Iceman (full potential) vs. Superman

Originally posted by Vanlore
I have pointed out the distinction between needing something to live and needing to consume something in order to live. Your statement is pure ignorance because you blatantly ignore the logic of my statement with the word "necessarily".

Necessarily is a form of speculation. If we use that speculation based on the facts that we do know and deduct what we don't know, than in theory he does need H20 for not being a pile a dirt as I have already listed the Facts this theory is based on and yet you still fail to use facts for your dogma that he "necessarily" does not need it. Yes both are possible. One is based on facts "my theory" one is not a theory but a mere possible alternative (your statement.)

The facts I am basing my "theory" that supermans body makes or recycles H2O rather than a different substance for "moisture" is from his commonly understood weakness the times he has lost his powers. The fact that he is similar to us. The fact that his home planet was formerly a lush garden world. The fact that you have no theory to replace mine. If you have a better theory than by all means tell us about it. If you do not have a different theory than the next logical step would be to accept the current one. I could list many more facts for basis if you want??

Umm... If it was proven or verified than it would not be a "THEORY" anymore it would be a fact... HELLO!!! Do you even know what a theory is? A theory is a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

So you do not accept our Gravitational Theory? lol... Wait you will probability confuse this so ill explain it for you.

Well, "Gravitational Theory" is our explanation of the phenomenon we know as 'gravity'.

It is a law of gravity that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground, but it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs.

Gravity is a law, but we understand and explain it through a theory. It is both ; )

Ah just about all vs comics is based on some basis of speculation. So your saying no matter what logic tells us that you are not going to follow the logic of it because it is not a fact as in proven or maybe even the absolute truth. Well you should not be debating in any comic vs threads then.. The fact that you state this rule of your reasoning and then will defend superman in "every vs thread" would lead me to believe that you are as biased as you claim other people are that you don't even know.

Which I might add is purely "speculation" based from what you have read which would be a logical theory. And then say I am not smart because I wont insult people on the basis of theory derived by the facts of peoples statements.

But you yourself do not accept that reasoning as you state but then use it to argue that people are biased. Talk about a double standard. So only people that agree with you are able to form theory's such as who is biased and who is not or does superman make is own H20 or ignore that logic and accept the alternative suggested based on 0 facts. but anyone who disagrees with you via your own logic is not accepted because it is not fact or absolute truth. And yet you use less than theory to argue and instead just merely make suggestions and use them over logic. If you was doing this in a court of law to argue the intent of someone or motive they would laugh at you..

It clearly states he is bypassing everything els and freezing it via the direct source.. Now what is the direct source???......

HAHAHA!!!! There is NO logic in theory????? You are truly lost at this point and would need a full education at this point to bring you up to par. Did you know that fact and deduction are also means to form a theory?

By your quote above this one you just said that your last quote here is illogical..lol I'll let you think about that..

Also Iceman wins..

I will go out on a limb to prove I'm not bias in this battle.
If Iceman can be proven to reach absolute zero under his own power and can be proven to come back after complete disintegration then I will give this fight to him. But it is against all common sense that Iceman (potential or not) can harm someone who has been shown to be resistant to having their molecules slowed or halted for over 50 years. It is not reasonable, even in theory, that Bobby can even affect Superman in the slightest (Unless he can reach absolute zero).

iceman at full potential = Superman's moist fart

Originally posted by Vanlore
Also this is a valid point. Arguing what fluid superman uses for moisture is Irrelevant in the first place. Since his blood has been shown to be effected via cold as an indirect source. While scans show Iceman is able to accomplish such feats by different means via direct source.

Superman has bleed in deep space and blood has not froze. Superman has never been affected by cold indirectly in his entire career. Chrono stasis is considered an infinite force trying to completely stop the motion of molecules. Anything less wouldn't do anything to Superman.
Superman has resisted direct transmutation several times. And he is no stranger to cold.

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman has bleed in deep space and blood has not froze.

There's no reason it would. It would be difficult to draw a detail like that too.

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman has bleed in deep space and blood has not froze. Superman has never been affected by cold indirectly in his entire career. Chrono stasis is considered an infinite force trying to completely stop the motion of molecules. Anything less wouldn't do anything to Superman.
Superman has resisted direct transmutation several times. And he is no stranger to cold.

Why should anyone listen to you.. Here is your logic below...

Originally posted by h1a8
Well we know that Superman doesn't need to consume h2o nor does he necessarily needs it to live.

I have pointed out the distinction between needing something to live and needing to consume something in order to live. Your statement is pure ignorance because you blatantly ignore the logic of my statement with the word "necessarily".

Necessarily is a form of speculation. If we use that speculation based on the facts that we do know and deduct what we don't know, than in theory he does need H20 for not being a pile a dirt as I have already listed the Facts this theory is based on and yet you still fail to use facts for your dogma that he "necessarily" does not need it. Yes both are possible. One is based on facts "my theory" one is not a theory but a mere possible alternative (your statement.)

The facts I am basing my "theory" that supermans body makes or recycles H2O rather than a different substance for "moisture" is from his commonly understood weakness the times he has lost his powers. The fact that he is similar to us. The fact that his home planet was formerly a lush garden world. The fact that you have no theory to replace mine. If you have a better theory than by all means tell us about it. If you do not have a different theory than the next logical step would be to accept the current one. I could list many more facts for basis if you want??

Originally posted by h1a8
I disagree. Non proven or verified theory doesn't have to be accepted as truth. It is all a matter of opinion and not fact.

Umm... If it was proven or verified than it would not be a "THEORY" anymore it would be a fact... HELLO!!! Do you even know what a theory is? A theory is a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

So you do not accept our Gravitational Theory? lol... Wait you will probability confuse this so ill explain it for you.

Well, "Gravitational Theory" is our explanation of the phenomenon we know as 'gravity'.

It is a law of gravity that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground, but it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs.

Gravity is a law, but we understand and explain it through a theory. It is both ; )

Ah just about all vs comics is based on some basis of speculation. So your saying no matter what logic tells us that you are not going to follow the logic of it because it is not a fact as in proven or maybe even the absolute truth. Well you should not be debating in any comic vs threads then.. The fact that you state this rule of your reasoning and then will defend superman in "every vs thread" would lead me to believe that you are as biased as you claim other people are that you don't even know.

Which I might add is purely "speculation" based from what you have read which would be a logical theory. And then say I am not smart because I wont insult people on the basis of theory derived by the facts of peoples statements.

But you yourself do not accept that reasoning as you state but then use it to argue that people are biased. Talk about a double standard. So only people that agree with you are able to form theory's such as who is biased and who is not or does superman make is own H20 or ignore that logic and accept the alternative suggested based on 0 facts. but anyone who disagrees with you via your own logic is not accepted because it is not fact or absolute truth. And yet you use less than theory to argue and instead just merely make suggestions and use them over logic. If you was doing this in a court of law to argue the intent of someone or motive they would laugh at you..

Originally posted by h1a8
Lies. The scan showed no evidence of this. One scan verified that Iceman indirectly controls heat gradients by cooling the surrounding air.

It clearly states he is bypassing everything els and freezing it via the direct source.. Now what is the direct source???......

Originally posted by h1a8
There is no logic in theory or speculation. True logic is based off deduction and fact.

HAHAHA!!!! There is NO logic in theory????? You are truly lost at this point and would need a full education at this point to bring you up to par. Did you know that fact and deduction are also means to form a theory?

Originally posted by h1a8 I speak the truth. Mostly posters on here are guilty of being either Marvel bias or D.C. bias. Just read through most of these threads and you can easily find who is Marvel bias and who is D.C. bias. If not then you are not very smart. You would also see that Marvel bias dominates D.C. bias. [/B]

By your quote above this one you just said that your last quote here is illogical..lol I'll let you think about that..

So bobby wins because......oh right cause of full potential theory.

Originally posted by Makky
So bobby wins because......oh right cause of full potential theory.

?

Can someone just repost the said scan of Supes being frozen. In another instance just recently, SMP gave Supes a blast of frost breath and encased him in ice. It didnt last long because SMP then punched him out of it. With that said, if Iceman were to take the "freeze him in a block of ice" approach, hed have to constantly apply the pressure and cold to keep Supes in it. All that is externally. Supermans internal fluids should be manipulated by Bobby without much problem. All Bobby needs is "moisture".

It has been shown by indirect means 'as in around is body to cause his blood to slow down. Direct means and at the source as in kinetic energy with iceman at full potential would freeze cleark most likely.

