like many here, i have noticed on several occasions the blind obedience with which round earthers view scientists. this is bs. we cannot trust scientists, and there are several reasons for this, all of which may be verified with some simple, common sense.Ever heard of evolution, or are you one of those annoying religious-based FE'rs? You've evolved not to feel it. However, you have not evolved to have irritants, such as sand, to be ingored, as sand is:
they want money
scientists are paid to do experiments. oil companies pay then, and climate change stops existing. sugar companies pay them, and there's no link between sugar and obesity. you can look up all of those examples, and that's just the ones they'll admit to. scientists don't care about honesty, they care about the cash.
how do you trust what they say when they aren't after the truth? they'll find what they're asked to find. when they make up new fantasies every day to explain holes (dark energy, gravity, spacetime, string theory) with nothing except "but we can't be wrong!" as evidence, they have long since stopped being anything other than crooks and liars after your money.
they are wrong about gravity
if the earth is stationary, gravity does not exist as we should be moving. if the earth is moving, it would not have formed a sphere as we would be pushed along until we're flat, and then gravity would have torn the earth apart. gravity is obviously impossible. if it existed, the earth should be crushed to diamond by now and yet, not only isn't it, but round earther scientists want you to believe that there is liquid inside the earth, despite the combined weight of the world's entire outer surface coming down and crushing it.
this is complete and utter bs, clearly.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
these are three simple examples of why scientists are utterly discredited. think for yourselves.
Apart form the fact you show signs of scizotypy you are wrong.And what's causing a higher amount of storms? Magic? There is a noticeable difference of storms and temperature. It has been negative 3 degrees for weeks now, and a couple of days ago we hit the coldest temperature recorded in our area. It's snowed every day for 2 weeks. Tell me that's not strange? It's never been like this before.
Stick your head out of a train window* at 120mph and tell me air doesn't hurt your eyes.
If there is no air what do we breath?
*preferably in the vicinity of a solid lineside obstruction, in your case
SO what is it that we breath in and out several times a minute, day in and day out?
So why do I feel the same sensation of wind inside my mouth while breathing?SO what is it that we breath in and out several times a minute, day in and day out?
nothing. breathing is a motion that heats up the body, keeping us alive. there's force, but that doesn't mean air, it means force.
SO what is it that we breath in and out several times a minute, day in and day out?
nothing. breathing is a motion that heats up the body, keeping us alive. there's force, but that doesn't mean air, it means force.
So why do I feel the same sensation of wind inside my mouth while breathing?SO what is it that we breath in and out several times a minute, day in and day out?
nothing. breathing is a motion that heats up the body, keeping us alive. there's force, but that doesn't mean air, it means force.
like many here, i have noticed on several occasions the blind obedience with which round earthers view scientists. this is bs. we cannot trust scientists, and there are several reasons for this, all of which may be verified with some simple, common sense.
they want money
scientists are paid to do experiments. oil companies pay then, and climate change stops existing. sugar companies pay them, and there's no link between sugar and obesity. you can look up all of those examples, and that's just the ones they'll admit to. scientists don't care about honesty, they care about the cash.
how do you trust what they say when they aren't after the truth? they'll find what they're asked to find. when they make up new fantasies every day to explain holes (dark energy, gravity, spacetime, string theory) with nothing except "but we can't be wrong!" as evidence, they have long since stopped being anything other than crooks and liars after your money.
they are wrong about gravity
if the earth is stationary, gravity does not exist as we should be moving. if the earth is moving, it would not have formed a sphere as we would be pushed along until we're flat, and then gravity would have torn the earth apart. gravity is obviously impossible. if it existed, the earth should be crushed to diamond by now and yet, not only isn't it, but round earther scientists want you to believe that there is liquid inside the earth, despite the combined weight of the world's entire outer surface coming down and crushing it.
this is complete and utter bs, clearly.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
these are three simple examples of why scientists are utterly discredited. think for yourselves.
Let me clarify, do gaseous things exist? Is there such a thing as a gas?
offer some evidence for your bs, or are you incapable of that?like many here, i have noticed on several occasions the blind obedience with which round earthers view scientists. this is bs. we cannot trust scientists, and there are several reasons for this, all of which may be verified with some simple, common sense.
they want money
scientists are paid to do experiments. oil companies pay then, and climate change stops existing. sugar companies pay them, and there's no link between sugar and obesity. you can look up all of those examples, and that's just the ones they'll admit to. scientists don't care about honesty, they care about the cash.
how do you trust what they say when they aren't after the truth? they'll find what they're asked to find. when they make up new fantasies every day to explain holes (dark energy, gravity, spacetime, string theory) with nothing except "but we can't be wrong!" as evidence, they have long since stopped being anything other than crooks and liars after your money.
they are wrong about gravity
if the earth is stationary, gravity does not exist as we should be moving. if the earth is moving, it would not have formed a sphere as we would be pushed along until we're flat, and then gravity would have torn the earth apart. gravity is obviously impossible. if it existed, the earth should be crushed to diamond by now and yet, not only isn't it, but round earther scientists want you to believe that there is liquid inside the earth, despite the combined weight of the world's entire outer surface coming down and crushing it.
this is complete and utter bs, clearly.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
these are three simple examples of why scientists are utterly discredited. think for yourselves.
You really should've started this ludicrous thread in the Complete Nonsense forum.
Or are you simply trolling for the fun of it? In the unlikely case that you're serious with these absurd claims, then I can only suggest that you get some form of clinical intervention in order to treat an obvious underlying mental dysfunction. No fully sane person could believe that not only is the planet flat, but that air does not exist.
As they say... totally Looney Tunes. ;D
in order, now.
oxygen and hydrogen do exist, but they are not covering kilometers upon kilometers of the earth's surface.
in order, now.Are you confused by fire? Fire requires oxygen to be created, but superheated superdense plasma does not.
if you stick your head out the train window, it is the force and the acceleration that hurts you. this doesn't mean there's some magical, invisible substance there.
you can't say we evolve not to feel something. we need to feel what's happening to be able to evolve and be suited to the world. oxygen and hydrogen do exist, but they are not covering kilometers upon kilometers of the earth's surface.
heat doesn't need air to exist. if it did your round earth bs is discredited there and then. the world wouldn't be heated by the sun.
Chemistry, learn it.
In order:
Explain wind: force. does not need air.
Explain fire: well air clearly isn't flammable, otherwise lighting a match would be the apocalypse. wood or something gets hot, catches fire, the end.
Explain how fans work: you explain them. you have air moving faster, basic physics says that should heat it up. molecules from the fan are forced off by the heat. they're cooler.
Explain air resistance: aether
Explain air pressure: universal acceleration
Explain airplanes: 'air' resistance
Explain birds: when a mummy bird and a daddy bird love each other very much...
Explain drowning: water prevents movement within the body, prevents the necessity of breathing
Explain bubbles: the force of exhalation creates a small 'vacuum' (which is not as you've been told), a void free of water. you try explaining them, water should crush any air.
one grain of sand is a similar size to the millions of air molecules you pretend are hitting our eyes.
"You need to explain why I feel wind inside my mouth"
force. explained.
In order:
Explain wind: force. does not need air.
Explain fire: well air clearly isn't flammable, otherwise lighting a match would be the apocalypse. wood or something gets hot, catches fire, the end.
Explain how fans work: you explain them. you have air moving faster, basic physics says that should heat it up. molecules from the fan are forced off by the heat. they're cooler.
Explain air resistance: aether
Explain air pressure: universal acceleration
Explain airplanes: 'air' resistance
Explain birds: when a mummy bird and a daddy bird love each other very much...
Explain drowning: water prevents movement within the body, prevents the necessity of breathing
Explain bubbles: the force of exhalation creates a small 'vacuum' (which is not as you've been told), a void free of water. you try explaining them, water should crush any air.
one grain of sand is a similar size to the millions of air molecules you pretend are hitting our eyes.
"You need to explain why I feel wind inside my mouth"
force. explained.
Force? Force caused by what?
You still haven't explained how fire works
Fan doesn't actually cool air. "While fans are often used to cool people, they do not actually cool air (if anything, electric fans warm it slightly due to the warming of their motors), but work by evaporative cooling of sweat and increased heat convection into the surrounding air due to the airflow from the fans."
Aether? So the world is filled with aether? So why aren't you worried about that getting in your eyes?
For drowning, why does an oxygen tank keep us from dying under water? And why do algae blooms kill fish (hint, the algae uses up all of the available oxygen). Additionally, If you were to lock yourself in an airtight container, you would die. Try it.
And no one with a brain will tell you sand is the size of an oxygen molecule.
force can be caused by many things. the aether by the sides of the earth is one possibility. the sun heating and expanding some substances on the earth is another. this sends out waves of force, which we interpret as wind.
fire works by things catching fire. what exactly are you asking? tell me how you explain it, and why air is required, i will tell you why you're wrong.
that works just fine with my explanation.
aether exists in several densities, each whirlpool becoming denser as you go up. at our level, there is the lowest possible density. aether does not have mass, however, it is like light in that respect. this is hos it accelerates the earth at this speed.
an oxygen tank prevents us inhaling the water, it is as obvious as that. when the tank is empty, you inhale particles from the side of it, which act as poison. algae would give off particles that poison fish. given that no scientist has ever locked someone in an airtight container until they've died, your statement is baseless speculation.
what part of the word 'millions' are you struggling with? one air molecule is not, but all the ones that hit our eyes every second certainly are.
force can be caused by many things. the aether by the sides of the earth is one possibility. the sun heating and expanding some substances on the earth is another. this sends out waves of force, which we interpret as wind.
fire works by things catching fire. what exactly are you asking? tell me how you explain it, and why air is required, i will tell you why you're wrong.
that works just fine with my explanation.
aether exists in several densities, each whirlpool becoming denser as you go up. at our level, there is the lowest possible density. aether does not have mass, however, it is like light in that respect. this is hos it accelerates the earth at this speed.
an oxygen tank prevents us inhaling the water, it is as obvious as that. when the tank is empty, you inhale particles from the side of it, which act as poison. algae would give off particles that poison fish. given that no scientist has ever locked someone in an airtight container until they've died, your statement is baseless speculation.
what part of the word 'millions' are you struggling with? one air molecule is not, but all the ones that hit our eyes every second certainly are.
The fact that you use the term "waves of force" shows you have no understanding of physics.
Fire isn't a mystery. The fact that you personally don't understand it doesn't mean it's a mystery http://bit.ly/1BtJEUa (http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sayzprrxx/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sdr/sbrl/p1/1BtJEUa)
"When the tank is empty, you inhale particles from the side of it, which act as poison" Are you saying steel is poisonous? And where does all the oxygen we inhale go? In my model of the world, it's distributed throughout the body via the circulatory system. How does it work in your model?
If air is supposed to hurt, explain why opening you eyes under water isn't painful.
I'm wondering why when I make a motion to suck in in a complete vaccum, why does the force go into my mouth/nose?
So now the force is coming from my mouth/nose? I'm confused by this statement.
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
please some give evidence for your claims.
i have already discredited your first two statements.
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
Reading and the trying to make sense of the stuff you write can indeed be a challenge; though that isn't a reflection on my reading ability.....
SO you are saying Brownian Motion is not caused by molecules movement?
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
Reading and the trying to make sense of the stuff you write can indeed be a challenge; though that isn't a reflection on my reading ability.....
SO you are saying Brownian Motion is not caused by molecules movement?
not air molecules, no, there is no air. for particles in water, it comes from the small motions in the water. for dust, it is due to the aether, which after all moves in a whirlpool, even if (at the low density) it is a minor one.
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
Reading and the trying to make sense of the stuff you write can indeed be a challenge; though that isn't a reflection on my reading ability.....
SO you are saying Brownian Motion is not caused by molecules movement?
not air molecules, no, there is no air. for particles in water, it comes from the small motions in the water. for dust, it is due to the aether, which after all moves in a whirlpool, even if (at the low density) it is a minor one.
What is it the you think causes these "small motions" in the water in the first place?
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
Oxygen is not flammable and shouldn't be flammable. Oxygen reactes with a fuel source to create fire or just to react.Chemistry, learn it.
if you have nothing of any relevance to add, don't talk. if you disagree with part of what i say, tell me which part and why instead of acting smug. you're embarrassing yourself.
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
Reading and the trying to make sense of the stuff you write can indeed be a challenge; though that isn't a reflection on my reading ability.....
SO you are saying Brownian Motion is not caused by molecules movement?
not air molecules, no, there is no air. for particles in water, it comes from the small motions in the water. for dust, it is due to the aether, which after all moves in a whirlpool, even if (at the low density) it is a minor one.
What is it the you think causes these "small motions" in the water in the first place?
you pour water, it moves. dust falls in the water, there are ripples. even when they slow, they are still there.
What kind of force? Pushing against absolutely nothing will not affect the table 2 feet from me, but look, it happens!So now the force is coming from my mouth/nose? I'm confused by this statement.
what are you on about now? how do you think you breathe? you make a movement of muscles to inhale, drawing 'air' into your nose and mouth. rather, just causing a force.
what the hell do you think happens?
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
Oxygen is not flammable and shouldn't be flammable. Oxygen reactes with a fuel source to create fire or just to react.Chemistry, learn it.
if you have nothing of any relevance to add, don't talk. if you disagree with part of what i say, tell me which part and why instead of acting smug. you're embarrassing yourself.
Air not existing is the dumbest thing to ever come from this website.
What kind of force? Pushing against absolutely nothing will not affect the table 2 feet from me, but look, it happens!So now the force is coming from my mouth/nose? I'm confused by this statement.
what are you on about now? how do you think you breathe? you make a movement of muscles to inhale, drawing 'air' into your nose and mouth. rather, just causing a force.
what the hell do you think happens?
You're annoying and stubborn, at least some FE'rs come up with, though hillariously wrong, mathematical equations. This site has gone to trash.Oxygen is not flammable and shouldn't be flammable. Oxygen reactes with a fuel source to create fire or just to react.Chemistry, learn it.
if you have nothing of any relevance to add, don't talk. if you disagree with part of what i say, tell me which part and why instead of acting smug. you're embarrassing yourself.
Air not existing is the dumbest thing to ever come from this website.
good, oxygen is not flammable. yet apparently it is needed for something to catch fire? that is obvious bs. if you put a match into oxygen, it looks entirely different.
you're wrong, you'll just have to deal with it, it's obvious.
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
Reading and the trying to make sense of the stuff you write can indeed be a challenge; though that isn't a reflection on my reading ability.....
SO you are saying Brownian Motion is not caused by molecules movement?
not air molecules, no, there is no air. for particles in water, it comes from the small motions in the water. for dust, it is due to the aether, which after all moves in a whirlpool, even if (at the low density) it is a minor one.
What is it the you think causes these "small motions" in the water in the first place?
you pour water, it moves. dust falls in the water, there are ripples. even when they slow, they are still there.
Brownian Motion describes the behaviour of particles suspended in a fluid, not sat on the surface - SO that is ripples counted out of possible causes.
You cannot have a force with no matter between you and the table/paper. When you blow, you push the gas,which pushes more gas, until it reaches the paper, with the strength dispersing over the length of it. See how that works? Forces is matter pushing on other matter.What kind of force? Pushing against absolutely nothing will not affect the table 2 feet from me, but look, it happens!So now the force is coming from my mouth/nose? I'm confused by this statement.
what are you on about now? how do you think you breathe? you make a movement of muscles to inhale, drawing 'air' into your nose and mouth. rather, just causing a force.
what the hell do you think happens?
the table is too heavy for that to work. you can see it work just fine by pushing against a bit of paper.
you're being incoherent again. do you deny the human body is able to exert forces? and you people say i'm dumb...
aether.You cannot have a force with no matter between you and the table/paper. When you blow, you push the gas,which pushes more gas, until it reaches the paper, with the strength dispersing over the length of it. See how that works? Forces is matter pushing on other matter.What kind of force? Pushing against absolutely nothing will not affect the table 2 feet from me, but look, it happens!So now the force is coming from my mouth/nose? I'm confused by this statement.
what are you on about now? how do you think you breathe? you make a movement of muscles to inhale, drawing 'air' into your nose and mouth. rather, just causing a force.
what the hell do you think happens?
the table is too heavy for that to work. you can see it work just fine by pushing against a bit of paper.
you're being incoherent again. do you deny the human body is able to exert forces? and you people say i'm dumb...
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
Reading and the trying to make sense of the stuff you write can indeed be a challenge; though that isn't a reflection on my reading ability.....
SO you are saying Brownian Motion is not caused by molecules movement?
not air molecules, no, there is no air. for particles in water, it comes from the small motions in the water. for dust, it is due to the aether, which after all moves in a whirlpool, even if (at the low density) it is a minor one.
What is it the you think causes these "small motions" in the water in the first place?
you pour water, it moves. dust falls in the water, there are ripples. even when they slow, they are still there.
Brownian Motion describes the behaviour of particles suspended in a fluid, not sat on the surface - SO that is ripples counted out of possible causes.
so you're saying that when the top of water ripples, the inside magically stays completely stationary? do you put any thought into what you're saying?
This is in reply to the original post:
Scientists do want money, but they tend to get paid more if they are right.
Scientists are actually not wrong about gravity.
They are not wrong about air pressure, the reason why air does not irritate your eye is because atoms and molecules are so small that at an every day scale they just create a constant pressure, a grain of sand irritates your eye because it pushes into your eye when you close your eye, which hurts because grains of sand are quite pointy. There is actually a simple experiment you can do to prove that molecules are what we are told they are, just place a small speck of something like pollen in water and it will move around in a nonsensical way, this is because it is small enough that the random variance in the amount of molecules hitting it is enough to push it around because it's so small.
please some give evidence for your claims. i have already discredited your first two statements.
your final one assumes there is no such movement in the water, and ignores the effect of aether.
So we can add Brownian Motion to the ever increasing list of things you are ignorant about?
Its only been known of for about 2000 years so you may have not caught up with the idea yet....
force (the force of exhalation, and wind). aether. reading isn't your strong suit is it?
Reading and the trying to make sense of the stuff you write can indeed be a challenge; though that isn't a reflection on my reading ability.....
SO you are saying Brownian Motion is not caused by molecules movement?
not air molecules, no, there is no air. for particles in water, it comes from the small motions in the water. for dust, it is due to the aether, which after all moves in a whirlpool, even if (at the low density) it is a minor one.
What is it the you think causes these "small motions" in the water in the first place?
you pour water, it moves. dust falls in the water, there are ripples. even when they slow, they are still there.
Brownian Motion describes the behaviour of particles suspended in a fluid, not sat on the surface - SO that is ripples counted out of possible causes.
so you're saying that when the top of water ripples, the inside magically stays completely stationary? do you put any thought into what you're saying?
No Im saying tat the movement of particles suspended in a fluid is nothing like the movement caused by surface ripples.
Normally one would say it is Brownian Motion but you seem to be unable to grasp that concept, so its rather like explaining things from the very first principles.
I only assume you are stupid and not young because you shouldn't be left alone on the Internet at the age needed to be for a small child not to understand the things you fail to grasp.
The funny thing is, you think that you have disproved the last 4000 years of science while sitting on your couch.
Is that not arrogance?
Everything I do at work disproves you. This thread isn't even worth my time. I'm not sure why others are even arguing.Oxygen is not flammable and shouldn't be flammable. Oxygen reactes with a fuel source to create fire or just to react.Chemistry, learn it.
if you have nothing of any relevance to add, don't talk. if you disagree with part of what i say, tell me which part and why instead of acting smug. you're embarrassing yourself.
Air not existing is the dumbest thing to ever come from this website.
good, oxygen is not flammable. yet apparently it is needed for something to catch fire? that is obvious bs. if you put a match into oxygen, it looks entirely different.
you're wrong, you'll just have to deal with it, it's obvious.
There is an experiment even a child can do
I did this at school a long time ago
http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/water-science-experiment.html (http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shqcqas-hrdhm-pblzlq-qijxn/sfgh/p1/water-science-experiment.html)
The funny thing is, you think that you have disproved the last 4000 years of science while sitting on your couch.
Is that not arrogance?
and you pretend i'm obviously wrong and do nothing to disprove me.
isn't that interesting? you make a big deal about how you have superior evidence or knowledge or intelligence and offer nothing except assertion.
The funny thing is, you think that you have disproved the last 4000 years of science while sitting on your couch.
Is that not arrogance?
and you pretend i'm obviously wrong and do nothing to disprove me.
isn't that interesting? you make a big deal about how you have superior evidence or knowledge or intelligence and offer nothing except assertion.
Out of 7.125 billion people on this planet, you are probably the only one who believes this. You basically think that you are the smartest man on the planet.
There is an experiment even a child can do
I did this at school a long time ago
http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/water-science-experiment.html (http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shqcqas-hrdhm-pblzlq-qijxn/sfgh/p1/water-science-experiment.html)
irrelevant. try and keep up. if the top of surface is moving, that will move molecules and so create smaller movements within the water. i don't even require that, i gave another illustration.
you're being purposefully thick now aren't you?
The funny thing is, you think that you have disproved the last 4000 years of science while sitting on your couch.
Is that not arrogance?
and you pretend i'm obviously wrong and do nothing to disprove me.
isn't that interesting? you make a big deal about how you have superior evidence or knowledge or intelligence and offer nothing except assertion.
Out of 7.125 billion people on this planet, you are probably the only one who believes this. You basically think that you are the smartest man on the planet.
look at that. still no evidence.
There is an experiment even a child can do
I did this at school a long time ago
http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/water-science-experiment.html (http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sayzprrxx/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sayzprrxx/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shqcqas-hrdhm-pblzlq-qijxn/sfgh/p1/water-science-experiment.html)
irrelevant. try and keep up. if the top of surface is moving, that will move molecules and so create smaller movements within the water. i don't even require that, i gave another illustration.
you're being purposefully thick now aren't you?
What is quite worrying is that you most probably do think you are right and everyone else is wrong!
I have shown you a simple experiment that shows that molecular movement in water is directly related to the temperature of the water.
That is science, so you choose to ignore its veracity.
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
You cannot have a force with no matter between you and the table/paper. When you blow, you push the gas,which pushes more gas, until it reaches the paper, with the strength dispersing over the length of it. See how that works? Forces is matter pushing on other matter.
the table is too heavy for that to work. you can see it work just fine by pushing against a bit of paper.
you're being incoherent again. do you deny the human body is able to exert forces? and you people say i'm dumb...
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
so, you think our lungs are rigid, stationary objects of a fixed size and capacity, that wouldn't struggle to deal with a heavier load? what world do you live in?
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
so, you think our lungs are rigid, stationary objects of a fixed size and capacity, that wouldn't struggle to deal with a heavier load? what world do you live in?
You are saying that all they are for is to hold a medium to conduct heat from the body. If you have two lung fulls of water, then you just need to hold it while the body conducts its heat into the water. There would be no need to exhale for a long time as that the water would be able to hold a lot of heat. A long time.
So once you "inhale" the water there is no need for a while to let it back out under your model for a while, probably well over a couple minutes.
Yet amazingly, people drown with two lungfulls of water don't they? Why would they die with all that amazing heat conducting water in their lungs?
Are you saying now that the lungs are like what? The intestines and need to kneed the medium thats inhaled? They need to feel it and squeeze it and love it? Why?
Air not existing is the dumbest thing to ever come from this website.I don't know... there was a thread devoted to the idea that time can't exist at the south pole (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62505.0) because all the time zones converge there. This is right up there, but I still think that wins.
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
so, you think our lungs are rigid, stationary objects of a fixed size and capacity, that wouldn't struggle to deal with a heavier load? what world do you live in?
You are saying that all they are for is to hold a medium to conduct heat from the body. If you have two lung fulls of water, then you just need to hold it while the body conducts its heat into the water. There would be no need to exhale for a long time as that the water would be able to hold a lot of heat. A long time.
So once you "inhale" the water there is no need for a while to let it back out under your model for a while, probably well over a couple minutes.
Yet amazingly, people drown with two lungfulls of water don't they? Why would they die with all that amazing heat conducting water in their lungs?
Are you saying now that the lungs are like what? The intestines and need to kneed the medium thats inhaled? They need to feel it and squeeze it and love it? Why?
heat needs movement, or did you miss that lesson? if something is perfectly stationary, it is at absolute zero, and has no heat. when the lungs move, that is where heat comes from. if you have two lungs full of water, they will barely be able to move, and will not have the heat necessary to keep the mechanism that is your body going. all of that is common sense.
it is this movement which keeps us going. please, try to actually read what i've said before you embarrass yourself again.
And the fact that nitrogen is not toxic, it is just not breathable. Same thing for helium. Anesthetics (Laughing Gas). But to be breathable, you must mix the with oxygen and only oxygen at sea level. Divers have to breathe different oxygen/other gas mixes at different depths.Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
so, you think our lungs are rigid, stationary objects of a fixed size and capacity, that wouldn't struggle to deal with a heavier load? what world do you live in?
You are saying that all they are for is to hold a medium to conduct heat from the body. If you have two lung fulls of water, then you just need to hold it while the body conducts its heat into the water. There would be no need to exhale for a long time as that the water would be able to hold a lot of heat. A long time.
So once you "inhale" the water there is no need for a while to let it back out under your model for a while, probably well over a couple minutes.
Yet amazingly, people drown with two lungfulls of water don't they? Why would they die with all that amazing heat conducting water in their lungs?
Are you saying now that the lungs are like what? The intestines and need to kneed the medium thats inhaled? They need to feel it and squeeze it and love it? Why?
heat needs movement, or did you miss that lesson? if something is perfectly stationary, it is at absolute zero, and has no heat. when the lungs move, that is where heat comes from. if you have two lungs full of water, they will barely be able to move, and will not have the heat necessary to keep the mechanism that is your body going. all of that is common sense.
it is this movement which keeps us going. please, try to actually read what i've said before you embarrass yourself again.
Whats keeping your blood from running behind the membranes of your lungs exchanging the heat? Or did you forget your circulatory system moves? Try to actually think your idiotic ideas out before you embarrass yourself again.
either way I just crushed your stupid we don't need oxygen to survive idea until you can actually come up with why we can't just sit with water in our lungs to exchange heat.
toodles.
Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
so, you think our lungs are rigid, stationary objects of a fixed size and capacity, that wouldn't struggle to deal with a heavier load? what world do you live in?
You are saying that all they are for is to hold a medium to conduct heat from the body. If you have two lung fulls of water, then you just need to hold it while the body conducts its heat into the water. There would be no need to exhale for a long time as that the water would be able to hold a lot of heat. A long time.
So once you "inhale" the water there is no need for a while to let it back out under your model for a while, probably well over a couple minutes.
Yet amazingly, people drown with two lungfulls of water don't they? Why would they die with all that amazing heat conducting water in their lungs?
Are you saying now that the lungs are like what? The intestines and need to kneed the medium thats inhaled? They need to feel it and squeeze it and love it? Why?
heat needs movement, or did you miss that lesson? if something is perfectly stationary, it is at absolute zero, and has no heat. when the lungs move, that is where heat comes from. if you have two lungs full of water, they will barely be able to move, and will not have the heat necessary to keep the mechanism that is your body going. all of that is common sense.
it is this movement which keeps us going. please, try to actually read what i've said before you embarrass yourself again.
Whats keeping your blood from running behind the membranes of your lungs exchanging the heat? Or did you forget your circulatory system moves? Try to actually think your idiotic ideas out before you embarrass yourself again.
either way I just crushed your stupid we don't need oxygen to survive idea until you can actually come up with why we can't just sit with water in our lungs to exchange heat.
toodles.
And the fact that nitrogen is not toxic, it is just not breathable. Same thing for helium. Anesthetics (Laughing Gas). But to be breathable, you must mix the with oxygen and only oxygen at sea level. Divers have to breathe different oxygen/other gas mixes at different depths.Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
so, you think our lungs are rigid, stationary objects of a fixed size and capacity, that wouldn't struggle to deal with a heavier load? what world do you live in?
You are saying that all they are for is to hold a medium to conduct heat from the body. If you have two lung fulls of water, then you just need to hold it while the body conducts its heat into the water. There would be no need to exhale for a long time as that the water would be able to hold a lot of heat. A long time.
So once you "inhale" the water there is no need for a while to let it back out under your model for a while, probably well over a couple minutes.
Yet amazingly, people drown with two lungfulls of water don't they? Why would they die with all that amazing heat conducting water in their lungs?
Are you saying now that the lungs are like what? The intestines and need to kneed the medium thats inhaled? They need to feel it and squeeze it and love it? Why?
heat needs movement, or did you miss that lesson? if something is perfectly stationary, it is at absolute zero, and has no heat. when the lungs move, that is where heat comes from. if you have two lungs full of water, they will barely be able to move, and will not have the heat necessary to keep the mechanism that is your body going. all of that is common sense.
it is this movement which keeps us going. please, try to actually read what i've said before you embarrass yourself again.
