

How convenient.
Logged
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 01:58:51 PM
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2008, 03:49:07 PM »
Quote from: trig on June 20, 2008, 01:56:54 PM
Quote from: Username on June 20, 2008, 12:52:13 PM
I don't visit this site 5 times a day, everyday.  I have a life and things to do.
... and a paper to write! He is still waiting to have a while to write a paper on aether, but the weeks have turned to months and we are all still waiting!

Apart from the speculation that there is something in what we call a vacuum, there is still no theory where this something has any measurable effect on anything. If you say vacuum has permeability and permitivity or you say it is aether the one who has permeability and permitivity, nobody has made an experiment that discerns one from the other.

The aether eddies that username thinks might keep the satellites hovering over Earth could be easily tested and integrated into the other physical theories you will find in textbooks, but, what a shock, username cannot come up with anything.

From now on, I declare that vacuum is really filled with "upmyss" and that every effort to understand its properties has been thwarted by the Conspiracy. Anything that has to stay up is held up by "upmyss". Every refraction, diffraction or reflection or mirage that makes us think the Earth is round is caused by "upmyss".

Quote from: Username on May 15, 2008, 05:19:16 PM
I don't waste my time with you anymore, sorry.
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-66
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Aether
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2008, 03:50:06 PM »
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 20, 2008, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: Username on June 20, 2008, 12:44:58 PM
Quote from: Wordsmith on June 19, 2008, 03:42:09 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2008, 03:11:10 PM
There has to be something in a complete vacuum or subatomic virtual particles couldn't spontaneously appear. Hence vacuum energy or aether. And vacuum energy must effect light.

Too bad it doesn't in any measurable way. Gravity sure does tho ....
How is the Casimir effect not measurable? How is the background temperature of space not measurable?  How are photons not observable? How is the lamb shift not observable?  How is zero-point energy not measurable, when it has been measured in laboratories?  How is space dust not measurable or space winds?

More importantly, we cannot know if it affects it in a meaningful way because we are not a third party observer.

I'm curious. You invoke physics that you'd like to have support your theory, despite the fact that that same book of physics also patently  rules out FE "theory" when it no longer serves your purpose.

How convenient.
Give an example of one of the effects I mentioned ruling out a flat earth; be specific in why please.

Also, how are the above listed effects not measurable?
Logged
If yyou can't gu both sides, you un.derstnd neitherr
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »