posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:30 AM
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
This is a sham.
I admit I only flicked through the first half of this hypothesis, but the facts were so poorly laid out I had to stop reading to combat an onset of
For starters the figures given for 'equatorial diameter' and 'mass' are given in a precise form yet the density is unknown. WTF?
Surely, if the author knew so much about the physical attributes, then no doubt that the simple mathematical calculations required to calculate the
density should have been a 'walk in the park'.
Secondly, gravity is actually magnetism? OK then, if the author is so sure that gravity is a farce and what we see as attractive masses can only be
attributed to magnetism, then why doesn't plastic, non-ferrous ceramic, etc, float?
I could keep going...but what's the point.
edit on 27/7/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)
Wait, you said they are "facts" but just "poorly layed out" and based on that excellent review, you call it fail?
Perhaps your own post is "poorly laid out"?
"poorly laid out" "facts" are still facts, just in a layout that does not conform to your standards.
After all, YOU are the one that called them "facts", not me.
"I could keep going...but what's the point. ", so why don't you? Nothing more to add? After all why stop now since you started, or is it just as I
suspect a comment jibe to fill a large vacuum of reasoned arguemnts?
edit on 28-7-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)