The Children of Tussin

oscarkipling wrote:

alright I'm weary of this game. I just couldn't help but to needle you....its like popping bubble wrap. But it was wrong of me to take advantage of your paranoia, and immature.

that's SO SWEET oscar!
so...what do you do for a living?

oscar?
how's the weather over the pond?
did you work today?

What was the point of this thread again?

Oscars trying to convince us the CIA are bad?

Strangelove wrote:What was the point of this thread again?

Oscars trying to convince us the CIA are bad?

no, I wouldn't want to do anything so broad, its really easy to collect alot of suspicious seeming information (like the stuff i've outlined already) especially about the CIA, But its something else entirely to make strong evidenced connections between separate bits of information. This is my main problem with pretty much everything on this site, there are lots of suspicious bits held together with assertions, conjecture, loose linguistic associations and the tortured interpretation of science by people who do actually have an agenda. You guys have poor evidentiary standards across the board, and then seem to be suspicious of me because I dont adhere to those same preposterous standards. Proving that the CIA has done evil things is trivial, proving that they did a particular evil thing or are planning to is much more difficult, and that was my goal.

oscarkipling wrote:no, I wouldn't want to do anything so broad, its really easy to collect alot of suspicious seeming information (like the stuff i've outlined already) especially about the CIA, But its something else entirely to make strong evidenced connections between separate bits of information. This is my main problem with pretty much everything on this site, there are lots of suspicious bits held together with assertions, conjecture, loose linguistic associations and the tortured interpretation of science by people who do actually have an agenda. You guys have poor evidentiary standards across the board, and then seem to be suspicious of me because I dont adhere to those same preposterous standards. Proving that the CIA has done evil things is trivial, proving that they did a particular evil thing or are planning to is much more difficult, and that was my goal.

So what are you trying to convince us of again?

We were trying to convince you of the broad link between a religious agenda and science.

And why is proving that the CIA has done evil things....trivial?

Is there anything you would genuinely like to talk to us about oscar?

Or are you only here to repeat your 'unconvinced' mantra in reponse to all our research?

Why are you here?

Strangelove wrote:

He's unconvinced.

Why are you here oscar? To tell us you are unconvinced by all our research?

right, and I just explicitly expressed why, your standards for evidence are poor, and you expect people to be convinced by really flimsy arguments....and then have the audacity to act like I'm some kind idiot/agent of Satan , whien i point out that its unconvincing....yeah makes sense.

why I'm here, dont worry i wont be for much longer.

oscarkipling wrote:right, and I just explicitly expressed why, your standards for evidence are poor, and you expect people to be convinced by really flimsy arguments....and then have the audacity to act like I'm some kind idiot/agent of Satan , whien i point out that its unconvincing....yeah makes sense.

why I'm here, dont worry i wont be for much longer.

Far as I can see you got your hind quarters handed to you on the geo-helio thing and now your taking out your frustration by simply trying to throw doubt on our research by introducing a pretty transparent 'unconvinced but willing to listen' dialectic on other threads.

Your wasting your effort. We know about those tactics on this forum.
Best off sticking to forums where weak admins protect gatekeepers.

oscarkipling wrote:
right, and I just explicitly expressed why, your standards for evidence are poor, and you expect people to be convinced by really flimsy arguments....and then have the audacity to act like I'm some kind idiot/agent of Satan , whien i point out that its unconvincing....yeah makes sense.

why I'm here, dont worry i wont be for much longer.

but you see, oscar....we don't go to london or maryland or nasa or other places and try to convince anyone of anything.

you came here.

this is our own place. where we gather information for ourselves.

if you like chemtrails and harvard professors who call for marxist take-downs that's your business. you can have all that.

we have JESUS.

Strangelove wrote:

Far as I can see you got your hind quarters handed to you on the geo-helio thing and now your taking out your frustration by simply trying to throw doubt on our research by introducing a pretty transparent 'unconvinced but willing to listen' dialectic on other threads.

