Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
Circumstantial evidence which is apparent anytime you work with numbers that are beyond our ability to confirm, does not give you the right to claim victory.
|
Ermmm... we DID confirm the numbers. By hitting the damn planet. All the time.
YOU may not be able to make anything of those calculations because you do not understand them. But the fact remains we shoot things the place where a planet would be if sight is delayed dye to the speed of light.
So not only do we hit it where we do not see it... we hit it exactly where it would be if it was lightspeed that determined the delay.
But because you do not understand the math, this is just "circumstantial evidence"?? |
No, obviously if they are landing on the planet it's not circumstantial, but there could be another explanation. You're talking about millions of miles away and the circumference of a planet is huge. To say we'd miss the planet altogether without these calculations is questionable. You are assuming that this proves your case, but I don't because there are inconsistencies that go against this theory, and until further empirical testing is done, there is no conclusive proof as much as you want to believe there is. |
What inconsistencies are these? |
I didn't say it was inconsistent |
So what did you mean when you said because there are inconsistencies that go against this theory |
Hello, please clear this up. |
All I meant was that there could be another explanation. Using the word "inconsistent" was confusing, I admit. I only meant to say that the explanation given could be inconsistent with another explanation that could be just as valid.