Is Space Fake? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is Space Fake?

Opening Argument

PoguePogue 492 Pts
Many people on youtube think space is fake. I want evidence that proves space is fake. 
joecavalrybillpassedLibertineStates
  1. Is Space Fake?

    19 votes
    1. Yes
      21.05%
    2. No
      78.95%
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Space is not fake. Their are images of space by government organizations such as NASA and possibly private companies.
    PogueEmeryPearsonBaconToes
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • No, space is not fake. Their are images that show space which were taken by many sources.
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • Evidence against space.

    Opposing pressure systems.

    On any practical scale, opposing pressure systems can not exist adjacent to each other. Canned air, light bulbs, the supposed spaceships, submarines, etc are all great examples. Logically, the whole equilibrium excuse sounds good, but without practical evidence, that claim is pseudoscience. A bare assertion.

    The fact that we are in a positive pressure system at all refutes the idea that we are surrounded by an unfathomably large vacuum, that no one but government sources and friends have witnessed.

    Stars and moon with high zoom cameras

    What appears to be a clear liquid is seen through high zoom cameras, when zooming into stars. The cameras are fairly inexpensive, and the evidence is gathered from multiple unbiased sources, the videos litter YouTube.


    3:10







    Proof of a firmament:

    Rainbows

    Here is what science claims.

    A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured circular arc. Rainbows caused by sunlight always appear in the section of sky directly opposite the sun.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

    Howstuffworks.com claims that each droplet of water acts as a prism.

    https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/question41.htm

    They even give us a few diagrams of how they feel the model acts.




    They, curiously enough, give us only 2 drops, fairly close to each other, implying that each droplet produces it's own rainbow, like the prism, as you can see the red line reaches the eye from a different angle. The purple line dos not reach the eye from the top droplet for, reasons...

    As if that isn't enough, Wikipedia's entry implies that we should be able to produce the rainbows in our shower!

    The reality of rainbows is that we need two light sources, or a light source and a reflective surface from which to bounce the same light source from a different angle, with rainwater acting as a lens, or "3d screen" for lack of a better term, where those two rays intersect. For more information, see this short and detailed explanation.







    Atmospheric Elves.

    Again we see a similar shape at the 100km. range in atmospheric elves. Is this phenomenon lighting up the dome?


    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish_astronomer_snaps_high_altitude_lightning/5972450

    "Escaping earth's gravity"

    We all see the shuttle's perform a big parabolic dive in the sky when they go to "space". In theory, and with many assumptions, it is logical and sound, but in reality, I think they hit the dome too many times and found out it was easier just to fish the aircraft out of the sea.




    The myths and urban legends about this area started up during the space race.

    A claimed abrupt and extreme rise in temperature 

    ...at, you guessed it, 100km.


    Operation fishbowl and Admiral Byrd

    Admiral Richard Byrd was acclaimed one of the best explorers in history. He explored the north pole early on and moved on towards the south. 



    In the 50's, Byrd was given a small army to go to Antarctica in an operation called "High Jump" to "explore" Antarctica...


    https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/operation-highjump-18223476/

    Operation deep freeze is also discussed in that article, which happened shortly after. Here is Admiral Richard Byrd discussing his adventures in Antarctica:



    The operation was ended early, and the US Navy came home, apparently defeated, what defeated them is still "classified".
    Even after the reports of "abundant resources" and "a land as big or bigger than the United States", southern polar exploration ended abruptly. 

    Interestingly named "operation fishbowl" started up shortly thereafter, where the US sent up several warheads, my guess is trying to penetrate the impenetrable firmament.



    Then, the Antarctic treaty was signed, effectively preventing any civilian from discovering the same thing they did. NASA was formed, using Nazi scientists captees about this time, and the upper limits of our prison was protected from civilian eyes as well. 


    There are more proofs against space and for the firmament, but we'll go over these first.

    @Pogue



    PogueGooberrySilverishGoldNovaLibertineStatesanonymousdebaterEmeryPearsonEvidencesomeone234
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Evidence against space.

    Opposing pressure systems.

    On any practical scale, opposing pressure systems can not exist adjacent to each other. Canned air, light bulbs, the supposed spaceships, submarines, etc are all great examples. Logically, the whole equilibrium excuse sounds good, but without practical evidence, that claim is pseudoscience. A bare assertion.

    The fact that we are in a positive pressure system at all refutes the idea that we are surrounded by an unfathomably large vacuum, that no one but government sources and friends have witnessed.

    Stars and moon with high zoom cameras

    What appears to be a clear liquid is seen through high zoom cameras, when zooming into stars. The cameras are fairly inexpensive, and the evidence is gathered from multiple unbiased sources, the videos litter YouTube.


    3:10







    Proof of a firmament:

    Rainbows

    Here is what science claims.

    A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured circular arc. Rainbows caused by sunlight always appear in the section of sky directly opposite the sun.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

    Howstuffworks.com claims that each droplet of water acts as a prism.

    https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/question41.htm

    They even give us a few diagrams of how they feel the model acts.




    They, curiously enough, give us only 2 drops, fairly close to each other, implying that each droplet produces it's own rainbow, like the prism, as you can see the red line reaches the eye from a different angle. The purple line dos not reach the eye from the top droplet for, reasons...

    As if that isn't enough, Wikipedia's entry implies that we should be able to produce the rainbows in our shower!

    The reality of rainbows is that we need two light sources, or a light source and a reflective surface from which to bounce the same light source from a different angle, with rainwater acting as a lens, or "3d screen" for lack of a better term, where those two rays intersect. For more information, see this short and detailed explanation.







    Atmospheric Elves.

    Again we see a similar shape at the 100km. range in atmospheric elves. Is this phenomenon lighting up the dome?


    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish_astronomer_snaps_high_altitude_lightning/5972450

    "Escaping earth's gravity"

    We all see the shuttle's perform a big parabolic dive in the sky when they go to "space". In theory, and with many assumptions, it is logical and sound, but in reality, I think they hit the dome too many times and found out it was easier just to fish the aircraft out of the sea.




    The myths and urban legends about this area started up during the space race.

    A claimed abrupt and extreme rise in temperature 

    ...at, you guessed it, 100km.


    Operation fishbowl and Admiral Byrd

    Admiral Richard Byrd was acclaimed one of the best explorers in history. He explored the north pole early on and moved on towards the south. 



    In the 50's, Byrd was given a small army to go to Antarctica in an operation called "High Jump" to "explore" Antarctica...


    https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/operation-highjump-18223476/

    Operation deep freeze is also discussed in that article, which happened shortly after. Here is Admiral Richard Byrd discussing his adventures in Antarctica:



    The operation was ended early, and the US Navy came home, apparently defeated, what defeated them is still "classified".
    Even after the reports of "abundant resources" and "a land as big or bigger than the United States", southern polar exploration ended abruptly. 

    Interestingly named "operation fishbowl" started up shortly thereafter, where the US sent up several warheads, my guess is trying to penetrate the impenetrable firmament.



    Then, the Antarctic treaty was signed, effectively preventing any civilian from discovering the same thing they did. NASA was formed, using Nazi scientists captees about this time, and the upper limits of our prison was protected from civilian eyes as well. 


    There are more proofs against space and for the firmament, but we'll go over these first.

    @Pogue



    maybe he can finally respond to these arguments too.
    EmeryPearsonEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence against space.

    Opposing pressure systems.

    On any practical scale, opposing pressure systems can not exist adjacent to each other. Canned air, light bulbs, the supposed spaceships, submarines, etc are all great examples. Logically, the whole equilibrium excuse sounds good, but without practical evidence, that claim is pseudoscience. A bare assertion.

    The fact that we are in a positive pressure system at all refutes the idea that we are surrounded by an unfathomably large vacuum, that no one but government sources and friends have witnessed.

    Stars and moon with high zoom cameras

    What appears to be a clear liquid is seen through high zoom cameras, when zooming into stars. The cameras are fairly inexpensive, and the evidence is gathered from multiple unbiased sources, the videos litter YouTube.


    3:10







    Proof of a firmament:

    Rainbows

    Here is what science claims.

    A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured circular arc. Rainbows caused by sunlight always appear in the section of sky directly opposite the sun.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

    Howstuffworks.com claims that each droplet of water acts as a prism.

    https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/question41.htm

    They even give us a few diagrams of how they feel the model acts.




    They, curiously enough, give us only 2 drops, fairly close to each other, implying that each droplet produces it's own rainbow, like the prism, as you can see the red line reaches the eye from a different angle. The purple line dos not reach the eye from the top droplet for, reasons...

    As if that isn't enough, Wikipedia's entry implies that we should be able to produce the rainbows in our shower!

    The reality of rainbows is that we need two light sources, or a light source and a reflective surface from which to bounce the same light source from a different angle, with rainwater acting as a lens, or "3d screen" for lack of a better term, where those two rays intersect. For more information, see this short and detailed explanation.







    Atmospheric Elves.

    Again we see a similar shape at the 100km. range in atmospheric elves. Is this phenomenon lighting up the dome?


    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish_astronomer_snaps_high_altitude_lightning/5972450

    "Escaping earth's gravity"

    We all see the shuttle's perform a big parabolic dive in the sky when they go to "space". In theory, and with many assumptions, it is logical and sound, but in reality, I think they hit the dome too many times and found out it was easier just to fish the aircraft out of the sea.




    The myths and urban legends about this area started up during the space race.

    A claimed abrupt and extreme rise in temperature 

    ...at, you guessed it, 100km.


    Operation fishbowl and Admiral Byrd

    Admiral Richard Byrd was acclaimed one of the best explorers in history. He explored the north pole early on and moved on towards the south. 



    In the 50's, Byrd was given a small army to go to Antarctica in an operation called "High Jump" to "explore" Antarctica...


    https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/operation-highjump-18223476/

    Operation deep freeze is also discussed in that article, which happened shortly after. Here is Admiral Richard Byrd discussing his adventures in Antarctica:



    The operation was ended early, and the US Navy came home, apparently defeated, what defeated them is still "classified".
    Even after the reports of "abundant resources" and "a land as big or bigger than the United States", southern polar exploration ended abruptly. 

    Interestingly named "operation fishbowl" started up shortly thereafter, where the US sent up several warheads, my guess is trying to penetrate the impenetrable firmament.



    Then, the Antarctic treaty was signed, effectively preventing any civilian from discovering the same thing they did. NASA was formed, using Nazi scientists captees about this time, and the upper limits of our prison was protected from civilian eyes as well. 


    There are more proofs against space and for the firmament, but we'll go over these first.

    @Pogue



    maybe he can finally respond to these arguments too.

    “On any practical scale, opposing pressure systems can not exist adjacent to each other.”


    This is a lie:


    Earth is replete with high pressure and low pressure systems next to each other in both weather systems, and with decreasing pressure as you get higher. We know, for example; that the air pressure at 30,000 feet is much much lower than on the surface.

    Erf literally ignores blatantly available evidence that directly refuted his claim.


    (FE lie count: 93, fallacy count: 76)


    “Logically, the whole equilibrium excuse sounds good, but without practical evidence, that claim is pseudoscience. A bare assertion. “


    Provided


    “The fact that we are in a positive pressure system at all refutes the idea that we are surrounded by an unfathomably large vacuum, that no one but government sources and friends have witnessed.”


    Already refuted above: untrue.


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 76)


    Stars and moon with high zoom cameras


    “What appears to be a clear liquid is seen through high zoom cameras, when zooming into stars. The cameras are fairly inexpensive, and the evidence is gathered from multiple unbiased sources, the videos litter YouTube.”


    Assuming your own conclusion. Asserting it appears to be a clear liquid, is an assertion: that you then use to show it consists of water. In reality, you make no attempt at showing what this is, ruling in liquid, out other things.


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 77)



    “They, curiously enough, give us only 2 drops, fairly close to each other, implying that each droplet produces it's own rainbow, like the prism, as you can see the red line reaches the eye from a different angle. The purple line dos not reach the eye from the top droplet for, reasons...”


    Wow.... straw man!


    Erf is taking a crudely drawn example image as intended to be 100% accurate in all ways, the image is obviously showing the refraction and splitting of light from all rain drops, and asserting that it’s wrong because it only shows two drops and the purple lines from one drop don’t reach they eye is an incredibly ridiculous misrepresentation.


    If you pay attention, the principle is that each drops refracts a little light as a prism does. The “refutation” here is hilariously ridiculous.


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 78)



    “As if that isn't enough, Wikipedia's entry implies that we should be able to produce the rainbows in our shower!”


    No explanation of why not: simply acting incredulous. Argument from incredulity.


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 79)



    “The reality of rainbows is that we need two light sources, or a light source and a reflective surface from which to bounce the same light source from a different angle, with rainwater acting as a lens, or "3d screen" for lack of a better term, where those two rays intersect. For more information, see this short and detailed explanation.”


    Argument by assertion: no physics explained, no justification or evidence provided. 


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 80)


    Two images refute Erfs conclusion! Two images clearly show no clear path between viewer and ANY region from which refracted light could be bouncing from


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 81)



    “Atmospheric Elves.


    Again we see a similar shape at the 100km. range in atmospheric elves. Is this phenomenon lighting up the dome?


    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish_astronomer_snaps_high_altitude_lightning/597245


    Non-sequitor; no explanation or justification.


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 83)



    “We all see the shuttle's perform a big parabolic dive in the sky when they go to "space".”


    Assuming your own conclusion. If the earth is flat, the arc could be construed as parabolic, if the earth is a sphere, the tail of the takeoff line actually moves beyond the horizon (and follows the curvature of the earth), to assume its parabolic requires the conclusion you’re reaching for to be assumed in the first place (that earth is flat, and so therefore no space)


    (FE lie count: 94, fallacy count: 84)


    “In theory, and with many assumptions”


    Lie: there aren’t really any assumptions, certainly none are provided. It appears Erf simply likes that word.


    (FE lie count: 95, fallacy count: 84)


    “in reality, I think they hit the dome too many times and found out it was easier just to fish the aircraft out of the sea”


    Assuming the conclusion as before.


    (FE lie count: 95, fallacy count: 85)


    “The myths and urban legends about this area started up during the space race.”


    Correlation != causation fallacy.


    (FE lie count: 95, fallacy count: 86)


    “A claimed abrupt and extreme rise in temperature 


    ...at, you guessed it, 100km”


    Non sequitor; claims that something happening at 100km supports the notion of no space does not appear to logically follow.


    (FE lie count: 95, fallacy count: 87)


    In the 50's, Byrd was given a small army to go to Antarctica in an operation called "High Jump" to "explore" Antarctica...


    High jump was a training exercise; and a covert attempt to try and lay a land claim on Antarctica (as the US was worried about a cross-pole attack - which mostly refuted your position!)


    (FE lie count: 96, fallacy count: 87)



    “The operation was ended early, and the US Navy came home, apparently defeated, what defeated them is still "classified".”


    Worsening weather conditions and an early onset of winter.


    (FE lie count: 97, fallacy count: 87)


    Interestingly named "operation fishbowl" started up shortly thereafter, where the US sent up several warheads, my guess is trying to penetrate the impenetrable firmament.


    No explanation of why this is relevant, or how: red herring.


    (FE lie count: 97, fallacy count: 88)



    “Then, the Antarctic treaty was signed, effectively preventing any civilian from discovering the same thing they did. “


    How? Argument by assertion, no explanation given.


    (FE lie count: 97, fallacy count: 88)


    There are between 1-4000 people in Antarctica: mostly civilian scientists: the arctic treaty doesn’t prevent civilian travel either, people go there all the time:


    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/02/people-cross-antarctica-all-the-time-its-still-crazy-hard/amp


    Lie.


    (FE lie count: 98, fallacy count: 88)


    PogueEmeryPearsonEvidenceErfisflat
  • JustIgnoreMeJustIgnoreMe 47 Pts
    edited February 25
    @Erfisflat Here is footage from Operation High Jump - https://archive.org/details/TheSecretLand
    It shows footage of planes going over the south pole and not into space (flight prep starts about 52 minutes in). To use the same operation to say this is impossible would seem to strain credulity.
    PogueEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • @Erfisflat Re: your flat-earth map:
    In order to fly the shortest route, should a flight from Santiago, Chile to New Zealand or Australia fly over the Americas?
    Could such a flight be done in less than 13 hours without supersonic speed?
    Are all airlines and pilots in on the conspiracy?
    See also:
    https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/
    and https://www.metabunk.org/a-flight-over-the-antarctic-sea-ice-from-chile-to-australia-qf28.t8235/
    and https://www.qantas.com/au/en/book-a-trip/flights.html
    PogueEmeryPearsonEvidenceErfisflat
  • Videos of space walks and ISS maintenance etc.

    PogueEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • JustIgnoreMeJustIgnoreMe 47 Pts
    edited February 25
    Long running videos of floating astronauts:

    PogueEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • Experimentation performed in space:



    PogueEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    @Erfisflat Here is footage from Operation High Jump - https://archive.org/details/TheSecretLand
    It shows footage of planes going over the south pole and not into space (flight prep starts about 52 minutes in). To use the same operation to say this is impossible would seem to strain credulity.
    @JustIgnoreMe
    This film was specifically made for the MK-Ultra population, like those hype-war News short films they used to show before a movie.. "Buy US War Bonds!" etc.

    You think they will tell us anything about the real discoveries, real events of Operation High Jump? LOL on you! THEY (that Live) even witheld President John F. Kennedys execution from the public for 50 years, and you think we'll believe this
    https://archive.org/details/TheSecretLand
    B.S. ??
    Maybe 10 years ago and before that, but today, a tiny light is shining, .. a spark in world of dried up trees (deceived humanity) and you know what happens when someone throws a match in a dried up forest, don't you? This reminds me of my kids children's song:



    The fire has started, the light it brings is the Truth!
    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • If space were not real, the material realm as we know it could not exist.

    Space, in the sense of physical space rather than the absence of it makes 3 of the 4 dimensions of Spacetime.  

    Our universe would cease to appear or function as it does if you remove these 3 elements of Spacetime.

    https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html
    EvidenceErfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    If space were not real, the material realm as we know it could not exist.

    Space, in the sense of physical space rather than the absence of it makes 3 of the 4 dimensions of Spacetime.  

    Our universe would cease to appear or function as it does if you remove these 3 elements of Spacetime.

    https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html

    @EmeryPearson
    I thought this O.P. was about the imaginary sci-fi vacuum-space where the gods like Mars, Venus, Saturn etc. reside, which I agree; that space doesn't exist.

    All the material realm of our world is in different mediums; like in dirt, one rock could be ten feet away from another rock, so the "space" between the two rocks is dirt. Same in water; one fish can be ten feet from another fish, and the space there is water .. this goes for air, one bird could be ten feet from another and so on. So how can the material realm not exist? Space is what we want it to be, like there is space between two minerals in a rock. Time is the same way, it's whatever measuring equipment we use for time.

    And no one knows the medium in the heaven that the stars are in since that "space is where no man has gone before", except for Angels and Christ. And from what we are beginning to see, which is what NASA is desperately trying to hide from us with all the Chem-Trails, is that there might be fallen angels up there too, which I believe the Powers-that-be for now know this! Here;



    look at time 25:20, it is what I believe the Jesuits here on Mt. Graham are watching through their LUCIFER telescope! That's the thing about Satan/Lucifer, he likes to brag, so he brags through Music Videos, Movies, NASA paintings etc.

    Our universe would cease to appear or function as it does if you remove these 3 elements of Spacetime.

    Spacetime does not exist on its own, .. it is just what material world we ascribe to space-time.

    Show me how a sci-fi earth, surrounded by air would function in a total vacuum? We know what only a puff of air in a balloon does in a vacuum, but what would keep the air (water and other gasses) from escaping if that air was outside of the balloon?
    EmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:
    If space were not real, the material realm as we know it could not exist.

    Space, in the sense of physical space rather than the absence of it makes 3 of the 4 dimensions of Spacetime.  

    Our universe would cease to appear or function as it does if you remove these 3 elements of Spacetime.

    https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html

    @EmeryPearson
    I thought this O.P. was about the imaginary sci-fi vacuum-space where the gods like Mars, Venus, Saturn etc. reside, which I agree; that space doesn't exist.

    All the material realm of our world is in different mediums; like in dirt, one rock could be ten feet away from another rock, so the "space" between the two rocks is dirt. Same in water; one fish can be ten feet from another fish, and the space there is water .. this goes for air, one bird could be ten feet from another and so on. So how can the material realm not exist? Space is what we want it to be, like there is space between two minerals in a rock. Time is the same way, it's whatever measuring equipment we use for time.

    And no one knows the medium in the heaven that the stars are in since that "space is where no man has gone before", except for Angels and Christ. And from what we are beginning to see, which is what NASA is desperately trying to hide from us with all the Chem-Trails, is that there might be fallen angels up there too, which I believe the Powers-that-be for now know this! Here;



    look at time 25:20, it is what I believe the Jesuits here on Mt. Graham are watching through their LUCIFER telescope! That's the thing about Satan/Lucifer, he likes to brag, so he brags through Music Videos, Movies, NASA paintings etc.

    Our universe would cease to appear or function as it does if you remove these 3 elements of Spacetime.

    Spacetime does not exist on its own, .. it is just what material world we ascribe to space-time.

    Show me how a sci-fi earth, surrounded by air would function in a total vacuum? We know what only a puff of air in a balloon does in a vacuum, but what would keep the air (water and other gasses) from escaping if that air was outside of the balloon?
    As I keep saying.

    N.A.S.A. has only been going for 60 years. The U.S.A. has only been around since 1776. So who was it that started and then perpetuated the space lie for all those thousands of years previously.


    Space isn't a vacuum. 
    Fundamentally Space only requires 3 dimensions, as spacetime is only a theoretical 4 dimensional continuum.

    As for fallen angels. Get a grip.
    Evidence
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 97 Pts
    edited May 15
    @Evidence

    You may observe space on your own at your local observatory, a powerful home telescope, or due to advances in photography, many cameras. Your claims don't make any sense.

    @Fredsnephew

    "Fundamentally Space only requires 3 dimensions, as spacetime is only a theoretical 4 dimensional continuum."

    This is not precisely true, space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    Evidence said:
    If space were not real, the material realm as we know it could not exist.

    Space, in the sense of physical space rather than the absence of it makes 3 of the 4 dimensions of Spacetime.  

    Our universe would cease to appear or function as it does if you remove these 3 elements of Spacetime.

    https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html

    @EmeryPearson
    I thought this O.P. was about the imaginary sci-fi vacuum-space where the gods like Mars, Venus, Saturn etc. reside, which I agree; that space doesn't exist.

    All the material realm of our world is in different mediums; like in dirt, one rock could be ten feet away from another rock, so the "space" between the two rocks is dirt. Same in water; one fish can be ten feet from another fish, and the space there is water .. this goes for air, one bird could be ten feet from another and so on. So how can the material realm not exist? Space is what we want it to be, like there is space between two minerals in a rock. Time is the same way, it's whatever measuring equipment we use for time.

    And no one knows the medium in the heaven that the stars are in since that "space is where no man has gone before", except for Angels and Christ. And from what we are beginning to see, which is what NASA is desperately trying to hide from us with all the Chem-Trails, is that there might be fallen angels up there too, which I believe the Powers-that-be for now know this! Here;



    look at time 25:20, it is what I believe the Jesuits here on Mt. Graham are watching through their LUCIFER telescope! That's the thing about Satan/Lucifer, he likes to brag, so he brags through Music Videos, Movies, NASA paintings etc.

    Our universe would cease to appear or function as it does if you remove these 3 elements of Spacetime.

    Spacetime does not exist on its own, .. it is just what material world we ascribe to space-time.

    Show me how a sci-fi earth, surrounded by air would function in a total vacuum? We know what only a puff of air in a balloon does in a vacuum, but what would keep the air (water and other gasses) from escaping if that air was outside of the balloon?
    As I keep saying.

    N.A.S.A. has only been going for 60 years. The U.S.A. has only been around since 1776. So who was it that started and then perpetuated the space lie for all those thousands of years previously.


    Space isn't a vacuum. 
    Fundamentally Space only requires 3 dimensions, as spacetime is only a theoretical 4 dimensional continuum.

    As for fallen angels. Get a grip.

    @Fredsnephew N.A.S.A. has only been going for 60 years. The U.S.A. has only been around since 1776. So who was it that started and then perpetuated the space lie for all those thousands of years previously.
    Your parents, grandparents, and great, great grandparents, driven by the same spirit of darkness that deceived Eve.

    Space isn't a vacuum. 
    We know, .. we could see the bubbles coming from your Space-man space helmets.

    As for fallen angels. Get a grip.
    So the ssnake tongue over the NASssA insignias Sss has nothing to do with Sssatan?

    Image result for snake over NASA insignia

    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    @Evidence

    You may observe space on your own at your local observatory, a powerful home telescope, or due to advances in photography, many cameras. Your claims don't make any sense.

    @Fredsnephew

    "Fundamentally Space only requires 3 dimensions, as spacetime is only a theoretical 4 dimensional continuum."

    This is not precisely true, space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Hello @EmeryPearson ;

    Yes, I can observe "space" just taking a walk, if you want to call "space" air?
    Is "air" space?
    If I walk according to my broken watch, does that mean I am traveling at Light Speed?

    space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Space is matter, made up of 'things', and time is just what we call when we measure something in motion, usually the sun for daytime. Unless you think feet, inches, or the tic-toc of the clock really exist?


    EmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:
    @Evidence

    You may observe space on your own at your local observatory, a powerful home telescope, or due to advances in photography, many cameras. Your claims don't make any sense.

    @Fredsnephew

    "Fundamentally Space only requires 3 dimensions, as spacetime is only a theoretical 4 dimensional continuum."

    This is not precisely true, space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Hello @EmeryPearson ;

    Yes, I can observe "space" just taking a walk, if you want to call "space" air?
    Is "air" space?
    If I walk according to my broken watch, does that mean I am traveling at Light Speed?

    space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Space is matter, made up of 'things', and time is just what we call when we measure something in motion, usually the sun for daytime. Unless you think feet, inches, or the tic-toc of the clock really exist?

    I agree with you about time. Time is simply what allows events to have duration.

    Space though, is not matter. Space is simply what allows matter to exist.

    Time and space do not need to have been created, as they do not have substance, they are simply realities.

    Therefore space can be infinite and time does not need to begin or end.

    EvidenceErfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence

    You may observe space on your own at your local observatory, a powerful home telescope, or due to advances in photography, many cameras. Your claims don't make any sense.

    @Fredsnephew

    "Fundamentally Space only requires 3 dimensions, as spacetime is only a theoretical 4 dimensional continuum."

    This is not precisely true, space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Hello @EmeryPearson ;

    Yes, I can observe "space" just taking a walk, if you want to call "space" air?
    Is "air" space?
    If I walk according to my broken watch, does that mean I am traveling at Light Speed?

    space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Space is matter, made up of 'things', and time is just what we call when we measure something in motion, usually the sun for daytime. Unless you think feet, inches, or the tic-toc of the clock really exist?

    I agree with you about time. Time is simply what allows events to have duration.

    Space though, is not matter. Space is simply what allows matter to exist.

    Time and space do not need to have been created, as they do not have substance, they are simply realities.

    Therefore space can be infinite and time does not need to begin or end.

    @Fredsnephew said:  I agree with you about time. Time is simply what allows events to have duration.

    I agree Fred, only that "time is the measuring of the duration of events", .. that's it. And what happens if we don't care about the duration?
    Nothing, events will occur anyways.
    If we were still in the Garden of Eden (in eternity), there would be no need to measure the duration of events, right? So "time" is irrelevant, but for those who are dying, every second counts. So come to Christ and live.

    Space though, is not matter. Space is simply what allows matter to exist.

    So my example of space in different mediums like the distance of minerals in a rock don't make sense to you? Even your expanding universe vacuum is full of stars. What's the difference between that, and a rock? Just different mediums, different 'things'.

    Time and space do not need to have been created, as they do not have substance, they are simply realities.

    No my friend, as I keep telling you that "space" is imaginary, just like your "time" is. I asked you if you think measuring the distance between two objects, like in feet for instance, if "feet" was real? Does feet, inches etc. actually exist?
    Same with time, the clock is real, the arms on the clock going around and around is real, but "time" is imaginary. It really don't exist just like the feet, the mile, the lightyears etc. don't.

    Therefore space can be infinite and time does not need to begin or end.

    No "space" can ever be infinite, .. show me how you would measure Infinite?
    Take a yardstick, and a clock in your BB-space-vacuum and start measuring. Right there, the yardstick and the clock in your BB-space-vacuum proves you're not measuring  Infinite, but mediums. The yardstick itself can be used as a medium, and the medium the yardstick is in, which in this scenario is the "BB-space-vacuum". A medium can be anything, even a block of cement: We could put two yardsticks a feet apart, and a running clock inside a block of cement, now is the "two feet apart, and the time on the clock" real?

    It's how we been indoctrinated for the past 6,000 years about Infinite, Eternal, space, time, nothing, .. were all mixed up, turned upside down and inside out to keep us from knowing our Infinite and Eternal Creator God.

    Like they made our Creator Infinite/God not real, and replaced Him with the creator Spacetime. It's Satan's boast to "be like the Most High" so man would worship the finite/created, instead of the Infinite Creator.

    It's like what he really was saying to Eve: "Don't you want to be like the Most High/God knowing good and evil? Then go ahead and break Gods rule, and you will feel how it is to suffer and die slowly, Ha, ha, ha!"
    Wow, what wisdom! Like telling our children to touch the burning stove, or walk barefoot on broken glass so they can be wise!

    God bless you.
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 97 Pts
    edited May 17
    @Evidence

    "Hello @EmeryPearson ;

    Yes, I can observe "space" just taking a walk, if you want to call "space" air?
    Is "air" space?
    If I walk according to my broken watch, does that mean I am traveling at Light Speed?

    space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Space is matter, made up of 'things', and time is just what we call when we measure something in motion, usually the sun for daytime. Unless you think feet, inches, or the tic-toc of the clock really exist?"

    Air occupies space, yes. No, velocity dictates if you are traveling at C, not the watch.

    This is incorrect, space and time comprise Spacetime, they are not 'separate' entities. Nor are they infinite, and they have a definite beginning.
    https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time
    http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

    Evidence
  • averyaproaveryapro 124 Pts
    Space is 100% real, no doubt about it. If space were fake there would be many things we no today as not true. There are planets, galaxies and much more beyond our earth. People have gone to space and that's basically what astronauts do and saying that space is fake is just people trying to get attention and start a conspiracy theory. 
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    @Evidence

    "Hello @EmeryPearson ;

    Yes, I can observe "space" just taking a walk, if you want to call "space" air?
    Is "air" space?
    If I walk according to my broken watch, does that mean I am traveling at Light Speed?

    space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.

    Space is matter, made up of 'things', and time is just what we call when we measure something in motion, usually the sun for daytime. Unless you think feet, inches, or the tic-toc of the clock really exist?"

    Air occupies space, yes. No, velocity dictates if you are traveling at C, not the watch.

    This is incorrect, space and time comprise Spacetime, they are not 'separate' entities. Nor are they infinite, and they have a definite beginning.
    https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time
    http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

    @EmeryPearson - space is inseparable from time unless your specifically referring to geometry.
    Just as the word "and" is inseparable from "Jack and Jill went up the hill, .."

    Emery said; Air occupies space, yes.
    So anything and everything is "space", even a rock can be space .. thus space is not real.

    No, velocity dictates if you are traveling at C, not the watch.
    The Hafele - Keating experiment said it was the watch (atomic clocks on the plane) that dictated/proved time dilation.

    What's velocity, what, the wind passing over the plane? So if we put one of those huge Movie-Fans blowing over the atomic clocks on the ground, they will experience velocity too?
    As for velocity, let us go to NASA-vacuum-space(r) where we have two objects 'A' and 'B' distancing from each other, .. tell me what causes the special relativistic effects, and on which object?

    Like I said, space and time is no different than the word "and" in "Jack and Jill went up the hill, .." 
    We have been brainwashed into believing that space and time are nouns, when it is more like a conjunction like in "Jack and Jill".
    If you measure 3 feet off a 2X4, the "feet" is not real. There is nothing you can use "feet" for, only the wood. Same with the "space" the three foot 2X4 occupies, the "space" there is useless, only the three foot 2X4 is of use.

    Thank you.
    EmeryPearson
  • "So anything and everything is "space", even a rock can be space .. thus space is not real."

    Your logic does not follow, if everything and anything is space as you claim, then your claiming it's real. You just contradicted yourself. However your claim is false, matter occupies space, it's not space itself.

    "The Hafele - Keating experiment said it was the watch (atomic clocks on the plane) that dictated/proved time dilation."

    So the measurement of time impacts time? Can you prove this? Your personal take of the The Hafele - Keating experiment is incorrect. You're suggesting that if you were to change your watch right now, it'd be equivalent to time travel, which is false.

    "What's velocity"

    Velocity is speed and direction. 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

    "tell me what causes the special relativistic effects, and on which object?"

    The difference in Velocity between two objects. Both, time dilation cannot occur within a singular inertial reference.

    "Like I said, space and time is no different than the word "and" in "Jack and Jill went up the hill, .." "

    Can you prove this mathematically? Which theory espouses to this? Or is it merely your opinion on how Spacetime functions?
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    averyapro said:
    Space is 100% real, no doubt about it. If space were fake there would be many things we no today as not true. There are planets, galaxies and much more beyond our earth. People have gone to space and that's basically what astronauts do and saying that space is fake is just people trying to get attention and start a conspiracy theory. 

    Hello @averyapro - you are referring to NASA Big-Banged expanding vacuum space, .. correct? Well yes, of course it is fake.
    Can you imagine the earth that is covered in water and air exposed to total vacuum for billions of years and not having it escape, or the water freeze? This is what happens when we introduce water and air in a vacuum in a balloon?



    Now imagine the water and air on the outside of the balloon like it is supposed to be on earth that's spinning and twirling through NASA's vacuum space? Not billions of years, but in minutes our atmosphere would be "Lost in Space", and our oceans waters frozen solid sitting there without any oxygen or nitrogen. (time 6:52)
    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    "So anything and everything is "space", even a rock can be space .. thus space is not real."

    Your logic does not follow, if everything and anything is space as you claim, then your claiming it's real. You just contradicted yourself. However your claim is false, matter occupies space, it's not space itself.

    "The Hafele - Keating experiment said it was the watch (atomic clocks on the plane) that dictated/proved time dilation."

    So the measurement of time impacts time? Can you prove this? Your personal take of the The Hafele - Keating experiment is incorrect. You're suggesting that if you were to change your watch right now, it'd be equivalent to time travel, which is false.

    "What's velocity"

    Velocity is speed and direction. 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

    "tell me what causes the special relativistic effects, and on which object?"

    The difference in Velocity between two objects. Both, time dilation cannot occur within a singular inertial reference.

    "Like I said, space and time is no different than the word "and" in "Jack and Jill went up the hill, .." "

    Can you prove this mathematically? Which theory espouses to this? Or is it merely your opinion on how Spacetime functions?

    @EmeryPearson - Your logic does not follow, if everything and anything is space as you claim, then your claiming it's real. You just contradicted yourself. However your claim is false, matter occupies space, it's not space itself.

    Two gold nuggets 2 inches apart in a rock is "space" between two gold nuggets, you can use the rock, the two gold nuggets, but there is nothing you can do with the word "space" in the rock other than use it in a sentence.

    So the measurement of time impacts time? Can you prove this? Your personal take of the The Hafele - Keating experiment is incorrect. You're suggesting that if you were to change your watch right now, it'd be equivalent to time travel, which is false.

    "time" is a word, just like space. Nothing impacts the word "time". It's not my take on the Hafele Keating experiment, it is they who claim that them traveling around the world made them younger because their clocks showed less time than the ones on the ground, .. not me.

    The difference in Velocity between two objects. Both, time dilation cannot occur within a singular inertial reference.

    So two objects distancing each other, like twin 'B' on the Spaceship leaving twin 'A' back on Globe-Earth cannot time dilate? I agree, because time dilation, like the other "relativistic effects" exist only in science fiction fairytales.

    Tell me what is the difference between the Velocity of a sitting Aircraft Carrier, and the jet taking off from it that's traveling at 300mph?
    Or the Velocity difference between the clocks at the United States Naval Observatory, and the clocks on the commercial airliners that Hafele and Keating were sitting in as they traveled around the world?

    Can you prove this mathematically? Which theory espouses to this? Or is it merely your opinion on how Spacetime functions?

    Mathematically, neither the word space, or time has any value. The space between two gold nuggets in a rock, like 2" apart was given a value, but the word "space" does not have a value, the same way that the word "and" in "Jack and Jill went up the hill" has no value.

    Which theory espouses this? Logic does, which comes to me from reading the Bible and observing the world around me, which is real science.

    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • "Two gold nuggets 2 inches apart in a rock is "space" between two gold nuggets, you can use the rock, the two gold nuggets, but there is nothing you can do with the word "space" in the rock other than use it in a sentence."

    You just described measuring said space, so this is a self-defeating argument. If you can measure it, then you can do more than use it as a word.

    ""time" is a word, just like space. Nothing impacts the word "time". It's not my take on the Hafele Keating experiment, it is they who claim that them traveling around the world made them younger because their clocks showed less time than the ones on the ground, .. not me."