Your wasting your effort. We know about those tactics on this forum.
Best off sticking to forums where weak admins protect gatekeepers.

really you handed me my hind quarters, 75% of your objections amounted to "I think that's ridiculous", you didn't read most if any of the stuff I posted, let alone the entirety of the stuff you posted. The best thing you had in that thread was the axis of evil, which i clearly stated multiple times that i have no explanation for, and it very well could be evidence against the Copernican principle. The only paper you presented for concentricity was the Hartnett paper, which found it using blah...its not even worth going into again. disproving relativity on the basis that it s "ridiculous" is not a rigorous refutation i've said as much in the thread. And he last time i looked at the thread you've just claimed victory on every point, and i'm sure you believe it, this is not the style of debate i'm used to, and frankly i didnt feel i could respond without losing my temper for your absurd behavior. My intention wasnt to get you to believe that helio was correct, i just wanted to understand geo, which as far as i can tell consists of a few arguments against relativity using a complete misunderstanding of sagnac, a paper or 2 by Hartnett, and a system of gravity that is not well defined. nanyway i'll probably try to find a way to talk to rick because at least he seemed to have a grasp on what evidence is and why waiting for more results is reasonable.

And i'm casting doubt on your "research" by pointing out that it is all pretty poorly evidenced, but you guys seem to have your own standards of evidence which are incompatible with mine, so there in lies the rub.

zone wrote:

but you see, oscar....we don't go to london or maryland or nasa or other places and try to convince anyone of anything.

you came here.

this is our own place. where we gather information for ourselves.

if you like chemtrails and harvard professors who call for marxist take-downs that's your business. you can have all that.

we have JESUS.

Okay, so if I didn't find the evidence that you had collected for yourselves, I should have done what? pretended to find it convincing?

When i first arrived here i was under the assumption that a discussion could be had, where i told you what I honestly thought , and you did the same. If it makes sense to you that i would have come here curious about geo but kept all of my opinions to myself, themn we clearly have differing views on what it means to have a discussion, or to investigate. Anyway maybe you should go to london or maryland or nasa, or at least a library and learn something. I like to learn about other ideas, even if i dont believe them i want to know about them, i want to know if my belief or disbelief is justified...but that's just my style.

oscarkipling wrote:you guys seem to have your own standards of evidence which are incompatible with mine.

yes, i noticed.

some things are just obvious.


Patently Obvious
A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies


July 30, 2003
Lorie Kramer seektress@seektress.info


1225521 - May 8, 1917 - Protection From Poisonous Gas in Warfare
Referenced in 4704942 - Charged aerosol
"A method of defending against a warfare cloud of toxic aerosol utilizes
a charged defensive aerosol which is sprayed into the cloud.
The defensive aerosol is made of a defensive agent
which may be chemically or biologically active."


1302332 - April 29, 1919 -Toy Machine Gun - F.V. Du Pont
Referenced in - 4141274 which is for a smoke generator,
which evolved into the particle and aerosol devices in use today.


The history of interest in aerosol and weather related technologies and devices is evident when a list of related patents is compiled and examined, even a partial list.

The following patents are all verifiable, along with additional information that can be found by reading the referrenced patents included in the documentation. Patent information can be found by visiting the

United States Patent and Trademark Office
and
Free Patents Online


1338343 - April 27, 1920 - Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
1619183 - March 1, 1927 - Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft
1631753 - June 7, 1927 - Electric Heater - Referenced in 3990987
1665267 - April 10, 1928 - Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
1892132 - December 27, 1932 - Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
1928963 - October 3, 1933 - Electrical System And Method
1957075 - May 1, 1934 - Airplane Spray Equipment
2097581 - November 2, 1937 - Electric Stream Generator - Referenced in 3990987
2409201 - October 15, 1946 - Smoke Producing Mixture
2476171 - July 18, 1945 - Smoke Screen Generator
2480967 - September 6, 1949 - Aerial Discharge Device
2550324 - April 24, 1951 - Process For Controlling Weather
2510867 - October 9, 1951 - Method of Crystal Formation and Precipitation
2582678 - June 15, 1952 - Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
2591988 - April 8, 1952 - Production of TiO2 Pigments - Referenced in 3899144
2614083 - October 14, 1952 - Metal Chloride Screening Smoke Mixture
2633455 - March 31, 1953 - Smoke Generator
2688069 - August 31, 1954 - Steam Generator - Referenced in 3990987
2721495 - October 25, 1955 - Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
2730402 - January 10, 1956 - Controllable Dispersal Device
2801322 - July 30, 1957 - Decomposition Chamber for Monopropellant Fuel - Referenced in 3990987
2881335 - April 7, 1959 - Generation of Electrical Fields
2908442 - October 13, 1959 - Method For Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs And Clouds
2986360 - May 30, 1962 - Aerial Insecticide Dusting Device
2963975 - December 13, 1960 - Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet
3126155 - March 24, 1964 - Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator - Referenced in 3990987
3127107 - March 31, 1964 - Generation of Ice-Nucleating Crystals
3131131 - April 28, 1964 - Electrostatic Mixing in Microbial Conversion
3174150 - March 16, 1965 - Self-Focusing Antenna System
3234357 - February 8, 1966 - Electrically Heated Smoke Producing Device
3274035 - September 20, 1966 - Metallic Composition For Production of Hydroscopic Smoke
3300721 - January 24, 1967 - Means For Communication Through a Layer of Ionized Gases
3313487 - April 11, 1967 - Cloud Seeding Apparatus
3338476 - August 29, 1967 - Heating Device For Use With Aerosol Containers - Referenced in 3990987
3410489 - November 12, 1968 - Automatically Adjustable Airfoil Spray System With Pump
3429507 - February 25, 1969 - Rainmaker
3432208 - November 7, 1967 - Fluidized Particle Dispenser
3441214 - April 29, 1969 - Method And Apparatus For Seeding Clouds
3445844 - May 20, 1969 - Trapped Electromagnetic Radiation Communications System
3456880 - July 22, 1969 - Method Of Producing Precipitation From The Atmosphere
3518670 June 30, 1970 - Artificial Ion Cloud
3534906 - October 20, 1970 - Control of Atmospheric Particles
3545677 - December 8, 1970 - Method of Cloud Seeding
3564253 - February 16, 1971 - System And Method For Irradiation Of Planet Surface Areas
3587966 - June 28, 1971 - Freezing Nucleation
3601312 - August 24, 1971 - Methods of Increasing The Likelihood oF Precipatation By The Artificial Introduction Of Sea Water Vapor Into The Atmosphere Winward Of An Air Lift Region
3608810 - September 28, 1971 - Methods of Treating Atmospheric Conditions
3608820 - September 20, 1971 - Treatment of Atmospheric Conditions by Intermittent Dispensing of Materials Therein
3613992 - October 19, 1971 - Weather Modification Method
3630950 - December 28, 1971 - Combustible Compositions For Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable For Cloud Modification And Weather Control And Aerosolization Process
USRE29142 - This patent is a reissue of patent US3630950 - Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
3659785 - December 8, 1971 - Weather Modification Utilizing Microencapsulated Material
3666176 - March 3, 1972 - Solar Temperature Inversion Device
3677840 - July 18, 1972 - Pyrotechnics Comprising Oxide of Silver For Weather Modification Use
3722183 - March 27, 1973 - Device For Clearing Impurities From The Atmosphere
3769107 - October 30, 1973 - Pyrotechnic Composition For Generating Lead Based Smoke
3784099 - January 8, 1974 - Air Pollution Control Method
3785557 - January 15, 1974 - Cloud Seeding System
3795626 - March 5, 1974 - Weather Modification Process
3808595 - April 30, 1974 - Chaff Dispensing System
3813875 - June 4, 1974 - Rocket Having Barium Release System to Create Ion Clouds In The Upper Atmopsphere
3835059 - September 10, 1974 - Methods of Generating Ice Nuclei Smoke Particles For Weather Modification And Apparatus Therefore
3835293 - September 10, 1974 - Electrical Heating Aparatus For Generating Super Heated Vapors - Referenced in 3990987
3877642 - April 15, 1975 - Freezing Nucleant
3882393 - May 6, 1975 - Communications System Utilizing Modulation of The Characteristic Polarization of The Ionosphere
3896993 - July 29, 1975 - Process For Local Modification of Fog And Clouds For Triggering Their Precipitation And For Hindering The Development of Hail Producing Clouds
3899129 - August 12, 1975 - Apparatus for generating ice nuclei smoke particles for weather modification
3899144 - August 12, 1975 - Powder contrail generation
3940059 - February 24, 1976 - Method For Fog Dispersion
3940060 - February 24, 1976 - Vortex Ring Generator
3990987 - November 9, 1976 - Smoke generator
3992628 - November 16, 1976 - Countermeasure system for laser radiation
3994437 - November 30, 1976 - Broadcast dissemination of trace quantities of biologically active chemicals
4042196 - August 16, 1977 - Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes
RE29,142 - February 22, 1977 - Reissue of: 03630950 - Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
4035726 - July 12, 1977 - Method of controlling and/or improving high-latitude and other communications or radio wave surveillance systems by partial control of radio wave et al
4096005 - June 20, 1978 - Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition
4129252 - December 12, 1978 - Method and apparatus for production of seeding materials
4141274 - February 27, 1979 - Weather modification automatic cartridge dispenser
4167008 - September 4, 1979 - Fluid bed chaff dispenser
4347284 - August 31, 1982 - White cover sheet material capable of reflecting ultraviolet rays
4362271 - December 7, 1982 - Procedure for the artificial modification of atmospheric precipitation as well as compounds with a dimethyl sulfoxide base for use in carrying out said procedure
4402480 - September 6, 1983 - Atmosphere modification satellite
4412654 - November 1, 1983 - Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
4415265 - November 15, 1983 - Method and apparatus for aerosol particle absorption spectroscopy
4470544 - September 11, 1984 - Method of and Means for weather modification
4475927 - October 9, 1984 - Bipolar Fog Abatement System
4600147 - July 15, 1986 - Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus
4633714 - January 6, 1987 - Aerosol particle charge and size analyzer
4643355 - February 17, 1987 - Method and apparatus for modification of climatic conditions
4653690 - March 31, 1987 - Method of producing cumulus clouds
4684063 - August 4, 1987 - Particulates generation and removal
4686605 - August 11, 1987 - Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
4704942 - November 10, 1987 - Charged Aerosol
4712155 - December 8, 1987 - Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
4744919 - May 17, 1988 - Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
4766725 - August 30, 1988 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
4829838 - May 16, 1989 - Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
4836086 - June 6, 1989 - Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog
4873928 - October 17, 1989 - Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
4948257 - August 14, 1990 - Laser optical measuring device and method for stabilizing fringe pattern spacing
4948050 - August 14, 1990 - Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying
4999637 - March 12, 1991 - Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth
5003186 - March 26, 1991 - Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
5005355 - April 9, 1991 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5038664 - August 13, 1991 - Method for producing a shell of relativistic particles at an altitude above the earths surface
5041760 - August 20, 1991 - Method and apparatus for generating and utilizing a compound plasma configuration
5041834 - August 20, 1991 - Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted
5056357 - October 15, 1991- Acoustic method for measuring properties of a mobile medium
5059909 - October 22, 1991 - Determination of particle size and electrical charge
5104069 - April 14, 1992 - Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft
5110502 - May 5, 1992 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5156802 - October 20, 1992 - Inspection of fuel particles with acoustics
5174498 - December 29, 1992 - Cloud Seeding
5148173 - September 15, 1992 - Millimeter wave screening cloud and method
5245290 - September 14, 1993 - Device for determining the size and charge of colloidal particles by measuring electroacoustic effect
5286979 - February 15, 1994 - Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin
5296910 - March 22, 1994 - Method and apparatus for particle analysis
5327222 - July 5, 1994 - Displacement information detecting apparatus
5357865 - October 25, 1994 - Method of cloud seeding
5360162 - November 1, 1994 - Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water
5383024 - January 17, 1995 - Optical wet steam monitor
5425413 - June 20, 1995 - Method to hinder the formation and to break-up overhead atmospheric inversions, enhance ground level air circulation and improve urban air quality
5434667 - July 18, 1995 - Characterization of particles by modulated dynamic light scattering
5441200 - August 15, 1995 - Tropical cyclone disruption
5486900 - January 23, 1996 - Measuring device for amount of charge of toner and image forming apparatus having the measuring device
5556029 - September 17, 1996 - Method of hydrometeor dissipation (clouds)
5628455 - May 13, 1997 - Method and apparatus for modification of supercooled fog
5631414 - May 20, 1997 - Method and device for remote diagnostics of ocean-atmosphere system state
5639441 - June 17, 1997 - Methods for fine particle formation
5762298 - June 9, 1998 - Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth's weather
5912396 - June 15, 1999 - System and method for remediation of selected atmospheric conditions
5922976 - July 13, 1999 - Method of measuring aerosol particles using automated mobility-classified aerosol detector
5949001 - September 7, 1999 - Method for aerodynamic particle size analysis
5984239 - November 16, 1999 - Weather modification by artificial satellite
6025402 - February 15, 2000 - Chemical composition for effectuating a reduction of visibility obscuration, and a detoxifixation of fumes and chemical fogs in spaces of fire origin
6030506 - February 29, 2000 - Preparation of independently generated highly reactive chemical species
6034073 - March 7, 2000 - Solvent detergent emulsions having antiviral activity
6045089 - April 4, 2000 - Solar-powered airplane
6056203 - May 2, 2000 - Method and apparatus for modifying supercooled clouds
6110590 - August 29, 2000 - Synthetically spun silk nanofibers and a process for making the same
6263744 - July 24, 2001 - Automated mobility-classified-aerosol detector
6281972 - August 28, 2001 - Method and apparatus for measuring particle-size distribution
6315213 - November 13, 2001 - Method of modifying weather
6382526 - May 7, 2002 - Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6408704 - June 25, 2002 - Aerodynamic particle size analysis method and apparatus
6412416 - July 2, 2002 - Propellant-based aerosol generation devices and method
6520425 - February 18, 2003 - Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6539812 - April 1, 2003 - System for measuring the flow-rate of a gas by means of ultrasound
6553849 - April 29, 2003 - Electrodynamic particle size analyzer
6569393 - May 27, 2003 - Method and device for cleaning the atmosphere