Originally posted by Avlon
No scan = babble..next.

lol your being willingly ignorant. No scan?? You saw the scan yourself and even commented on it yourself. Fine i'll go threw every single page and find it for you since you want to play the stupidity game...

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/891/28797729xc4na9.jpg

Originally posted by Avlon Direct means actually... and his body adapted near instantly. ie..the attack failed... [/B]

First of all Direct in the context we are debating means to directly control the spin of a particle.

Originally posted by Avlon
More babble..next.

You need to go to school.

Thermal energy per particle is also called the average translational kinetic energy possessed by free particles given by equipartition of energy.

Thermal energy is the difference between the internal energy of an object and the amount that it would have at absolute zero. It includes the quantity of kinetic energy due to the motion of the internal particles of an object, and is increased by heating and reduced by cooling.

His power is to manipulate (Slow Down or possibly stop) Internal energy which is the total of the kinetic energy due to the motion of molecules (translational, rotational, vibrational) and the potential energy associated with the vibrational and electric energy of atoms within molecules or crystals. It includes the energy in all of the chemical bonds, and the energy of the free, conduction electrons in metals.

Originally posted by Avlon Proof that it wasn't direct? Yea..I thought so... [/B]

Again your question is stupid since It does not make any sense. Why would I want to prove it is not direct? And that does not answer the question below so i'll ask you again..

How did you conclude his body would adept instantly from a direct command of his kinetic energy to halt. When it shows him being frozen saying I better act fast or I'm a icecube... That was just from a blast via indirect means. A sustained state of greater power via direct means will freeze him solid..

Originally posted by Avlon
No scan.. useless conjecture..next.

Um like you never saw it before ... http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/891/28797729xc4na9.jpg

Why would I try and prove that direct in this context is not direct?? As it being direct is a good thing for Iceman lol.... Are you arguing that Iceman wins now lol?

Originally posted by Avlon
Because that's your claim? Duh. Next...

Um are you under the influence of any illegal substances right now?? Just asking because your just making statements that reflect the opposite of everything I have said...

Originally posted by Avlon
Crying in pain..lol. I'll tolerate your posts just because they are so hilarious.

Umm ok.. Thanks I guess.

Originally posted by Avlon
You debate a made up character with no scans and nothing but pure conjecture and comic book science and speak of babble.

I showed you the scans and used logic based from what we do know and showed you a logical conclusion. You have done absolutely nothing but state fallacy's, argue points which I never even stated and ignore logic...

Here is a example of logic you seem to lack.. If superman gets hurt by a little bit of kryptonite than allot of kryptonite will hurt him more.. Just like if a weak form of what Iceman is going to do to him hurts him than Iceman is going to hurt him allot more..

Originally posted by Avlon
Just LOL.

Yes that seems to be about all you can do apparently.

I have pointed out the distinction between needing something to live and needing to consume something in order to live. Your statement is pure ignorance because you blatantly ignore the logic of my statement with the word "necessarily".

Necessarily is a form of speculation. If we use that speculation based on the facts that we do know and deduct what we don't know, than in theory he does need H20 for not being a pile a dirt as I have already listed the Facts this theory is based on and yet you still fail to use facts for your dogma that he "necessarily" does not need it. Yes both are possible. One is based on facts "my theory" one is not a theory but a mere possible alternative (your statement.)

Originally posted by h1a8
This is not true my brother Lore (I'm Data). Necessarily means there is no proof. So how is it speculation?

It would be illogical to state that you are Data. I would also like to point out that it is always Lore who comes in first and makes the statement that he is Data and tires to convince the mass that he is Data.

Necessarily does not mean there is no proof. Necessary means he may or may not use H2O for the purpose of not being a pile of dirt. It is speculation because you don't know if he does and you don't know if he does not. The term refers to both of the possibilities. So since we don't know for a fact we then list all the facts and make a logical theory from that point. The part you seem to not understand.

Also even if it meant no proof. This would not contradict anything I have said. I never said a theory is proof or that it has to be absolute truth. I said a theory is a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. Example: I have a theory about who broke into the school last night, but I have no proof to back it up.

Originally posted by h1a8 The special theory of relativity isn't necessarily true doesn't mean that it is or isn't true but rather it hasn't been completely proven to be true. [/B]

Ok your making progress as you have the concept correct. Now let me ask you a question. Do you agree with the general theory of relativity?

