The world's not flat?

Nice conclusion jumping there.
Instead of changing tack and bearing in mind my previous post can you disprove it or not?

As much as I hate to admit it, WiH is making 98.2% more sense than you Darth.

Who knows? We may go full circle and determine the universe is not expanding into a 3d space, but possible a 2d plate. In which case, the Earth would be flat, just [iappearing[/i to be an oblate spheroid.

The point is, the only thing constant about science is it constantly replaces it's own obsolete laws.

My own belief is we came from nothing, will return to nothing and the laws will continually change as we follow that process. As the physical universe alters, as it is constantly doing, clearly the laws that explain it will alter too. [iNothing[/i will remain unchanged, including the speed of light.

Silly boy. No tack-changing from me. My only argument with you has always been a constant (for now, of course, things change doncha know

) and it's your refusal to believe anything other than the current facts. Go on, dredge up that deleted thread and we'll see.

I've got a head ache now.

Wikepedia is miles better than this.

So You havent changed tack from me stating [iC[/i was definitive to
I have never said all science laws are unmovable, I have I admit stated that the law around [iC[/i is fixed, a point you have readily admitted.
A point I am waiting for you to disprove.

Codswallop. I have [inever[/i said I believe "c" either to be a) constant, b) the fastest thing ever and c) c. That's what got us into this mess six months ago, or is that the first place?

Read it again.
I was saying that you admited I had said it.
The only thing you have quoted me on saying is that the existing theory of C was definitive, Something I actually said.
You then said that 'In fact, this just not just apply to "c" - are you saying you believe only the facts of anything as far as they are proven in the present, and cannot contemplate the possibility that evidence changes as science evolves?'
Which is made up as I never said it and so is 'nice conclusion jumping'.

Only on Discworld.

Bizarre. Why [iwouldn't[/i I readily admit you said it? I know you did, that's what we've been arguing about all along. That and the fact that you admit only to present day facts and can't contemplate any prospect of current physical laws being not worth the drop of an apple on a head.

Oh go on. Fetch back that thread from June and let's all see. Do.

So after all that flim flam you still haven't given me those facts that require me to apologise seeing as you are so desperate for me to do so.
I have no problems doing so but i'm still waiting for them.

Dear heart. My original request for an apology was clearly based on what went before. On the deleted thread. You seem to think it's an issue solely about the theory of the speed of light now looking decidedly wobbly.

It is, of course, but my main argument was and is about your resolve to see no further than your nose.

Until you revive the deleted thread we can't see that, though. Why DID you delete it?

Wobbly?, I'm not the person with the Blah, Blah's.
Give me FACTS and I will give you the apology you so urgently desire.
I fail to see how you are finding them so hard to find or this request so hard to understand.

I'll even remind you about how you started this conversation.

So give me FACTS and you will get what you are pleading for.

simple question...why did you delete it ?

Took up golf last year, stopped playing rugby a fair few years back after having real problems with my shoulders, it wasn't just the rugby that played a part as I was into lifting weights for around 8 years to. Anyhow, I still kind of needed my sport fix so took up golf around 14 months back, since the beggining of the year my aim was to brake 80 and I finaly managed it yesterday, I shot 78 at Sutton. Over the moon with it!!!

Oh I see got her friends involved eh!


Honest answer I cannot remember but I belive it had gone miles OT.

You've started playing golf?

I am available for assassinations.

Or as I suspect maybe the evidence required here

How was Rihanna on x-factor? Terrible.

Not really.
WIH and I agree what I said I am just waiting for proof off her that there has been new FACTS stating that the value of [iC[/i has changed.

Hmmm. The usual sentence for thread drift is 'locking'. So people can still see what was said but can't add to the drivel.

So why did you see fit to remove all evidence?

Oh, is that all you want to shut up? You should have said...

[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html[/url

Can we have our thread back now?

Eh?? How can we? You deleted our argument.

'The speed of light appears to have been broken again after scientists carried out a new set of experiments to test measurements that could require the laws of physics to be rewritten.'
There is a key word in there it is 'Appears'.