Whats keeping your blood from running behind the membranes of your lungs exchanging the heat? Or did you forget your circulatory system moves? Try to actually think your idiotic ideas out before you embarrass yourself again.
either way I just crushed your stupid we don't need oxygen to survive idea until you can actually come up with why we can't just sit with water in our lungs to exchange heat.
toodles.
This thread is worse. It also beats out dinosuars building boat and the photoelectric effect creating the moon.Air not existing is the dumbest thing to ever come from this website.I don't know... there was a thread devoted to the idea that time can't exist at the south pole (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62505.0) because all the time zones converge there. This is right up there, but I still think that wins.
OK, let me get this straight. You say that air does not exist.And the fact that nitrogen is not toxic, it is just not breathable. Same thing for helium. Anesthetics (Laughing Gas). But to be breathable, you must mix the with oxygen and only oxygen at sea level. Divers have to breathe different oxygen/other gas mixes at different depths.Someone already brought this up and you conveniently ignored it. So I will bring it up again and again and again until you stop ignoring it.
Put yourself in a closed garage. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for 3 hours. Please explain why you just died.
i did not ignore it. i suggest you try reading, it was literally the post right after the one you're referring to. i have never denied poisons and gases exist. if you are in a room that gets filled with a poisonous gas, such as with a car, you will die.
No you ignored it.
So if we only need heat to survive and our breath is only force, then why does CO^2 kill us? We don't have any mechanism to take in gases in our lungs, only take in and exchange heat according to you. The only reason CO^2 kills us now is because we inhale it and our lungs allow it into our blood stream through the same process that they let O^2 in.
also covered. poison exists. the circulatory system exists, it just doesn't work as your told. it heats up our insides. there is a way to the bloodsteam, to carry the heat all around. if you inhale a gas (such as oxygen) you can hold your breath longer as the movement is better maintained with a gas that carries heat.
carbon dioxide poisons. it is that simple.
Completely and utterly and laughably wrong.
Water is one of the best conductors of heat. Using your "logic" if you inhale two lung fulls of water you could survive longer. It's not even poisonous.
So, why dont you try it and tell us if you don't need oxygen to live.
water prevents our bodies from moving however. weight is important. it conducts heat, but doesn't let our organs move to continue the heat. that's also why smoking kills, the tar in our lungs makes it harder for them to move.
think before you spew, please.
You think... our organs... move? First no, water wouldn't prevent that, at least not anymore more than the gallons of blood in your body.
Second, why, how and where do our organs "move"?
so, you think our lungs are rigid, stationary objects of a fixed size and capacity, that wouldn't struggle to deal with a heavier load? what world do you live in?
You are saying that all they are for is to hold a medium to conduct heat from the body. If you have two lung fulls of water, then you just need to hold it while the body conducts its heat into the water. There would be no need to exhale for a long time as that the water would be able to hold a lot of heat. A long time.
So once you "inhale" the water there is no need for a while to let it back out under your model for a while, probably well over a couple minutes.
Yet amazingly, people drown with two lungfulls of water don't they? Why would they die with all that amazing heat conducting water in their lungs?
Are you saying now that the lungs are like what? The intestines and need to kneed the medium thats inhaled? They need to feel it and squeeze it and love it? Why?
heat needs movement, or did you miss that lesson? if something is perfectly stationary, it is at absolute zero, and has no heat. when the lungs move, that is where heat comes from. if you have two lungs full of water, they will barely be able to move, and will not have the heat necessary to keep the mechanism that is your body going. all of that is common sense.
it is this movement which keeps us going. please, try to actually read what i've said before you embarrass yourself again.
Whats keeping your blood from running behind the membranes of your lungs exchanging the heat? Or did you forget your circulatory system moves? Try to actually think your idiotic ideas out before you embarrass yourself again.
either way I just crushed your stupid we don't need oxygen to survive idea until you can actually come up with why we can't just sit with water in our lungs to exchange heat.
toodles.
there are other damaging properties, like water. still, you are offering no evidence beyond "but i think we have to believe oxygen so nything else must be wrong!"
if we breathe nitrogen or helium purely, without oxygen tempering it (oxygen is an aid to the process, as i've said before, which we can see from how long people can hold their breath after inhaling pure oxygen), you die. sounds toxic to me.
try offering evidence rather than making shit up.
That has nothing to do with this thread. In this thread the OP claimed everything scientists claim is fake, but presenting zero evidence.This thread is a put on.A pathetic attempt by one of your stooges to portry flat earther as retards. Who do you think your fooling ?
In order, now:
i never said water is a poison. it simply slows and makes the movement of the lungs impossible, like tar from smoking does. there's a reason fluid in the lungs is dangerous, even when it barely affects your so-called lung capacity. there are more ways to die than just poison, don't you know that?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
charles, i believe i have made my point clearly. think for yourself, please.
Let's look at your round earther circulatory systems. the heart beats. when you stop breathing, it stops beating, but there is no connection between the two. if the movement of the lungs powers the heart, however, this starts making sense.
instead you have lungs taking oxygen, and magically extracting it from the air. you then have it transported to the blood, some obscure chemical reaction we can't feel continually takes place, and it gets pumped around the body, and somehow the mere fact that blood stops containing oxygen prevents the heart muscle working. if you can't see through that bs you're braindead.
movement is the key.
That has nothing to do with this thread. In this thread the OP claimed everything scientists claim is fake, but presenting zero evidence.This thread is a put on.A pathetic attempt by one of your stooges to portry flat earther as retards. Who do you think your fooling ?
In order, now:
i never said water is a poison. it simply slows and makes the movement of the lungs impossible, like tar from smoking does. there's a reason fluid in the lungs is dangerous, even when it barely affects your so-called lung capacity. there are more ways to die than just poison, don't you know that?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
charles, i believe i have made my point clearly. think for yourself, please.
Let's look at your round earther circulatory systems. the heart beats. when you stop breathing, it stops beating, but there is no connection between the two. if the movement of the lungs powers the heart, however, this starts making sense.
instead you have lungs taking oxygen, and magically extracting it from the air. you then have it transported to the blood, some obscure chemical reaction we can't feel continually takes place, and it gets pumped around the body, and somehow the mere fact that blood stops containing oxygen prevents the heart muscle working. if you can't see through that bs you're braindead.
movement is the key.
The bold part of your post explains how your mind nearly works better than you ever could.
Basically, anything you fail to grasp must be lies and BS, because you have deluded yourself into believing you are hyper-intelligent and can clearly see what everyone else misses.
When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
That has nothing to do with this thread. In this thread the OP claimed everything scientists claim is fake, but presenting zero evidence.This thread is a put on.A pathetic attempt by one of your stooges to portry flat earther as retards. Who do you think your fooling ?
i have stated my beliefs clearly several times, and have given evidence. if you disagree, say why. i don't appreciate being called a retard.
Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
The problem I see with it is that since air doesn't exist, the air compressors won't do anything. You need invent a force compressor for this plan to work.Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
The problem I see with it is that since air doesn't exist, the air compressors won't do anything. You need invent a force compressor for this plan to work.Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
Why wouldn't air be able to escape? There is an opening in the balloon. The rubber of the balloon has energy stored in it from being stretched. The rubber then retains its original shape pushing the air out of the balloon.The problem I see with it is that since air doesn't exist, the air compressors won't do anything. You need invent a force compressor for this plan to work.Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
force does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.
compressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?But if air doesn't exist, how can it be compressed?
Why wouldn't air be able to escape? There is an opening in the balloon. The rubber of the balloon has energy stored in it from being stretched. The rubber then retains its original shape pushing the air out of the balloon.The problem I see with it is that since air doesn't exist, the air compressors won't do anything. You need invent a force compressor for this plan to work.Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
force does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.Quotecompressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?But if air doesn't exist, how can it be compressed?
force does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.
compressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?
answeredforce does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.
compressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?
Are you going to provide any math or is math a government lie too?
answeredforce does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.
compressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?
Are you going to provide any math or is math a government lie too?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62962.msg1665831 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62962.msg1665831)
you're not good at reading are you?
answeredforce does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.
compressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?
Are you going to provide any math or is math a government lie too?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62962.msg1665831 (http://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=62962.msg1665831)
you're not good at reading are you?
I read that after I posted the thing about math. I can't be everywhere on this forum at once.
answeredforce does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.
compressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?
Are you going to provide any math or is math a government lie too?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62962.msg1665831 (http://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=62962.msg1665831)
you're not good at reading are you?
I read that after I posted the thing about math. I can't be everywhere on this forum at once.
so you just decided to make basically the exact same post twice? you don't come out of this looking good either way.
Yeah... you're right. I retract my statement. And this thread is still getting even more ridiculous.This thread is worse. It also beats out dinosuars building boat and the photoelectric effect creating the moon.Air not existing is the dumbest thing to ever come from this website.I don't know... there was a thread devoted to the idea that time can't exist at the south pole (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62505.0) because all the time zones converge there. This is right up there, but I still think that wins.
Why wouldn't air be able to escape? There is an opening in the balloon. The rubber of the balloon has energy stored in it from being stretched. The rubber then retains its original shape pushing the air out of the balloon.The problem I see with it is that since air doesn't exist, the air compressors won't do anything. You need invent a force compressor for this plan to work.Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
force does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.Quotecompressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?But if air doesn't exist, how can it be compressed?
air can't escape if you tie off the hole. try reading.
compressed air is the name, it is not an accurate description. the gases that make up air do exist, as i have repeatedly said. they are just clearly not everywhere like air is said to be.
Why wouldn't air be able to escape? There is an opening in the balloon. The rubber of the balloon has energy stored in it from being stretched. The rubber then retains its original shape pushing the air out of the balloon.The problem I see with it is that since air doesn't exist, the air compressors won't do anything. You need invent a force compressor for this plan to work.Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
force does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.Quotecompressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?But if air doesn't exist, how can it be compressed?
air can't escape if you tie off the hole. try reading.
compressed air is the name, it is not an accurate description. the gases that make up air do exist, as i have repeatedly said. they are just clearly not everywhere like air is said to be.
Oh really? They are clearly not everywhere? Then please tell me all the clear evidence they are not everywhere.
Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
Please define aether.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
So octane + aether--> CO2+ H2O. That is one sweet reaction. Glad to see aether can do whatever it wants.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
i wasn't referring to chemical reactions, i suspect they simply react to the change in pressure.So octane + aether--> CO2+ H2O. That is one sweet reaction. Glad to see aether can do whatever it wants.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
Even by troll standards you are still a fucking idiot.
OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
what exactly do you imagine makes up a bag? exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
what exactly do you imagine makes up a bag? exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
Can you see those particles? You can't can you? So they don't exist. I am begging you to try the experiment.
OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
what exactly do you imagine makes up a bag? exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
Can you see those particles? You can't can you? So they don't exist. I am begging you to try the experiment.
you don't have to see something to deduce its existence. i have answered you, stop being so foolish.
you sound like a broken record. get a new tune, you've been answered. you don't need air to breathe, but inhaling poison will kill you. there's a difference between inhaling and eating. there isn't acid in your lungs.OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
what exactly do you imagine makes up a bag? exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
Can you see those particles? You can't can you? So they don't exist. I am begging you to try the experiment.
you don't have to see something to deduce its existence. i have answered you, stop being so foolish.
Are you afraid? People don't die eating plastic you know. Come on do it. Be brave. This is a good chance to prove us that you don't need oxygen to breathe.
you sound like a broken record. get a new tune, you've been answered. you don't need air to breathe, but inhaling poison will kill you. there's a difference between inhaling and eating. there isn't acid in your lungs.OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
what exactly do you imagine makes up a bag? exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
Can you see those particles? You can't can you? So they don't exist. I am begging you to try the experiment.
you don't have to see something to deduce its existence. i have answered you, stop being so foolish.
Are you afraid? People don't die eating plastic you know. Come on do it. Be brave. This is a good chance to prove us that you don't need oxygen to breathe.
you don't have to see something to deduce its existence. i have answered you, stop being so foolish.Good point.
i am not going to poison myself with a plastic bag for your amusement. i have explained my theory. if you are not going to be serious, stop talking.you sound like a broken record. get a new tune, you've been answered. you don't need air to breathe, but inhaling poison will kill you. there's a difference between inhaling and eating. there isn't acid in your lungs.OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
what exactly do you imagine makes up a bag? exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
Can you see those particles? You can't can you? So they don't exist. I am begging you to try the experiment.
you don't have to see something to deduce its existence. i have answered you, stop being so foolish.
Are you afraid? People don't die eating plastic you know. Come on do it. Be brave. This is a good chance to prove us that you don't need oxygen to breathe.
So try my experiment. Don't chicken out.
i am not going to poison myself with a plastic bag for your amusement. i have explained my theory. if you are not going to be serious, stop talking.you sound like a broken record. get a new tune, you've been answered. you don't need air to breathe, but inhaling poison will kill you. there's a difference between inhaling and eating. there isn't acid in your lungs.OK, try to breathe in and out an airtight plastic bag that covers your mouth and nose for an hour. See whether your body will stay warm or get cold ... very very cold.you expect constantly inhaling particles of plastic will be healthy? what is wrong with your brain?
There is no particles of plastic believe me. Try my suggestion. Please
what exactly do you imagine makes up a bag? exercise the slightest thought before you embarrass yourself again.
Can you see those particles? You can't can you? So they don't exist. I am begging you to try the experiment.
you don't have to see something to deduce its existence. i have answered you, stop being so foolish.
Are you afraid? People don't die eating plastic you know. Come on do it. Be brave. This is a good chance to prove us that you don't need oxygen to breathe.
So try my experiment. Don't chicken out.
When I exercise I get hot, but I also breath faster. This makes no sense!
Jrowe, for some reason I can't comprehend, I am going to give you the ability to personally test your own theory.
Take a thick peice of cylinderical glass. Tape one side of it to a vacuum cleaner. tape the other side shut with packing tape. Attach glass to vaccum cleaner. Use packing tape to secure, making it air-tight.
Turn on vacuum. if there is no air, no gaseous particles to remove from it, there should be a no visible movement of of the packing tape. If it becomes concave, then there was "something" in there to be removed.
If you do not wish to perform the above test, feel free to watch mythbuster's ping pong ball cannon. If nothing else, it is entertaining. By the way, if you do not believe in air, you will have a good time explaining what causes the ping pong ball to move. Feel free to reproduce their test.
Jrowe, for some reason I can't comprehend, I am going to give you the ability to personally test your own theory.
Take a thick peice of cylinderical glass. Tape one side of it to a vacuum cleaner. tape the other side shut with packing tape. Attach glass to vaccum cleaner. Use packing tape to secure, making it air-tight.
Turn on vacuum. if there is no air, no gaseous particles to remove from it, there should be a no visible movement of of the packing tape. If it becomes concave, then there was "something" in there to be removed.
If you do not wish to perform the above test, feel free to watch mythbuster's ping pong ball cannon. If nothing else, it is entertaining. By the way, if you do not believe in air, you will have a good time explaining what causes the ping pong ball to move. Feel free to reproduce their test.
force exists. the vacuum works by imparting force. this is trivial, and long since explained.
Jrowe, for some reason I can't comprehend, I am going to give you the ability to personally test your own theory.
Take a thick peice of cylinderical glass. Tape one side of it to a vacuum cleaner. tape the other side shut with packing tape. Attach glass to vaccum cleaner. Use packing tape to secure, making it air-tight.
Turn on vacuum. if there is no air, no gaseous particles to remove from it, there should be a no visible movement of of the packing tape. If it becomes concave, then there was "something" in there to be removed.
If you do not wish to perform the above test, feel free to watch mythbuster's ping pong ball cannon. If nothing else, it is entertaining. By the way, if you do not believe in air, you will have a good time explaining what causes the ping pong ball to move. Feel free to reproduce their test.
force exists. the vacuum works by imparting force. this is trivial, and long since explained.
What is it imparting force to? You literally can't explain a vacuum cleaner without air. It sucks ___.
cartesian, you've been answered. small doses can be dealt with, not huge amounts from a concentrated closeness.
cartesian, you've been answered. small doses can be dealt with, not huge amounts from a concentrated closeness.
cartesian, you've been answered. small doses can be dealt with, not huge amounts from a concentrated closeness.
However, If you were to take that same plastic bag with the same "concentrated closeness" and poke a hole into it, you would breath fine and not die at all.
Btw, if you think air particles would hurt the eyes, why don't water molecules also hurt the eyes?
cartesian, you've been answered. small doses can be dealt with, not huge amounts from a concentrated closeness.
However, If you were to take that same plastic bag with the same "concentrated closeness" and poke a hole into it, you would breath fine and not die at all.
Btw, if you think air particles would hurt the eyes, why don't water molecules also hurt the eyes?
because with the whole, there is somewhere else for the plastic particles to go, and the amount is reduced: plus, exhalations force the particles out from your lungs, and they have somewhere to go. complete different scenario.
have you opened your eyes underwater? you can sure as hell feel it.
When I exercise I get hot, but I also breath faster. This makes no sense!
you need more energy to keep going, so you breathe faster to cause more motion. your breath is hot because the workings it comes from have heated up much more: that is perfect evidence for what I'm saying.
cartesian, you've been answered. small doses can be dealt with, not huge amounts from a concentrated closeness.
However, If you were to take that same plastic bag with the same "concentrated closeness" and poke a hole into it, you would breath fine and not die at all.
Btw, if you think air particles would hurt the eyes, why don't water molecules also hurt the eyes?
because with the whole, there is somewhere else for the plastic particles to go, and the amount is reduced: plus, exhalations force the particles out from your lungs, and they have somewhere to go. complete different scenario.
have you opened your eyes underwater? you can sure as hell feel it.
The particles wouldn't have any reason to go out the whole, as you are currently sucking in any particles that are in the bag.
I swim with my eyes open in lakes all the time. No prob. It doesn't hurt. You can feel it more then air as liquids are denser then gases.
you ignored what i said about exhalation. they can easily go out the hole.
again, you can feel when your eyes are underwater, and liquid are one entity regardless. it's like closing your eyes. it's not millions of separate molecules bombarding you, it's a constant covering. have your eyes half in water, half out, and that will hurt.
weatherwax, unless you have some evidence to add, don't talk.
you ignored what i said about exhalation. they can easily go out the hole.
again, you can feel when your eyes are underwater, and liquid are one entity regardless. it's like closing your eyes. it's not millions of separate molecules bombarding you, it's a constant covering. have your eyes half in water, half out, and that will hurt.
weatherwax, unless you have some evidence to add, don't talk.
If you were to exhale outside of the bag and exhale from in the bag, you would still not die.
If your eyes are half in, half out, it won't hurt. I can literally try this in my bathtub.
you ignored what i said about exhalation. they can easily go out the hole.
again, you can feel when your eyes are underwater, and liquid are one entity regardless. it's like closing your eyes. it's not millions of separate molecules bombarding you, it's a constant covering. have your eyes half in water, half out, and that will hurt.
weatherwax, unless you have some evidence to add, don't talk.
If you were to exhale outside of the bag and exhale from in the bag, you would still not die.
If your eyes are half in, half out, it won't hurt. I can literally try this in my bathtub.
of course not, because you wouldn't be forcing plastic particles out of the inside of the bag.
half of one eye on the water. i've done that, it does hurt.
cartesian, you've been answered. small doses can be dealt with, not huge amounts from a concentrated closeness.
However, If you were to take that same plastic bag with the same "concentrated closeness" and poke a hole into it, you would breath fine and not die at all.
Btw, if you think air particles would hurt the eyes, why don't water molecules also hurt the eyes?
because with the whole, there is somewhere else for the plastic particles to go, and the amount is reduced: plus, exhalations force the particles out from your lungs, and they have somewhere to go. complete different scenario.
have you opened your eyes underwater? you can sure as hell feel it.
The particles wouldn't have any reason to go out the whole, as you are currently sucking in any particles that are in the bag.
I swim with my eyes open in lakes all the time. No prob. It doesn't hurt. You can feel it more then air as liquids are denser then gases.
you ignored what i said about exhalation. they can easily go out the hole.
again, you can feel when your eyes are underwater, and liquid are one entity regardless. it's like closing your eyes. it's not millions of separate molecules bombarding you, it's a constant covering. have your eyes half in water, half out, and that will hurt.
weatherwax, unless you have some evidence to add, don't talk.
inhaling poisonous particles kills you, if you do it enough. forcing them out is not inhaling them. all particles go into the mouth, out through the nose. not inhaled, again. you know there are several ways to not breathe something in, right?
you ignored what i said about exhalation. they can easily go out the hole.
again, you can feel when your eyes are underwater, and liquid are one entity regardless. it's like closing your eyes. it's not millions of separate molecules bombarding you, it's a constant covering. have your eyes half in water, half out, and that will hurt.
weatherwax, unless you have some evidence to add, don't talk.
If you were to exhale outside of the bag and exhale from in the bag, you would still not die.
If your eyes are half in, half out, it won't hurt. I can literally try this in my bathtub.
of course not, because you wouldn't be forcing plastic particles out of the inside of the bag.
half of one eye on the water. i've done that, it does hurt.
I thought forcing plastic particles out of the hole in the bag through exhalation is the only thing keeping you alive?
I'm saying, poke a hole in a plastic bag. Put the bag over your mouth. Inhale through the back, exhale through your nose. In this scenario, all the plastic particles are going in your mouth. They aren't going out the hole in the bag, as they have no reason to.
Then why does CO2 and H2O along with other compounds come out of your exhaust?i wasn't referring to chemical reactions, i suspect they simply react to the change in pressure.So octane + aether--> CO2+ H2O. That is one sweet reaction. Glad to see aether can do whatever it wants.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
Even by troll standards you are still a fucking idiot.
calling me a troll doesn't make your fantasy any more logical.
inhaling poisonous particles kills you, if you do it enough. forcing them out is not inhaling them. all particles go into the mouth, out through the nose. not inhaled, again. you know there are several ways to not breathe something in, right?
you ignored what i said about exhalation. they can easily go out the hole.
again, you can feel when your eyes are underwater, and liquid are one entity regardless. it's like closing your eyes. it's not millions of separate molecules bombarding you, it's a constant covering. have your eyes half in water, half out, and that will hurt.
weatherwax, unless you have some evidence to add, don't talk.
If you were to exhale outside of the bag and exhale from in the bag, you would still not die.
If your eyes are half in, half out, it won't hurt. I can literally try this in my bathtub.
of course not, because you wouldn't be forcing plastic particles out of the inside of the bag.
half of one eye on the water. i've done that, it does hurt.
I thought forcing plastic particles out of the hole in the bag through exhalation is the only thing keeping you alive?
I'm saying, poke a hole in a plastic bag. Put the bag over your mouth. Inhale through the back, exhale through your nose. In this scenario, all the plastic particles are going in your mouth. They aren't going out the hole in the bag, as they have no reason to.
weatherwax, all that has been answered. you're eight pages into a thread, read it before going over points that everyone would have said before.
you ignored what i said about exhalation. they can easily go out the hole.
Then why does CO2 and H2O along with other compounds come out of your exhaust?i wasn't referring to chemical reactions, i suspect they simply react to the change in pressure.So octane + aether--> CO2+ H2O. That is one sweet reaction. Glad to see aether can do whatever it wants.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
Even by troll standards you are still a fucking idiot.
calling me a troll doesn't make your fantasy any more logical.
Where does the oxygen cone from?Then why does CO2 and H2O along with other compounds come out of your exhaust?i wasn't referring to chemical reactions, i suspect they simply react to the change in pressure.So octane + aether--> CO2+ H2O. That is one sweet reaction. Glad to see aether can do whatever it wants.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
Even by troll standards you are still a fucking idiot.
calling me a troll doesn't make your fantasy any more logical.
because chemicals react.
Sure we scientists like money, as do most people. Does that mean no one can be trusted? Science is self regulating, if you lie or cheat another scientist will figure it out sooner or later.
Where does the oxygen cone from?Then why does CO2 and H2O along with other compounds come out of your exhaust?i wasn't referring to chemical reactions, i suspect they simply react to the change in pressure.So octane + aether--> CO2+ H2O. That is one sweet reaction. Glad to see aether can do whatever it wants.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
Even by troll standards you are still a fucking idiot.
calling me a troll doesn't make your fantasy any more logical.
because chemicals react.
And back to my old question, how is there a glove box at my work that is oxgyen free but when the door is opened the detector can measure it?
Some other things you will also need to do:
Figure out how cellular respiration works in your model.
Figure out how photosynthesis works in your model
Figure out why its harder to breathe at higher altitudes.
Figure out how global warming works in your model.
So now air exists. Glad you came to your senses.Why wouldn't air be able to escape? There is an opening in the balloon. The rubber of the balloon has energy stored in it from being stretched. The rubber then retains its original shape pushing the air out of the balloon.The problem I see with it is that since air doesn't exist, the air compressors won't do anything. You need invent a force compressor for this plan to work.Don't tell the terrorists. The could buy an air compressor and just compress pure energy. Imagine what they could do with 200 gallons of pure energy at 150 psi.When blowing up a balloon, what do you inhale then exhale to inflate the balloon? Force?
air does not exist, i never said gases did not. nitrogen etc do not occur around us, but they do exist. try reading.
force does account for expanding the balloon. even you have to admit that, with no force it wouldn't expand. the force dissipates if you leave it untied, and is slowly used up regardless even if you do tie off the balloon. this also shows air can't be to blame because air wouldn't be able to escape, while force does indeed dissipate.Quotecompressed air can be any things. gases do exist so often they are simply compressed. otherwise they simply hold force, which is later released. that is how compressed air is used, remember?But if air doesn't exist, how can it be compressed?
air can't escape if you tie off the hole.
try reading.If you typed with coherent thoughts, capitalizations and proper sentence structure, it would make it easier.
compressed air is the name, it is not an accurate description.Then what is compressed air if it is not air that has been compressed?
the gases that make up air do exist, as i have repeatedly said. they are just clearly not everywhere like air is said to be.Then where are they if they are not in the air?
it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.
Where does the oxygen cone from?Then why does CO2 and H2O along with other compounds come out of your exhaust?i wasn't referring to chemical reactions, i suspect they simply react to the change in pressure.So octane + aether--> CO2+ H2O. That is one sweet reaction. Glad to see aether can do whatever it wants.Are you going to answer my question regarding my job?
What about materials that burst into flames with contact to air?
Why is there a glove box on property that is free of oxygen but if you open the door or have a leak oxygen shoots ip?
Another question, how does a car monitor the oxygen to fuel ratio? You can buy a wideband O2 sensor and gauge and see it in real time yourself.
no one understands a word of your gibberish. oxygen exists, it just is not everywhere. obviously things meant to sense air sense the aether.
Even by troll standards you are still a fucking idiot.
calling me a troll doesn't make your fantasy any more logical.
because chemicals react.
And back to my old question, how is there a glove box at my work that is oxgyen free but when the door is opened the detector can measure it?
water, maybe. the oxides in the surrounding metal. there are many possible sources.
i have answered that, pay attention. it clearly can't be measuring oxygen, it's probably affected by aether pressure.
it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.
Lets focus on this right here.
IF the air is harder to breath at altitude because the aether is thicker, then why do planes have trouble gaining lift at high altitudes? Wouldnt they fly better there because of the thicker aether?
it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.
Lets focus on this right here.
IF the air is harder to breath at altitude because the aether is thicker, then why do planes have trouble gaining lift at high altitudes? Wouldnt they fly better there because of the thicker aether?
they do not reach those altitudes because it is harder to fly into the thicker aether.
it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.
Lets focus on this right here.
IF the air is harder to breath at altitude because the aether is thicker, then why do planes have trouble gaining lift at high altitudes? Wouldnt they fly better there because of the thicker aether?
they do not reach those altitudes because it is harder to fly into the thicker aether.
No its demonstrable that they actually lose lift.
That's not how it works.it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.
Lets focus on this right here.
IF the air is harder to breath at altitude because the aether is thicker, then why do planes have trouble gaining lift at high altitudes? Wouldnt they fly better there because of the thicker aether?
they do not reach those altitudes because it is harder to fly into the thicker aether.
No its demonstrable that they actually lose lift.
because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. they fail to go up further, so they get pushed down.
That's not how it works.it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.
Lets focus on this right here.
IF the air is harder to breath at altitude because the aether is thicker, then why do planes have trouble gaining lift at high altitudes? Wouldnt they fly better there because of the thicker aether?
they do not reach those altitudes because it is harder to fly into the thicker aether.
No its demonstrable that they actually lose lift.
because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. they fail to go up further, so they get pushed down.
