Originally posted by Astner
I know what you're saying. It's just that you're wrong.The scan says nothing about orbits. It's an assumption on your part that it enters any kind of orbit.
All you can infer from it is that it's not enough to enter a (nondecaying) orbit.
Not when you consider the fact that I clarified that what I was referring to was a nondecaying orbit.
I've conceded on a number of positions throughout the years, and I have no issue conceding positions when I'm proven wrong. I don't take it personally. I learn from my mistakes, and move on.
You, on the other hand, never concede when you wrong, and you do take losing debates personally, as evidenced by the fact that you think giving a concession discredits the debater, when in reality it has the opposite the effect.
I'm right, you're unable to concede when you're wrong, and that's why we're at an impasse.
Ah so now we move onto the gaslighting portion of your interactions.
I'm not the one who inserted the word orbit when there was none.
But glad that you have finally corrected yourself, it is indeed a veritable bringing of the mountain to Mohammad here. Yes, we agree, all we can infer from it is that it's not enough to enter a (nondecaying) orbit.
Not, as you originally stated, that:
...is not quite enough to send the dummy into orbit, ......
Glad we agree, I always find the best way to convince someone of my stance is to make them think that they came up with it on their own.