    This is also incorrect, if time is just a word, you would be unable to measure it, and unable to use it mathematically. This is not the case. You would be unable to calculate average velocity for instance.  And to quote you, you stated "The Hafele - Keating experiment said it was the watch (atomic clocks on the plane) that dictated/proved time dilation.", clocks don't dictate time, they measure it. You definitely stated this, not the Hafele Keating experiment. 

    "So two objects distancing each other, like twin 'B' on the Spaceship leaving twin 'A' back on Globe-Earth cannot time dilate? I agree, because time dilation, like the other "relativistic effects" exist only in science fiction fairytales."

    If you have two objects distancing each other, you have two inertial references, not one. This is a lack of comprehension on your part.

    "Mathematically, neither the word space, or time has any value. "

    This is incorrect, time and space are used consistently in math. You would not be able to measure the speed of a car for instance.

    "Which theory espouses this? Logic does, which comes to me from reading the Bible and observing the world around me, which is real science."

    As you can see above, you are eschewing logic, rather than using it.
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    edited May 18
    "Two gold nuggets 2 inches apart in a rock is "space" between two gold nuggets, you can use the rock, the two gold nuggets, but there is nothing you can do with the word "space" in the rock other than use it in a sentence."

    You just described measuring said space, so this is a self-defeating argument. If you can measure it, then you can do more than use it as a word.

    ""time" is a word, just like space. Nothing impacts the word "time". It's not my take on the Hafele Keating experiment, it is they who claim that them traveling around the world made them younger because their clocks showed less time than the ones on the ground, .. not me."

    This is also incorrect, if time is just a word, you would be unable to measure it, and unable to use it mathematically. This is not the case. You would be unable to calculate average velocity for instance.  And to quote you, you stated "The Hafele - Keating experiment said it was the watch (atomic clocks on the plane) that dictated/proved time dilation.", clocks don't dictate time, they measure it. You definitely stated this, not the Hafele Keating experiment. 

    "So two objects distancing each other, like twin 'B' on the Spaceship leaving twin 'A' back on Globe-Earth cannot time dilate? I agree, because time dilation, like the other "relativistic effects" exist only in science fiction fairytales."

    If you have two objects distancing each other, you have two inertial references, not one. This is a lack of comprehension on your part.

    "Mathematically, neither the word space, or time has any value. "

    This is incorrect, time and space are used consistently in math. You would not be able to measure the speed of a car for instance.

    "Which theory espouses this? Logic does, which comes to me from reading the Bible and observing the world around me, which is real science."

    As you can see above, you are eschewing logic, rather than using it.

    @EmeryPearson
    here, I give you two inches of space, .. what will you do with it? Without the medium like the rock and two other objects like the gold nuggets, so without "things", .. space is just a word.

    You are not measuring time, you are measuring events, we just call it "time". If I gave you 10 days of "time", how would you be able to use it? The word "time" itself is not real, the 10 sun ups and sun downs is real, and they can differ in length. Juts like the word "and", .. useless in itself. But of course, CERN, NASA lives, and survives on semantics, .. twisting words. That's how sci-fi BB-Space survives, making up imaginary things out of 'nothing'.

    This is incorrect, time and space are used consistently in math. You would not be able to measure the speed of a car for instance.

    We use many other words in math, like I mentioned the word "and", .. so what?

    If you have two objects distancing each other, you have two inertial references, not one. This is a lack of comprehension on your part.

    I gave you an example of a Navy Carrier

    Image result for pic of navy carriers

    .. that's anchored, and one of those jets taking off from it. Both the Carrier and the jet is distancing from each other.


    Here is another scenario; a Harrier:
     
    Image result for pic of a jet Harrier


    .. hovering over the water in one spot, and the Aircraft Carrier is moving. The two are distancing from each other in both cases.

    My friend you have defended this fake NASA space and the CERN quantum realm of black holes, multiverses, imaginary time-travel by folding this 'Space fabric' (lol) for way too long, .. like those Star Wars geeks who go to science fairs to see Lord Wader ! They have lost all sense of reality, and can no longer tell the difference between science, and Comic Book science fiction? And guess who funds this mixture of science and science fiction?
    That's right, the ones that take ALL our money, the Masters of their Universe: CERN and NASA.

    This is incorrect, time and space are used consistently in math. You would not be able to measure the speed of a car for instance.

    So are the words "and', .. and  "speed" used consistently in math, .. neither of which has any value in mathematics other than semantics. The word 'speed' in itself is useless in math, it can be used to describe a car rolling on its wheels, distancing from other objects.

    As you can see above, you are eschewing logic, rather than using it.

    .. as anyone that has not been MK-ultra beyond help can see, “eschew obfuscation” is the middle name of both NASA and CERN, and those defending them. 

    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 97 Pts
    edited May 18
    "here, I give you two inches of space, .. what will you do with it? Without the medium like the rock and two other objects like the gold nuggets, so without "things", .. space is just a word."

    You just proved this to be incorrect, as you were able to measure space. If space were just a word, this would be impossible. You're disagreeing with yourself here, not me.

    "You are not measuring time, you are measuring events, we just call it "time". If I gave you 10 days of "time", how would you be able to use it? "

    You just contradicted yourself. You used a unit of time to describe time. Again, you're disagreeing with yourself within a single claim.

    "We use many other words in math, like I mentioned the word "and", .. so what?"

    So you concede. Time exits. 

    "
    I gave you an example of a Navy Carrier"

    Irrelevant, two objects moving away from each other represent two inertial frames. An Aircraft carrier wouldn't change this. Nor do any other vehicles.

    "
    So are the words "and', .. and  "speed" used consistently in math, .. neither of which has any value in mathematics other than semantics"

    This is incorrect. If it were true, you would not be able to calculate say, the speed of a car, or the average speed of a trip. And also doesn't appear in math, it appears in word problems. Seems most of your confusion stems from your lack of basic mathematical knowledge.

    ".. as anyone that has not been MK-ultra beyond help can see, “eschew obfuscation” is the middle name of both NASA and CERN, and those defending them. "

    This is incorrect. As you can see above, you are still determined to reject logic.
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    "here, I give you two inches of space, .. what will you do with it? Without the medium like the rock and two other objects like the gold nuggets, so without "things", .. space is just a word."

    You just proved this to be incorrect, as you were able to measure space. If space were just a word, this would be impossible. You're disagreeing with yourself here, not me.

    "You are not measuring time, you are measuring events, we just call it "time". If I gave you 10 days of "time", how would you be able to use it? "

    You just contradicted yourself. You used a unit of time to describe time. Again, you're disagreeing with yourself within a single claim.

    "We use many other words in math, like I mentioned the word "and", .. so what?"

    So you concede. Time exits. 

    "
    I gave you an example of a Navy Carrier"

    Irrelevant, two objects moving away from each other represent two inertial frames. An Aircraft carrier wouldn't change this. Nor do any other vehicles.

    "
    So are the words "and', .. and  "speed" used consistently in math, .. neither of which has any value in mathematics other than semantics"

    This is incorrect. If it were true, you would not be able to calculate say, the speed of a car, or the average speed of a trip. And also doesn't appear in math, it appears in word problems. Seems most of your confusion stems from your lack of basic mathematical knowledge.

    ".. as anyone that has not been MK-ultra beyond help can see, “eschew obfuscation” is the middle name of both NASA and CERN, and those defending them. "

    This is incorrect. As you can see above, you are still determined to reject logic.

    @EmeryPearson You just proved this to be incorrect, as you were able to measure space. If space were just a word, this would be impossible. You're disagreeing with yourself here, not me.

    The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space.
    You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. We can use just about any 'thing' to measure this expense, or distance, like a yardstick, tape measure or a ruler. We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things.

    But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? NASA and CERN are making billions of dollars a month selling us empty space, and giving us millions and billions of years of useless and senseless 'time'. Seems like BB-Evolution has all that time to give, as they have all this experience in giving us something from nothing. Isn't that their moto?




    Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running. No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself. Not only can they measure "time" itself, but they can fold it like a fabric, and have their science fiction space ships travel through this folded space and time fabric.

    Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself.

    Irrelevant, two objects moving away from each other represent two inertial frames. An Aircraft carrier wouldn't change this. Nor do any other vehicles.

    Using the old NASA and CERN tricks I see!?
    I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other". Read it again, in each case I gave you either the Aircraft Carrier anchored, or the Harrier hovering still, to show you that there is absolutely no difference in either both moving away from each other, or just one moving, .. showing the lies in Special Relativities "time dilation", and space as a thing like a fabric that you can fold to do time travel.


    This is incorrect. If it were true, you would not be able to calculate say, the speed of a car, or the average speed of a trip. And also doesn't appear in math, it appears in word problems. Seems most of your confusion stems from your lack of basic mathematical knowledge.

    There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! You cannot measure time because it doesn't exist like NASA, CERN sells this 'Spacetime' b.s. lie to the public for billions of dollars! We can measure the duration of events, not 'time'.

    Me reject logic, .. is my name Evidence, or Liar?

    Image result for pic of snake tongue NASA

    You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!


    I guess asking you to be a little more honest in your debate is out of the question right? Must be hard to be debunked on everything on your Globe Earth (@Erfisflat), and now on this Spacetime-fabric, so I will conclude this "Imaginary Spacetime" make-believe debate, I hate to see you resort to NASsssA tactics like you have.



    God bless you!

    Evidence.
    EmeryPearson
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 44 Pts
    If space did not exist, then we would not be able to see any objects outside the surface of Earth: if there is no space, then there is no geometric possibility for the light from distant objects to propagate through the medium and reach our planet. The Sun, for example, would not be observable, which would mean eternal night at all points on the surface of our planet. 

    You would need to employ a very cunning theory to try to build a world view that does not have space, and yet leads to the experimental observations we do every day with our own eyes!
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    If space did not exist, then we would not be able to see any objects outside the surface of Earth: if there is no space, then there is no geometric possibility for the light from distant objects to propagate through the medium and reach our planet. The Sun, for example, would not be observable, which would mean eternal night at all points on the surface of our planet. 

    You would need to employ a very cunning theory to try to build a world view that does not have space, and yet leads to the experimental observations we do every day with our own eyes!

    @MayCaesar
    Space exists in all kinds of different mediums, in other words, everything is space. In some light travels more easier than in others. In some, like lead, light cannot penetrate.
    The "space" I deny the existence of, is this Big-Banged sci-fi 'expanding spacefabric vacuum universe' space filled with planet-gods like Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. .. that space.

    Out of the Dust a Planet is Born
    - newfound planet spins through a clearing, detected around the star CoKu Tau 4 by the Spitzer Space Telescope, in a nearby star's dusty, planet-forming disc. The possible planet is theorized to be at least as massive as Jupiter, and may have a similar appearance to what the giant planets in our own solar system looked like billions of years ago.

    Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC-Caltech)

    The "space" NASA claims to own the rights of, .. and have imaginary "space travel' through, .. where they say they keep their very costly imaginary ISS in, where their pseudoscientists perform back-flip experiments to solve the unsustainable development problem that us human animals have caused.


    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • TheShaunTheShaun 43 Pts
    On the topic of a pressurized system next to a vacuum, gravity pulls the atmosphere towards the planet. That is what makes it pressurized and prevents it from expanding out into outer space.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1137 Pts
    Evidence said:
    MayCaesar said:
    If space did not exist, then we would not be able to see any objects outside the surface of Earth: if there is no space, then there is no geometric possibility for the light from distant objects to propagate through the medium and reach our planet. The Sun, for example, would not be observable, which would mean eternal night at all points on the surface of our planet. 

    You would need to employ a very cunning theory to try to build a world view that does not have space, and yet leads to the experimental observations we do every day with our own eyes!

    @MayCaesar
    Space exists in all kinds of different mediums, in other words, everything is space. In some light travels more easier than in others. In some, like lead, light cannot penetrate.
    The "space" I deny the existence of, is this Big-Banged sci-fi 'expanding spacefabric vacuum universe' space filled with planet-gods like Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. .. that space.

    Out of the Dust a Planet is Born
    - newfound planet spins through a clearing, detected around the star CoKu Tau 4 by the Spitzer Space Telescope, in a nearby star's dusty, planet-forming disc. The possible planet is theorized to be at least as massive as Jupiter, and may have a similar appearance to what the giant planets in our own solar system looked like billions of years ago.

    Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC-Caltech)

    The "space" NASA claims to own the rights of, .. and have imaginary "space travel' through, .. where they say they keep their very costly imaginary ISS in, where their pseudoscientists perform back-flip experiments to solve the unsustainable development problem that us human animals have caused.


    Couldn't have said it better @Evidence. @MayCaesar all these things are possible with God's firmament. Think of it like us as fish seeing the sun from underwater.
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @Evidence

    "The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space."

    If this was the case, events would be unable to proceed or precede each other. This simple fact is hard evidence for the existence of time.

    "
    You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. "

    You're describing space. If there is an expanse between things, there's space. If there are Gold nuggets, they require space to occupy. 

    "We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things."

    This is space, attempting to use alternate adjectives to describe space, doesn't make it not so.

    "But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "

    I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

    "Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running.No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."

    This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

    "Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."

    If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

    "I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"

    This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

    "There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "

    How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

    "You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"

    I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.
    Erfisflat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 44 Pts
    You can "explain" everything by "God did it". Only this is hardly a useful theory, because it has exactly zero predictive power. The reason Ancient Greeks decided to employ scientific method as their primary means of studying the observable world is because they wanted a theory that has predictive power and can be used in practice, for example, for developing new technology - and thanks to this method and its consequences, we can now use computers based on the same science as space faring technology is to have an online discussion on this.

    The idea of expanding space comes from the spectral redshift observable in distant galaxies, that very consistently increases with the distance to those galaxies. The distance to a galaxy can be calculated from the relation between its observable luminosity and mass (which, in turn, comes from measuring the rotational velocity of its disc, bulge or halo). The redshift can be observed in decent telescopes featuring spectrographs. And the physics behind connecting redshift to velocity simply comes from the Doppler effect, which you have experienced every time a car passed by you.

    If, given all this physics and related experimental results, you still deny the existence of expanding space, then there are only two possibilities (assuming you are serious, of course):
    1. The theories are correct - then you do not understand the physics behind them.
    2. The theories are incorrect - then you have an objection to those theories that can be experimentally tested and proven right.

    Since you never even address those theories, your argument being instead limited to "it is too crazy to be true, so it is sci-fi", it does not seem to be the second case. Hence, it is the first case. Strict mathematical logic leads only to this irrefutable conclusion.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    TheShaun said:
    On the topic of a pressurized system next to a vacuum, gravity pulls the atmosphere towards the planet. That is what makes it pressurized and prevents it from expanding out into outer space.
    @TheShaun how about you do a quantum-physics gravity to vacuum ratio calculation on this vacuum lift?



    You see those two small suction cups, .. no match for gravity is it?
    Now imagine the entire imaginary vacuum space out there sucking on the marble plate? You think even for a minute that gravity that can't even hold a kite down, will keep anything on your spinning globe with perfect vacuum space sucking on it? Especially the air and the water exposed to this vacuum for billions of years?

    I would say that if we were to expose your Globe-earth to the imaginary BB-Space-vacuum, the earth would be a frozen, airless wasteland in seconds.