It's ok to admit you can't answer my questions. I'm still waiting for you to explain glove boxes and where the oxygen for combustion comes from.
What I do everyday proves you wrong. You have zero evidence for your shit "theory".
If you think that oxygen burns, you obviously don't know how fire works. No one claims that oxygen burns. I quote from the UCSB "For something to burn, the reaction requires a fuel (the thing that burns) and an oxidizer like oxygen."
We are embarrassing ourselves? You are the one who claims to talk to aether.
I haven't been shown to be wrong in quite awhile.What I do everyday proves you wrong. You have zero evidence for your shit "theory".
says the person who's been thoroughly debunked multiple times and routinely ignores my posts, including evidence i've presented.
you're just embarrassing yourself. if you can't respond to simple logic, just say so, spare us this song and dance.
I haven't been shown to be wrong in quite awhile.What I do everyday proves you wrong. You have zero evidence for your shit "theory".
says the person who's been thoroughly debunked multiple times and routinely ignores my posts, including evidence i've presented.
you're just embarrassing yourself. if you can't respond to simple logic, just say so, spare us this song and dance.
You have posted zero evidence as opinions don't count.
Like I said, I make a living doing what you say is impossible. You don't even understand combustion. You are just a fool.
I want evidence as defined by the scientific method. Your explanations are meaning less when in my daily routine I show them to be wrong.I haven't been shown to be wrong in quite awhile.What I do everyday proves you wrong. You have zero evidence for your shit "theory".
says the person who's been thoroughly debunked multiple times and routinely ignores my posts, including evidence i've presented.
you're just embarrassing yourself. if you can't respond to simple logic, just say so, spare us this song and dance.
You have posted zero evidence as opinions don't count.
Like I said, I make a living doing what you say is impossible. You don't even understand combustion. You are just a fool.
i have given explanations for my view, and problems with your worldview. what more do you want?!
and now you think admitting you have a bias makes you clever. wow. you can't be serious.
and don't put words in my mouth. i have explained everything you've offered. your stubbornness is only proof of your stupidity.
I want evidence as defined by the scientific method. Your explanations are meaning less when in my daily routine I show them to be wrong.I haven't been shown to be wrong in quite awhile.What I do everyday proves you wrong. You have zero evidence for your shit "theory".
says the person who's been thoroughly debunked multiple times and routinely ignores my posts, including evidence i've presented.
you're just embarrassing yourself. if you can't respond to simple logic, just say so, spare us this song and dance.
You have posted zero evidence as opinions don't count.
Like I said, I make a living doing what you say is impossible. You don't even understand combustion. You are just a fool.
i have given explanations for my view, and problems with your worldview. what more do you want?!
and now you think admitting you have a bias makes you clever. wow. you can't be serious.
and don't put words in my mouth. i have explained everything you've offered. your stubbornness is only proof of your stupidity.
I'm ignoring them because you made them up. What evidence can you post that show you are correct and I'm wrong?I want evidence as defined by the scientific method. Your explanations are meaning less when in my daily routine I show them to be wrong.I haven't been shown to be wrong in quite awhile.What I do everyday proves you wrong. You have zero evidence for your shit "theory".
says the person who's been thoroughly debunked multiple times and routinely ignores my posts, including evidence i've presented.
you're just embarrassing yourself. if you can't respond to simple logic, just say so, spare us this song and dance.
You have posted zero evidence as opinions don't count.
Like I said, I make a living doing what you say is impossible. You don't even understand combustion. You are just a fool.
i have given explanations for my view, and problems with your worldview. what more do you want?!
and now you think admitting you have a bias makes you clever. wow. you can't be serious.
and don't put words in my mouth. i have explained everything you've offered. your stubbornness is only proof of your stupidity.
your daily routine has several explanations which i have offered, and which you have ignored.
don't claim victory just because you're illiterate.
If you think that oxygen burns, you obviously don't know how fire works. No one claims that oxygen burns. I quote from the UCSB "For something to burn, the reaction requires a fuel (the thing that burns) and an oxidizer like oxygen."
We are embarrassing ourselves? You are the one who claims to talk to aether.
that makes no sense. think for yourself, you're saying fire somehow tells whether or not a gas is present even though that gas has nothing to do with the fire.
you're the one who's been debunked.
omg. This guy is seriously in a league of his own. Do we still have that vote going for the most insane poster of the month? ;DIf you think that oxygen burns, you obviously don't know how fire works. No one claims that oxygen burns. I quote from the UCSB "For something to burn, the reaction requires a fuel (the thing that burns) and an oxidizer like oxygen."
We are embarrassing ourselves? You are the one who claims to talk to aether.
that makes no sense. think for yourself, you're saying fire somehow tells whether or not a gas is present even though that gas has nothing to do with the fire.
you're the one who's been debunked.
it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.
Lets focus on this right here.
IF the air is harder to breath at altitude because the aether is thicker, then why do planes have trouble gaining lift at high altitudes? Wouldnt they fly better there because of the thicker aether?
they do not reach those altitudes because it is harder to fly into the thicker aether.
Oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.
Fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience
Oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.
Fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.
LOL... and yet even more disinformation bred as a result of ignorance. I don't think I've ever read as much pseudo-scientific drivel and misconceptions as I have from JRoweSkeptic. It would seem that the guy knows virtually nothing about everything.
—SCUBA tanks contain compressed air.
—Fire depends on heat?
He's obviously never done any SCUBA diving or known anybody who has. Pure oxygen is toxic.
He doesn't know that fire is simply a process of oxidation, identical to rusting, but much quicker. Both need oxygen Duh.
Wow, oxygen is topic and yet we depend on it to breathe? you say I'm stupid...
Making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"
I have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.
If you can do nothing beyond assert, why are you here?
time to recap.It's actually a fire triangle. It needs ignition source, fuel, and oxidizer.
oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.
fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.
i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.
i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.
Wow, oxygen is topic and yet we depend on it to breathe? you say I'm stupid...
Yes, because you claimed initially that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen, and you're now admitting you had that simple fact wrong. It's obvious that you didn't even know oxygen was toxic to humans LOL.
QuoteMaking up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"
It's not just me that says your understanding of the mechanics of fire (oxidation) is totally, laughably erroneous—so do 6 million scientists. But then, you think all scientists are shills and liars, and just in it for the money don't you? Enough said LOL.QuoteI have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.
No you haven't. All you've "offered" is some silly fantastical notion of how you think chemical processes occur, and which no other person on the planet would accept as correct. You're also unaware of what exactly "heat" is; you seem to think it's some sort of tangible entity, rather than a form of energy. It's not something that you can bottle, and mix with other chemicals LOL.QuoteIf you can do nothing beyond assert, why are you here?
I'm here in the apparently increasingly vain hope of educating people such as yourself, who seem to have very little knowledge of the earth sciences, astrophysics, chemistry, mathematics, physics etc. You've made so many erroneous blanket statements about the various sciences, and all without citing even basic reference materials.
Your nonsensical claim that "fire depends on heat" really broke me up... plus I nearly cracked a rib. Combustion causes heat, not the other way around LOL.
And here's a simple question for you since you think you're the expert on chemical reactions: How do you explain the fact that sodium burns—with a visible flame—when fully submerged in water? And why sodium is stored in kerosene to prevent its combustion?
time to recap.It's actually a fire triangle. It needs ignition source, fuel, and oxidizer.
oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.
fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.
i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.
i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.
A matchwould burn more efficiently in pure oxygen. I'm still waiting for the ex libation where oxygen comes from when burning hydrocarbons. "rust" and "water" are not valid answers. I'm still waiting on your answer to how you know you are right and everyone else is wrong.
So far you have not provided any evidence at all.
JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.
JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.
JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.
JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.
making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.
Science isn't simple. Your simple logic makes no sense at all. Your logic says chemistry is all wrong and what you think is correct. Your are the one who ignores everything. There is a reason you have no real evidence.time to recap.It's actually a fire triangle. It needs ignition source, fuel, and oxidizer.
oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.
fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.
i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.
i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.
A matchwould burn more efficiently in pure oxygen. I'm still waiting for the ex libation where oxygen comes from when burning hydrocarbons. "rust" and "water" are not valid answers. I'm still waiting on your answer to how you know you are right and everyone else is wrong.
So far you have not provided any evidence at all.
i have provided evidence from simple logic and observation, you've ignored it. your ignorance only shows your refusal to think.
give an example of how a hydrocarbon can be burned, i will explain. in some cases, rust and water are entirely valid explanations, if you don't accept that you are lying and there's no more point in teaching you.
If that's what you think then stop calling out his mental state of mind and understand what he's telling you then, instead of going into gang mode, you dipshit.JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.
Eh, at least JRowes aether makes more sense then denpressure.
Eh, at least JRowes aether makes more sense then denpressure.If that's what you think then stop calling out his mental state of mind and understand what he's telling you then, instead of going into gang mode, you dipshit.
i have never said aether cannot be detected.
there is no test of aether ... that can be done from earth.
If that's what you think then stop calling out his mental state of mind and understand what he's telling you then, instead of going into gang mode, you dipshit.JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.
Eh, at least JRowes aether makes more sense then denpressure.
Science isn't simple. Your simple logic makes no sense at all. Your logic says chemistry is all wrong and what you think is correct. Your are the one who ignores everything. There is a reason you have no real evidence.time to recap.It's actually a fire triangle. It needs ignition source, fuel, and oxidizer.
oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.
fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.
i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.
i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.
A matchwould burn more efficiently in pure oxygen. I'm still waiting for the ex libation where oxygen comes from when burning hydrocarbons. "rust" and "water" are not valid answers. I'm still waiting on your answer to how you know you are right and everyone else is wrong.
So far you have not provided any evidence at all.
i have provided evidence from simple logic and observation, you've ignored it. your ignorance only shows your refusal to think.
give an example of how a hydrocarbon can be burned, i will explain. in some cases, rust and water are entirely valid explanations, if you don't accept that you are lying and there's no more point in teaching you.
For you to continue, you need to disprove all of chemistry. We are waiting.
making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.
I saw your mumbling about the need of space to move or something to that effect, hence I left the volume of the space unspecified. So 'gases' now have a 'damping' property, eh. As you probably don't know nitrogen is less viscous than air so you probably mean something else when you say damping, than what damping usually means in context of motion.making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.
there are several answers. before i get on to nitrogen straight away, the most common kind of so-called oxygen deprived atmosphere is when you light a candle under a glass, and it snuffs itself out. this is nothing to do with using up oxygen, and everything to do with how heat requires movement (total stillness is absolute zero), and in a limited space movement fails quickly.
with gases, i suspect certain gases dampen the flame. as flames normally light in the absence of air, the presence of gases dampens any attempt at movement by adding more resistance to motion. the addition of oxygen helps, as oxygen burns (as can be observed by the radically different flame you get by putting a match into an oxygenated environment).
I saw your mumbling about the need of space to move or something to that effect, hence I left the volume of the space unspecified. So 'gases' now have a 'damping' property, eh. As you probably don't know nitrogen is less viscous than air so you probably mean something else when you say damping, than what damping usually means in context of motion.making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.
there are several answers. before i get on to nitrogen straight away, the most common kind of so-called oxygen deprived atmosphere is when you light a candle under a glass, and it snuffs itself out. this is nothing to do with using up oxygen, and everything to do with how heat requires movement (total stillness is absolute zero), and in a limited space movement fails quickly.
with gases, i suspect certain gases dampen the flame. as flames normally light in the absence of air, the presence of gases dampens any attempt at movement by adding more resistance to motion. the addition of oxygen helps, as oxygen burns (as can be observed by the radically different flame you get by putting a match into an oxygenated environment).
Btw perhaps you missed an earlier post asking if you know what commercial production of oxygen and nitrogen gases most commonly uses for material.
Underscored your erroneous assumption. Yes of course gases have a 'damping' property, it just so happens that nitrogen is less so than air. Physical properties of air are easily measured and separation of oxygen and nitrogen from it is commonplace. There simply is no room for doubt. Unless one is hearing voices I guess. Okay this is getting boring now, I'll leave you to it skepti.I saw your mumbling about the need of space to move or something to that effect, hence I left the volume of the space unspecified. So 'gases' now have a 'damping' property, eh. As you probably don't know nitrogen is less viscous than air so you probably mean something else when you say damping, than what damping usually means in context of motion.making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.
there are several answers. before i get on to nitrogen straight away, the most common kind of so-called oxygen deprived atmosphere is when you light a candle under a glass, and it snuffs itself out. this is nothing to do with using up oxygen, and everything to do with how heat requires movement (total stillness is absolute zero), and in a limited space movement fails quickly.
with gases, i suspect certain gases dampen the flame. as flames normally light in the absence of air, the presence of gases dampens any attempt at movement by adding more resistance to motion. the addition of oxygen helps, as oxygen burns (as can be observed by the radically different flame you get by putting a match into an oxygenated environment).
Btw perhaps you missed an earlier post asking if you know what commercial production of oxygen and nitrogen gases most commonly uses for material.
of course gases are damping, more molecules makes motion harder. given there is no air, your comparison seems rather pointless.
oxides and nitrates exist, as does natural gas. there are many possible sources. i have never denied the existence of the gases, it is just plain they do not cover the earth like we're told.
1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.
oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.
time to recap.
oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.
fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.
i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.
i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.
and fish apparently do 'breathe' oxygen, that's what he just said which is curious if we do not need oxygen =D
1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.
oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.
What a truly laughable "response". You now reckon—after claiming that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen—that you weren't trying "to be accurate". This is truly funny.
1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.
oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.
What a truly laughable "response". You now reckon—after claiming that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen—that you weren't trying "to be accurate". This is truly funny.
And heat is the "movement of molecules"? This gets funnier by the minute. If heat was produced by the movement of molecules, we'd all spontaneously combust in a couple of minutes!
Also, you need to understand that—despite denying it several times now—oxygen, by itself, WILL NOT BURN. If it did, our atmosphere—which is 21% oxygen—would have burned up a long time ago.
You still haven't explained why sodium burns under water, but is stored in kerosene. Both contain hydrogen atoms, and hydrogen is flammable, and in water is released during the exothermic reaction as per 2Na(s) + 2H2O —> 2NaOH(aq) + H2(g). So it's not the oxygen that burns, but the hydrogen.
So your new answer is.....?
and fish apparently do 'breathe' oxygen, that's what he just said which is curious if we do not need oxygen =D
1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.
oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.
What a truly laughable "response". You now reckon—after claiming that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen—that you weren't trying "to be accurate". This is truly funny.
thermal energy and particle motion actually are at least closely linked, afaik? Not that I would have followed this particular branch of discussion, I might have misunderstood something.
Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
Gas products may have many sources but virtually all oxygen and nitrogen comes from air. I have worked closely with chemical industry for years, there is no point in trying to argue against this plain fact.Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
i have never denied the existence of gas. there are oxides, nitrates, and deposits such as natural gas. commercial gas products, such as oxygen and nitrogen, have many sources. it makes more sense than having a line of people picking individual molecules out of a fantasy air.
breathing any gas kills us, unless there is something to improve heat transmission (oxygen). otherwise, you are poisoned, or something like drowning occurs, and you lose the heat motion you rely on.
let it also be pointed out that inhaling and ingesting are two different process. you can drink water, but inhaling it kills you because it affects the motion of the lungs. metals will take in heat for themselves, preventing it being transmitted elsewhere in the body, for example.
Gas products may have many sources but virtually all oxygen and nitrogen comes from air. I have worked closely with chemical industry for years, there is no point in trying to argue against this plain fact.Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
i have never denied the existence of gas. there are oxides, nitrates, and deposits such as natural gas. commercial gas products, such as oxygen and nitrogen, have many sources. it makes more sense than having a line of people picking individual molecules out of a fantasy air.
breathing any gas kills us, unless there is something to improve heat transmission (oxygen). otherwise, you are poisoned, or something like drowning occurs, and you lose the heat motion you rely on.
let it also be pointed out that inhaling and ingesting are two different process. you can drink water, but inhaling it kills you because it affects the motion of the lungs. metals will take in heat for themselves, preventing it being transmitted elsewhere in the body, for example.
Breathe something that does not contain oxygen and you die. Don't breathe at all and you die. We need oxygen, and we get it by breathing air.
How does sound work without air?
Evidence needed.How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Evidence needed.How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Why does your explanation go against observations and how is more logical to do that?Evidence needed.How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
it is an explanation based on logic. the evidence is in that it works, and needs no other entities supposed. i know you refuse to accept my model, but given that was a question against my model, all i need to do is show my model remains internally consistent.
Why does your explanation go against observations and how is more logical to do that?Evidence needed.How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
it is an explanation based on logic. the evidence is in that it works, and needs no other entities supposed. i know you refuse to accept my model, but given that was a question against my model, all i need to do is show my model remains internally consistent.
If the pump isn't removing air from the jar and cannot remove the aether because of its low density, what is coming out of the exhaust port of the pump?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
If the pump isn't removing air from the jar and cannot remove the aether because of its low density, what is coming out of the exhaust port of the pump?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Also, how could the pump cause the aether to move if it can't remove the aether from the jar? If the aether is too low density to remove, it should also, logically, be too low density to move around the jar.
If this is the case, would putting the pump next to the bell, without a jar around the bell, cause the aether to move in such a way that the sound will lessen?If the pump isn't removing air from the jar and cannot remove the aether because of its low density, what is coming out of the exhaust port of the pump?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Also, how could the pump cause the aether to move if it can't remove the aether from the jar? If the aether is too low density to remove, it should also, logically, be too low density to move around the jar.
force comes out.
aether is too low density to come out because it would go in at the same rate, with nothing to stop it. that doesn't mean it doesn't move.
no it doesn't. You are the closed minded I one. You think what you make up is correct and what 100s of years of science is wrong.Why does your explanation go against observations and how is more logical to do that?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Evidence needed.
it is an explanation based on logic. the evidence is in that it works, and needs no other entities supposed. i know you refuse to accept my model, but given that was a question against my model, all i need to do is show my model remains internally consistent.
it adheres to observation. don't assume your fantasy has to be accurate, open your mind, read the posts i've made which justify what i say.
If this is the case, would putting the pump next to the bell, without a jar around the bell, cause the aether to move in such a way that the sound will lessen?If the pump isn't removing air from the jar and cannot remove the aether because of its low density, what is coming out of the exhaust port of the pump?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Also, how could the pump cause the aether to move if it can't remove the aether from the jar? If the aether is too low density to remove, it should also, logically, be too low density to move around the jar.
force comes out.
aether is too low density to come out because it would go in at the same rate, with nothing to stop it. that doesn't mean it doesn't move.
But you also said that the aether is too low density to come out and enter at the same rate. That indicates to me that the aether can actually go through the jar. If that is the case, the jar has no effect on the situation.If this is the case, would putting the pump next to the bell, without a jar around the bell, cause the aether to move in such a way that the sound will lessen?If the pump isn't removing air from the jar and cannot remove the aether because of its low density, what is coming out of the exhaust port of the pump?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Also, how could the pump cause the aether to move if it can't remove the aether from the jar? If the aether is too low density to remove, it should also, logically, be too low density to move around the jar.
force comes out.
aether is too low density to come out because it would go in at the same rate, with nothing to stop it. that doesn't mean it doesn't move.
of course not, the enclosed space is what ensures the force continues. without that, the pump can't give off enough force to deal with all the aether.
sokarul, when you can do more than assert, i'll listen.
Okay so if this aether carries sound waves in the same way that gases do, can we assume that aether is made up of molecules like gases are?
This "aether" is starting to sound a lot like, erm, air!
But you also said that the aether is too low density to come out and enter at the same rate. That indicates to me that the aether can actually go through the jar. If that is the case, the jar has no effect on the situation.If this is the case, would putting the pump next to the bell, without a jar around the bell, cause the aether to move in such a way that the sound will lessen?If the pump isn't removing air from the jar and cannot remove the aether because of its low density, what is coming out of the exhaust port of the pump?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Also, how could the pump cause the aether to move if it can't remove the aether from the jar? If the aether is too low density to remove, it should also, logically, be too low density to move around the jar.
force comes out.
aether is too low density to come out because it would go in at the same rate, with nothing to stop it. that doesn't mean it doesn't move.
of course not, the enclosed space is what ensures the force continues. without that, the pump can't give off enough force to deal with all the aether.
sokarul, when you can do more than assert, i'll listen.
The problem is a lack of any sort of logic. Try using some.But you also said that the aether is too low density to come out and enter at the same rate. That indicates to me that the aether can actually go through the jar. If that is the case, the jar has no effect on the situation.If this is the case, would putting the pump next to the bell, without a jar around the bell, cause the aether to move in such a way that the sound will lessen?If the pump isn't removing air from the jar and cannot remove the aether because of its low density, what is coming out of the exhaust port of the pump?How does sound work without air?
i think i know the follow up question that will be used, so i'll explained this with a thought experiment.
everyone knows how bell jars work. 'air' is supposedly pumped out, and an alarm clock ringing becomes increasingly silent. i assume that's what you're getting at, that sound needs a medium to travel through?
however, aether plainly qualifies as a medium. however, that's not entirely it. sound is, fundamentally, a force: sound is vibration, without vibration there is no sound, and vibration is movement: kinetic energy. sound is simply this force, transmitted through any available medium. what happens in a bell jar, is that the pump itself imparts a force. it doesn't remove aether, it couldn't remove anything so low density, but it makes aether move a certain way which cancels out the force from the alarm clock.
i hope that illustration provides a full answer. sound works by being transmitted through a medium, such as aether, so long as something does not disrupt the force.
Also, how could the pump cause the aether to move if it can't remove the aether from the jar? If the aether is too low density to remove, it should also, logically, be too low density to move around the jar.
force comes out.
aether is too low density to come out because it would go in at the same rate, with nothing to stop it. that doesn't mean it doesn't move.
of course not, the enclosed space is what ensures the force continues. without that, the pump can't give off enough force to deal with all the aether.
sokarul, when you can do more than assert, i'll listen.
the problem is the pump. try reading.
aether is not a gas. think of it as more tangible energy.
aether is not a gas. think of it as more tangible energy.
Please define, specifically, "tangible energy".
Is it like the Jedi Force? You do know Star Wars is just movies right?
Okay I'll humour you. Can you explain how a "tangible force" carries sound waves?
Please define, specifically, "tangible energy".I just did.
Please define, specifically, "tangible energy".I just did.
Can you please tell me where exactly you "defined" it? And in what terms.
I'll quote: "can't you read?" I have not repeated assertions, I have repeated facts that you have chosen to ignore. Which part of the above do you have trouble understanding, that you'll die unless you breathe or that oxygen & nitrogen is produced of air?Gas products may have many sources but virtually all oxygen and nitrogen comes from air. I have worked closely with chemical industry for years, there is no point in trying to argue against this plain fact.Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
i have never denied the existence of gas. there are oxides, nitrates, and deposits such as natural gas. commercial gas products, such as oxygen and nitrogen, have many sources. it makes more sense than having a line of people picking individual molecules out of a fantasy air.
breathing any gas kills us, unless there is something to improve heat transmission (oxygen). otherwise, you are poisoned, or something like drowning occurs, and you lose the heat motion you rely on.
let it also be pointed out that inhaling and ingesting are two different process. you can drink water, but inhaling it kills you because it affects the motion of the lungs. metals will take in heat for themselves, preventing it being transmitted elsewhere in the body, for example.
Breathe something that does not contain oxygen and you die. Don't breathe at all and you die. We need oxygen, and we get it by breathing air.
if you would care to reply to what i'm saying rather than repeating the same bs assertions, that'd be great. i have answered both of those points already, you're embarrassing yourself.
I'll quote: "can't you read?" I have not repeated assertions, I have repeated facts that you have chosen to ignore. Which part of the above do you have trouble understanding, that you'll die unless you breathe or that oxygen & nitrogen is produced of air?Gas products may have many sources but virtually all oxygen and nitrogen comes from air. I have worked closely with chemical industry for years, there is no point in trying to argue against this plain fact.Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
i have never denied the existence of gas. there are oxides, nitrates, and deposits such as natural gas. commercial gas products, such as oxygen and nitrogen, have many sources. it makes more sense than having a line of people picking individual molecules out of a fantasy air.
breathing any gas kills us, unless there is something to improve heat transmission (oxygen). otherwise, you are poisoned, or something like drowning occurs, and you lose the heat motion you rely on.
let it also be pointed out that inhaling and ingesting are two different process. you can drink water, but inhaling it kills you because it affects the motion of the lungs. metals will take in heat for themselves, preventing it being transmitted elsewhere in the body, for example.
Breathe something that does not contain oxygen and you die. Don't breathe at all and you die. We need oxygen, and we get it by breathing air.
if you would care to reply to what i'm saying rather than repeating the same bs assertions, that'd be great. i have answered both of those points already, you're embarrassing yourself.
tangible... energy...
which of those two words are you struggling with?
tangible... energy...
which of those two words are you struggling with?
"Tangible" means perceptible by touch. "Energy" is an intangible property of all objects. There can be no such thing described as "tangible energy" using accepted scientific definitions of each word.
So... your phrase "tangible energy" means......?
So your argument is "I made something up so it's correct." Really?tangible... energy...
which of those two words are you struggling with?
"Tangible" means perceptible by touch. "Energy" is an intangible property of all objects. There can be no such thing described as "tangible energy" using accepted scientific definitions of each word.
So... your phrase "tangible energy" means......?
so your argument is "but i'm saying that's not possible because i refuse to accept anything new or anything outside my closed minded view!"
really?
so your argument is "but i'm saying that's not possible because i refuse to accept anything new or anything outside my closed minded view!"
really?
so your argument is "but i'm saying that's not possible because i refuse to accept anything new or anything outside my closed minded view!"
really?
LOL... at the very least I've exposed you as a fraud; you can't even define one of your own imaginary terms. You're also far more adept than even jroa at evading questions! And thanks BTW for the ongoing laughs over the past few comments here.
;D
your sheer stupidity is nothing to do with me.
i am not a jedi.
I'll quote: "can't you read?" I have not repeated assertions, I have repeated facts that you have chosen to ignore. Which part of the above do you have trouble understanding, that you'll die unless you breathe or that oxygen & nitrogen is produced of air?Gas products may have many sources but virtually all oxygen and nitrogen comes from air. I have worked closely with chemical industry for years, there is no point in trying to argue against this plain fact.Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
i have never denied the existence of gas. there are oxides, nitrates, and deposits such as natural gas. commercial gas products, such as oxygen and nitrogen, have many sources. it makes more sense than having a line of people picking individual molecules out of a fantasy air.
breathing any gas kills us, unless there is something to improve heat transmission (oxygen). otherwise, you are poisoned, or something like drowning occurs, and you lose the heat motion you rely on.
let it also be pointed out that inhaling and ingesting are two different process. you can drink water, but inhaling it kills you because it affects the motion of the lungs. metals will take in heat for themselves, preventing it being transmitted elsewhere in the body, for example.
Breathe something that does not contain oxygen and you die. Don't breathe at all and you die. We need oxygen, and we get it by breathing air.
if you would care to reply to what i'm saying rather than repeating the same bs assertions, that'd be great. i have answered both of those points already, you're embarrassing yourself.
you are repeating facts in ignorance of what i've said.
what about that do you think is worth saying? do you think you're the only person who's brought that up? i have responded.Yes, you have responded. Here's another fact for you: that you respond to a forum post does not alter the facts I stated.
if you have nothing else to say beyond repeating the same, refuted bs, say nothing.Either of those two points has never been refuted anywhere by anyone. Certainly not by you. You have not even attempted to addressed the fact that large scale production of oxygen and nitrogen gases uses primarily air for raw material. I'll give you that you have attempted to address the fact that unless you breath oxygen, you die - which, I repeat, does not alter the fact.
i have given an explanation. you refuse to even read the terms. two words, just two words are all you need to read. if you want another explanation 'take the definition of energy. remove the 'intangible'' which is a dubious inclusion anyhow.
your sheer stupidity is nothing to do with me.
i have given an explanation. you refuse to even read the terms. two words, just two words are all you need to read. if you want another explanation 'take the definition of energy. remove the 'intangible'' which is a dubious inclusion anyhow.
your sheer stupidity is nothing to do with me.
Tangible energy is like dry water, clean dirt, cold fire, and smart flat earthers. It just doesn't make any sense, if energy is tangible then it is no longer energy.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
You have to make up so many new phenomena to explain your aether hypothesis, why dont you just stick to the mainstream air model, which is perfectly understood and works in all circumstances? I don't see what you've got to gain from this no air idea, other than winding people up and providing much entertainment!
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
Try not blinking for a while. See how that works out for you....
** Sorry, I've just come across this absolute gem of a post.
i have given an explanation. you refuse to even read the terms. two words, just two words are all you need to read. if you want another explanation 'take the definition of energy. remove the 'intangible'' which is a dubious inclusion anyhow.
your sheer stupidity is nothing to do with me.
Tangible energy is like dry water, clean dirt, cold fire, and smart flat earthers. It just doesn't make any sense, if energy is tangible then it is no longer energy.
I'll quote: "can't you read?" I have not repeated assertions, I have repeated facts that you have chosen to ignore. Which part of the above do you have trouble understanding, that you'll die unless you breathe or that oxygen & nitrogen is produced of air?Gas products may have many sources but virtually all oxygen and nitrogen comes from air. I have worked closely with chemical industry for years, there is no point in trying to argue against this plain fact.Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
i have never denied the existence of gas. there are oxides, nitrates, and deposits such as natural gas. commercial gas products, such as oxygen and nitrogen, have many sources. it makes more sense than having a line of people picking individual molecules out of a fantasy air.
breathing any gas kills us, unless there is something to improve heat transmission (oxygen). otherwise, you are poisoned, or something like drowning occurs, and you lose the heat motion you rely on.
let it also be pointed out that inhaling and ingesting are two different process. you can drink water, but inhaling it kills you because it affects the motion of the lungs. metals will take in heat for themselves, preventing it being transmitted elsewhere in the body, for example.
Breathe something that does not contain oxygen and you die. Don't breathe at all and you die. We need oxygen, and we get it by breathing air.
if you would care to reply to what i'm saying rather than repeating the same bs assertions, that'd be great. i have answered both of those points already, you're embarrassing yourself.
you are repeating facts in ignorance of what i've said.
Not in ignorance, I have read what you have said. Either way I'm glad for your sake that you agree that what I stated is fact.what about that do you think is worth saying? do you think you're the only person who's brought that up? i have responded.Yes, you have responded. Here's another fact for you: that you respond to a forum post does not alter the facts I stated.if you have nothing else to say beyond repeating the same, refuted bs, say nothing.Either of those two points has never been refuted anywhere by anyone. Certainly not by you. You have not even attempted to addressed the fact that large scale production of oxygen and nitrogen gases uses primarily air for raw material. I'll give you that you have attempted to address the fact that unless you breath oxygen, you die - which, I repeat, does not alter the fact.
You have not presented anything even approaching a reasonable argument against these facts, all you got is some vague untested hypothesis that you got from a voice only you can hear. This case is so closed that the hinges are bursting backwards.
And that's what I had to say.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
Try not blinking for a while. See how that works out for you....
** Sorry, I've just come across this absolute gem of a post.
the fact heat dries out eyes without moisture being smoothed out over them (by the eyelids) relies on air how?
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
Try not blinking for a while. See how that works out for you....
** Sorry, I've just come across this absolute gem of a post.
the fact heat dries out eyes without moisture being smoothed out over them (by the eyelids) relies on air how?
And heat is transferred how?
Also - how do I hear? If there's no air, how do vibrations travel from source to ear drum?
Have to say though. The SCUBA comment has to be my favourite. After personally running out of air while diving I can vouch that once you're out of air, you don't start breathing the tank, nor do you die (assuming you get to the surface that is). Once the PSI has gone, you get nothing, nil, not a thing. Suck as hard as you like.
Of course you need a physical medium for heat to travel through, dipshit.
Photons aren't heat, thy are light. Try again.
And you still haven't explained how steel kills you. Does it interrupt your nervous system? Your circulatory system?
Of course you need a physical medium for heat to travel through, dipshit.
Photons aren't heat, thy are light. Try again.
And you still haven't explained how steel kills you. Does it interrupt your nervous system? Your circulatory system?
so the sun doesn't give off heat? got it.
is steel a metal? i suggest you read before making obviously false claims. i don't need to give you the specifics of how a certain poison works, in any case. think before you ask, your question is irrelevant.
Of course you need a physical medium for heat to travel through, dipshit.
Photons aren't heat, thy are light. Try again.
And you still haven't explained how steel kills you. Does it interrupt your nervous system? Your circulatory system?
so the sun doesn't give off heat? got it.
is steel a metal? i suggest you read before making obviously false claims. i don't need to give you the specifics of how a certain poison works, in any case. think before you ask, your question is irrelevant.
The sun gives off a wide range of electromagnetic radiation. When that radiation interacts with matter (ie the earth) it releases energy in form of (amongst other things) heat. The heat itself isn't transfered though.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
Try not blinking for a while. See how that works out for you....
** Sorry, I've just come across this absolute gem of a post.
the fact heat dries out eyes without moisture being smoothed out over them (by the eyelids) relies on air how?
And heat is transferred how?
Also - how do I hear? If there's no air, how do vibrations travel from source to ear drum?
Have to say though. The SCUBA comment has to be my favourite. After personally running out of air while diving I can vouch that once you're out of air, you don't start breathing the tank, nor do you die (assuming you get to the surface that is). Once the PSI has gone, you get nothing, nil, not a thing. Suck as hard as you like.
heat is transferred? what do you mean, does heat need a physical medium to travel through now? your round earth sun and vacuum's pretty screwed, huh?
aether imparts force. the first post on page 12 starts with a quote explaining this in more detail and answering more question. if you have an obvious question that everyone's thought of, skim through the rest of the thread. at least use ctrl f.
of course it doesn't feel like you can inhale, that's what poison does. you took several breaths after the oxygen/air/whatever ran out, and decided that it must have been oxygen even thought it felt thinner, less substantial, by which point you had metal inside you absorbing heat. that was what you felt. it took breathe actual air or aether properly to push the particles out of your lung.
unless you're now saying you had a microscopic x-ray done while you were dying.
Of course you need a physical medium for heat to travel through, dipshit.
Photons aren't heat, thy are light. Try again.
And you still haven't explained how steel kills you. Does it interrupt your nervous system? Your circulatory system?
so the sun doesn't give off heat? got it.
is steel a metal? i suggest you read before making obviously false claims. i don't need to give you the specifics of how a certain poison works, in any case. think before you ask, your question is irrelevant.
The sun gives off a wide range of electromagnetic radiation. When that radiation interacts with matter (ie the earth) it releases energy in form of (amongst other things) heat. The heat itself isn't transfered though.
sure, great, so are people made out of matter or is kman denying that now?
Is steel a metal? i suggest you read before making obviously false claims. i don't need to give you the specifics of how a certain poison works, in any case. think before you ask, your question is irrelevant.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
Try not blinking for a while. See how that works out for you....
** Sorry, I've just come across this absolute gem of a post.
the fact heat dries out eyes without moisture being smoothed out over them (by the eyelids) relies on air how?
And heat is transferred how?
Also - how do I hear? If there's no air, how do vibrations travel from source to ear drum?
Have to say though. The SCUBA comment has to be my favourite. After personally running out of air while diving I can vouch that once you're out of air, you don't start breathing the tank, nor do you die (assuming you get to the surface that is). Once the PSI has gone, you get nothing, nil, not a thing. Suck as hard as you like.
heat is transferred? what do you mean, does heat need a physical medium to travel through now? your round earth sun and vacuum's pretty screwed, huh?
aether imparts force. the first post on page 12 starts with a quote explaining this in more detail and answering more question. if you have an obvious question that everyone's thought of, skim through the rest of the thread. at least use ctrl f.
of course it doesn't feel like you can inhale, that's what poison does. you took several breaths after the oxygen/air/whatever ran out, and decided that it must have been oxygen even thought it felt thinner, less substantial, by which point you had metal inside you absorbing heat. that was what you felt. it took breathe actual air or aether properly to push the particles out of your lung.
unless you're now saying you had a microscopic x-ray done while you were dying.
OK - point taken, allow me to rephrase - this heat that dries my eyes is created how? What forces are in play? What chemical reactions?
As for your explanation regarding running out of air, no, my gauges tells me exactly how much air is in my tank and when PSI reaches 0, there's none left. At 0 PSI I can't suck anything out of the tank. Also, if I was poisoned by the remaining air and became unable to take a breath how come I could buddy breath without any problem - or did my poisoning just instantly disappear?
As for the dying comment - I think you're getting a bit over dramatic there.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
urban legend. don't believe everything you're told. seriously, do some research. blood after breathing in behaves differently as it's warmer with more motion, but blood is never actually blue. think critically. this is not me being closed minded, this is a fact. put your finger in oil, prick it, it's still red despite not being exposed to 'air', and being a vein, not an artery.
If we don't need oxygen then why is it an integral part of the function of our cells? Why is oxygen needed to complete the process started by the Kreb Cycle?
it's not and it isn't. would you live to provide more than assertion?
Would you like to go down this hole, I will pin you down and have my way with you ultimately. No one so far can out logic me, and people far less insane than you have tried.
you offer a lie and an assertion. people were too busy laughing at you.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
urban legend. don't believe everything you're told. seriously, do some research. blood after breathing in behaves differently as it's warmer with more motion, but blood is never actually blue. think critically. this is not me being closed minded, this is a fact. put your finger in oil, prick it, it's still red despite not being exposed to 'air', and being a vein, not an artery.
If we don't need oxygen then why is it an integral part of the function of our cells? Why is oxygen needed to complete the process started by the Kreb Cycle?
it's not and it isn't. would you live to provide more than assertion?
Would you like to go down this hole, I will pin you down and have my way with you ultimately. No one so far can out logic me, and people far less insane than you have tried.
you offer a lie and an assertion. people were too busy laughing at you.
Here is a simple experiment that proves you wrong:
Take a bag, a balloon, or anything that holds air and crumple/deflate it so it has very little air in it. Take a breath of the air around you and hold it as you cover your mouth with the bag/balloon in such a way that you inflate it when you breath out. Now exhale in the bag/balloon and inhale again so you breathe the same air over and over. You will notice that you will start to feel like you need air even though you are breathing, that's because your lungs have removed the oxygen from that air and replaced it with carbon dioxide. If you were right then you could just breathe that same air over and over forever without any ill effects, when I'm face if you do it for too long you will pass out from a lack of oxygen.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
urban legend. don't believe everything you're told. seriously, do some research. blood after breathing in behaves differently as it's warmer with more motion, but blood is never actually blue. think critically. this is not me being closed minded, this is a fact. put your finger in oil, prick it, it's still red despite not being exposed to 'air', and being a vein, not an artery.
If we don't need oxygen then why is it an integral part of the function of our cells? Why is oxygen needed to complete the process started by the Kreb Cycle?
it's not and it isn't. would you live to provide more than assertion?
Would you like to go down this hole, I will pin you down and have my way with you ultimately. No one so far can out logic me, and people far less insane than you have tried.
you offer a lie and an assertion. people were too busy laughing at you.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
urban legend. don't believe everything you're told. seriously, do some research. blood after breathing in behaves differently as it's warmer with more motion, but blood is never actually blue. think critically. this is not me being closed minded, this is a fact. put your finger in oil, prick it, it's still red despite not being exposed to 'air', and being a vein, not an artery.
If we don't need oxygen then why is it an integral part of the function of our cells? Why is oxygen needed to complete the process started by the Kreb Cycle?
it's not and it isn't. would you live to provide more than assertion?
Would you like to go down this hole, I will pin you down and have my way with you ultimately. No one so far can out logic me, and people far less insane than you have tried.
you offer a lie and an assertion. people were too busy laughing at you.
HAH, it takes a lunatic on a forum to make me see that I have been believing a myth all this time. You ARE good for something JRowe.
Then I stand corrected, however this doesn't get rid of you explaining the chemical process in the cells that require oxygen to function.
you're ignoring the fact that when pressure is removed from inside any air-holding vessel, particles are no longer kept together, and some bits are loose. you'd need to insert a lot of pressure, but exhalation does not impart gas, it imparts only force, and not enough to keep the particles away. you run into the same problem. that's the problem with enclosed spaces, you'll keep removing too much pressure.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
urban legend. don't believe everything you're told. seriously, do some research. blood after breathing in behaves differently as it's warmer with more motion, but blood is never actually blue. think critically. this is not me being closed minded, this is a fact. put your finger in oil, prick it, it's still red despite not being exposed to 'air', and being a vein, not an artery.
If we don't need oxygen then why is it an integral part of the function of our cells? Why is oxygen needed to complete the process started by the Kreb Cycle?
it's not and it isn't. would you live to provide more than assertion?
Would you like to go down this hole, I will pin you down and have my way with you ultimately. No one so far can out logic me, and people far less insane than you have tried.
you offer a lie and an assertion. people were too busy laughing at you.
HAH, it takes a lunatic on a forum to make me see that I have been believing a myth all this time. You ARE good for something JRowe.
Then I stand corrected, however this doesn't get rid of you explaining the chemical process in the cells that require oxygen to function.
assertion. you believe they rely on oxygen, you don't allow an alternative.
you're ignoring the fact that when pressure is removed from inside any air-holding vessel, particles are no longer kept together, and some bits are loose. you'd need to insert a lot of pressure, but exhalation does not impart gas, it imparts only force, and not enough to keep the particles away. you run into the same problem. that's the problem with enclosed spaces, you'll keep removing too much pressure.
You don't have any math or experiments that prove this do you? I thought not.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
urban legend. don't believe everything you're told. seriously, do some research. blood after breathing in behaves differently as it's warmer with more motion, but blood is never actually blue. think critically. this is not me being closed minded, this is a fact. put your finger in oil, prick it, it's still red despite not being exposed to 'air', and being a vein, not an artery.
If we don't need oxygen then why is it an integral part of the function of our cells? Why is oxygen needed to complete the process started by the Kreb Cycle?
it's not and it isn't. would you live to provide more than assertion?
Would you like to go down this hole, I will pin you down and have my way with you ultimately. No one so far can out logic me, and people far less insane than you have tried.
you offer a lie and an assertion. people were too busy laughing at you.
HAH, it takes a lunatic on a forum to make me see that I have been believing a myth all this time. You ARE good for something JRowe.
Then I stand corrected, however this doesn't get rid of you explaining the chemical process in the cells that require oxygen to function.
assertion. you believe they rely on oxygen, you don't allow an alternative.
scientifically observed fact using chemistry. Not exactly assertion.
I would have thought thd two different oxygen meters I use counts as evidence.
dude, there are air pumps in just about every gas station out there. do yourself a favor, drop a quarter in there and stick the hose up your ass and you will know everything there is to know about air
you're ignoring the fact that when pressure is removed from inside any air-holding vessel, particles are no longer kept together, and some bits are loose. you'd need to insert a lot of pressure, but exhalation does not impart gas, it imparts only force, and not enough to keep the particles away. you run into the same problem. that's the problem with enclosed spaces, you'll keep removing too much pressure.
You don't have any math or experiments that prove this do you? I thought not.
ooh, look, you're repeating the same bs. what is wrong with you people? i put thought into what i say, you're broken records who refuse to acknowledge a word i say.
I'll quote: "can't you read?" I have not repeated assertions, I have repeated facts that you have chosen to ignore. Which part of the above do you have trouble understanding, that you'll die unless you breathe or that oxygen & nitrogen is produced of air?Gas products may have many sources but virtually all oxygen and nitrogen comes from air. I have worked closely with chemical industry for years, there is no point in trying to argue against this plain fact.Whatever. Either way concrete facts are that breathing any gas mixture with whatever qualities that does not contain oxygen kills you and that we are surrounded by an atmosphere of air, containing oxygen. Re commercial oxygen and nitrogen production that gets it's material apparently out of nowhere. This is just too silly to argue about even by tfes standards.
i have never denied the existence of gas. there are oxides, nitrates, and deposits such as natural gas. commercial gas products, such as oxygen and nitrogen, have many sources. it makes more sense than having a line of people picking individual molecules out of a fantasy air.
breathing any gas kills us, unless there is something to improve heat transmission (oxygen). otherwise, you are poisoned, or something like drowning occurs, and you lose the heat motion you rely on.
let it also be pointed out that inhaling and ingesting are two different process. you can drink water, but inhaling it kills you because it affects the motion of the lungs. metals will take in heat for themselves, preventing it being transmitted elsewhere in the body, for example.
Breathe something that does not contain oxygen and you die. Don't breathe at all and you die. We need oxygen, and we get it by breathing air.
if you would care to reply to what i'm saying rather than repeating the same bs assertions, that'd be great. i have answered both of those points already, you're embarrassing yourself.
you are repeating facts in ignorance of what i've said.
Not in ignorance, I have read what you have said. Either way I'm glad for your sake that you agree that what I stated is fact.what about that do you think is worth saying? do you think you're the only person who's brought that up? i have responded.Yes, you have responded. Here's another fact for you: that you respond to a forum post does not alter the facts I stated.if you have nothing else to say beyond repeating the same, refuted bs, say nothing.Either of those two points has never been refuted anywhere by anyone. Certainly not by you. You have not even attempted to addressed the fact that large scale production of oxygen and nitrogen gases uses primarily air for raw material. I'll give you that you have attempted to address the fact that unless you breath oxygen, you die - which, I repeat, does not alter the fact.
You have not presented anything even approaching a reasonable argument against these facts, all you got is some vague untested hypothesis that you got from a voice only you can hear. This case is so closed that the hinges are bursting backwards.
And that's what I had to say.
you seem to be more focused on semantics than the points i'm making. try again.
you refuse to accept the fact we do not require oxygen because you believe oxygen is everywhere (despite an argument made in my very first post and never satisfactorily responded to), and despite my repeated explanations. at least admit my model is consistent, even if you persist in denial.-That we would not require oxygen is not an observed fact, it is an unfounded claim that you have made.
there is also the fact you also pretend oxygen is poisonous. i suspect it could be, as it would overtax our systems, but this does not make sense if you pretend we need some special chemical reaction that only oxygen can supply, rather than the movement and heat of motion.
gases have many sources. i say again, oxides, nitrates, natural deposits. there is also the possibility that the molecules of instruments are altered, as all elements are made from the same atoms, just with minor tweaks. this happens all the time in chemistry. atoms can change.Yes, you have said before that gases have many sources. This has nothing to do with the fact that commercial oxygen & nitrogen gas production uses air as raw material. You have not addressed this fact in any way in any of your posts in this thread, instead you've tried to tip toe around the issue by listing materials that also contain oxygen. Yes, I do acknowledge that many materials contain oxygen. Those materials are not what commercially available oxygen & nitrogen are produced of, they're produced of air. Clear enough?
my communication with the aether is irrelevant here. i am not the only one who has heard it, many if not all of those who speak to god have no doubt heard the same, it simply gives me personal confirmation of what i say. my logic stands without it. the aether never told me that there was no air, it is not like that, it simply gave me minor details (such as the fact it longs to be whole) which fit into and completed my model.Your logic fails with or without voices in your head. Perhaps at this point, if you are willing to continue this exchange, you will actually address what we earlier agreed to be the facts: that if you do not breathe oxygen you die, and that oxygen & nitrogen gases are produced of air.
He already did that.I would have thought thd two different oxygen meters I use counts as evidence.
describe them, how they work, and how you know they're actually referencing oxygen. otherwise that's mere assertion.
He already did that.I would have thought thd two different oxygen meters I use counts as evidence.
describe them, how they work, and how you know they're actually referencing oxygen. otherwise that's mere assertion.
Can't you read?
He described a calibration process in a response to one of your posts which is illustrative of how we know that it's 'actually referencing oxygen'.He already did that.I would have thought thd two different oxygen meters I use counts as evidence.
describe them, how they work, and how you know they're actually referencing oxygen. otherwise that's mere assertion.
Can't you read?
would you care to point to where? i've seen only assertion. note especially the final request.
Summa summarum, fact remains that unless you breathe oxygen, you die.I'm glad we agree it's true. My possible presuppositions have nothing to do with it though, for one thing like Sokarul I use gas analyzers at my work. In nitrogen atmosphere they show 0% O2, in air they show 21%.
this is only true because you presuppose we breathe oxygen all the time.
Those materials are not what commercially available oxygen & nitrogen are produced of, they're produced of air.Can't you read? It is neither of those two things, it is fact. Perhaps You do not understand what the word fact implies? I have seen it done, I have worked with the hardware. Oxygen and nitrogen gases are made of air. Alternative processes are dramatically different and inefficient to produce the gases commercially.
assertion and presupposition
that if you do not breathe oxygen you die, and that oxygen & nitrogen gases are produced of air.That you have explained your thoughts on something with zero evidence to back up your views with does not mean you are right or that what you say is thus 'how it actually is'. It is still baseless speculation on your behalf, nothing more. I guarantee you can not produce a single real world example of a person surviving in oxygenless atmosphere.
still just assertion. i have explained how this actually works. if you disagree, that's your right, but don't act like i haven't explained this.
As a side note, it might be intriguing to have your opinion on what happens when we pump air out of a container. What is it that is being removed from the container? Definitely something is being removed, as the container's mass changes, pressure acting on the container changes, and perhaps most importantly we can observe a flow of gas coming out.You said earlier that there is no detectable aether near sea level. Rest of your response effectively illustrates your lack of experience in working with and measuring gases.
within the contain is aether. the pump actually just imparts motion onto it, and it takes a lot to stop aetheric motion given the thinness of it on earth. the friction is just not there. the flow of gas coming out it just force, and nothing is being removed, internal force just confuses any scale.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
So, please explain to me, why human blood when heading away from the lungs is red, meaning its carrying oxygen, and when it is returning to the lungs it is blue, meaning has no oxygen.
There exists a popular misconception that deoxygenated blood is blue and that blood only becomes red when it comes into contact with oxygen. Blood is never blue, but veins appear blue because light is diffused by skin.
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
So, please explain to me, why human blood when heading away from the lungs is red, meaning its carrying oxygen, and when it is returning to the lungs it is blue, meaning has no oxygen.
I wish people would stop quoting myths as facts.Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venous_bloodThere exists a popular misconception that deoxygenated blood is blue and that blood only becomes red when it comes into contact with oxygen. Blood is never blue, but veins appear blue because light is diffused by skin.
citing wikipedia, eh?Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
So, please explain to me, why human blood when heading away from the lungs is red, meaning its carrying oxygen, and when it is returning to the lungs it is blue, meaning has no oxygen.
I wish people would stop quoting myths as facts.Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venous_bloodThere exists a popular misconception that deoxygenated blood is blue and that blood only becomes red when it comes into contact with oxygen. Blood is never blue, but veins appear blue because light is diffused by skin.
citing wikipedia, eh?Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
So, please explain to me, why human blood when heading away from the lungs is red, meaning its carrying oxygen, and when it is returning to the lungs it is blue, meaning has no oxygen.
I wish people would stop quoting myths as facts.Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venous_bloodThere exists a popular misconception that deoxygenated blood is blue and that blood only becomes red when it comes into contact with oxygen. Blood is never blue, but veins appear blue because light is diffused by skin.
weak
Human blood when in the complete absence of oxygen is blue. When it is exposed to oxygen it turns red. This is observed fact. I hope we don't have to go over the basic anatomy of the human body.
So, please explain to me, why human blood when heading away from the lungs is red, meaning its carrying oxygen, and when it is returning to the lungs it is blue, meaning has no oxygen.
I wish people would stop quoting myths as facts.Quote from: /wiki/Venous_bloodThere exists a popular misconception that deoxygenated blood is blue and that blood only becomes red when it comes into contact with oxygen. Blood is never blue, but veins appear blue because light is diffused by skin.
I wish people would stop quoting myths as facts.
He described a calibration process in a response to one of your posts which is illustrative of how we know that it's 'actually referencing oxygen'.He already did that.I would have thought thd two different oxygen meters I use counts as evidence.
describe them, how they work, and how you know they're actually referencing oxygen. otherwise that's mere assertion.
Can't you read?
would you care to point to where? i've seen only assertion. note especially the final request.Summa summarum, fact remains that unless you breathe oxygen, you die.I'm glad we agree it's true. My possible presuppositions have nothing to do with it though, for one thing like Sokarul I use gas analyzers at my work. In nitrogen atmosphere they show 0% O2, in air they show 21%.
this is only true because you presuppose we breathe oxygen all the time.Those materials are not what commercially available oxygen & nitrogen are produced of, they're produced of air.Can't you read? It is neither of those two things, it is fact. Perhaps You do not understand what the word fact implies? I have seen it done, I have worked with the hardware. Oxygen and nitrogen gases are made of air. Alternative processes are dramatically different and inefficient to produce the gases commercially.
assertion and presuppositionthat if you do not breathe oxygen you die, and that oxygen & nitrogen gases are produced of air.That you have explained your thoughts on something with zero evidence to back up your views with does not mean you are right or that what you say is thus 'how it actually is'. It is still baseless speculation on your behalf, nothing more. I guarantee you can not produce a single real world example of a person surviving in oxygenless atmosphere.
still just assertion. i have explained how this actually works. if you disagree, that's your right, but don't act like i haven't explained this.As a side note, it might be intriguing to have your opinion on what happens when we pump air out of a container. What is it that is being removed from the container? Definitely something is being removed, as the container's mass changes, pressure acting on the container changes, and perhaps most importantly we can observe a flow of gas coming out.You said earlier that there is no detectable aether near sea level. Rest of your response effectively illustrates your lack of experience in working with and measuring gases.
within the contain is aether. the pump actually just imparts motion onto it, and it takes a lot to stop aetheric motion given the thinness of it on earth. the friction is just not there. the flow of gas coming out it just force, and nothing is being removed, internal force just confuses any scale.
I'm going to drop this now, it's just too absurd.
...not at all. The aether at see level is not detectable because it's explained away as other sources. It still exists.
Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
The burden of evidence is on you Jroweskeptic, I have been holding my breath and now I am starting to feel like I might pass out, why is that?It's only an assumption that oxygen meters show 21% in air and there's no evidence for oxygen/nitrogen production processes using air, so it must be that your thermal balance is disrupted because the aether isn't forcing the excess heat away from your body which is what breathing is for. You should stop holding your breath, aether might tell him you hurt it's feelings and who knows what would happen then.
The burden of evidence is on you Jroweskeptic, I have been holding my breath and now I am starting to feel like I might pass out, why is that?
We're not rejecting out of principle. We're rejecting it because it's nonsense. You see some people actually work with gases and are familiar with air liquefacation for an example, instead of coming up with silly ideas with zero connection to reality.The burden of evidence is on you Jroweskeptic, I have been holding my breath and now I am starting to feel like I might pass out, why is that?
how often must i explain why breathing is still necessary for you to actually listen rather than reject on principle?
you aren't reading a word i say, why should i have to keep repeating myself when you pay no attention whatsoever?
But if I am in a hot room, could I just avoid breathing altogether? Why can I drown in a hot tub?
The burden of evidence is on you Jroweskeptic, I have been holding my breath and now I am starting to feel like I might pass out, why is that?
how often must i explain why breathing is still necessary for you to actually listen rather than reject on principle?
you aren't reading a word i say, why should i have to keep repeating myself when you pay no attention whatsoever?
The burden of evidence is on you Jroweskeptic, I have been holding my breath and now I am starting to feel like I might pass out, why is that?
how often must i explain why breathing is still necessary for you to actually listen rather than reject on principle?
you aren't reading a word i say, why should i have to keep repeating myself when you pay no attention whatsoever?
I am not asking you to repeat yourself, I am asking you to provide evidence.
neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
Name one commercial O2/N2 production facility that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (http://) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you're quite an alchemist, aren't you.The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.
you're quite an alchemist, aren't you.The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.
Fusing hydrogens together by cooling it to produce oxygen is 'basic chemistry'. And it's not even hard. Producing elements from other elements isn't alchemy. Gotcha.you're quite an alchemist, aren't you.The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.
this is basic chemistry. i am not bringing any alchemy into this.
Fusing hydrogens together by cooling it to produce oxygen is 'basic chemistry'. And it's not even hard. Producing elements from other elements isn't alchemy. Gotcha.you're quite an alchemist, aren't you.The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.
this is basic chemistry. i am not bringing any alchemy into this.
Very surprising you still had nothing on the fact that commercial O2 is made of air.
Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
So now aether is not a force, but matter pushing against us? Would that not be air?How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
when have i ever said no mass? i've said negligible when close to earth.
So now aether is not a force, but matter pushing against us? Would that not be air?How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
when have i ever said no mass? i've said negligible when close to earth.
Sorry man, got to argue that point, cooling/heating is adding orThe chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.
nuclear transmutation achieves the same by bombarding it with loose particles, such as the electrons you say are removed. add into that the attractive charge between the protons and electrons, and repulsive charge between two protons, it seems an easy conclusion to reach.Sorry man, got to argue that point, cooling/heating is adding orThe chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.absorbingreleasing energy, which is in effect either changing electron energy levels, or removing/adding electrons. proton and neutrons are pretty much locked in the nucleus, not exactly but essentially. These energy levels are somewhat like orbits but not exactly the same. The higher the energy level or farther from the nucleus, the higher the energy level of the atom. So if you add energy in the form of heat the electrons (amount depends on energy added) changes to higher energy orbits. With enough energy added to the atom the electrons in the outermost energy level are released in a form of radiation. I am not that great with chemistry though.
Changing proton counts changes the basic element (atom level and up). This is what alchemists hundreds of years ago tried to do, much like lead and gold are 3 protons of difference in their respective elemental mass. They thought they could remove 3 protons by some means and create gold from the lead. Currently the only way we have achieved this transmutation is by adding enormous amounts of energy thus forcing the atom to shed almost all its electrons to change the atomic charge enough to release the protons. The amount of energy actually staggeringly high though, nuclear reactors do change one element to another but only with unstable (unequal charge balance between proton and electron) elements.
You cannot have mass without matter. It's simple physics.So now aether is not a force, but matter pushing against us? Would that not be air?How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
when have i ever said no mass? i've said negligible when close to earth.
aether is not matter. think of it as tangible energy. i refer you to my faq.
You haven't even skimmed it. Thus far you've listed alternative sources of O2 and called me a liar, that's about it. I notice that you were not able to mention a single facility commercially producing O2/N2 from something else than air. Now you're saying it's being done via nuclear fusion (but not alchemy). Quite the expert, you are.Fusing hydrogens together by cooling it to produce oxygen is 'basic chemistry'. And it's not even hard. Producing elements from other elements isn't alchemy. Gotcha.you're quite an alchemist, aren't you.The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.
this is basic chemistry. i am not bringing any alchemy into this.
Very surprising you still had nothing on the fact that commercial O2 is made of air.
nitrogen and oxygen are similar elements. the change isn't hard: nuclear transmutation is a simple principle. i directly answered your assertion about o2.
nuclear transmutation achieves the same by bombarding it with loose particles, such as the electrons you say are removed. add into that the attractive charge between the protons and electrons, and repulsive charge between two protons, it seems an easy conclusion to reach.Sorry man, got to argue that point, cooling/heating is adding orThe chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.absorbingreleasing energy, which is in effect either changing electron energy levels, or removing/adding electrons. proton and neutrons are pretty much locked in the nucleus, not exactly but essentially. These energy levels are somewhat like orbits but not exactly the same. The higher the energy level or farther from the nucleus, the higher the energy level of the atom. So if you add energy in the form of heat the electrons (amount depends on energy added) changes to higher energy orbits. With enough energy added to the atom the electrons in the outermost energy level are released in a form of radiation. I am not that great with chemistry though.
Changing proton counts changes the basic element (atom level and up). This is what alchemists hundreds of years ago tried to do, much like lead and gold are 3 protons of difference in their respective elemental mass. They thought they could remove 3 protons by some means and create gold from the lead. Currently the only way we have achieved this transmutation is by adding enormous amounts of energy thus forcing the atom to shed almost all its electrons to change the atomic charge enough to release the protons. The amount of energy actually staggeringly high though, nuclear reactors do change one element to another but only with unstable (unequal charge balance between proton and electron) elements.
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
The aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. Also explained before.
It's more than obvious from absurd, unevidenced claims such as this—and dozens of others just as ludicrous—that JRoweSkeptic has not the faintest of ideas about the sciences; chemistry, physics, gas laws, biology, mechanics, mass and weight, optical theory, weather and climate, potential and kinetic energy, hydraulics, atomic theory etc.
I've never seen somebody post so much science fiction—I can't even qualify it as pseudo-science it's so farfetched LOL.
If he went into publishing, he'd probably put L Ron Hubbard in the dark. ;D
It's more than obvious from absurd, unevidenced claims such as this—and dozens of others just as ludicrous—that JRoweSkeptic has not the faintest of ideas about the sciences; chemistry, physics, gas laws, biology, mechanics, mass and weight, optical theory, weather and climate, potential and kinetic energy, hydraulics, atomic theory etc.
I've never seen somebody post so much science fiction—I can't even qualify it as pseudo-science it's so farfetched LOL.
If he went into publishing, he'd probably put L Ron Hubbard in the dark. ;D
This.
It's more than obvious from absurd, unevidenced claims such as this—and dozens of others just as ludicrous—that JRoweSkeptic has not the faintest of ideas about the sciences; chemistry, physics, gas laws, biology, mechanics, mass and weight, optical theory, weather and climate, potential and kinetic energy, hydraulics, atomic theory etc.
I've never seen somebody post so much science fiction—I can't even qualify it as pseudo-science it's so farfetched LOL.
If he went into publishing, he'd probably put L Ron Hubbard in the dark. ;D
This.
very childish, isn't he? i've told him twice he's blocked, it says so in my signature, and yet he pops up in every thread trying to antagonize me. i've glimpsed a couple, i'm not responding because there's a reason i've blocked him (it's a waste of time, he's a broken record, clinging to the same few bs points). doesn't matter whether you're a round earther or flat eather, geoff's just petty. it's quite pathetic really.
You cannot have mass without matter. It's simple physics.So now aether is not a force, but matter pushing against us? Would that not be air?How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
when have i ever said no mass? i've said negligible when close to earth.
aether is not matter. think of it as tangible energy. i refer you to my faq.
If RE science doesn't work on a round earth, go reinvent all the laws of physics.You cannot have mass without matter. It's simple physics.So now aether is not a force, but matter pushing against us? Would that not be air?How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
when have i ever said no mass? i've said negligible when close to earth.
aether is not matter. think of it as tangible energy. i refer you to my faq.
energy can have mass, it's special relativity. shoehorning the aether into your narrow, unreliable, round earth science is doomed to fail.
i won't pretend to know everything about aether, science takes time and i do not have resources, i only deduce from observation. an alternative hypothesis would be aether is composed of neutrino or neutrino-like particles, but there's no reason to think that unless you insist on matter to impart mass. tangible energy is my preferred explanation as i don't hold to your closed-minded insistence, but it's not necessary.
every facility produces o2 and n2 without air, as there is no air. have you read a word i've said? you don't get to ignore my explanations and then pretend i haven't made any. straw men are obvious, and pretty pathetic.You haven't even skimmed it. Thus far you've listed alternative sources of O2 and called me a liar, that's about it. I notice that you were not able to mention a single facility commercially producing O2/N2 from something else than air. Now you're saying it's being done via nuclear fusion (but not alchemy). Quite the expert, you are.Fusing hydrogens together by cooling it to produce oxygen is 'basic chemistry'. And it's not even hard. Producing elements from other elements isn't alchemy. Gotcha.you're quite an alchemist, aren't you.The chemistry is hardly complicated. Heard of distilling? Someone even posted a youtube video demonstrating it. It was this, you can skip to 1min mark. (https://server9.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s9iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/snlffhcn/snop/p2/watch?v=qgqT9_sEHNE) Even I can understand that and I'm not someone claiming to revolutionize the field.Name one commercial producer of O2 and N2 that extracts them from anything but air. I guess you didn't look up what the word fact means. You must also must have missed what I said about how answering a forum post doesn't alter the facts and how I repeated that I've personally worked in facilities producing O2 and N2. Go on, say again that this is "just an assertion".neimoka, if you have nothing new to add, or nothing beyond assertion, go away.I'll go away when this stops amusing me. And having laughs on the loonier posters here usually amuses me quite a bit so you'll probably see me again.
Oh but I did have something to add - that you still haven't addressed the fact of O2 and N2 being produced of air.
i have. they are not, they come from oxides, nitrates and natural deposits. your repeated rejection does not mean i have not answered this multiple times.
if i had a dollar for every time some random person on a forum post suddenly has past experience in a relevant area, i'd be rich enough to buy one of those plants. you really think 'because i say so' is valid evidence online?
all of them do, as there is no air. clearly there is a complicated process that occurs, no one picks apart molecule and molecule apart. if you're seriously saying you understood every step of chemistry involved, why not do us a favor and provide it rather than what is clearly only assertion? be sure to also explain why any new chemicals involved could not have produced the gas.
You're the one to demand evidence =D Why not seek to visit a production site? Many factories have tours every now and then. I specifically do not think that saying it's so is valid evidence, this is exactly why saying "all of them do, as there is no air" is bs. Liquefacation of air is not an assertion. It is an observation. 'New chemicals' do not produce O2 out of nothing unless the new chemical is O2. Simple enough for you?
you dip a test tube into nitrogen and you're surprised you get nitrogen. that says a lot.
there's only a difference of one proton and electron between that and oxygen, it wouldn't be hard to get a change. cooling is a very stressful procedure, rapid cooling damages materials on a large scale, it seems reasonable it could do the same on a small.
this is basic chemistry. i am not bringing any alchemy into this.
Very surprising you still had nothing on the fact that commercial O2 is made of air.
nitrogen and oxygen are similar elements. the change isn't hard: nuclear transmutation is a simple principle. i directly answered your assertion about o2.
plants rely on photosynthesis: heat, and they withdraw nutrients from the ground. you cannot seriously act like the only possibly source of co2 is an air which is clearly not there.
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
No, it's far from simple.
Asserting that air doesn't exist requires a rethinking of almost every aspect of science, including biology.
Photosynthesis consists of converting water and carbon dioxide to sugar. The mechanics of it are more then well understood. Where does all the CO2 come from? Where does all the O2 left over from the process go? If neither CO2 goes in nor O2 goes out, how do plants make sugar? What is the water used for?
Cellular respiration is another well understood process that takes place in almost every living thing. If air doesn't exist, how do cells produce ATP? Where does all the C02 and H20 that comes out come from?
If RE science doesn't work on a round earth, go reinvent all the laws of physics.You cannot have mass without matter. It's simple physics.So now aether is not a force, but matter pushing against us? Would that not be air?How can something with no mass be thick or thin?Why is it harder to breathe on mountains, then? It must be just as easy to heat yourself up in a vacuum, regardless of height.Explain photosynthesis and cellular respiration without oxygen.
photosynthesis takes sunlight. the only cellular respiration i can find a mention of is an internal process with no dependence on air. what are you saying?
unless you're trying to go down the goldfinger route, but that's an urban legend.
none of that seems at all relevant.
Photosynthesis produces oxygen. If there is no air, where is the oxygen being produced by every plant cell on the planet going?
Cellular respiration is used by every living thing. Where is every cell in earth getting oxygen from?
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
the aether is thicker, so it is harder to inhale. also explained before.
when have i ever said no mass? i've said negligible when close to earth.
aether is not matter. think of it as tangible energy. i refer you to my faq.
energy can have mass, it's special relativity. shoehorning the aether into your narrow, unreliable, round earth science is doomed to fail.
i won't pretend to know everything about aether, science takes time and i do not have resources, i only deduce from observation. an alternative hypothesis would be aether is composed of neutrino or neutrino-like particles, but there's no reason to think that unless you insist on matter to impart mass. tangible energy is my preferred explanation as i don't hold to your closed-minded insistence, but it's not necessary.
plants rely on photosynthesis: heat, and they withdraw nutrients from the ground. you cannot seriously act like the only possibly source of co2 is an air which is clearly not there.
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
No, it's far from simple.
Asserting that air doesn't exist requires a rethinking of almost every aspect of science, including biology.
Photosynthesis consists of converting water and carbon dioxide to sugar. The mechanics of it are more then well understood. Where does all the CO2 come from? Where does all the O2 left over from the process go? If neither CO2 goes in nor O2 goes out, how do plants make sugar? What is the water used for?
Cellular respiration is another well understood process that takes place in almost every living thing. If air doesn't exist, how do cells produce ATP? Where does all the C02 and H20 that comes out come from?
you're seriously asking how h2o gets into a body? try going without drink, let me know what happens. for that matter, look up the goldfinger myth. you can survive with every inch of your body painted over; clearly no air is needed for that.
plants rely on photosynthesis: heat, and they withdraw nutrients from the ground. you cannot seriously act like the only possibly source of co2 is an air which is clearly not there.
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
No, it's far from simple.
Asserting that air doesn't exist requires a rethinking of almost every aspect of science, including biology.
Photosynthesis consists of converting water and carbon dioxide to sugar. The mechanics of it are more then well understood. Where does all the CO2 come from? Where does all the O2 left over from the process go? If neither CO2 goes in nor O2 goes out, how do plants make sugar? What is the water used for?
Cellular respiration is another well understood process that takes place in almost every living thing. If air doesn't exist, how do cells produce ATP? Where does all the C02 and H20 that comes out come from?
you're seriously asking how h2o gets into a body? try going without drink, let me know what happens. for that matter, look up the goldfinger myth. you can survive with every inch of your body painted over; clearly no air is needed for that.
Photosynthesis has nothing to do with heat. You obviously don't understand how it works. Regardless of where CO2 comes from, where does all the O2 that's produced go to?
No, I'm not. Do you even understand how cellular respiration works? H2O is a product of it, and O2 os needed for it. How does it work without the O2, and if no O2 is made, how does H2O come out?
plants rely on photosynthesis: heat, and they withdraw nutrients from the ground. you cannot seriously act like the only possibly source of co2 is an air which is clearly not there.
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
No, it's far from simple.
Asserting that air doesn't exist requires a rethinking of almost every aspect of science, including biology.
Photosynthesis consists of converting water and carbon dioxide to sugar. The mechanics of it are more then well understood. Where does all the CO2 come from? Where does all the O2 left over from the process go? If neither CO2 goes in nor O2 goes out, how do plants make sugar? What is the water used for?
Cellular respiration is another well understood process that takes place in almost every living thing. If air doesn't exist, how do cells produce ATP? Where does all the C02 and H20 that comes out come from?
you're seriously asking how h2o gets into a body? try going without drink, let me know what happens. for that matter, look up the goldfinger myth. you can survive with every inch of your body painted over; clearly no air is needed for that.
Photosynthesis has nothing to do with heat. You obviously don't understand how it works. Regardless of where CO2 comes from, where does all the O2 that's produced go to?
No, I'm not. Do you even understand how cellular respiration works? H2O is a product of it, and O2 os needed for it. How does it work without the O2, and if no O2 is made, how does H2O come out?
photosynthesis is based on sunlight. i doubt there's any produced that isn't found by the same flawed tactics, but if there is it'd probably be taken in by the plant again immediately.
no, i've no idea what you're going on about. tell you what, you tell me where the hydrogen comes from to create h2o. or maybe, just maybe, the body has other inputs. let's say, food and drink. wouldn't that be a radical thought?
plants rely on photosynthesis: heat, and they withdraw nutrients from the ground. you cannot seriously act like the only possibly source of co2 is an air which is clearly not there.
it doesn't, and they don't. pretty simple.
No, it's far from simple.
Asserting that air doesn't exist requires a rethinking of almost every aspect of science, including biology.
Photosynthesis consists of converting water and carbon dioxide to sugar. The mechanics of it are more then well understood. Where does all the CO2 come from? Where does all the O2 left over from the process go? If neither CO2 goes in nor O2 goes out, how do plants make sugar? What is the water used for?
Cellular respiration is another well understood process that takes place in almost every living thing. If air doesn't exist, how do cells produce ATP? Where does all the C02 and H20 that comes out come from?
you're seriously asking how h2o gets into a body? try going without drink, let me know what happens. for that matter, look up the goldfinger myth. you can survive with every inch of your body painted over; clearly no air is needed for that.
Photosynthesis has nothing to do with heat. You obviously don't understand how it works. Regardless of where CO2 comes from, where does all the O2 that's produced go to?
No, I'm not. Do you even understand how cellular respiration works? H2O is a product of it, and O2 os needed for it. How does it work without the O2, and if no O2 is made, how does H2O come out?
photosynthesis is based on sunlight. i doubt there's any produced that isn't found by the same flawed tactics, but if there is it'd probably be taken in by the plant again immediately.
no, i've no idea what you're going on about. tell you what, you tell me where the hydrogen comes from to create h2o. or maybe, just maybe, the body has other inputs. let's say, food and drink. wouldn't that be a radical thought?
Yes, photosynthesis is based on sunlight, but still it has nothing to do with.
photosynthesis is based on sunlight. i doubt there's any produced that isn't found by the same flawed tactics, but if there is it'd probably be taken in by the plant again immediately.
no, i've no idea what you're going on about. tell you what, you tell me where the hydrogen comes from to create h2o. or maybe, just maybe, the body has other inputs. let's say, food and drink. wouldn't that be a radical thought?
everything relies on heat. if you pit a plant in the hold, it would die even if you gave it some light with no heat.
photosynthesis is based on sunlight. i doubt there's any produced that isn't found by the same flawed tactics, but if there is it'd probably be taken in by the plant again immediately.
no, i've no idea what you're going on about. tell you what, you tell me where the hydrogen comes from to create h2o. or maybe, just maybe, the body has other inputs. let's say, food and drink. wouldn't that be a radical thought?
Yes, photosynthesis is based on sunlight, but it doesn't really have much to do with heat. Read up on how it works before you blatantly display your stupidity again. Let's see if you can understand this: in photosynthesis, 6 molecules of water and 6 molecules of CO2 go in. The goal of this process is to make glucose (C6H12O6). The six carbons come from the six molecules of CO2, the twelve hydrogens come from the six molecules of water, and the six oxygens also come from the water. As you can see, there are 6 molecules of O2 left over from the original six CO2 molecules.
The fact that you don't know how cellular respiration works means that you haven't passed a 9th grade sceince class. Just admit that you don't know, go read up on the process, and then come back.
everything relies on heat. if you pit a plant in the hold, it would die even if you gave it some light with no heat.
also, subzero is not 'no heat'.
everything relies on heat. if you pit a plant in the hold, it would die even if you gave it some light with no heat.
Plants only die in the cold because water in them freezes and expands which causes a lot of damage, however there are plants like pine trees that have sap with a really low freezing point to combat this. Pine trees never loose their leaves and photosynthesize even when it's snowing. Also, if you put a plant in a place where there is heat but no light then it will die.
we water plants. would you look at that, h2o. there are many nutrients in the soil naturally, such as co2 (which is also in fertilizer). everything is naturally provided for, with no air. o2 is then taken in, as plants would need it for better heat conduction, as they do not move like humans.
you're saying the only way humans get anything is from exposing their cells to air. that's wrong on two counts. i don't know what more needs to be said. admit it was a bad argument, and move on.
everything relies on heat. if you pit a plant in the hold, it would die even if you gave it some light with no heat.
Plants only die in the cold because water in them freezes and expands which causes a lot of damage, however there are plants like pine trees that have sap with a really low freezing point to combat this. Pine trees never loose their leaves and photosynthesize even when it's snowing. Also, if you put a plant in a place where there is heat but no light then it will die.
sure, i never said heat was all they needed.
it's amusing this has gained so much attention when it was only ever a minor part of my post (not even a point) that could happily be replaced with whatever you wanted with no impact on my point.
we water plants. would you look at that, h2o. there are many nutrients in the soil naturally, such as co2 (which is also in fertilizer). everything is naturally provided for, with no air. o2 is then taken in, as plants would need it for better heat conduction, as they do not move like humans.
you're saying the only way humans get anything is from exposing their cells to air. that's wrong on two counts. i don't know what more needs to be said. admit it was a bad argument, and move on.
No one is saying the way plants get water is a mystery. 02 is taken in through what process? What organelles do it?
No, air is provided to the cells through the circulatory system. O2 is brought from the lungs, and distributed around the body. (see? it's all coming together now)
Of course sub zero in'ts no heat, but it is certainly a small amount of heat. Also, please tell us which parts of photosynthesis make heat? Is that what your saying?
LogicalKiller, watch your language in the upper fora. This is not tolerated and you will be banned.
LogicalKiller, watch your language in the upper fora. This is not tolerated and you will be banned.
I've seen a man who written "f**k" so I thought I can swear in this low-content forum.
co2 is taken in through what process? what organelles do it?
heat is brought from the lungs, many chemicals are brought from, for example, what we eat and drink. there's oxygen in water, for one.
the whole heat point was a result of hasty typing, as anyone who actually thought about the situation would see, but i find it supremely foolish how you're saying it could occur with no heat. that is all.
co2 is taken in through what process? what organelles do it?
heat is brought from the lungs, many chemicals are brought from, for example, what we eat and drink. there's oxygen in water, for one.
the whole heat point was a result of hasty typing, as anyone who actually thought about the situation would see, but i find it supremely foolish how you're saying it could occur with no heat. that is all.
The stomata through diffusion. Was that supposed to be a stumper?
Water doesn't have enough oxygen to sustain us. Nothing breathes water. That's why we breath air, which brings me to another point- how do we get enough oxygen for our cells?
Fine, heat is a mute point. But you still can't argue that the point of photosynthesis is to produce heat.
no, just an example of how plants are fully capable of taking in gases.
fish breathe water, and humans can breathe liquid if sufficiently oxygenated. that doesn't matter, anyway, it is just a source of oxygen. you asked. asserting it's not enough doesn't make it true.
no, just an example of how plants are fully capable of taking in gases.
fish breathe water, and humans can breathe liquid if sufficiently oxygenated. that doesn't matter, anyway, it is just a source of oxygen. you asked. asserting it's not enough doesn't make it true.
Cool story bro,'cause plants use their stomata to diffuse CO2 from the air ;D
Fish don't breath water. They breathe dissolved oxygen. Please do research before you open your mouth.
You talk about how asserting something doesn't make it true, right after you claim humans can breathe oxygenated liquids, which is a blind assertion at best.
Is there some kind of conspiracy when they suck out air from a barrel and it implodes?
or alternatively, the oxygen they give out after taking in substances from the soil.
i know fish breathe dissolved oxygen. as i said, there's oxygen in water. which part of that were you struggling with?
look up liquid breathing. it's well documented. please do research before you open your mouth.
or alternatively, the oxygen they give out after taking in substances from the soil.
i know fish breathe dissolved oxygen. as i said, there's oxygen in water. which part of that were you struggling with?
look up liquid breathing. it's well documented. please do research before you open your mouth.
No...
The stomata are located on the leaves, not in the roots. There isn't much oxygen in dirt, which is why anaerobic organisms live underground. But I think we've lost my original argument. You claimed that the oxygen left over from photosynthesis is "taken in" by the plant for "heat convection". So how does a plant do this?
No...
You literally said "fish breath water". Dissolved oxygen is not part of water molecules, simply oxygen dissolved in water. Humans don't have any mechanism to take in dissolved oxygen. (We don't have gills)
No...
You can't just live by breathing Perfluorochemical (which is decidedly not water). You need a medical ventilator and other equipment, and can't do it for a sustained amount of time.
In fact, Perfluorochemical is twice as dense as water, which goes contradicts your assertion that humans can't breath with water in the lungs because water is "to heavy"
I think we can conclude that JRowe doesn't believe in air, and that his position is not going to change. You may as well debate something else - it's not as if no air is the only problem with his model.
You haven't even skimmed it. Thus far you've listed alternative sources of O2 and called me a liar, that's about it. I notice that you were not able to mention a single facility commercially producing O2/N2 from something else than air. Now you're saying it's being done via nuclear fusion (but not alchemy). Quite the expert, you are.every facility produces o2 and n2 without air, as there is no air. have you read a word i've said? you don't get to ignore my explanations and then pretend i haven't made any. straw men are obvious, and pretty pathetic.
I can't wait for him to re-write all science and come back with his new theory. I just know its going to involve tachyons, teleportation, and probably a bit of time-travel.
Dammit. College ruins all my ability to stay on top of these things. So he does believe that we need oxygen now?
I can't wait for him to re-write all science and come back with his new theory. I just know its going to involve tachyons, teleportation, and probably a bit of time-travel.
Of course these tachyons are made of aether, teleportation is including aether whirlpools obviously, and time travel is done by compressing thickest parts of aether.
Aaaand! Don't forget about aether!
pro tip: JRowe's brain is also made from aether ;)
I can't wait for him to re-write all science and come back with his new theory. I just know its going to involve tachyons, teleportation, and probably a bit of time-travel.
Of course these tachyons are made of aether, teleportation is including aether whirlpools obviously, and time travel is done by compressing thickest parts of aether.
Aaaand! Don't forget about aether!
pro tip: JRowe's brain is also made from aether ;)
i know you're trolling, but you're not entirely wrong. under the theory you're replying to, all matter results from aether, all elements were formed from it. (that's why the lighter float).
i wouldn't begin to speculate on time travel. it's possible aether could be used, in sufficient quantities, to cause a similar effect if, indeed, it is made of tachyons (which, as i said, is only speculation at this point).
however, there is an alternative theory, which directly answers many questions. you may prefer it. i'm not not yet sure as to that state of air under it.
I can't wait for him to re-write all science and come back with his new theory. I just know its going to involve tachyons, teleportation, and probably a bit of time-travel.
Of course these tachyons are made of aether, teleportation is including aether whirlpools obviously, and time travel is done by compressing thickest parts of aether.
Aaaand! Don't forget about aether!
pro tip: JRowe's brain is also made from aether ;)
i know you're trolling, but you're not entirely wrong. under the theory you're replying to, all matter results from aether, all elements were formed from it. (that's why the lighter float).
i wouldn't begin to speculate on time travel. it's possible aether could be used, in sufficient quantities, to cause a similar effect if, indeed, it is made of tachyons (which, as i said, is only speculation at this point).
however, there is an alternative theory, which directly answers many questions. you may prefer it. i'm not not yet sure as to that state of air under it.
First of all - how can you even base vast number of your theories on aether, that haven't been proved yet (e.g. by you).
Second of all - If aether can be lighter or heavier, then it's a matter itself.
I am uncertain as to what aether is, as many theories explain it.
it has observational evidence behind it. i suggest you look up 'observation'.If only you "discovered" aether by your "observations"from 7 100 000 000 people, then you must be simply wrong. Deal with it.
lighter and heavier are descriptions of the force it imparts.No. By force you must mean gravity. Nor higher gravity, nor lower gravity doesn't change the mass. And the mass is the amount of substance packed in. So aether must be a substance with mass, so we can say it's not faster than light, so we can say it has nothing to do with time travel or teleportation. That's all. I've just proved that your silly aether must be a matter if it has a mass.
i am uncertain as to what aether isYEAH, FINALLY!!!
it may be force and energy, it may be a tachyonic substance. the details do not matter, the properties do.There can't be energy without matter either mass (as you said it can be lighter or heavier). So yeah, we are crossing over this bullshit, next. Tachyons most probably, and I'm saying it with like 99,9% chance, so, most probably they don't exist. AND even if they existed... We proved already that aether must have a mass. So if it has a mass, it can't be faster than light. So it can't also be a tachyon, that is hipothetically faster than light. So we crossed over another bullshit, next. The details are extremely important, if not, then I could say that you're a flat-earther even without knowing you really are.
it has observational evidence behind it. i suggest you look up 'observation'.If only you "discovered" aether by your "observations"from 7 100 000 000 people, then you must be simply wrong. Deal with it.lighter and heavier are descriptions of the force it imparts.No. By force you must mean gravity. Nor higher gravity, nor lower gravity doesn't change the mass. And the mass is the amount of substance packed in. So aether must be a substance with mass, so we can say it's not faster than light, so we can say it has nothing to do with time travel or teleportation. That's all. I've just proved that your silly aether must be a matter if it has a mass.i am uncertain as to what aether isYEAH, FINALLY!!!it may be force and energy, it may be a tachyonic substance. the details do not matter, the properties do.There can't be energy without matter either mass (as you said it can be lighter or heavier). So yeah, we are crossing over this bullshit, next. Tachyons most probably, and I'm saying it with like 99,9% chance, so, most probably they don't exist. AND even if they existed... We proved already that aether must have a mass. So if it has a mass, it can't be faster than light. So it can't also be a tachyon, that is hipothetically faster than light. So we crossed over another bullshit, next. The details are extremely important, if not, then I could say that you're a flat-earther even without knowing you really are.
cheers
you are singularly unpleasant to talk with. stop with the all-caps and the obsession with semantics
you are singularly unpleasant to talk with. stop with the all-caps and the obsession with semantics (which i see your signature also reflects when i was clearly talking about dissolved oxygen). i am uncertain as to what aether is because there are many views that fit the facts, and i could take any one currently i learn towards the idea that it was the immaterial substance that once gave rise to matter, and that it emitted by matter as time goes by, but that is only one possibility. supposing that you must be right and that there is nothing outside your closed-mindedness is no way to talk. mass does not require matter, unless you persist in insisting it does: and blind persistence is no argument.
there are forces other than gravity. i have no idea what you're going on about now.
tachyons do have mass. learn some physics. the problem is approaching the speed of light, from above or below: tachyons do not have that problem, they already exceed it, and they can never slow down to the speed of light again.
you are singularly unpleasant to talk with. stop with the all-caps and the obsession with semantics (which i see your signature also reflects when i was clearly talking about dissolved oxygen). i am uncertain as to what aether is because there are many views that fit the facts, and i could take any one currently i learn towards the idea that it was the immaterial substance that once gave rise to matter, and that it emitted by matter as time goes by, but that is only one possibility. supposing that you must be right and that there is nothing outside your closed-mindedness is no way to talk. mass does not require matter, unless you persist in insisting it does: and blind persistence is no argument.
there are forces other than gravity. i have no idea what you're going on about now.
tachyons do have mass. learn some physics. the problem is approaching the speed of light, from above or below: tachyons do not have that problem, they already exceed it, and they can never slow down to the speed of light again.
you are singularly unpleasant to talk with. stop with the all-caps and the obsession with semantics (which i see your signature also reflects when i was clearly talking about dissolved oxygen). i am uncertain as to what aether is because there are many views that fit the facts, and i could take any one currently i learn towards the idea that it was the immaterial substance that once gave rise to matter, and that it emitted by matter as time goes by, but that is only one possibility. supposing that you must be right and that there is nothing outside your closed-mindedness is no way to talk. mass does not require matter, unless you persist in insisting it does: and blind persistence is no argument.
there are forces other than gravity. i have no idea what you're going on about now.
tachyons do have mass. learn some physics. the problem is approaching the speed of light, from above or below: tachyons do not have that problem, they already exceed it, and they can never slow down to the speed of light again.you are singularly unpleasant to talk with. stop with the all-caps and the obsession with semantics (which i see your signature also reflects when i was clearly talking about dissolved oxygen). i am uncertain as to what aether is because there are many views that fit the facts, and i could take any one currently i learn towards the idea that it was the immaterial substance that once gave rise to matter, and that it emitted by matter as time goes by, but that is only one possibility. supposing that you must be right and that there is nothing outside your closed-mindedness is no way to talk. mass does not require matter, unless you persist in insisting it does: and blind persistence is no argument.
there are forces other than gravity. i have no idea what you're going on about now.
tachyons do have mass. learn some physics. the problem is approaching the speed of light, from above or below: tachyons do not have that problem, they already exceed it, and they can never slow down to the speed of light again.
First of all - you clearly stated that fish can breath water. You haven't said that they breath oxygen dissolved in water, but just water, nuff said.
Second of all - and so because you don't know what even the aether is, you couldn't base your theories from ass on it.
Third of all - it can't be immaterial by 2 reasons. 1 - you don't know what it even is. 2 - it has energy, mass, it can be thicker, thinner, it can stretch and it can compress. So it has everything what simplest matter might has. But the most important point is that it carries energy. So yeah.
Fourth of all - If I could type a person to a close-minded cattegory, it would be you.
Fifth of all - conversely. The matter doesn't require the mass, but the mass must be a matter. It's not a blindness. It's an axiom. If something isn't the matter, then it must have no mass or energy, so it can't be thinner or thicker.
Sixth of all - if something can be thinner, thicker, heavier or lighter, then it has everything to do with a gravity and nothing else.
Seventh of all and last of all - tachyons are hypothetical, no. They haven't been even observed or didn't do anything that could bring on mind that tachyons exist. They're just a imaginary particule "invented" by Sci-Fi writers and no more, so I have not to learn physics [sic! you're the only one, no, you're the one of two people on this forum who needs solid portion of science], but you. Just look at what are you posting.
1. again, semantics. it is blindingly obvious what i mean by water, i did not think it was necessary to clarify because i assumed you would use your brains. evidently not.
2. i know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the details of something to know anything. again, you're arguing from semantics.
3. assertion based on supposing you're right.
4. hypocrite, at the very least. look at your past posts, how often have you actually addressed a point, how often have you decided to insult rather than engage?
5. axioms should not be falsifiable. this one is, it is not an axiom.
6. bs
7. it is a hypothetical particle that i have offered as speculation. that is all. they are not impossible, and have been mathematically described by physicists.
2. I know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the 100% of the details of something to know anything...
2. I know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the 100% of the details of something to know anything...
And yet this retarted moran can'r even cite a reference to any of them LOL. I wonder why? Well, not really. ;D
2. I know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the 100% of the details of something to know anything...
And yet this retarted moran can'r even cite a reference to any of them LOL. I wonder why? Well, not really. ;D
This.
1. again, semantics. it is blindingly obvious what i mean by water, i did not think it was necessary to clarify because i assumed you would use your brains. evidently not.
2. i know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the details of something to know anything. again, you're arguing from semantics.
3. assertion based on supposing you're right.
4. hypocrite, at the very least. look at your past posts, how often have you actually addressed a point, how often have you decided to insult rather than engage?
5. axioms should not be falsifiable. this one is, it is not an axiom.
6. bs
7. it is a hypothetical particle that i have offered as speculation. that is all. they are not impossible, and have been mathematically described by physicists.
1. Water and dissolved oxygen are two DIFFERENT terms. There is no simplest connection between those two words.
2. So what are its properties?
3. I'm right, it's obvious and it's axiomatic. There's nothing to argue about. Everything with energy is called matter, argue not with me, but with linguists.
4. In my comments there is a proportion (SPECIALLY FOR YOU :) FEEL HAPPY ;) of 80% of solid content and 20% of insulting.
5. I refer you to 3. point.
6. Why?
7. Everything you're offering is a pure speculation made by a peasant-thinker. How exactly tachyons were described by mathematics? Because every particule can be described by mathematic equations if its described in normal language, but the most important thing is how it's described?
1. again, semantics. it is blindingly obvious what i mean by water, i did not think it was necessary to clarify because i assumed you would use your brains. evidently not.
2. i know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the details of something to know anything. again, you're arguing from semantics.
3. assertion based on supposing you're right.
4. hypocrite, at the very least. look at your past posts, how often have you actually addressed a point, how often have you decided to insult rather than engage?
5. axioms should not be falsifiable. this one is, it is not an axiom.
6. bs
7. it is a hypothetical particle that i have offered as speculation. that is all. they are not impossible, and have been mathematically described by physicists.
1. Water and dissolved oxygen are two DIFFERENT terms. There is no simplest connection between those two words.
2. So what are its properties?
3. I'm right, it's obvious and it's axiomatic. There's nothing to argue about. Everything with energy is called matter, argue not with me, but with linguists.
4. In my comments there is a proportion (SPECIALLY FOR YOU :) FEEL HAPPY ;) of 80% of solid content and 20% of insulting.
5. I refer you to 3. point.
6. Why?
7. Everything you're offering is a pure speculation made by a peasant-thinker. How exactly tachyons were described by mathematics? Because every particule can be described by mathematic equations if its described in normal language, but the most important thing is how it's described?
1. you say the earth is round. that means you think it's a circle, as 'round' does not automatically mean 'sphere'. or even if you did say 'sphere', 'sphere' means something different to 'oblate spheroid'. see how pointless your semantics obsession is now? people don't bother to express every tiny irrelevant detail of what they're saying when it's a) not important and b) blindingly obvious to anyone reading. the oxygen is dissolved in water, it is entirely reasonable to say fish breathe water rather than 'fish breathe the oxygen dissolved in water' because everyone reading the sentence should see it means the latter if they are remotely capable of using their brains. apparently you are not. so go ahead, keep embarrassing yourself.
2. try reading the numerous posts i have used to explain what aether does. there you go, properties. i am refining my theory at the moment so i cannot give in depth details.
3. and you've switched definitions mid conversation, real smart there.
4. sure.
5. you obviously don't understand what an axiom is. axioms are things taken necessarily to define the field of study. if you could conceivably find evidence that disproves an axiom, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion that needs to be based on evidence.
6. your logic means a smoothie's actually made out of gravity. how is that not bs?
7. if you refuse to do any research, that's not my problem. equations exist and are used to describe particles, use a velocity above the speed of light and you get results. one such result is that the speed of light is a limit, which takes infinite energy to approach from either side. if you're faster than the speed of light, the challenge is in slowing down. they are mathematically coherent particles, and as i repeatedly say i am using them only as a possibility and speculation, not as fact.
2. Try reading the numerous posts I have used to explain what aether does. there you go, properties.
I am refining my theory at the moment so I cannot give in depth details.
1. again, semantics. it is blindingly obvious what i mean by water, i did not think it was necessary to clarify because i assumed you would use your brains. evidently not.
2. i know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the details of something to know anything. again, you're arguing from semantics.
3. assertion based on supposing you're right.
4. hypocrite, at the very least. look at your past posts, how often have you actually addressed a point, how often have you decided to insult rather than engage?
5. axioms should not be falsifiable. this one is, it is not an axiom.
6. bs
7. it is a hypothetical particle that i have offered as speculation. that is all. they are not impossible, and have been mathematically described by physicists.
1. Water and dissolved oxygen are two DIFFERENT terms. There is no simplest connection between those two words.
2. So what are its properties?
3. I'm right, it's obvious and it's axiomatic. There's nothing to argue about. Everything with energy is called matter, argue not with me, but with linguists.
4. In my comments there is a proportion (SPECIALLY FOR YOU :) FEEL HAPPY ;) of 80% of solid content and 20% of insulting.
5. I refer you to 3. point.
6. Why?
7. Everything you're offering is a pure speculation made by a peasant-thinker. How exactly tachyons were described by mathematics? Because every particule can be described by mathematic equations if its described in normal language, but the most important thing is how it's described?
1. you say the earth is round. that means you think it's a circle, as 'round' does not automatically mean 'sphere'. or even if you did say 'sphere', 'sphere' means something different to 'oblate spheroid'. see how pointless your semantics obsession is now? people don't bother to express every tiny irrelevant detail of what they're saying when it's a) not important and b) blindingly obvious to anyone reading. the oxygen is dissolved in water, it is entirely reasonable to say fish breathe water rather than 'fish breathe the oxygen dissolved in water' because everyone reading the sentence should see it means the latter if they are remotely capable of using their brains. apparently you are not. so go ahead, keep embarrassing yourself.
2. try reading the numerous posts i have used to explain what aether does. there you go, properties. i am refining my theory at the moment so i cannot give in depth details.
3. and you've switched definitions mid conversation, real smart there.
4. sure.
5. you obviously don't understand what an axiom is. axioms are things taken necessarily to define the field of study. if you could conceivably find evidence that disproves an axiom, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion that needs to be based on evidence.
6. your logic means a smoothie's actually made out of gravity. how is that not bs?
7. if you refuse to do any research, that's not my problem. equations exist and are used to describe particles, use a velocity above the speed of light and you get results. one such result is that the speed of light is a limit, which takes infinite energy to approach from either side. if you're faster than the speed of light, the challenge is in slowing down. they are mathematically coherent particles, and as i repeatedly say i am using them only as a possibility and speculation, not as fact.
1. Hahahah, I'm embarassing myself? You kidding? Pretty everybody on this forum would say that you're embarassing yourself everyday-all day. You can just say "fish breath oxygen". And after you said that fish breath water, you also said that people can also breath liquid, so yeah, no excuses.
2. You don't even know that if aether existed as you want, it would be a typical matter. By the way, remember to prove your "theory" because now it's no more than utter bullshit that came outta ass.
3. I haven't.
4. Trust me, I'm yoga-man.
5. I know what axioms are. Axioms are (most simply saying) admittedly true assertions that are like-facts. Matter is defined by having energy or not. If not, then it's not matter - that's an axiom. I have nothing to explain, we just determined matter as a thing that must carry energy and can have mass etc. etc.
6. What? What smoothie?
7. There can't be any particle that is faster than light. If so, it would have to have negative mass which is a total abstract. And - how could you define speed higher than light speed in mathematic way to define tachyons? How?
So to answer your question from many pages ago.
One of the oxygen meters I use can be connected to the atmosphere. To calibrate we first connect it to a nitrogen cylinder. After 10 minutes we set the reading to 0 percent. Then we switch to an oxygen cylinder. After 10 minutes we set the reading to 100 percent. Then we just leave it open to the atmosphere. It will read the accepted value of 20.8 percent. How is this possible?
1. again, semantics. it is blindingly obvious what i mean by water, i did not think it was necessary to clarify because i assumed you would use your brains. evidently not.
2. i know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the details of something to know anything. again, you're arguing from semantics.
3. assertion based on supposing you're right.
4. hypocrite, at the very least. look at your past posts, how often have you actually addressed a point, how often have you decided to insult rather than engage?
5. axioms should not be falsifiable. this one is, it is not an axiom.
6. bs
7. it is a hypothetical particle that i have offered as speculation. that is all. they are not impossible, and have been mathematically described by physicists.
1. Water and dissolved oxygen are two DIFFERENT terms. There is no simplest connection between those two words.
2. So what are its properties?
3. I'm right, it's obvious and it's axiomatic. There's nothing to argue about. Everything with energy is called matter, argue not with me, but with linguists.
4. In my comments there is a proportion (SPECIALLY FOR YOU :) FEEL HAPPY ;) of 80% of solid content and 20% of insulting.
5. I refer you to 3. point.
6. Why?
7. Everything you're offering is a pure speculation made by a peasant-thinker. How exactly tachyons were described by mathematics? Because every particule can be described by mathematic equations if its described in normal language, but the most important thing is how it's described?
1. you say the earth is round. that means you think it's a circle, as 'round' does not automatically mean 'sphere'. or even if you did say 'sphere', 'sphere' means something different to 'oblate spheroid'. see how pointless your semantics obsession is now? people don't bother to express every tiny irrelevant detail of what they're saying when it's a) not important and b) blindingly obvious to anyone reading. the oxygen is dissolved in water, it is entirely reasonable to say fish breathe water rather than 'fish breathe the oxygen dissolved in water' because everyone reading the sentence should see it means the latter if they are remotely capable of using their brains. apparently you are not. so go ahead, keep embarrassing yourself.
2. try reading the numerous posts i have used to explain what aether does. there you go, properties. i am refining my theory at the moment so i cannot give in depth details.
3. and you've switched definitions mid conversation, real smart there.
4. sure.
5. you obviously don't understand what an axiom is. axioms are things taken necessarily to define the field of study. if you could conceivably find evidence that disproves an axiom, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion that needs to be based on evidence.
6. your logic means a smoothie's actually made out of gravity. how is that not bs?
7. if you refuse to do any research, that's not my problem. equations exist and are used to describe particles, use a velocity above the speed of light and you get results. one such result is that the speed of light is a limit, which takes infinite energy to approach from either side. if you're faster than the speed of light, the challenge is in slowing down. they are mathematically coherent particles, and as i repeatedly say i am using them only as a possibility and speculation, not as fact.
1. Hahahah, I'm embarassing myself? You kidding? Pretty everybody on this forum would say that you're embarassing yourself everyday-all day. You can just say "fish breath oxygen". And after you said that fish breath water, you also said that people can also breath liquid, so yeah, no excuses.
2. You don't even know that if aether existed as you want, it would be a typical matter. By the way, remember to prove your "theory" because now it's no more than utter bullshit that came outta ass.
3. I haven't.
4. Trust me, I'm yoga-man.
5. I know what axioms are. Axioms are (most simply saying) admittedly true assertions that are like-facts. Matter is defined by having energy or not. If not, then it's not matter - that's an axiom. I have nothing to explain, we just determined matter as a thing that must carry energy and can have mass etc. etc.
6. What? What smoothie?
7. There can't be any particle that is faster than light. If so, it would have to have negative mass which is a total abstract. And - how could you define speed higher than light speed in mathematic way to define tachyons? How?
1. try reading a post. it's called simplification. i was relying on you thinking, which you're apparently incapable of. or, when you say the world's round, do you mean it's a circle?. and we can breathe liquid, look up liquid breathing. i think i know what i meant when i wrote something, thank you very much. i did not say fish breathed oxygen because a) it was clear by context (as you have made me repeatedly say) and b) clarification of liquid breathing was crucial to my point. literally the end of the sentence you're quoting is "it's just a source of oxygen". you really are illiterate.
2. try reading.
3. yes you did, unless you're falling back on assertion. read.
4. read.
5. assertion. you again fail to read a word i say.
6. read. seriously. are you incapable of reading a thread?
7. read.
every question you've asked has already been answered. why do you even come here if you're too lazy to read what's written for you? at this point, i don't care if you believe me, you're not even acknowledging a word i've written. you prefer to engage in snide remarks and insults and refuse to offer any intellectual content whatsoever. as soon as one of your points is dismissed, you desperately defend it illogically just because you don't want to lose even an irrelevant argument.
you're a child. it's almost laughable. if you're not mature enough to take part in a conversation, to let go of any point, or to read what's said, you shouldn't be here.
i'm not even annoyed. i'm just laughing at you.
IF I tell you how it works, are you going to claim that is also a property of aether? Did you make a list if aether properties yet?
1. again, semantics. it is blindingly obvious what i mean by water, i did not think it was necessary to clarify because i assumed you would use your brains. evidently not.
2. i know what it is from its properties, there are multiple theories on detailed properties. you cannot say that you need to know 100% of the details of something to know anything. again, you're arguing from semantics.
3. assertion based on supposing you're right.
4. hypocrite, at the very least. look at your past posts, how often have you actually addressed a point, how often have you decided to insult rather than engage?
5. axioms should not be falsifiable. this one is, it is not an axiom.
6. bs
7. it is a hypothetical particle that i have offered as speculation. that is all. they are not impossible, and have been mathematically described by physicists.
1. Water and dissolved oxygen are two DIFFERENT terms. There is no simplest connection between those two words.
2. So what are its properties?
3. I'm right, it's obvious and it's axiomatic. There's nothing to argue about. Everything with energy is called matter, argue not with me, but with linguists.
4. In my comments there is a proportion (SPECIALLY FOR YOU :) FEEL HAPPY ;) of 80% of solid content and 20% of insulting.
5. I refer you to 3. point.
6. Why?
7. Everything you're offering is a pure speculation made by a peasant-thinker. How exactly tachyons were described by mathematics? Because every particule can be described by mathematic equations if its described in normal language, but the most important thing is how it's described?
1. you say the earth is round. that means you think it's a circle, as 'round' does not automatically mean 'sphere'. or even if you did say 'sphere', 'sphere' means something different to 'oblate spheroid'. see how pointless your semantics obsession is now? people don't bother to express every tiny irrelevant detail of what they're saying when it's a) not important and b) blindingly obvious to anyone reading. the oxygen is dissolved in water, it is entirely reasonable to say fish breathe water rather than 'fish breathe the oxygen dissolved in water' because everyone reading the sentence should see it means the latter if they are remotely capable of using their brains. apparently you are not. so go ahead, keep embarrassing yourself.
2. try reading the numerous posts i have used to explain what aether does. there you go, properties. i am refining my theory at the moment so i cannot give in depth details.
3. and you've switched definitions mid conversation, real smart there.
4. sure.
5. you obviously don't understand what an axiom is. axioms are things taken necessarily to define the field of study. if you could conceivably find evidence that disproves an axiom, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion that needs to be based on evidence.
6. your logic means a smoothie's actually made out of gravity. how is that not bs?
7. if you refuse to do any research, that's not my problem. equations exist and are used to describe particles, use a velocity above the speed of light and you get results. one such result is that the speed of light is a limit, which takes infinite energy to approach from either side. if you're faster than the speed of light, the challenge is in slowing down. they are mathematically coherent particles, and as i repeatedly say i am using them only as a possibility and speculation, not as fact.
1. Hahahah, I'm embarassing myself? You kidding? Pretty everybody on this forum would say that you're embarassing yourself everyday-all day. You can just say "fish breath oxygen". And after you said that fish breath water, you also said that people can also breath liquid, so yeah, no excuses.
2. You don't even know that if aether existed as you want, it would be a typical matter. By the way, remember to prove your "theory" because now it's no more than utter bullshit that came outta ass.
3. I haven't.
4. Trust me, I'm yoga-man.
5. I know what axioms are. Axioms are (most simply saying) admittedly true assertions that are like-facts. Matter is defined by having energy or not. If not, then it's not matter - that's an axiom. I have nothing to explain, we just determined matter as a thing that must carry energy and can have mass etc. etc.
6. What? What smoothie?
7. There can't be any particle that is faster than light. If so, it would have to have negative mass which is a total abstract. And - how could you define speed higher than light speed in mathematic way to define tachyons? How?
1. try reading a post. it's called simplification. i was relying on you thinking, which you're apparently incapable of. or, when you say the world's round, do you mean it's a circle?. and we can breathe liquid, look up liquid breathing. i think i know what i meant when i wrote something, thank you very much. i did not say fish breathed oxygen because a) it was clear by context (as you have made me repeatedly say) and b) clarification of liquid breathing was crucial to my point. literally the end of the sentence you're quoting is "it's just a source of oxygen". you really are illiterate.
2. try reading.
3. yes you did, unless you're falling back on assertion. read.
4. read.
5. assertion. you again fail to read a word i say.
6. read. seriously. are you incapable of reading a thread?
7. read.
every question you've asked has already been answered. why do you even come here if you're too lazy to read what's written for you? at this point, i don't care if you believe me, you're not even acknowledging a word i've written. you prefer to engage in snide remarks and insults and refuse to offer any intellectual content whatsoever. as soon as one of your points is dismissed, you desperately defend it illogically just because you don't want to lose even an irrelevant argument.
you're a child. it's almost laughable. if you're not mature enough to take part in a conversation, to let go of any point, or to read what's said, you shouldn't be here.
i'm not even annoyed. i'm just laughing at you.
1. Circle is a 2 dimensional figure. Earth is almost a sphere. By the way, your logic - "because saying that fish breath oxygen is so obvious, I will write they breath liquid instead!" - awesome thinking again. Liquid breathing is experimental and not natural process and haven't been done on people.
2. What post I have to read you dumb freak?
3. It's not my assertion, I'm just right. If defining matter by a thing with energy hasn't been done by people, then what matter is?
4. What post I have to read you dumb freak?
5 and 6 and 7. What post I have to read you dumbfuck?
If every question has been answered, then why do you still answer on these, just pointed by other people? And what have you said to this?http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62690.0#.VQHBDI5y1co
IF I tell you how it works, are you going to claim that is also a property of aether? Did you make a list if aether properties yet?
IF I tell you how it works, are you going to claim that is also a property of aether? Did you make a list if aether properties yet?
yes. from my model thread:
It wants to be whole. Aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself
It is a state beyond matter, from which matter came, like tangible energy or immaterial mass
While it exists everywhere, the thinness at ground level is negligible.
IF I tell you how it works, are you going to claim that is also a property of aether? Did you make a list if aether properties yet?
yes. from my model thread:
It wants to be whole. Aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself
It is a state beyond matter, from which matter came, like tangible energy or immaterial mass
While it exists everywhere, the thinness at ground level is negligible.
If aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself, you'd just end up with globs of aether, much the way gravity clumps matter into planets.
Theory destroyed.
IF I tell you how it works, are you going to claim that is also a property of aether? Did you make a list if aether properties yet?
yes. from my model thread:
It wants to be whole. Aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself
It is a state beyond matter, from which matter came, like tangible energy or immaterial mass
While it exists everywhere, the thinness at ground level is negligible.
If aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself, you'd just end up with globs of aether, much the way gravity clumps matter into planets.
Theory destroyed.
you seem to have no understanding of the effect multiple currents of aether and movement can have on objects. in addition, the movement for thinner densities is minimal as there is not much to respond to the force. still, there is some motion (causing gravity as it is dragged to the terrestrial aether between the two disks), which is perpetuated by the constant movement of the flow as it is dragged out to the aether outside (and then attracted in over the gap above the earth, continuing). it's a constant flow. keyword, 'flow'.
yes. from my model thread:
It wants to be whole. Aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself
It is a state beyond matter, from which matter came, like tangible energy or immaterial mass
While it exists everywhere, the thinness at ground level is negligible.
Are you suggesting that the aether is self aware and sentient?
i also have personal experience and communication with the aether, but i know you won't accept that as evidence.
Everyone, everyone. Lets back up a second.
You talk to the aether?
i would not call it talking.
Like, mind melding or shared vision or what?
It didn't tell you to have sex with a baby turtle did it? Because I can tell you what that is.
i have no idea what you're talking about, i simply hear its voice. it wants to be whole, again. i did not know it was aether when i first heard it, but since learning, i see that is the only possible explanation for something that i can hear anywhere on earth, and that knows what it does.
it's very simple.
The list you gave is not a list of properties, a list of properties would have to at least be specific enough to make predictions with. Your current explanation is basically saying that whatever we observe happening is caused by aether and by that logic you can't even predict that a unicorn won't appear in my room in 5 seconds because if that did happen you would probably say it was the aether that put it there.
IF I tell you how it works, are you going to claim that is also a property of aether? Did you make a list if aether properties yet?
yes. from my model thread:
It wants to be whole. Aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself
It is a state beyond matter, from which matter came, like tangible energy or immaterial mass
While it exists everywhere, the thinness at ground level is negligible.
If aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself, you'd just end up with globs of aether, much the way gravity clumps matter into planets.
Theory destroyed.
you seem to have no understanding of the effect multiple currents of aether and movement can have on objects. in addition, the movement for thinner densities is minimal as there is not much to respond to the force. still, there is some motion (causing gravity as it is dragged to the terrestrial aether between the two disks), which is perpetuated by the constant movement of the flow as it is dragged out to the aether outside (and then attracted in over the gap above the earth, continuing). it's a constant flow. keyword, 'flow'.
To be fair - you also have no understanding of the effect multiple currents of aether and movement can have on objects.
Tell me, if you have such a good understanding of aether and its properties, how come it doesn't interfere with the P5 force?
The list you gave is not a list of properties, a list of properties would have to at least be specific enough to make predictions with. Your current explanation is basically saying that whatever we observe happening is caused by aether and by that logic you can't even predict that a unicorn won't appear in my room in 5 seconds because if that did happen you would probably say it was the aether that put it there.
Aether can do that. It's true. But watch out, because it will also steal all the feathers out of your pillows.
yes. from my model thread:
The list you gave is not a list of properties, a list of properties would have to at least be specific enough to make predictions with. Your current explanation is basically saying that whatever we observe happening is caused by aether and by that logic you can't even predict that a unicorn won't appear in my room in 5 seconds because if that did happen you would probably say it was the aether that put it there.It wants to be whole. Aether is attracted to thicker densities of itself
And yet you think gravity is ridiculous... And what do you mean by the aether "wants" to be whole? Are you suggesting that the aether is self aware and sentient?It is a state beyond matter, from which matter came, like tangible energy or immaterial mass
... or coldish-hot, or the size of a rock, or up to 15% or more... Is it even possible for that description to be more vague? you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.While it exists everywhere, the thinness at ground level is negligible.
But it's apparently thick enough to effect pendulums and gyroscopes and cause the Coriolis effect.
i apologize, yet again, for not having billions of dollars worth of resources. what exactly is it you want that could realistically be achieved by one person with now equipment?! what are you smoking?
put the slightest bit of thought into your words before you make such absurd demands again.
predictions may be made (we will be drawn to the earth's surface etc) but they are things you've already explained away with a fiction.
why would aether not be aware?
the aether does affect us, what are you on about? again, it keeps us on the earth's surface. the upwards force is what is minimal. please, read rather than making stuff up.
dual earth theory. dual earth theory. balloon. the sea rises due to heat.i apologize, yet again, for not having billions of dollars worth of resources. what exactly is it you want that could realistically be achieved by one person with now equipment?! what are you smoking?
put the slightest bit of thought into your words before you make such absurd demands again.
predictions may be made (we will be drawn to the earth's surface etc) but they are things you've already explained away with a fiction.
why would aether not be aware?
the aether does affect us, what are you on about? again, it keeps us on the earth's surface. the upwards force is what is minimal. please, read rather than making stuff up.
If you can't explain everything then you can just explain why the south star is always south of the observer and never visible from the northern hemisphere.
If you can't explain that they tell me why stars have a constant angular size and distance. If you can't explain that then explain why we can see the ISS with the naked eye.
If you can't explain that then explain why boats appear to disappear bottom first as they get further away from you.
If you can't explain that then explain to me why you still believe in FET despite not being able to describe any of those things.
dual earth theory. dual earth theory. balloon. the sea rises due to heat.
easy. do you put any thought into your posts, or just regurgitate the same old bs that's been debunked time and time again?
dual earth theory. dual earth theory. balloon. the sea rises due to heat.
easy. do you put any thought into your posts, or just regurgitate the same old bs that's been debunked time and time again?
You think that the ISS is a balloon traveling at 17,150 miles per hour? Do you have any idea how fast that is?
or maybe it's lower down and not that fast.
do you put any thought into what you say, or do you just insist on shoehorning everything into your bs fantasy of a round earth, no matter what?
think. just put any thought into what you're saying.
or maybe it's lower down and not that fast.
do you put any thought into what you say, or do you just insist on shoehorning everything into your bs fantasy of a round earth, no matter what?
think. just put any thought into what you're saying.