2480967 - September 6, 1949 - Aerial Discharge Device
http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm

...
i reckon that patent is for vapor?

oscarkipling wrote:really you handed me my hind quarters, 75% of your objections amounted to "I think that's ridiculous",

99% of your objections were "I'm unconvinced".

At least I dont sit on the fence.

oscarkipling wrote:you didn't read most if any of the stuff I posted, let alone the entirety of the stuff you posted.

I read every word of what we both posted.

oscarkipling wrote:The best thing you had in that thread was the axis of evil, which i clearly stated multiple times that i have no explanation for, and it very well could be evidence against the Copernican principle.

But you remain unconvinced. Handy that word innit?

oscarkipling wrote:disproving relativity on the basis that it s "ridiculous" is not a rigorous refutation i've said as much in the thread.

At the end of the day things are plausable within the realms of reality or they are not.
You can ride the fence all your life if you want but I aint!

oscarkipling wrote:And he last time i looked at the thread you've just claimed victory on every point, and i'm sure you believe it, this is not the style of debate i'm used to, and frankly i didnt feel i could respond without losing my temper for your absurd behavior.

Oh diddums......oscars encountered someone with....wait!....a PERSONALITY. Call the cops!

oscarkipling wrote:My intention wasnt to get you to believe that helio was correct, i just wanted to understand geo, which as far as i can tell consists of a few arguments against relativity using a complete misunderstanding of sagnac, a paper or 2 by Hartnett, and a system of gravity that is not well defined.

Cuz the correct understanding of Sagnac is that light beams have evolved eyeballs and visual cortexes so they can see apparatus blur when they wizz around with a spinning table right genius?

oscarkipling wrote:nanyway i'll probably try to find a way to talk to rick because at least he seemed to have a grasp on what evidence is and why waiting for more results is reasonable.

Oh Rick is totally convinced by Gods geocentric universe he doesnt need anymore evidence.

But if you think your slick dialectic might work on him then go for it.

oscarkipling wrote:And i'm casting doubt on your "research" by pointing out that it is all pretty poorly evidenced, but you guys seem to have your own standards of evidence which are incompatible with mine, so there in lies the rub.

TBH your not casting any doubt at all your just exposing yourself. Carry on if ya like.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, so if I didn't find the evidence that you had collected for yourselves, I should have done what? pretended to find it convincing?

As opposed to pretending to find it unconvincing? LOLZ!

oscarkipling wrote:When i first arrived here i was under the assumption that a discussion could be had, where i told you what I honestly thought , and you did the same. If it makes sense to you that i would have come here curious about geo but kept all of my opinions to myself, themn we clearly have differing views on what it means to have a discussion, or to investigate.