The facts I am basing my "theory" that supermans body makes or recycles H2O rather than a different substance for "moisture" is from his commonly understood weakness the times he has lost his powers. The fact that he is similar to us. The fact that his home planet was formerly a lush garden world. The fact that you have no theory to replace mine. If you have a better theory than by all means tell us about it. If you do not have a different theory than the next logical step would be to accept the current one. I could list many more facts for basis if you want??

Originally posted by h1a8 Clark without powers could be an entirely different creature than with his powers.There is no sound logical connection of the point you are trying to make here. I don't have a theory nor do I need one to refute someone else's argument. I can just sit back and point out fallacies if I like. So can anyone else. For an example, see Mindset .[/B]

Entirely different? You don't know to what extent. That is why we form a theory using logic since we don't know. Let us only consider the facts we do know. Let us also use deductive reasoning as you pointed out yourself. It is illogical to start with the assumption he is totally different when he does not have his powers via deductive reasoning. Let is take into consideration how the comics state that his physiology is similar to ours. We seen X rays of him. We seen that they need water to live on there home planet. Many many reasons the logic is going the opposite direction of what you are trying to say. Stop saying he could be this or that as you want to use deductive reasoning and this eliminates all radical possibilities then we only draw conclusions from what is known. You are no pointing out anything. You are making logical fallacies. Thus far you have failed to refute anything.

Originally posted by h1a8 Again, It is not irrational nor illogical to reject an unproven theory. Currently, I reject the Special theory of relativity.[/B]

See here is the BIG problem with your reasoning. A theory is a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. A expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances. If it was "proven" it would no longer be a theory.

Here is why you are illogical. It is ok for you to reject any theory.. That part is fine. The problem is when you reject a theory in a debate and have no theory to replace the current theory.

Lets talk about your statement that you reject special theory which is a part of General relativity. And let us also pretend for a moment that you work at NASA. In this theoretical world you are in a race with other countries to be the first people to get a satellite in orbit. Your job is to get that satellite up there and that means you need to form a theory to do this. If you reject general relativity and you do not have a working theory to get that satellite into orbit than you are going to fail your mission.. No matter how much you disagree with your fellow NASA workers that there theory is wrong and that it is illogical because its not a fact.. they are going to use the current theory of general relativity until you come up with a better theory than the current one because yes that is the logical thing to do.. The alternative is If NASA had listened to you in your little debate with them than we would not have satellites right now.. How logical is the alternative? The logic is the same in this debate. We need to continue to a conclusion. The theory is our only means of transportation at this point to get to the conclusion. Saying you don't like the color of the car is irrelevant. Get us a different car then because we must get there.

Originally posted by h1a8 Logic is pure and undefiled. It is perfect with no flaws. It is not theory nor speculation but based on fact and truth. Now inductive reasoning is a funny thing and is sometimes not accepted in logic. In debate it is sometimes used. But know that this form of reasoning can be weak or strong to a majority.[/B]

You are the one who needs lecturing about "logic". You say a theory is not logical. Do you know how utterly stupid that sounds? You do know the basis of a theory is facts based on "logical" conclusions? You keep trying to separate logic and theory and it is funny because you cant have a theory without logic.. They are one and the same... You just said all theory's are illogical. The only thing illogical here is you..

Logic is capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; "a logical mind" Example: Based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year" Now even if it did not rain that day does not mean it was not a logical statement.

At this point it is clear you do not even grasp simple concepts such as logic.

Also know that you were stating your theory like it was a fact and not a theory. This alone is shows unsound reasoning and begs a rebuttal.[/B]

This statement alone shows that you don't understand a word I have said to you.. Your statements never stop amazing me. Lets quote a few of my statements of what I have said about fact and theory.

"I never said a theory is proof or that it has to be absolute truth. I said a theory is a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena." Jee nothing here in that context.. hmmm

"The facts I am basing my "theory" that supermans" Hm well I couldn't use a theory as a fact here since I stated my theory was based on facts hence it is a "theory" then I continued from that point to name the facts..... hm well try again...

Here is one of my favorites "Um... If it was proven or verified than it would not be a "THEORY" anymore it would be a fact... HELLO!!! Do you even know what a theory is?" ...... Hm I don't think I was trying to use theory as a fact here...