If it's really going lower and faster then we are told then it would still have to be going ridiculously high and fast in order to be seen from as far away as it can.
assertion. try to provide some actual evidence. you're the one who's always asking for math no matter how impractical it is: now's your time to shine. please provide the numbers that show you're right, and show that there's no conceivable vehicle that could move at those speeds.
assertion. try to provide some actual evidence. you're the one who's always asking for math no matter how impractical it is: now's your time to shine. please provide the numbers that show you're right, and show that there's no conceivable vehicle that could move at those speeds.
The ISS appears to be moving significantly faster then a plane, and most planes go well over 500 miles per hour. The ISS can be seen from further away then a plane by a factor of well over 100. It's not rocket science.
Try to provide some actual evidence.
...further away may just be a function of size, and would be incredibly hard for anyone to verify so may just be untrue.This comment just shows that you have no understanding of trigonometry or geometry.
you can just explain why the south star is always south of the observer and never visible from the northern hemisphere.
you can just explain why the south star is always south of the observer and never visible from the northern hemisphere.
What is "the south star" and why have I never heard of this star before?
you can just explain why the south star is always south of the observer and never visible from the northern hemisphere.
What is "the south star" and why have I never heard of this star before?
Sigma Octantis is a magnitude 5.42 star in the constellation Octans most notable for being the current South Star.
you can just explain why the south star is always south of the observer and never visible from the northern hemisphere.
What is "the south star" and why have I never heard of this star before?
I am talking about Sigma Octantis.
This is from Wikipedia:QuoteSigma Octantis is a magnitude 5.42 star in the constellation Octans most notable for being the current South Star.
Despite what Wikipedia says, and acknowledging that Sigma Octantis is the southernmost star visible to the naked eye, I have never heard it referred to as "the south star" in any astronomy book, magazine, or article that I have ever read in my twenty five years in the hobby.
If all of this is true, you should have known what he was referring to.you can just explain why the south star is always south of the observer and never visible from the northern hemisphere.
What is "the south star" and why have I never heard of this star before?
I am talking about Sigma Octantis.
This is from Wikipedia:QuoteSigma Octantis is a magnitude 5.42 star in the constellation Octans most notable for being the current South Star.
Despite what Wikipedia says, and acknowledging that Sigma Octantis is the southernmost star visible to the naked eye, I have never heard it referred to as "the south star" in any astronomy book, magazine, or article that I have ever read in my twenty five years in the hobby.
If all of this is true, you should have known what he was referring to.
Despite what Wikipedia says, and acknowledging that Sigma Octantis is the southernmost star visible to the naked eye, I have never heard it referred to as "the south star" in any astronomy book, magazine, or article that I have ever read in my twenty five years in the hobby.
assertion. try to provide some actual evidence. you're the one who's always asking for math no matter how impractical it is: now's your time to shine. please provide the numbers that show you're right, and show that there's no conceivable vehicle that could move at those speeds.
The ISS appears to be moving significantly faster then a plane, and most planes go well over 500 miles per hour. The ISS can be seen from further away then a plane by a factor of well over 100. It's not rocket science.
further away may just be a function of size, and would be incredibly hard for anyone to verify so may just be untrue.
i ask again for some of the math you're so fond of rather than just assertion. you keep demanding equations of me, why are you unable to provide them yourself?
show me what speed it would be going depending on altitude, show me how you know that, show me the height it would need to be to move as fast as a plane, and show me no vehicle could possibly go as fast at a reasonable altitude.
this is what you're saying must be the case, i'm asking for the math to prove it. you always ask for it, how about you supply it for once?
Just for sh*ts and giggles.Don't you know that what "they" do is create useful things to lure you into believing them!!!!! That way, once "they" gain you trust, you are more easily duped... ::) ;D
Why we cannot trust scientists...
Says the man on the Internet, created by computer scientitsts,
Using electricity, which we harnessed because of physicists like James Maxwell,
Sitting in a heated/air conditioned room, thanks to thermodynamics,
Wearing clothes that have man made fibers, thanks chemists,
Eating great food that can be grown because of the green revolution led by Norman Boraug, a biologist,
etc.
assertion. try to provide some actual evidence. you're the one who's always asking for math no matter how impractical it is: now's your time to shine. please provide the numbers that show you're right, and show that there's no conceivable vehicle that could move at those speeds.
The ISS appears to be moving significantly faster then a plane, and most planes go well over 500 miles per hour. The ISS can be seen from further away then a plane by a factor of well over 100. It's not rocket science.
further away may just be a function of size, and would be incredibly hard for anyone to verify so may just be untrue.
i ask again for some of the math you're so fond of rather than just assertion. you keep demanding equations of me, why are you unable to provide them yourself?
show me what speed it would be going depending on altitude, show me how you know that, show me the height it would need to be to move as fast as a plane, and show me no vehicle could possibly go as fast at a reasonable altitude.
this is what you're saying must be the case, i'm asking for the math to prove it. you always ask for it, how about you supply it for once?
To provide math I would need to know how to calculate viability distance on a flat Earth. I know how to calculate it on a round Earth, but I am sure that you won't accept such calculations on the premise that they assume a round Earth. Tell me hoe I can find horizon distance based on height on a flat Earth and I will provide you math to prove myself.
assertion. try to provide some actual evidence. you're the one who's always asking for math no matter how impractical it is: now's your time to shine. please provide the numbers that show you're right, and show that there's no conceivable vehicle that could move at those speeds.
The ISS appears to be moving significantly faster then a plane, and most planes go well over 500 miles per hour. The ISS can be seen from further away then a plane by a factor of well over 100. It's not rocket science.
further away may just be a function of size, and would be incredibly hard for anyone to verify so may just be untrue.
i ask again for some of the math you're so fond of rather than just assertion. you keep demanding equations of me, why are you unable to provide them yourself?
show me what speed it would be going depending on altitude, show me how you know that, show me the height it would need to be to move as fast as a plane, and show me no vehicle could possibly go as fast at a reasonable altitude.
this is what you're saying must be the case, i'm asking for the math to prove it. you always ask for it, how about you supply it for once?
To provide math I would need to know how to calculate viability distance on a flat Earth. I know how to calculate it on a round Earth, but I am sure that you won't accept such calculations on the premise that they assume a round Earth. Tell me hoe I can find horizon distance based on height on a flat Earth and I will provide you math to prove myself.
so you can't provide any math to support your view, despite your persistent insistence that i do the same, and yet you expect me to take your word for it?
you've made my point and your hypocrisy clearer than i ever could.
When I was getting my degree in chemistry I had to take a semester at Hogwarts.
No, this is a failure of FET. Flat earthers can't even explain why I can't see Las Vegas (which I am relatively close to) from where I am, let alone provide equations to make calculations about it.
No, this is a failure of FET. Flat earthers can't even explain why I can't see Las Vegas (which I am relatively close to) from where I am, let alone provide equations to make calculations about it.
There are plenty of calculations.
The reason you can't see that far is simple. The atmosphere is dense. The fact that you've overlooked this is baffling, almost like you did it on purpose.
No, this is a failure of FET. Flat earthers can't even explain why I can't see Las Vegas (which I am relatively close to) from where I am, let alone provide equations to make calculations about it.
There are plenty of calculations.
The reason you can't see that far is simple. The atmosphere is dense. The fact that you've overlooked this is baffling, almost like you did it on purpose.
Could you provide me with an equasion to calculate this?
Also, why is it that you can see things from further away if you are higher up and why do things disapear bottom first as you get further away from them?
No, this is a failure of FET. Flat earthers can't even explain why I can't see Las Vegas (which I am relatively close to) from where I am, let alone provide equations to make calculations about it.
There are plenty of calculations.
The reason you can't see that far is simple. The atmosphere is dense. The fact that you've overlooked this is baffling, almost like you did it on purpose.
Could you provide me with an equasion to calculate this?
Also, why is it that you can see things from further away if you are higher up and why do things disapear bottom first as you get further away from them?
mikeman7918. You know damn well that both of these questions have been answered numerous times. Here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect)is the answer for the sinking ship effect, and here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance)is the answer for altitude. Playing dumb is not going to reinforce any of your points.
mikeman, do you know how cameras work?Why the misdirect? Can't provide a proper rebuttal? As of now, no flat earther has shown a ship come back into view when past the horizon.
mikeman, do you know how cameras work?Why the misdirect? Can't provide a proper rebuttal? As of now, no flat earther has shown a ship come back into view when past the horizon.
Cameras put object behind horizons now? That's news to me.mikeman, do you know how cameras work?Why the misdirect? Can't provide a proper rebuttal? As of now, no flat earther has shown a ship come back into view when past the horizon.
It's not a misdirect. It's a relevant question. mikeman clearly doesn't know how a camera works, otherwise he wouldn't use a photo of the horizon as a rebuttal. Pretty simple really.
mikeman, do you know how cameras work?Why the misdirect? Can't provide a proper rebuttal? As of now, no flat earther has shown a ship come back into view when past the horizon.
It's not a misdirect. It's a relevant question. mikeman clearly doesn't know how a camera works, otherwise he wouldn't use a photo of the horizon as a rebuttal. Pretty simple really.
The reason you can't see that far is simple. The atmosphere is dense.
mikeman, do you know how cameras work?That's a bit much coming from you. Care to extrapolate on how the imaging apparatus hides the bottom parts behind the horizon, and how and why the recorded image differs from what is visually observed using the same optical system?
The reason you can't see that far is simple. The atmosphere is dense.
LOL... and yet the atmosphere is apparently not "dense" enough to stop us clearly seeing the moon 384,000km away from us with the naked eye?
Strange that.
The reason you can't see that far is simple. The atmosphere is dense.
LOL... and yet the atmosphere is apparently not "dense" enough to stop us clearly seeing the moon 384,000km away from us with the naked eye?
Strange that.
The reason you can't see that far is simple. The atmosphere is dense.
LOL... and yet the atmosphere is apparently not "dense" enough to stop us clearly seeing the moon 384,000km away from us with the naked eye?
Strange that.
You do realize that there is only a small amount of air between the Earth and moon, right? You seem to think that the atmoplane extends all the way to the moon.
mikeman, do you know how cameras work?That's a bit much coming from you. Care to extrapolate on how the imaging apparatus hides the bottom parts behind the horizon, and how and why the recorded image differs from what is visually observed using the same optical system?
To be fair I never saw anyone claim that a camera obscura needed computer or image processing. I expected more from you there Vaux.mikeman, do you know how cameras work?That's a bit much coming from you. Care to extrapolate on how the imaging apparatus hides the bottom parts behind the horizon, and how and why the recorded image differs from what is visually observed using the same optical system?
This coming from someone who thought the camera obscura couldn't work without the use of computer processing in ancient China? I am truly shocked. Forgive me if I don't seem too worried about your refutation here.
As far as the atmoplane works, it gets less dense the higher up you go... So looking to the sky is naturally going to be easier than looking straight ahead. Also, Geoff's claims that humans can see 380,000kms has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.
Also the saying that the human eye cannot see past a certain point is utterly false. There are defining qualities that determine if you can see the object. If something is large enough and reflects or give off enough light, it can bee seen from a great distance.
Your lies and strawmen are weak and what's worse, not clever or amusing. Why is it that every other of my responses to you contains "where did I say that..." and you always act as if nothing happened? So, where did I say that you'd need a computer? I didn't, you twerp.mikeman, do you know how cameras work?That's a bit much coming from you. Care to extrapolate on how the imaging apparatus hides the bottom parts behind the horizon, and how and why the recorded image differs from what is visually observed using the same optical system?
This coming from someone who thought the camera obscura couldn't work without the use of computer processing in ancient China? I am truly shocked. Forgive me if I don't seem too worried about your refutation here.
I've told you before, but I'll say it again: without processing there is no image that you could look at.
Why do you cdy about evidence in one thread and then mention phlogiston in this thread?Also the saying that the human eye cannot see past a certain point is utterly false. There are defining qualities that determine if you can see the object. If something is large enough and reflects or give off enough light, it can bee seen from a great distance.
This is true, which is why the calcite moon and phlogiston sun are easily visible from far distances.... however, buildings and ships near the horizon are not as bright as the sun or the moon which is why they start to trick the eye at far distances.
Why do you cdy about evidence in one thread and then mention phlogiston in this thread?
Also you are no longer allowed to complain about dark matter.
Says the guy who told me never to respond to him. It works both ways.Why do you cdy about evidence in one thread and then mention phlogiston in this thread?
Also you are no longer allowed to complain about dark matter.
I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to tell me what to do?
Who are you to ask for evidence of anything when dark matter has none? This works both ways, sokarul.
Says the guy who told me never to respond to him. It works both ways.Why do you cdy about evidence in one thread and then mention phlogiston in this thread?
Also you are no longer allowed to complain about dark matter.
I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to tell me what to do?
Who are you to ask for evidence of anything when dark matter has none? This works both ways, sokarul.
We provided evidence. You have to ignore all of chemistry. See the difference?
Out of context and you know it. They were talking about digital images. Also once again, recorded image, not projected.
Also, Geoff's claims that humans can see 380,000kms has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.
Also, Geoff's claims that humans can see 380,000kms has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.
Uh... no it hasn't. Are you seriously claiming that you can't see—with your naked eye— a couple of the brightest planets in our skies, Venus or Mars?
If that's in fact true, then I can only suggest you visit an ophthalmologist with all due speed. :o
You don't understand how light works.
You don't understand how light works.
Who said chemistry related to dark matter?Says the guy who told me never to respond to him. It works both ways.Why do you cdy about evidence in one thread and then mention phlogiston in this thread?
Also you are no longer allowed to complain about dark matter.
I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to tell me what to do?
Who are you to ask for evidence of anything when dark matter has none? This works both ways, sokarul.
We provided evidence. You have to ignore all of chemistry. See the difference?
Please explain how chemistry relates to dark matter.
A more lucid reader might have noticed the absence of the word computer. I'm guessing you are about to debunk that films needed processing too, as did glass plates before that. Is it still unclear to you that any technique we commonly consider photography requires processing to generate a lasting viewable image?I've told you before, but I'll say it again: without processing there is no image that you could look at.
A more lucid reader might have noticed the absence of the word computer. I'm guessing you are about to debunk that films needed processing too, as did glass plates before that. Is it still unclear to you that any technique we commonly consider photography requires processing to generate a lasting viewable image?I've told you before, but I'll say it again: without processing there is no image that you could look at.
Pray tell which word's definition I've changed.A more lucid reader might have noticed the absence of the word computer. I'm guessing you are about to debunk that films needed processing too, as did glass plates before that. Is it still unclear to you that any technique we commonly consider photography requires processing to generate a lasting viewable image?I've told you before, but I'll say it again: without processing there is no image that you could look at.
How can anything be clear when you keep changing the definition of words?
At 3 km we might barely make out the headlights on a car.
I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?
all that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.
You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?
all that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?Quoteall that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
Can you please follow along? I didn't assert anything, you did. You made the claim that paramagentic oxygen meters detect aether, not oxygen. I then asked why the meter will detect zero anything when nitrogen flows through the meter. So why does the meter not detect anything when hooked up to a nitrogen gas cylinder? Is there no aether in a nitrogen gas cylinder? Then I asked why the meter will detect a high reading when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up. So, why does the meter register a high value when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up? Do oxygen cylinders really contain high amounts of aether?You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?Quoteall that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
so, at first you assert, now you're arguing an odd coincidence is an argument.
it's not even a coincidence, it's a cause.
it acts the same way as oxygen because we saw that behavior and assumed, out of all the possibilities, it was oxygen. that's circular. if it acted a different way you'd be asking me why it acted like helium.But then what about other detectors? I have hydrogen cyanide and H2S meters for safety and SO2 and hydrogen meters for other analysis. Aether can't be responsiblele for everything. But you now know this, which is why you didn't comment any further on the dissolved oxygen meter.
Can you please follow along? I didn't assert anything, you did. You made the claim that paramagentic oxygen meters detect aether, not oxygen. I then asked why the meter will detect zero anything when nitrogen flows through the meter. So why does the meter not detect anything when hooked up to a nitrogen gas cylinder? Is there no aether in a nitrogen gas cylinder? Then I asked why the meter will detect a high reading when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up. So, why does the meter register a high value when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up? Do oxygen cylinders really contain high amounts of aether?You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?Quoteall that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
so, at first you assert, now you're arguing an odd coincidence is an argument.Quoteit's not even a coincidence, it's a cause.
Then why as stated above do nitrogen cylinders run zero and oxygen cylinders run 100% oxygen and then when hooked up to air, they read the 20.8% which is the accepted value of oxygen for air?Quoteit acts the same way as oxygen because we saw that behavior and assumed, out of all the possibilities, it was oxygen. that's circular. if it acted a different way you'd be asking me why it acted like helium.But then what about other detectors? I have hydrogen cyanide and H2S meters for safety and SO2 and hydrogen meters for other analysis. Aether can't be responsiblele for everything. But you now know this, which is why you didn't comment any further on the dissolved oxygen meter.
So I will ask, how can water with a set conductivity of 1 ohm, have multiple readings of dissolved oxygen?
Have you not read what he said?
The conductivity of the water does not change. The levels of oxygen are changing. Conductivity stays the same.
Everything I posted shows you to be wrong. You will notice you were unableto address any of my claims directly. You had to just be very vague.Can you please follow along? I didn't assert anything, you did. You made the claim that paramagentic oxygen meters detect aether, not oxygen. I then asked why the meter will detect zero anything when nitrogen flows through the meter. So why does the meter not detect anything when hooked up to a nitrogen gas cylinder? Is there no aether in a nitrogen gas cylinder? Then I asked why the meter will detect a high reading when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up. So, why does the meter register a high value when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up? Do oxygen cylinders really contain high amounts of aether?You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?Quoteall that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
so, at first you assert, now you're arguing an odd coincidence is an argument.Quoteit's not even a coincidence, it's a cause.
Then why as stated above do nitrogen cylinders run zero and oxygen cylinders run 100% oxygen and then when hooked up to air, they read the 20.8% which is the accepted value of oxygen for air?Quoteit acts the same way as oxygen because we saw that behavior and assumed, out of all the possibilities, it was oxygen. that's circular. if it acted a different way you'd be asking me why it acted like helium.But then what about other detectors? I have hydrogen cyanide and H2S meters for safety and SO2 and hydrogen meters for other analysis. Aether can't be responsiblele for everything. But you now know this, which is why you didn't comment any further on the dissolved oxygen meter.
So I will ask, how can water with a set conductivity of 1 ohm, have multiple readings of dissolved oxygen?
your oxygen meters do not measure oxygen, they measure certain events of which oxygen is one cause. for example, the conductivity of water may be altered by several things. oxygen is one, aether is another. they match similarly, but that's because people assume we live in air: when they measured the aether, they looked for the most likely gas for a cause, and answered with oxygen (in addition to the other compounds).
please try to keep up.
From my linkHave you not read what he said?
The conductivity of the water does not change. The levels of oxygen are changing. Conductivity stays the same.
would you care to explain how the levels of oxygen are detected in water, if the resistance does not change?
Everything I posted shows you to be wrong. You will notice you were unableto address any of my claims directly. You had to just be very vague.Can you please follow along? I didn't assert anything, you did. You made the claim that paramagentic oxygen meters detect aether, not oxygen. I then asked why the meter will detect zero anything when nitrogen flows through the meter. So why does the meter not detect anything when hooked up to a nitrogen gas cylinder? Is there no aether in a nitrogen gas cylinder? Then I asked why the meter will detect a high reading when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up. So, why does the meter register a high value when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up? Do oxygen cylinders really contain high amounts of aether?You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?Quoteall that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
so, at first you assert, now you're arguing an odd coincidence is an argument.Quoteit's not even a coincidence, it's a cause.
Then why as stated above do nitrogen cylinders run zero and oxygen cylinders run 100% oxygen and then when hooked up to air, they read the 20.8% which is the accepted value of oxygen for air?Quoteit acts the same way as oxygen because we saw that behavior and assumed, out of all the possibilities, it was oxygen. that's circular. if it acted a different way you'd be asking me why it acted like helium.But then what about other detectors? I have hydrogen cyanide and H2S meters for safety and SO2 and hydrogen meters for other analysis. Aether can't be responsiblele for everything. But you now know this, which is why you didn't comment any further on the dissolved oxygen meter.
So I will ask, how can water with a set conductivity of 1 ohm, have multiple readings of dissolved oxygen?
your oxygen meters do not measure oxygen, they measure certain events of which oxygen is one cause. for example, the conductivity of water may be altered by several things. oxygen is one, aether is another. they match similarly, but that's because people assume we live in air: when they measured the aether, they looked for the most likely gas for a cause, and answered with oxygen (in addition to the other compounds).
please try to keep up.
Everything I posted shows you to be wrong. You will notice you were unableto address any of my claims directly. You had to just be very vague.Can you please follow along? I didn't assert anything, you did. You made the claim that paramagentic oxygen meters detect aether, not oxygen. I then asked why the meter will detect zero anything when nitrogen flows through the meter. So why does the meter not detect anything when hooked up to a nitrogen gas cylinder? Is there no aether in a nitrogen gas cylinder? Then I asked why the meter will detect a high reading when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up. So, why does the meter register a high value when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up? Do oxygen cylinders really contain high amounts of aether?You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?Quoteall that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
so, at first you assert, now you're arguing an odd coincidence is an argument.Quoteit's not even a coincidence, it's a cause.
Then why as stated above do nitrogen cylinders run zero and oxygen cylinders run 100% oxygen and then when hooked up to air, they read the 20.8% which is the accepted value of oxygen for air?Quoteit acts the same way as oxygen because we saw that behavior and assumed, out of all the possibilities, it was oxygen. that's circular. if it acted a different way you'd be asking me why it acted like helium.But then what about other detectors? I have hydrogen cyanide and H2S meters for safety and SO2 and hydrogen meters for other analysis. Aether can't be responsiblele for everything. But you now know this, which is why you didn't comment any further on the dissolved oxygen meter.
So I will ask, how can water with a set conductivity of 1 ohm, have multiple readings of dissolved oxygen?
your oxygen meters do not measure oxygen, they measure certain events of which oxygen is one cause. for example, the conductivity of water may be altered by several things. oxygen is one, aether is another. they match similarly, but that's because people assume we live in air: when they measured the aether, they looked for the most likely gas for a cause, and answered with oxygen (in addition to the other compounds).
please try to keep up.
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
...
Last I checked, current and resistance are two separate things...Everything I posted shows you to be wrong. You will notice you were unableto address any of my claims directly. You had to just be very vague.Can you please follow along? I didn't assert anything, you did. You made the claim that paramagentic oxygen meters detect aether, not oxygen. I then asked why the meter will detect zero anything when nitrogen flows through the meter. So why does the meter not detect anything when hooked up to a nitrogen gas cylinder? Is there no aether in a nitrogen gas cylinder? Then I asked why the meter will detect a high reading when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up. So, why does the meter register a high value when an oxygen cylinder is hooked up? Do oxygen cylinders really contain high amounts of aether?You tell me. I'm just saying conductivity and dissolved oxygen are not related like you think they are.The link is fixed.I realized I never posted how the oxygen sensors I use work. One works by paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.
http://www.servomex.com/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis. (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sgoxaifti/sopq/p1/servomex/web/web.nsf/en/paramagnetic-oxygen-analysis.)
The other works by electricity.
http://nett21.gec.jp/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sup/sknq/s12hiue/p1/CTT_DATA/WMON/CHAP_4/html/Wmon-099.html)
So how can I measure the oxygen in air and the dissolved oxygen in liquids?
the first link doesn't work, the second is easily explainable as the aether diluting the water to reduce its resistance.
Your second answer doesn't work. Ions dissolved in the water will change it's conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of resistance. Water with different conductivity can still measure the same dissolved oxygen.
why would aether stop having an effect just because you've added a few ions?Quoteall that experiment shows is that magnets are something to do with aether, which makes sense due to aether's attractive force.Which just happens to work in the exact manner to mimic the accepted value of oxygen in the atmosphere? How is aether not in a gas cylinder of nitrogen and how is it concentrated in a gas cylinder of oxygen?
so, at first you assert, now you're arguing an odd coincidence is an argument.Quoteit's not even a coincidence, it's a cause.
Then why as stated above do nitrogen cylinders run zero and oxygen cylinders run 100% oxygen and then when hooked up to air, they read the 20.8% which is the accepted value of oxygen for air?Quoteit acts the same way as oxygen because we saw that behavior and assumed, out of all the possibilities, it was oxygen. that's circular. if it acted a different way you'd be asking me why it acted like helium.But then what about other detectors? I have hydrogen cyanide and H2S meters for safety and SO2 and hydrogen meters for other analysis. Aether can't be responsiblele for everything. But you now know this, which is why you didn't comment any further on the dissolved oxygen meter.
So I will ask, how can water with a set conductivity of 1 ohm, have multiple readings of dissolved oxygen?
your oxygen meters do not measure oxygen, they measure certain events of which oxygen is one cause. for example, the conductivity of water may be altered by several things. oxygen is one, aether is another. they match similarly, but that's because people assume we live in air: when they measured the aether, they looked for the most likely gas for a cause, and answered with oxygen (in addition to the other compounds).
please try to keep up.
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
They are actually very close to being opposites of a sort. Resistance is the slowing or limiting of current. Works for electricity, liquid flow, gas flow, etc.Not quite. Resistance is the opposition to current. I understand what you are getting at, bot some of the posters on this site can be very pedantic.
They are actually very close to being opposites of a sort. Resistance is the slowing or limiting of current. Works for electricity, liquid flow, gas flow, etc.Not quite. Resistance is the opposition to current. I understand what you are getting at, bot some of the posters on this site can be very pedantic.
As for JRowe, please look up and learn to understand Ohm's law. it would be very useful here.
They are actually very close to being opposites of a sort. Resistance is the slowing or limiting of current. Works for electricity, liquid flow, gas flow, etc.Not quite. Resistance is the opposition to current. I understand what you are getting at, bot some of the posters on this site can be very pedantic.
As for JRowe, please look up and learn to understand Ohm's law. it would be very useful here.
i suggest you learn to read. i am talking about a reduction in current, not a current. a reduction in current is caused by resistance. please look up and understand the most basic things about electricity.
They are actually very close to being opposites of a sort. Resistance is the slowing or limiting of current. Works for electricity, liquid flow, gas flow, etc.Not quite. Resistance is the opposition to current. I understand what you are getting at, bot some of the posters on this site can be very pedantic.
As for JRowe, please look up and learn to understand Ohm's law. it would be very useful here.
i suggest you learn to read. i am talking about a reduction in current, not a current. a reduction in current is caused by resistance. please look up and understand the most basic things about electricity.
A reduction in current can be caused by an increase in resistance or a drop in voltage, or some combination of changes in both. Saying "a reduction in current is caused by resistance" is clearly incorrect.
Please check your own "facts" before making snarky comments about what other people should learn.
They are actually very close to being opposites of a sort. Resistance is the slowing or limiting of current. Works for electricity, liquid flow, gas flow, etc.Not quite. Resistance is the opposition to current. I understand what you are getting at, bot some of the posters on this site can be very pedantic.
As for JRowe, please look up and learn to understand Ohm's law. it would be very useful here.
i suggest you learn to read. i am talking about a reduction in current, not a current. a reduction in current is caused by resistance. please look up and understand the most basic things about electricity.
A reduction in current can be caused by an increase in resistance or a drop in voltage, or some combination of changes in both. Saying "a reduction in current is caused by resistance" is clearly incorrect.
Please check your own "facts" before making snarky comments about what other people should learn.
You are not completely correct either. A reduction in current can also be caused by an increase or decrease in frequency, a change of capacitance or inductance, or a general increase of impedance. Perhaps you are the one who should do some fact checking before casting stones?
Have you not read what he said?
The conductivity of the water does not change. The levels of oxygen are changing. Conductivity stays the same.
would you care to explain how the levels of oxygen are detected in water, if the resistance does not change?
Negatory, my good man. The term you were looking for was "change in reactance", but that doesn't apply since JR and BJ1234 are discussing conductivity and resistance, which is not affected by "increase or decrease in frequency, a change of capacitance or inductance", not impedance, which does include a reactance term.
Do you not know what a membrane is? What part of "the conductivity of the water has no affect on the DO reading" do you not understand?
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
Negatory, my good man. The term you were looking for was "change in reactance", but that doesn't apply since JR and BJ1234 are discussing conductivity and resistance, which is not affected by "increase or decrease in frequency, a change of capacitance or inductance", not impedance, which does include a reactance term.
