markusariliu

also since both the strong and weak atomic forces are stronger than gravity it is plausable that these would keep an infinite shrinking from happening.

I am sorry I could have worded that better. I do not disagree that a prop plane is different from a 707 nor do I think that steel cannot be ripped by ice. I did not mean that your statements were just saying you are dumb, but that your statements revealed how they overlooked simple truths. The second sentence was just there to encourage others not to do the same as many often do to conspirators, which is dismiss any points they have and look for flaws, while scrutinizing the viewpoints’ of tree's document.

As for the "a falling body is accelerated by gravity":

Gravity has a constant affect on all objects at all times an atom on one side of the universe has a gravitational pull on an atom on the opposite side and visa versa. He states gravity and falling as separate, by saying that a body falls and then gravity accelerates it, when they are the same. And I also stated just after that that it could have just been a misstatement. What I meant was that he should be clear when he writes if he wants to convince his reader. Which if he is not clear shows that he has a similar attitude as other conspiracy theorists and that is to check with utmost perfection the documents of the opposing belief but not his own. The same goes with the grammar mistakes, because as I stated before people have the habit of looking for error even if it is not with his viewpoint.

An example is what happened just now when I placed two sentences next to each other and you thought they were together, and when I failed to explain what I meant by saying something and you had to interpret what I meant.

whooops

First of all if you search for error you will find error. In the effect of if there is error it will be found and if there is none it will be created. The main reason conspiracies are rejected is because conspiracy theorists often search for any error or hint of such in the ones they scrutinize but do not use the same scrutiny on themselves, and second because the same is true of the ones who scrutinize the conspiracy theorists. Several of you mentioned this very thing by the "ice cant break steel" and the prop plane in the sears tower. However none of you brought to the table a body of research as did the PDF even as informal as it was. They look for all of the problems in what the theorists are saying and if they find none they fall back to the childish "whatever you’re just dumb".

If you actually read through the document though, you would have found many assumptions and probabilities. The writer only hurts himself by saying probably many times instead of just going and finding which way it would have happened. There are also several misspellings and completely incorrect grammar such as "when you take an ice cubes", and "until the all solid" along with a few others. Not that misspellings and grammar mistakes automatically make a document incorrect, but when they can be corrected by a click of the mouse it shows a lack of care for their task of proving their point and it ends up hurting them. Also the writer states his understandings of the sciences and shows that he has the wrong understanding of them by saying “A falling body is accelerated by the force of gravity”. This could just be a misstatement but as with the misspellings and grammar mistakes it shows that he is not checking his logic to ensure it is correct while he is defiantly checking the governments.

Other than these simple and not entirely unrelated mistakes the author also does not cite his sources on more than half of the document and expects his reader to do so. So, even though the document could be very convincing with a few changes to the writing style and the addition of some citations, I am left unconvinced because of his lack of citations, misunderstandings of physics, and use of probably instead of verifying his point of view.

Suggestion: If you want to write a conspiracy theory to convince one scientifically of your beliefs, use the format in which scientists have set down to prove things scientifically. By doing so you will not only have everything needed in your paper to prove what you believe, since that is what a science paper “format” has been set up to do, but you will also have the advantage of those used to this format being less likely to scrutinize your paper.

Anyway just my thoughts

thanks again I read the article and realise my mistake.

isnt that what is comonly called the solar wind?

7 or 1 or both

Is it posable to use some type of sail, as so many science fiction books have invisioned, to propell an object through space away from a star?

It seems possable since our atmosphere is blown egg-shaped by it, but I am not sure so I came to ask.