I challenge you to quote me using a theory in the context of a fact since I have been doing my best to explain what the distinction is between the two.

[i]Originally posted by h1a8 I have been here on KMC for a long time now. I have many times been won over when someone made a valid point or sufficiently proved their case, even after over 100 pages of hard debate. Everyone is a little bias (even me and you). I prefer Superman in most vs. threads mainly because of his speed. Without his speed I would hate the hell out of him and argue against him almost every chance I got. So really I'm a big fan of speed and time control.[/B]

You missed my entire point in my reply about this. I was not arguing the weather you where correct that they are biased or not...

You said "There is no logic in theory or speculation. True logic is based off deduction and fact."

You came to your conclusion about who is biased by reading posts. The posts represent the facts. You made your own logical conclusion based on the facts who is biased. That is a theory. Your quote above this is that there is no logic in theory. Another words theories are illogical. This is the same reasoning I use in this debate that you condemn. Yet I argued with you to see if you would defend this logic and you did..

You are a hypocrite and you are also wrong. You use this reasoning when it suits you and you ignore it when it does not. I am not just stating my opinion I am describing what you did. You need to step back and look at what your saying.

Originally posted by Vanlore
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/891/28797729xc4na9.jpg

Oh wow. w00t

Superman uses his super speed and find all the salt in NY, fills up a truck with it and dumps it on Iceman's ass?

lol van you actually did go through the thread and find the pic i was talking about!!! lol it's funny b/c someone posted that as proof you couldn't freeze superman...i guess they didn't actually read what it said and just looked at the picture. Great job man, i tried finding it the other day and gave up after page 27.

wow. you use one scan that proves just how resilient he is to the cold to prove that he can be frozen? i say again. wow.

His cells are shutting down and going into suspended animation, near-instantly.

According to the New God kid, he should have already been in full suspended animation already, but he consciously fought it. Decided he had to 'act quickly', and easily overcomes such an attack.

The scan shows both the cold/ice, nor loss of kinetic energy from stopping his molecules is going to stop him for long.

You could probably find easier ways to piss him off.

Like, tugging on his cape.

Because that's all I see happening.

In a featureless arena, I don't think Bobby has what it takes to stop Superman, nor am I sure Superman has what it takes to stop this version of Bobby.

But in a setting, Superman would figure out a way to handle Bobby, before the other is true.

This has probably been addressed, but how does Supes stop the moisture from his body from being absorbed?

Originally posted by Vanlore
It has been shown by indirect means 'as in around is body to cause his blood to slow down. Direct means and at the source as in kinetic energy with iceman at full potential would freeze cleark most likely.

lol your being willingly ignorant. No scan?? You saw the scan yourself and even commented on it yourself. Fine i'll go threw every single page and find it for you since you want to play the stupidity game...

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/891/28797729xc4na9.jpg

First of all Direct in the context we are debating means to directly control the spin of a particle.

You need to go to school.

Thermal energy per particle is also called the average translational kinetic energy possessed by free particles given by equipartition of energy.

Thermal energy is the difference between the internal energy of an object and the amount that it would have at absolute zero. It includes the quantity of kinetic energy due to the motion of the internal particles of an object, and is increased by heating and reduced by cooling.

His power is to manipulate (Slow Down or possibly stop) Internal energy which is the total of the kinetic energy due to the motion of molecules (translational, rotational, vibrational) and the potential energy associated with the vibrational and electric energy of atoms within molecules or crystals. It includes the energy in all of the chemical bonds, and the energy of the free, conduction electrons in metals.

Again your question is stupid since It does not make any sense. Why would I want to prove it is not direct? And that does not answer the question below so i'll ask you again..

How did you conclude his body would adept instantly from a direct command of his kinetic energy to halt. When it shows him being frozen saying I better act fast or I'm a icecube... That was just from a blast via indirect means. A sustained state of greater power via direct means will freeze him solid..

Um like you never saw it before ... http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/891/28797729xc4na9.jpg

Why would I try and prove that direct in this context is not direct?? As it being direct is a good thing for Iceman lol.... Are you arguing that Iceman wins now lol?

Um are you under the influence of any illegal substances right now?? Just asking because your just making statements that reflect the opposite of everything I have said...