    But then, we both know we are not talking about reality when we talk about globe earth, space vacuum, black holes, gravity, planets, ISS, satellites in space, Astronauts in space etc. because after all the successful MK-Ultra brainwashing on the population, all NASA, CERN has to do is keep the conversation going, by throwing another artist rendered planet at us to keep us stupefied.

    And no matter what evidence is presented against Big-Banged space, you are to ignore it as if nothing was said, and continue as you were, .. like zombies, .. you can't kill them, and if you knock them down, they just get back up again and go after the billions of dollars which they use to destroy Gods creation, .. simply because it's Gods creation, .. starting with man,




    the earth, then every living thing on it till it looks like this again:

    Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.



  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    @Evidence

    "The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space."

    If this was the case, events would be unable to proceed or precede each other. This simple fact is hard evidence for the existence of time.

    "
    You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. "

    You're describing space. If there is an expanse between things, there's space. If there are Gold nuggets, they require space to occupy. 

    "We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things."

    This is space, attempting to use alternate adjectives to describe space, doesn't make it not so.

    "But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "

    I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

    "Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running.No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."

    This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

    "Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."

    If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

    "I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"

    This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

    "There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "

    How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

    "You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"

    I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.


    I understand what you're saying my friend @EmeryPearson, in your BB-Universe you need both the imaginary time and this space, it is what your universe was made of. It follows the logic of "A universe from nothing". What I give you is the answer to the Big Question, and it answers "Everything"! wouldn't you want the "answer for Everything"? But to do that, you would have to leave your sci-fi universe that's being filled up with quadrillions of NASA planets to be able to understand it, or even to just consider it! I wish you would at least do that much?

    Don't you see that for you Globetrotters, time and space, or Spacetime as you guys call it, Is your God! It is what creates, and makes your sci-fi universe possible, along with gravity, which would be like the son of Father Time and Mrs. Space. Like all Religions, your gods are sacred, is not to be debated! I know, .. I was there some 20 years ago in Christianity, and over a year or so ago with @Erfisflat Flat Earth Revelations. But unlike you, I took another look, .. yes, I dared, and now I am so much wiser for it. And if such wisdom is rewarded with a tinfoil hat, I proudly wear it like a crown!

    The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space."
    EmeryPearson-
    If this was the case, events would be unable to proceed or precede each other. This simple fact is hard evidence for the existence of time.

    Let's consider what you are saying here; how do events precede or proceed each other?
    But first, let me present you (again) with another scenario:
    If you measured out eight one foot lengths off of an eight foot 2X4, and put them in a pile without having marked any of them in order, and now you have a small pile of eight one foot long 2X4's on the ground. (*note: I am NOT talking down to you by my simple examples, I'm just making sure I don't get beyond myself, so I use 'small words', .. it's for me, and this assures me that educated people like yourself and others here should be able to understand what I'm saying, .. fair enough? Thanks.)

    Events are like the pile of one foot long 2X4's that may have taken you a second to cut each. They exist no matter if you timestamped the event, and numbered the pieces as you cut them, .. or NOT!
    Now if you did, we could say that at time 0:01, piece #1 was created, but is time 0:01 real? Can you use a pile of 1second time for anything? No, and neither can you line those "1 second cutting 2X4's events" on the ground and walk to any of them and expect to be there as you were cutting them.

    - to be continued -
  • TheShaunTheShaun 43 Pts
    @Evidence
    That lift and outer space is not an equal comparison.
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    @Evidence

    "The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space."

    If this was the case, events would be unable to proceed or precede each other. This simple fact is hard evidence for the existence of time.

    "
    You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. "

    You're describing space. If there is an expanse between things, there's space. If there are Gold nuggets, they require space to occupy. 

    "We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things."

    This is space, attempting to use alternate adjectives to describe space, doesn't make it not so.

    "But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "

    I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

    "Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running.No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."

    This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

    "Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."

    If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

    "I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"

    This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

    "There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "

    How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

    "You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"

    I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.

    @EmeryPearson - Evidence "You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. "
    You're describing space. If there is an expanse between things, there's space. If there are Gold nuggets, they require space to occupy.

    There is the word; "space", but not an actual thing that can be bent, or cause some strange effect on 'things' like make clocks to run slower.
    As for the gold nuggets, as I've shown you, they are space themselves and in this case, the 'space' they occupy is the rock.

    "We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things."
    This is space, attempting to use alternate adjectives to describe space, doesn't make it not so.

    The measuring of distance between objects, we call space, just like measuring events with a mechanism called a clock we call time. Neither time nor space exist on their own, the tape measure and the objects are real, and the clocks are real, but neither space or time is real other than the context we use it in.
    The proof?
    You can't measure either space ot time itself, and sure as my name here is Evidence, time will never cause any clock or watch to slow down. Lawrence Krauss can give you a billion years traveling at the speed of light, but I guarantee you that it will not make you even a second younger!

    Tell me EmeryPearson; how would you describe this Space before the quantum speck that popped out of nothing, and started to get denser and hotter appeared into it?
  • EvidenceEvidence 445 Pts
    @Evidence

    "The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space."

    If this was the case, events would be unable to proceed or precede each other. This simple fact is hard evidence for the existence of time.

    "
    You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. "

    You're describing space. If there is an expanse between things, there's space. If there are Gold nuggets, they require space to occupy. 

    "We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things."

    This is space, attempting to use alternate adjectives to describe space, doesn't make it not so.

    "But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "

    I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

    "Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running.No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."

    This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

    "Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."

    If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

    "I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"

    This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

    "There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "

    How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

    "You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"

    I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.

    @EmeryPearson Evidence -  "But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "
    I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

    I'm measuring the expanse of two gold nuggets in a rock, not space. You can't measure space itself, how many times do we have to go over this?

    "Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running. No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."
    This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

    The clock turns, I could be just checking if I have the gears in there correctly? Are you saying that this mechanism I call a clock can create "time"? So a slow, or a fast clock can create different lengths of time, .. interesting!?

    "Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."
    If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

    In your BB-Vacuum-Universe nothing is static, everything is moving, twirling, expanding, which is why the Hafele and Keating time dilation experiment is so hilarious!

    And like NASA's CGI cartoons of planets in the galaxies millions and billions of light years away that are stretching on this spandex Spacetime Fabric, the only place an electron moving in relation to its nucleus is in those cartoons. Don't give me things that no one has ever observed, and only exist in science fiction stories! I gave you actual events, with real questions, like: "Why would one of the two clocks distancing from one another be effected by this "time dilation"? I'm questioning real events, and their claims.
    My claim is from observation, which is that "you cannot measure time itself because it's not real." The same way you cannot measure space itself, because it too doesn't exist on its own. We call measuring the air between two walls at 10 feet apart with a tape measure "space".

    "I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"
    This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

    No I'm not, one clock is standing still, but the distancing of the two clocks continue!
    Here is another scenario, Hafele and Keating are sitting on the ground in their aircraft, with their atomic clock, and the atomic clock on the Base is traveling away from them on a truck. the truck then stops as the plane with Hafele and Keating take off without breaking the distancing of the two clocks.
    Again, tell me why, or what would make one of the atomic clocks run slower?

    "There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "
    How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

    And what's causing or creating speed, or space/distance or time? Do you think the clock and the tape measure is creating this time and speed?
    Time, space, speed, feet, mile, long, short are not "things", nor can they have an effect on anything, or anyone. The clock will not create time, and that imaginary time will not have an effect on either clocks, or Hafele and Keating. A tape measure will not create space. The air (or water, or whatever) between the two walls do that.

    "You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"
    I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.

    I'm measuring events taking place, not measuring time itself. Tell me how you measure time? Not a car speeding, or pointing to revolutions on the hands on your watch, but time itself, .. how would you measure time, please show me?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch