You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.
Incorrect. If you are struggling with basic comprehension, I don't think I can help you. But I would be happy to try.
I have done my research and there is absolutely nothing on the Wiki, in the other writings or on the forums that are searchable that explains ANY of the serious problems with FE gravity.
Not...one...single...one.
Either you are terrible at searching, or you just decided to start lying. It is fine if you don't want to make an attempt, just be honest about it.
If you're going to carry on claiming that there is - then either point them out - or NOBODY is going to believe you.
I don't care if you believe me. Once you learn how to search, you will find it for yourself. Acting like a child throwing a tantrum isn't going to encourage me to help you.
You always use this hand-wavey approach and it just gets tiresome to those who come here to understand what you guys are trying to tell the world.
I am sorry that giving direct instructions comes off as "hand-wavey" to you. You seem to think you are entitled to something. I assure you that you are not.
I don't think you have *ANYWHERE* a fully explained theory of how FE explains gravity - variable over altitude, variable by latitude and explaining the tides.
I suppose it is good I never claimed otherwise, then.
You're continual "look for it" or "false!" posts are a waste of bandwidth
I am sorry if you think facts are a waste of bandwidth.
- the kind of thing you'd be the first to ban someone over.
Literally and objectively false.
If you're not going to present a reference, a discussion, or an explanation of any kind - then why bother posting?
To point out falsehoods perpetuated by folks such as yourself. You do know that you don't even have to reply if you don't want to, right? It would be more productive than just going on a rant complaining about things that aren't happening.
Your responses are FAR less useful than those of many people you ban. I recommend you give yourself a three day ban to consider this.
If you want to continue your rant, I suggest you take it to the proper forum. Alternatively, if you have a concern, we also have a forum dedicated to that. I will ask you to refrain from derailing the thread further and if you are going to post, then stay on topic. Consider this a warning.
He DID say that.
False.
You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute.
I don't think there is much shouting going on, except for angsty round earth proponents who get upset when someone doesn't agree with them, or points out their incorrect claims.
The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
You aren't a moderator. If you are going to post, keep it on topic. If you want to complain about me, take it to the appropriate forum. Consider this a friendly warning.
Sadly, because they don't know enough math and science,
Nice projection, friend.
The fact of gravity wave proves that gravity works the way we think it does. F=G.m1.m2/(d.d) - that equation works very well, and even without the evidence of gravity waves, it explains 100% of the effects we see on Earth. FET's explanation for these effects (as you can see from my compendium of all of the discussions on the Wiki) merely says things like "the pull of the objects in the sky accounts for these effect"...but it doesn't. The same stars are overhead all of the earth, the sum of their attractions must result in some results - but those results can't explain a perfectly circular decrease in gravity around the equator because (for example) the density of stars over the two hemispheres is observationally identical. If their explanation were correct then the most "sky gravity" would be over the arctic - and the gravity there would be LESS than at the equator...not more.
So, you still have no evidence for the mechanism behind gravity. Gotcha.
So carping on about the lack of direct evidence for gravitons (which has precisely ZERO effect on our understanding of RET physics) is just a pathetic distraction to cover for the fact that there is no viable theory of FET "gravity" (or "universal acceleration") that comes remotely close to explaining what we actually see.
RE gravity is irrelevant in FE. Is there something about that which is confusing for you?
Junker is employing standard FE'er tactics of trying to distract people by picking apart a tiny, tiny nit of RET in the hope that we won't notice the gigantic CHASM of errors, inconsistencies and flat out impossibilities that make up FET.
This is a literal strawman and I would suggest you refrain from it if you want anyone take you seriously (from what I have seen so far, that isn't a concern for you so no big deal). You should stick to debating the things people actually say, not whatever you have made up in your head.
So junker... is this just "FALSE" - or can you actually explain FET "gravity" to us without saying "Look in the Wiki"...because I just did that and produced the results for everyone to read.
Sure thing. FET doesn't have gravity. If you want to understand FE's theories, I would suggest you search the fora and the wiki.
If you're just going to say it's not your job to find the explanations in the forum
Remember the earlier point about attacking a strawman? You are doing it again.
- then you might as well stop posting here because you're adding precisely nothing to the conversation - and that's often your criteria for banning people from posting. A "self-ban" would be more honest here.
Please see my earlier comment about your ranting. If you want to complain, then take it to the appropriate forum. Otherwise, please stay on topic.