You have barely any input oscar. This is what exposes you the most. You are only here to dump on our research with your inane dialectic. You're see-through. In that whole geo thread you never once moved to support YOUR position only to dump on mine. You call this 'understand/curious/learn about geo'. Who are you trying to fool?

oscarkipling wrote:Anyway maybe you should go to london or maryland or nasa, or at least a library and learn something. I like to learn about other ideas, even if i dont believe them i want to know about them, i want to know if my belief or disbelief is justified...but that's just my style.

Perfect example of the dialectic. Beautiful.

i reckon that patent is for vapor?

Yes its most important that we discharge water vapour effectively into the skies.

LOLZ!

Boy.....this is fun aint it?

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, so if I didn't find the evidence that you had collected for yourselves, I should have done what? pretended to find it convincing?

of course not.

oscarkipling wrote:
When i first arrived here i was under the assumption that a discussion could be had, where i told you what I honestly thought , and you did the same. If it makes sense to you that i would have come here curious about geo but kept all of my opinions to myself, themn we clearly have differing views on what it means to have a discussion, or to investigate.

haha. huh?
nobody asked you to keep your opinions to yourself - personally i'd have been interested in more, but whatever.

you posted them freely and they were examined.

but that's all they ever were - opinions (with the possbile exception of the math and stuff from the geo thread, i'll leave to someone else to determine).

you just looked at what we were posting and offered up apparently on-the-spot opinions. which is fine.

so what's the prob?

oscarkipling wrote:Anyway maybe you should go to london or maryland or nasa, or at least a library and learn something. I like to learn about other ideas, even if i dont believe them i want to know about them, i want to know if my belief or disbelief is justified...but that's just my style.

i have been to London, Maryland and the Library...and seen the NASA stuff in Florida (also the ever-changing astro-suits at Smithsonian:roll: )...been there, done it all.


~

i want to know if my belief or unbelief is justified too.

who did this, oscar? and why?
undecided?


it's been over a decade.
wanna borrow my library card?



(have been to NY, as well...terrible shame what was done to the folks there)

Strangelove wrote:

Yes its most important that we discharge water vapour effectively into the skies.

roger.
it really is nice just drinking water right out of the air.
saves on paper cups.



yummy good water vapor.

Strangelove wrote:

99% of your objections were "I'm unconvinced".

At least I dont sit on the fence.

oh please, I explained to you why Sagnac was explicable by relativity, and i gave you multiple resources to explain why i do not accept the sagnac effect as evidence against relativity. I do not sit on the fence about that issue. I explained to you why the description of modified lesagean gravity dows not and would not owork, on you proposed lesagean gravity, which you never completed i am not on the fence, as far as you described it it is untenable. I told you why Hartnetts analysis was inconclusive to say the least and showed you other papers that were contrary, and why expressed why those QSO's should also be quantized and are not irrelevant (even though I acknowledged that there may be a selection effect that makes the analyses incorrect). I explained why a visual analysis is insufficient to determine whether or not there is concentricity, and I stand by that 100%. I cannot totally dismiss hartnetts analysis, but i can say that his upcoming 2d analysis would be a good piece of evidence. I explained to you why airy's failure (or my understanding of it) was not evidence against helio, and why it seems like a silly experiment on its face.I explained why MM and MGP disproved aether, and confirmed that the earth rotates respectively. that the earth moves around the sun, i am not on the fence about it, tin my assessment it is a fact, and your evidences against it all failed to convince me otherwise. I accepted that a void theory could be the an explanation for the observed redshifts, but so too could dark matter, i'm not on the fence about it, i believe that its most probably dark matter, but i do also accept that there are future expiriments that could make the void theory the more probable explanation. describing my objections in that thread as all being simply "i'm unconvinced" is dishonest and does not reflect the time and effort i put into explaining my position and describing why i disagreed with yours.

Strangelove wrote:
I read every word of what we both posted.

I misspoke, i meant you didn't read the things I linked or the papers i quoted from....whereas i read all of your references.

Strangelove wrote:
But you remain unconvinced. Handy that word innit?

yes its a ppiece of evidence and imo the only really compelling piece you presented, but its still just one piece of evidence....and no I'm not certain what it means at this point. I havent been able to read papers talking about it yet outside of that article.

Strangelove wrote:
At the end of the day things are plausable within the realms of reality or they are not.
You can ride the fence all your life if you want but I aint!

I'm not on the fence about relativity, it works and its probably true although its probably incomplete like newton was incomplete. The alternative, that einstien is completely wrong, and lesagean gravity explains it all, i believe you have not shown that to be true, so i believe relativity is the best model for gravity we have at this time

Strangelove wrote:
Oh diddums......oscars encountered someone with....wait!....a PERSONALITY. Call the cops!

oh please get over yourself, its a lame debating technique and you know it, if you dont know it, then yeah you've just got a weird annoying personality, which i dealt with for a good long while without losing my temper, but yeah that was the thing that really kicked it over for me.

Strangelove wrote:

Cuz the correct understanding of Sagnac is that light beams have evolved eyeballs and visual cortexes so they can see apparatus blur when they wizz around with a spinning table right genius?

its this goofy assertion that you keep making that tells me that you didn't read the links, or Einsteins book. I'm no genius, but i can read and understand what relativity claims and doesn't....genius

Strangelove wrote:

Oh Rick is totally convinced by Gods geocentric universe he doesnt need anymore evidence.

But if you think your slick dialectic might work on him then go for it.

I dont believe that rick is anything but a strong believer in Geo, but from our few interactions i believe that he also respects evidence, and has alot of knowledge and resources that i can use to learn about Geo. I dont have any intentions on convincing him of my position, just like i dont have any intentions of convincing you....it just seems like he would be a good resource for my accumulation of knowledge.

Strangelove wrote:

TBH your not casting any doubt at all your just exposing yourself. Carry on if ya like.

fine I'm exposed give it a rest.

Strangelove wrote:

As opposed to pretending to find it unconvincing? LOLZ!

yeah yeah , i know the Truth i'm an agent.

Strangelove wrote:

You have barely any input oscar. This is what exposes you the most. You are only here to dump on our research with your inane dialectic. You're see-through. In that whole geo thread you never once moved to support YOUR position only to dump on mine. You call this 'understand/curious/learn about geo'. Who are you trying to fool?

that's complete nonsense i referred back multiple times to where i had written long involved posts that i didn't feel i need to reproduce here because you had already read them because you commented on them. I also explained many times why dark matter is postulated, and why Sagnac is explicable with relativity, and why mgp was evidence that the earth rotates. I dont need to try to fool you because your paranoia does that all by itself.

Strangelove wrote:
Perfect example of the dialectic. Beautiful.

a perfect example of a person that thinks that ever possible thing i say is evidence for their case....its pathological

oscarkipling wrote:oh please, I explained to you why Sagnac was explicable by relativity, and i gave you multiple resources to explain why i do not accept the sagnac effect as evidence against relativity. I do not sit on the fence about that issue.

And they all amount to exactly the same thing. Magically bending stuff (but not really). If they dont, you would have quoted them.

Lame.

oscarkipling wrote:I explained to you why the description of modified lesagean gravity dows not and would not owork, on you proposed lesagean gravity, which you never completed i am not on the fence, as far as you described it it is untenable.

Nah you just said...."It wouldn't work'.

Lame.

oscarkipling wrote:I told you why Hartnetts analysis was inconclusive to say the least and showed you other papers that were contrary, and why expressed why those QSO's should also be quantized and are not irrelevant (even though I acknowledged that there may be a selection effect that makes the analyses incorrect).

Rick has answered this, you never got back to him.

oscarkipling wrote:I explained why a visual analysis is insufficient to determine whether or not there is concentricity, and I stand by that 100%.

Cuz you cant believe you eyes. Lame.

oscarkipling wrote:I cannot totally dismiss hartnetts analysis, but i can say that his upcoming 2d analysis would be a good piece of evidence.

....and when that evidence comes, no surprises....you will find it unconvincing.

oscarkipling wrote:I explained to you why airy's failure (or my understanding of it) was not evidence against helio, and why it seems like a silly experiment on its face.

With your made up parameters? Lame.

Documentation from respectable sources that say it seems like a silly experiment please.

oscarkipling wrote:I explained why MM and MGP disproved aether, and confirmed that the earth rotates respectively. that the earth moves around the sun, i am not on the fence about it, tin my assessment it is a fact, and your evidences against it all failed to convince me otherwise.

Erm....exsqueeze me? Where exactly did you explain that?

oscarkipling wrote:I accepted that a void theory could be the an explanation for the
observed redshifts, but so too could dark matter, i'm not on the fence
about it, i believe that its most probably dark matter, but i do also
accept that there are future expiriments that could make the void theory
the more probable explanation.

Like I say, on the fence. Permanently.

oscarkipling wrote:describing my objections in that thread as all being simply "i'm
unconvinced" is dishonest and does not reflect the time and effort i put
into explaining my position and describing why i disagreed with yours.

You spent plenty of time crafting a lame dialectic t'besure.

oscarkipling wrote:I misspoke, i meant you didn't read the things I linked or the papers i quoted from....whereas i read all of your references.

Thats cuz my references are actual science and yours are implausable hypothetical hogwash.

oscarkipling wrote:yes its a ppiece of evidence and imo the only really compelling piece
you presented, but its still just one piece of evidence....and no I'm
not certain what it means at this point. I havent been able to read
papers talking about it yet outside of that article.

It's ok oscar. A paper will come out soon explaining how these observations clearly mean that this universe is only one of zillions which all have an Earth at the centre. We are still nothing special. The Copernican principle is upheld.

Yay for the multiverse!

Lame. But its all you'll need.

oscarkipling wrote:I'm not on the fence about relativity, it works and its probably true
although its probably incomplete like newton was incomplete.

Works like GPS and perehelion of Mercury which I've totally refuted you on? Riiiiiiight bud.

It works for replacing God's Earth centred universe with absurd magical alternatives in the minds of brainwashed sheeple no doubt!

oscarkipling wrote:The alternative, that einstien is completely wrong, and lesagean gravity
explains it all, i believe you have not shown that to be true, so i
believe relativity is the best model for gravity we have at this time

Saying "space bends" is not a model for gravity. You have no model. At least I've put forward one.

oscarkipling wrote:oh please get over yourself, its a lame debating technique and you know
it, if you dont know it, then yeah you've just got a weird annoying
personality, which i dealt with for a good long while without losing my
temper, but yeah that was the thing that really kicked it over for me.

Oh is this angry oscar?

Awwww...scary!

Ya you would never claim a debating point would you? Cuz in relatavistic dialectic oscar-World there is simply no right or wrong! Lolz!

Could be this could be that...need more evidence. Always need evidence. Wouldn't know a fish if it slapped you in the face.

oscarkipling wrote:its this goofy assertion that you keep making that tells me that you
didn't read the links, or Einsteins book. I'm no genius, but i can read
and understand what relativity claims and doesn't....genius

It's einsteins goofy assertion not mine. And you agreed its nuts so go figure.

If thats not the correct interpretation of relativity's claims on the issue then tell us what is. In your own words. Oh wait, you already did. Apparatus bending (but not really??) from the lightbeams 'blurred' perspective.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont believe that rick is anything but a strong believer in Geo, but
from our few interactions i believe that he also respects evidence, and
has alot of knowledge and resources that i can use to learn about Geo. I
dont have any intentions on convincing him of my position, just like i
dont have any intentions of convincing you....it just seems like he
would be a good resource for my accumulation of knowledge.

O'course cuz your mission is 'unconvinced'.

oscarkipling wrote:fine I'm exposed give it a rest.

Not likely.

oscarkipling wrote:yeah yeah , i know the Truth i'm an agent.

The fact your still here in the face of these accusations only confirms it.

oscarkipling wrote:that's complete nonsense i referred back multiple times to where i had written long involved posts that i didn't feel i need to reproduce here because you had already read them because you commented on them. I also explained many times why dark matter is postulated, and why Sagnac is explicable with relativity, and why mgp was evidence that the earth rotates. I dont need to try to fool you because your paranoia does that all by itself.

Aaaaaaaaand here we go with the 'mental illness' line. What number is that on the Bolshevik playbook dude? When all else fails call em nuts and recommend drugs right?

oscarkipling wrote:a perfect example of a person that thinks that ever possible thing i say is evidence for their case....its pathological

And again! LOLZ!