Search Results
7/10/2025, 4:35:54 PM
6/10/2025, 10:52:44 PM
>>40507444
Chequed.
>If mass 1 is very high and 2 is very low you don't get much weight
Complete non sequitur. You cannot show ANY empirical evidence that gravity can prevent ANY amount of gas from seeking equilibrium with a vacuum. Also, gravity has been disproven even in your own paradigm, see:
>>40496037
>The parabox doesn't STATE ANYTHING empirical
The Parabox is an empirical demonstration of how gas behaves when exposed to a vacuum. See: >>40460254
I can show actual evidence for my claim of how gas behaves. You, on the other hand cannot. Your claims are unsubstantiated and contradictory to the laws of physics. If you could provide actual empirical demonstrable evidence to support your claim, you would, but you can’t, so you won’t; instead, you’ll just continue making baseless claims and regurgitating your religious dogma as if it’s proof of anything other than the severity of your indoctrination.
>engage with the hypothetical or concede the hypothetical.
You’re the one running away from engaging. You admittedly cannot control the variable of what you claim to be the cause of gravity. In addition, you can perform the Parabox with as big or as small of a container as you like and the gas will always seek equilibrium. If you’re claiming it won’t, then you would need to actually provide evidence for your claim. I’ve substantiated my positive claim, you haven’t (bc you can’t).
>Oh no, electric universe? retardation is hitting the max level now.
>muh ad Homs
Riveting. shitslinging hollow ad homs instead of addressing the actual argument just shows how little confidence you have that your position can stand on its own merit. Objectively, I can provide demonstrable evidence to support my claim of the cause of the downward bias, and you cannot (you should be noticing a pattern here). Address these posts or just concede that your belief system is pseudoscience by definition :
>>40442060
>>40451756
You won’t bc you can’t
Chequed.
>If mass 1 is very high and 2 is very low you don't get much weight
Complete non sequitur. You cannot show ANY empirical evidence that gravity can prevent ANY amount of gas from seeking equilibrium with a vacuum. Also, gravity has been disproven even in your own paradigm, see:
>>40496037
>The parabox doesn't STATE ANYTHING empirical
The Parabox is an empirical demonstration of how gas behaves when exposed to a vacuum. See: >>40460254
I can show actual evidence for my claim of how gas behaves. You, on the other hand cannot. Your claims are unsubstantiated and contradictory to the laws of physics. If you could provide actual empirical demonstrable evidence to support your claim, you would, but you can’t, so you won’t; instead, you’ll just continue making baseless claims and regurgitating your religious dogma as if it’s proof of anything other than the severity of your indoctrination.
>engage with the hypothetical or concede the hypothetical.
You’re the one running away from engaging. You admittedly cannot control the variable of what you claim to be the cause of gravity. In addition, you can perform the Parabox with as big or as small of a container as you like and the gas will always seek equilibrium. If you’re claiming it won’t, then you would need to actually provide evidence for your claim. I’ve substantiated my positive claim, you haven’t (bc you can’t).
>Oh no, electric universe? retardation is hitting the max level now.
>muh ad Homs
Riveting. shitslinging hollow ad homs instead of addressing the actual argument just shows how little confidence you have that your position can stand on its own merit. Objectively, I can provide demonstrable evidence to support my claim of the cause of the downward bias, and you cannot (you should be noticing a pattern here). Address these posts or just concede that your belief system is pseudoscience by definition :
>>40442060
>>40451756
You won’t bc you can’t
Page 1