Umm ok.. Thanks I guess.

I showed you the scans and used logic based from what we do know and showed you a logical conclusion. You have done absolutely nothing but state fallacy's, argue points which I never even stated and ignore logic...

Here is a example of logic you seem to lack.. If superman gets hurt by a little bit of kryptonite than allot of kryptonite will hurt him more.. Just like if a weak form of what Iceman is going to do to him hurts him than Iceman is going to hurt him allot more..

Yes that seems to be about all you can do apparently.

Simply put. You need to stop being a fool. The faux attitude and hilariously bad pseudo scientific babble your spouting as fact since you have no real proof of anything isn't helping your case.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/891/28797729xc4na9.jpg

The scan destroys your argument on all levels. The attack was instant.

"He should be in full chrono suspension, but he's resisting it"

Next panel Superman is out.

Your kryptonite argument fails...since Supes doesn't have a weakness to ice.

Originally posted by Raoul
wow. you use one scan that proves just how resilient he is to the cold to prove that he can be frozen? i say again. wow.

Yea, It's hilarious. Even with that scan (which superman broke out none the worse for it) they must be debating that bobby has unlimited endurance too. LOL

Maybe next time they'll use scientific babble to explain the omega beams that superman resisted and HV'd away...or how Superman was warping reality with Dominus, or how he punched through death, or how he rubbed his hands to seal a reality rip...or how his body resisted a double black hole...etc.

I'm sure there are plausible scientific explanations for that. LOL

Originally posted by Avlon
I'm sure there are plausible scientific explanations for that.

Of course there is. He's Superman.

Originally posted by Vanlore

You said necessarily meant speculation when it doesn't. My rebuttal was just to show you this nothing more. Necessarily implies deductive reasoning. If A=B and B=C then A necessarily equals C. If Clark consumes water then he doesn't necessarily have to be made of water. This statement is true so why argue against its validity?

[b]
Ok your making progress as you have the concept correct. Now let me ask you a question. Do you agree with the general theory of relativity?

Yes. I agree with the general theory of relativity but not the special theory of relativity.
[quote]
The facts I am basing my "theory" that supermans body makes or recycles H2O rather than a different substance for "moisture" is from his commonly understood weakness the times he has lost his powers. The fact that he is similar to us. The fact that his home planet was formerly a lush garden world. The fact that you have no theory to replace mine. If you have a better theory than by all means tell us about it. If you do not have a different theory than the next logical step would be to accept the current one. I could list many more facts for basis if you want??

Entirely different? You don't know to what extent. That is why we form a theory using logic since we don't know. Let us only consider the facts we do know. Let us also use deductive reasoning as you pointed out yourself. It is illogical to start with the assumption he is totally different when he does not have his powers via deductive reasoning. Let is take into consideration how the comics state that his physiology is similar to ours. We seen X rays of him. We seen that they need water to live on there home planet. Many many reasons the logic is going the opposite direction of what you are trying to say. Stop saying he could be this or that as you want to use deductive reasoning and this eliminates all radical possibilities then we only draw conclusions from what is known. You are no pointing out anything. You are making logical fallacies. Thus far you have failed to refute anything.

See here is the BIG problem with your reasoning. A theory is a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. A expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances. If it was "proven" it would no longer be a theory.

Here is why you are illogical. It is ok for you to reject any theory.. That part is fine. The problem is when you reject a theory in a debate and have no theory to replace the current theory.

Lets talk about your statement that you reject special theory which is a part of General relativity. And let us also pretend for a moment that you work at NASA. In this theoretical world you are in a race with other countries to be the first people to get a satellite in orbit. Your job is to get that satellite up there and that means you need to form a theory to do this. If you reject general relativity and you do not have a working theory to get that satellite into orbit than you are going to fail your mission.. No matter how much you disagree with your fellow NASA workers that there theory is wrong and that it is illogical because its not a fact.. they are going to use the current theory of general relativity until you come up with a better theory than the current one because yes that is the logical thing to do.. The alternative is If NASA had listened to you in your little debate with them than we would not have satellites right now.. How logical is the alternative? The logic is the same in this debate. We need to continue to a conclusion. The theory is our only means of transportation at this point to get to the conclusion. Saying you don't like the color of the car is irrelevant. Get us a different car then because we must get there.

Man you sure do type a lot.