Then, why did you bother to mention a reduction in voltage, if you were discussing conductivity and resistance?
Also, capacitive and inductive reactance is directly affected by the value of capacitance and inductance. And, conductivity is affected by impedance. As impedance increases, conductivity decrease.
Do you not know what a membrane is? What part of "the conductivity of the water has no affect on the DO reading" do you not understand?
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
Do you not know what a membrane is? What part of "the conductivity of the water has no affect on the DO reading" do you not understand?
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
so how could oxygen be measured if the current stays the same?
you're being incoherent.
Oxygen diffuses through a membrane. The liquid stays behind. All presented in the link.Do you not know what a membrane is? What part of "the conductivity of the water has no affect on the DO reading" do you not understand?
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
so how could oxygen be measured if the current stays the same?
you're being incoherent.
Because J.R. said "a reduction in current is caused by resistance." As a statement of fact, this is clearly wrong. He said nothing about a change in resistance. If resistance is fixed, only a reduction of voltage will cause a reduction in current. Are you going to argue with this? Are you familiar with Ohm's law? Are you going to challenge Ohm's law along with the rest of well-established physics? [Note he said "resistance", not "impedance", so forget the added complexity of a reactive component (get it?).]
No, no, no! As impedance increases, admittance decreases. Since they're inverses, this is a given. And, also, no, conductivity is not affected by impedance; conductivity is a property of a material, impedance is affected by additional factors, such as the physical shape and size the material is formed into. You should really know at least the basics of AC circuit analysis if you're going to argue about it.
Conductivity is related to, but not the same as, conductance. Do you know the relationship? Similarly, resistivity is related to resistance. Do you know the relationship between conductance and resistance, and conductivity and resistivity? I'm betting you may have memorized these to pass some test at some point if what you say about being a radio operator in the US military is true, and after brushing up can maybe recall it again. It's evident that you know these terms exist, and you like to throw them around, but it's also clear that you have only a vague idea (if any) what they mean and how they relate to each other.
All of these terms may or may not be related to impedance, which is a complex topic (get it?) If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that immediately.
The more you say, the clearer it becomes that you have no real knowledge about this subject. If you refuse to quit talking about it, you should understand the distinction between impedance and resistance, and their inverses, admittance and conductance.
[Edit] Swapped last two terms in last sentence of last paragraph for consistency.
You are just mad because you tried to make JRowe look dumb and I made you look even dumber.Can we take from this that you don't believe JRowe looks particularly dumb, and you agree with his statement that air does not exist?
You are just mad because you tried to make JRowe look dumb and I made you look even dumber.Can we take from this that you don't believe JRowe looks particularly dumb, and you agree with his statement that air does not exist?
Oxygen diffuses through a membrane. The liquid stays behind. All presented in the link.Do you not know what a membrane is? What part of "the conductivity of the water has no affect on the DO reading" do you not understand?
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
so how could oxygen be measured if the current stays the same?
you're being incoherent.
I presented how the DO meter works. You jumped to conclusions without reading the link. It is not my fault. I explained to you how the solution's properties didn't affect the reading. If technical conversations are too tough for you just let me know.Oxygen diffuses through a membrane. The liquid stays behind. All presented in the link.Do you not know what a membrane is? What part of "the conductivity of the water has no affect on the DO reading" do you not understand?
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
so how could oxygen be measured if the current stays the same?
you're being incoherent.
so why did you bring up a reduction in current?
this is another lie you've been caught out on. there's no point in talking to you if you're not even going to be consistent.
You are just mad because you tried to make JRowe look dumb and I made you look even dumber.Can we take from this that you don't believe JRowe looks particularly dumb, and you agree with his statement that air does not exist?
Why would you conclude that from my statement?
I presented how the DO meter works. You jumped to conclusions without reading the link. It is not my fault. I explained to you how the solution's properties didn't affect the reading. If technical conversations are too tough for you just let me know.Oxygen diffuses through a membrane. The liquid stays behind. All presented in the link.Do you not know what a membrane is? What part of "the conductivity of the water has no affect on the DO reading" do you not understand?
actually you just refused to acknowledge the fact i've refuted every single one of your claims.
take "A reduction current in proportion to the concentration of the dissolved oxygen is generated," would you care to explain what a reduction in current is if it's no resistance?
so how could oxygen be measured if the current stays the same?
you're being incoherent.
so why did you bring up a reduction in current?
this is another lie you've been caught out on. there's no point in talking to you if you're not even going to be consistent.
Because J.R. said "a reduction in current is caused by resistance." As a statement of fact, this is clearly wrong. He said nothing about a change in resistance. If resistance is fixed, only a reduction of voltage will cause a reduction in current. Are you going to argue with this? Are you familiar with Ohm's law? Are you going to challenge Ohm's law along with the rest of well-established physics? [Note he said "resistance", not "impedance", so forget the added complexity of a reactive component (get it?).]
JRowe brought up resistance as a limiter for current. You then tried to discredit him by saying that he omitted voltage as a limiter. I then then listed other things that you omitted as a current limiter. You see how this works?
Resistance is a factor of impedance, but not the only factor. It's complex (get it?). If resistance increases, the impedance can increase, decrease, or stay the same depending on what the reactance also does.No, no, no! As impedance increases, admittance decreases. Since they're inverses, this is a given. And, also, no, conductivity is not affected by impedance; conductivity is a property of a material, impedance is affected by additional factors, such as the physical shape and size the material is formed into. You should really know at least the basics of AC circuit analysis if you're going to argue about it.
Resistance is a factor of impedance. When resistance increases, so does the impedance. I thought you knew a thing or two about electricity.
If you really did understand the difference, then why did you keep using them interchangeably? And, no, I don't believe it, but a start to proving me wrong would be by at least sounding like you know what you're talking about.Conductivity is related to, but not the same as, conductance. Do you know the relationship? Similarly, resistivity is related to resistance. Do you know the relationship between conductance and resistance, and conductivity and resistivity? I'm betting you may have memorized these to pass some test at some point if what you say about being a radio operator in the US military is true, and after brushing up can maybe recall it again. It's evident that you know these terms exist, and you like to throw them around, but it's also clear that you have only a vague idea (if any) what they mean and how they relate to each other.
Yes, I do understand the difference between conductivity and conductance. And, no, the extent of my electrical knowledge is not limited to a test I had to take in the military. Believe it or not, I have two electrical degrees.
All of these terms may or may not be related to impedance, which is a complex topic (get it?) If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that immediately.
The more you say, the clearer it becomes that you have no real knowledge about this subject. If you refuse to quit talking about it, you should understand the distinction between impedance and resistance, and their inverses, admittance and conductance.
[Edit] Swapped last two terms in last sentence of last paragraph for consistency.
You are just mad because you tried to make JRowe look dumb and I made you look even dumber. It's ok, though. You can't win every debate.
I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.
do you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.
let's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?Oxygen
what changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Because J.R. said "a reduction in current is caused by resistance." As a statement of fact, this is clearly wrong. He said nothing about a change in resistance. If resistance is fixed, only a reduction of voltage will cause a reduction in current. Are you going to argue with this? Are you familiar with Ohm's law? Are you going to challenge Ohm's law along with the rest of well-established physics? [Note he said "resistance", not "impedance", so forget the added complexity of a reactive component (get it?).]
JRowe brought up resistance as a limiter for current. You then tried to discredit him by saying that he omitted voltage as a limiter. I then then listed other things that you omitted as a current limiter. You see how this works?
No, what he said was "a reduction in current is caused by resistance." If he had said "current is limited by resistance" then you would have a point, but he didn't, so you don't. "A reduction" is a change, and if you have "resistance" (if he meant "increasing resistance", then he should have said so) as the cause. Maybe that is what he meant, but since the statement is ambiguous, another way to reduce the current is to reduce the voltage. I think you know this, but are just arguing to rescue J.R. from his lost argument. Nice of you to stick up for your friends.QuoteResistance is a factor of impedance, but not the only factor. It's complex (get it?). If resistance increases, the impedance can increase, decrease, or stay the same depending on what the reactance also does.No, no, no! As impedance increases, admittance decreases. Since they're inverses, this is a given. And, also, no, conductivity is not affected by impedance; conductivity is a property of a material, impedance is affected by additional factors, such as the physical shape and size the material is formed into. You should really know at least the basics of AC circuit analysis if you're going to argue about it.
Resistance is a factor of impedance. When resistance increases, so does the impedance. I thought you knew a thing or two about electricity.
If you really have two electrical degrees, you must either be playing dumb (why?), the coursework wasn't very rigorous, or you didn't retain much. Or is this more along the line of sceptimatic's "thirteen academic credentials"? I can't see it, trying to parse your claim, but you do indulge in word games.QuoteIf you really did understand the difference, then why did you keep using them interchangeably? And, no, I don't believe it, but a start to proving me wrong would be by at least sounding like you know what you're talking about.Conductivity is related to, but not the same as, conductance. Do you know the relationship? Similarly, resistivity is related to resistance. Do you know the relationship between conductance and resistance, and conductivity and resistivity? I'm betting you may have memorized these to pass some test at some point if what you say about being a radio operator in the US military is true, and after brushing up can maybe recall it again. It's evident that you know these terms exist, and you like to throw them around, but it's also clear that you have only a vague idea (if any) what they mean and how they relate to each other.
Yes, I do understand the difference between conductivity and conductance. And, no, the extent of my electrical knowledge is not limited to a test I had to take in the military. Believe it or not, I have two electrical degrees.QuoteAll of these terms may or may not be related to impedance, which is a complex topic (get it?) If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that immediately.
The more you say, the clearer it becomes that you have no real knowledge about this subject. If you refuse to quit talking about it, you should understand the distinction between impedance and resistance, and their inverses, admittance and conductance.
[Edit] Swapped last two terms in last sentence of last paragraph for consistency.
You are just mad because you tried to make JRowe look dumb and I made you look even dumber. It's ok, though. You can't win every debate.
Nope. Not mad, just exasperated when you jump in with a bunch of irrelevant, needlessly complex (get it?)[nb]I'm not at all sure you do get it, which is why I keep bringing it up.[/nb] balderdash.
You questioned my knowledge and education of the subject. I gave you a simple reply.
It is not my concern whether you believe me or not, as a am surely not posting my personal credentials on a public forum in which I debate about the shape of the Earth.
I simply pointed out your omittance of information in which you were attempting to point out the omission of information in a post from another member. I am sorry that this gets you so upset.
No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
i'm struggling to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion. what part of what you've said is impossible under my theory? you have happily admitted aether would alter the properties of water.
No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
i'm struggling to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion. what part of what you've said is impossible under my theory? you have happily admitted aether would alter the properties of water.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
No I didnt. Stop reading what you want to read and actually read what is written.
You have been unable to refute anything presented.
Aether doesn't exist. There is not one experiment that found it. Furthermore only you say it can be in certain places and not be in others. All other people say it exists everywhere.There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
i'm struggling to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion. what part of what you've said is impossible under my theory? you have happily admitted aether would alter the properties of water.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
No I didnt. Stop reading what you want to read and actually read what is written.
You have been unable to refute anything presented.
you don't seem to understand logic.
"when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?"
"no."
so, when aether fills water, the properties of the water will change.
that's all i need, and if you're denying that please provide evidence and admit you're being inconsistent again.
Aether doesn't exist. There is not one experiment that found it. Furthermore only you say it can be in certain places and not be in others. All other people say it exists everywhere.There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
i'm struggling to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion. what part of what you've said is impossible under my theory? you have happily admitted aether would alter the properties of water.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
No I didnt. Stop reading what you want to read and actually read what is written.
You have been unable to refute anything presented.
you don't seem to understand logic.
"when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?"
"no."
so, when aether fills water, the properties of the water will change.
that's all i need, and if you're denying that please provide evidence and admit you're being inconsistent again.
Here you go.Aether doesn't exist. There is not one experiment that found it. Furthermore only you say it can be in certain places and not be in others. All other people say it exists everywhere.There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
i'm struggling to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion. what part of what you've said is impossible under my theory? you have happily admitted aether would alter the properties of water.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
No I didnt. Stop reading what you want to read and actually read what is written.
You have been unable to refute anything presented.
you don't seem to understand logic.
"when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?"
"no."
so, when aether fills water, the properties of the water will change.
that's all i need, and if you're denying that please provide evidence and admit you're being inconsistent again.
Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
No it is not, however, it is up to the proponents of an idea to come up with the evidence of said idea. So what are the evidences of aether? There are none. Therefore, I am inclined to believe it does not exist.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications. Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.
No it is not, however, it is up to the proponents of an idea to come up with the evidence of said idea. So what are the evidences of aether? There are none. Therefore, I am inclined to believe it does not exist.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications. Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.
You are clearly not a scientist. He said evidence but you said proof showing you think the two are equal. They are not.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications. Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.
You are clearly not a scientist. He said evidence but you said proof showing you think the two are equal. They are not.
Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Still doesn't help you. Next time know the difference between evidence and proof.You are clearly not a scientist. He said evidence but you said proof showing you think the two are equal. They are not.
So much dumb this morning.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Jroa up to his old tricks again. Putting words in people's mouths. Please show me where I said you were contractually bound to do anything.No it is not, however, it is up to the proponents of an idea to come up with the evidence of said idea. So what are the evidences of aether? There are none. Therefore, I am inclined to believe it does not exist.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications. Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.
You seem to believe that us FE'ers are contractually bound to entertain every demand you RE'ers make.
I am not sure if you are playing dumb, or you really are dumb. He clearly said that something was proof. Are the words confusing you?Still doesn't help you. Next time know the difference between evidence and proof.You are clearly not a scientist. He said evidence but you said proof showing you think the two are equal. They are not.
So much dumb this morning.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
I don't care what he said. I'm just pointing out to you that you said something dumb.I am not sure if you are playing dumb, or you really are dumb. He clearly said that something was proof. Are the words confusing you?Still doesn't help you. Next time know the difference between evidence and proof.You are clearly not a scientist. He said evidence but you said proof showing you think the two are equal. They are not.
So much dumb this morning.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
I don't care what he said. I'm just pointing out to you that you said something dumb.I am not sure if you are playing dumb, or you really are dumb. He clearly said that something was proof. Are the words confusing you?Still doesn't help you. Next time know the difference between evidence and proof.You are clearly not a scientist. He said evidence but you said proof showing you think the two are equal. They are not.
So much dumb this morning.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
I don't care what he said. I'm just pointing out to you that you said something dumb.
I suggest you look it up and then come back if you want to argue.I don't care what he said. I'm just pointing out to you that you said something dumb.
If "evidence" is different than "proof", why are you such an arrogant asshole? Everything you say is matter-of-fact. I think it is you that has the definitions confused, sokarul.
Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications. Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.
sokarul thinks that when something proves something else, then that means it is evidence, not proof. I hope his linguistic skills improve in the future. lolWhat year did you get your GED?
sokarul thinks that when something proves something else, then that means it is evidence, not proof. I hope his linguistic skills improve in the future. lolWhat year did you get your GED?
sokarul thinks that when something proves something else, then that means it is evidence, not proof. I hope his linguistic skills improve in the future. lolWhat year did you get your GED?
Snide personal attacks now, sokarul? Real mature. You are clearly a wizened scientist. ::)
I am not sure if you are playing dumb, or you really are dumb. He clearly said that something was proof. Are the words confusing you?Still doesn't help you. Next time know the difference between evidence and proof.You are clearly not a scientist. He said evidence but you said proof showing you think the two are equal. They are not.
So much dumb this morning.Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications. Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.
You have no evidences for aether and then you also stated it. So now you've got a belief. So FE bases on a belief, which is a belief of FE, so FE is a belief based on a belief. It doesn't sound strong, as RE, doesn't it? Now, combine belief of aether and shitty things attracted to it, as bendy light and aetheric teleportation (unproved as well). You now have a shitty belief. Belief that contradicts with elementar physical laws. Belief which is illogical. Belief which contradicts observable facts. Belief which is impossible to be true.
Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co)
Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications. Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.
You have no evidences for aether and then you also stated it. So now you've got a belief. So FE bases on a belief, which is a belief of FE, so FE is a belief based on a belief. It doesn't sound strong, as RE, doesn't it? Now, combine belief of aether and shitty things attracted to it, as bendy light and aetheric teleportation (unproved as well). You now have a shitty belief. Belief that contradicts with elementar physical laws. Belief which is illogical. Belief which contradicts observable facts. Belief which is impossible to be true.
You have no evidence for gravity; therefore, it is just a belief as well. Do you see how this works?
You have no evidence for gravity; therefore, it is just a belief as well. Do you see how this works?
No evidence for Gravity? Seriously? Name one space mission that does not prove that gravity exists. Most logical people don't asume that space travel is fake.
You have no evidence for gravity; therefore, it is just a belief as well. Do you see how this works?
No evidence for Gravity? Seriously? Name one space mission that does not prove that gravity exists. Most logical people don't asume that space travel is fake.
You have no evidence for gravity; therefore, it is just a belief as well. Do you see how this works?
No evidence for Gravity? Seriously? Name one space mission that does not prove that gravity exists. Most logical people don't asume that space travel is fake.
So, once again you are making assumptions and then you try to present your assumptions as evidence. It is like, I assume that fairies are real, therefore, this proves that fairies are real. Nice logic.
You have no evidence for gravity; therefore, it is just a belief as well. Do you see how this works?
No evidence for Gravity? Seriously? Name one space mission that does not prove that gravity exists. Most logical people don't asume that space travel is fake.
Why would you immediately assume that space travel is real despite never experiencing it yourself?
Why would you immediately assume that piloting a plane is possible even if you never piloted a plane yourself?
(http://i.imgur.com/9zF3XPL.jpg)Glad to see you learned the difference between evidence and proof. Proofs are for math.
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.
Aether doesn't exist. There is not one experiment that found it. Furthermore only you say it can be in certain places and not be in others. All other people say it exists everywhere.There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
i'm struggling to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion. what part of what you've said is impossible under my theory? you have happily admitted aether would alter the properties of water.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
No I didnt. Stop reading what you want to read and actually read what is written.
You have been unable to refute anything presented.
you don't seem to understand logic.
"when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?"
"no."
so, when aether fills water, the properties of the water will change.
that's all i need, and if you're denying that please provide evidence and admit you're being inconsistent again.
Aether doesn't exist. There is not one experiment that found it. Furthermore only you say it can be in certain places and not be in others. All other people say it exists everywhere.There is nothing incoherent about my argument. You just have nothing so you have to find a scapegoat. The link contained a 2 sentence explanation, it is not my fault it was too complex for you.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
there's nothing there to respond to, your argument is incoherent. even leaving behind your inconsistency, you have no leg to stand on.
So anyways, air exists.
i'm struggling to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion. what part of what you've said is impossible under my theory? you have happily admitted aether would alter the properties of water.No. For the last time pay attention.I didn't change anything, you just can't follow the thread.
any conversation is hard when you move the goalposts to whatever's convenience.Quotedo you now deny the reduction in current? you've completely changed the proposed mechanism and detection, how do you expect me to have a conversation when you're so inconsistent?The probe works by a gain in voltage. So yes I do deny a reduction in current. Like I said, the conductivity of the solution has no effect on the DO reading.Quotelet's be clear, now. what, specifically, are you saying is detected?OxygenQuotewhat changes with or without oxygen?Voltage in the probe.
be warned, i will hold you to this statement. make it a good one.
so your assertion is that, when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?
Try responding to everything I said.
No I didnt. Stop reading what you want to read and actually read what is written.
You have been unable to refute anything presented.
you don't seem to understand logic.
"when aether fills water, the properties of the water are not going to change at all?"
"no."
so, when aether fills water, the properties of the water will change.
that's all i need, and if you're denying that please provide evidence and admit you're being inconsistent again.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.
also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.
You have no evidence for gravity; therefore, it is just a belief as well. Do you see how this works?
No evidence for Gravity? Seriously? Name one space mission that does not prove that gravity exists. Most logical people don't asume that space travel is fake.
So, once again you are making assumptions and then you try to present your assumptions as evidence. It is like, I assume that fairies are real, therefore, this proves that fairies are real. Nice logic.
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.
also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.
You have no evidence for gravity; therefore, it is just a belief as well. Do you see how this works?
No evidence for Gravity? Seriously? Name one space mission that does not prove that gravity exists. Most logical people don't asume that space travel is fake.
Why would you immediately assume that space travel is real despite never experiencing it yourself?
I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.
Duh, because working stratellites don't exist. Have you seen one?I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.
How do you know they are not stratellites?
Duh, because working stratellites don't exist. Have you seen one?I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.
How do you know they are not stratellites?
Touché.Duh, because working stratellites don't exist. Have you seen one?I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.
How do you know they are not stratellites?
I've seen several using my telescope.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.
I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.
How do you know they are not stratellites?
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.
Back up there JRowe. Could you please clarify this point?
I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.
How do you know they are not stratellites?
I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.
How do you know they are not stratellites?
Because stratellites don't move 17,000 miles per hour.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.Quoteaether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.
Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box. Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_1164.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_1164.jpg.html)
like many here, i have noticed on several occasions the blind obedience with which round earthers view scientists. this is bs. we cannot trust scientists, and there are several reasons for this, all of which may be verified with some simple, common sense.
they want money
scientists are paid to do experiments. oil companies pay then, and climate change stops existing. sugar companies pay them, and there's no link between sugar and obesity. you can look up all of those examples, and that's just the ones they'll admit to. scientists don't care about honesty, they care about the cash.
how do you trust what they say when they aren't after the truth? they'll find what they're asked to find. when they make up new fantasies every day to explain holes (dark energy, gravity, spacetime, string theory) with nothing except "but we can't be wrong!" as evidence, they have long since stopped being anything other than crooks and liars after your money.
they are wrong about gravity
if the earth is stationary, gravity does not exist as we should be moving. if the earth is moving, it would not have formed a sphere as we would be pushed along until we're flat, and then gravity would have torn the earth apart. gravity is obviously impossible. if it existed, the earth should be crushed to diamond by now and yet, not only isn't it, but round earther scientists want you to believe that there is liquid inside the earth, despite the combined weight of the world's entire outer surface coming down and crushing it.
this is complete and utter bs, clearly.
How do you know they are not stratellites?
Because stratellites don't move 17,000 miles per hour.
You can determine this simply by viewing them through a telescope? That's news to me.
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.
Back up there JRowe. Could you please clarify this point?
i think i have made myself quite clear.
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.
Back up there JRowe. Could you please clarify this point?
i think i have made myself quite clear.
No, you really haven't. Are you saying fairies exist?
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.
Back up there JRowe. Could you please clarify this point?
i think i have made myself quite clear.
No, you really haven't. Are you saying fairies exist?
So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.Quoteaether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.
Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box. Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_1164.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_1164.jpg.html)
i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.Quoteaether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.
Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box. Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_1164.jpg) (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/scovohpdjfzi/s133q/p1/user/sokarul/media/IMG_1164.jpg.html)
i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
Did you notice how you were unable to answer any of my claims?i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.Quoteaether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.
Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box. Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_1164.jpg) (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/scovohpdjfzi/s133q/p1/user/sokarul/media/IMG_1164.jpg.html)
i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
Did you notice how you were unable to answer any of my claims?i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.Quoteaether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.
Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box. Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_1164.jpg) (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s8iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/scovohpdjfzi/s133q/p1/user/sokarul/media/IMG_1164.jpg.html)
i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
This was your post. See how you addressed zero claims in it!i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.Quoteaether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.
Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box. Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_1164.jpg) (https://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/scovohpdjfzi/s133q/p1/user/sokarul/media/IMG_1164.jpg.html)
i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
Are you saying fairies exist?
there is a great deal of evidence
Are you saying fairies exist?
there is a great deal of evidence
I honestly don't know what to say.
your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.
(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
I can't believe I'm having this conversation...(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.Quotethey convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:
(http://i.imgur.com/jeDyg3r.jpg)
This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:
(http://i.imgur.com/jeDyg3r.jpg)
This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.
I can't believe I'm having this conversation...(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.Quotethey convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.
of course the background isn't clear. it's the background.
to write a detective, you need to think like one. arthur conan doyle has several stories of intellectual feats and investigation attached to him.
at this point, everyone can see your desperation. it has nothing to do with your round earth fantasy yet you still persist in claiming they're not real.
denial much?
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.
I am willing to hear you out provided you have sound reasons for why these photos are fake.
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:
(http://i.imgur.com/jeDyg3r.jpg)
This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.I can't believe I'm having this conversation...(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.Quotethey convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.
of course the background isn't clear. it's the background.
to write a detective, you need to think like one. arthur conan doyle has several stories of intellectual feats and investigation attached to him.
at this point, everyone can see your desperation. it has nothing to do with your round earth fantasy yet you still persist in claiming they're not real.
denial much?
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.
I am willing to hear you out provided you have sound reasons for why these photos are fake.
But first you must provide reasons why NASA photos are fake.
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:
(http://i.imgur.com/jeDyg3r.jpg)
This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.I can't believe I'm having this conversation...(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.Quotethey convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.
of course the background isn't clear. it's the background.
to write a detective, you need to think like one. arthur conan doyle has several stories of intellectual feats and investigation attached to him.
at this point, everyone can see your desperation. it has nothing to do with your round earth fantasy yet you still persist in claiming they're not real.
denial much?
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.
do you have more than assertion?
the first predates photoshop, the second features something nearly impossible to fake.
they will look odd to you if you reject their contents, but you cannot simply decide something is untrue because you don't want to believe.
What the hell happened in here? We can't trust scientists but you believe in fairies?
This is amazing.
In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.
The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.
Leave it to JRoweSkepticto post a picture so fake, the history or discovery channel covered it. The fairies are made out of paper and stuck there. What a uneducated clown.your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.
there is much evidence for doing so. not only are they a universal concept, but you have photos like these:
(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Cottingley-sunbath.jpg)
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle, and existed long before photoshop or any manipulative tools, and were recorded in such old journals, confirming that fact. this is a genuine image, too old to be questionable. they are very clear in what they show.
you accept photographic evidence from people who have photoshop, of a fantasy round earth. you should accept this.
closed mindedness is not an argument.
Vaux? The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.QuoteIn that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.
The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.
the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?Vaux? The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.QuoteIn that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.
The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.
That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.
the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?Vaux? The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.QuoteIn that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.
The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.
That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.
There are numerous articles written about Mr. Hyatt (the man who took the recent photograph).
Here's one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/rossendale-fairies-john-hyatt_n_5093880.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000022). It's a very interesting read.
the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?Vaux? The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.QuoteIn that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.
The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.
That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.
why wouldn't they say that? they had people like you called them frauds, it's the easy way out.
you should also not ignore the fact that both maintain they saw fairies still, and frances still says this photo was genuine:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Cottingley-sunbath.jpg)
there's simply no way for photos of this quality to be faked in those times. i am waiting for any of you to back up your assertions with anything. do you have a reason to disbelieve in fairies, do you just reject what is clearly true to try and make yourself feel big? do you have any reason to think these were faked? how could they possibly be faked before photoshop?
arthur conan doyle himself found these genuine, and found that everyone who rejected them as fake did so because they refused to acknowledge the existence of fairies. that is simply closed-mindedness. do you have anything more to add?
There are numerous articles written about Mr. Hyatt (the man who took the recent photograph).
Here's one (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/scczbaciweayzpd/suvw/p1/2014/04/07/rossendale-fairies-john-hyatt_n_5093880.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000022). It's a very interesting read.
I read a little and not only my opinion is:
"They are not doctored apart from I increased the size of a detailed section of a larger photograph along with the DPI to stop them being just large pixels -- normal size enhancement techniques."
This is impossible outside the real of science fiction. Resolution can not be added into a digital photo past the resolution it was taken at.the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?Vaux? The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.QuoteIn that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.
The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.
That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.
why wouldn't they say that? they had people like you called them frauds, it's the easy way out.
you should also not ignore the fact that both maintain they saw fairies still, and frances still says this photo was genuine:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Cottingley-sunbath.jpg)
there's simply no way for photos of this quality to be faked in those times. i am waiting for any of you to back up your assertions with anything. do you have a reason to disbelieve in fairies, do you just reject what is clearly true to try and make yourself feel big? do you have any reason to think these were faked? how could they possibly be faked before photoshop?
arthur conan doyle himself found these genuine, and found that everyone who rejected them as fake did so because they refused to acknowledge the existence of fairies. that is simply closed-mindedness. do you have anything more to add?
Why these images are fake:
1. They look fake.
2. The autors clearly said it was fake.
3. Photomontages were easy then. Just think. You take a normal photo, (in this case) you stick bunch of drawings of fairies and then you take a photo of a real photo and drawings, making that you think there is no 2nd layer (fairies drawings). For example - this is a photo of faked Zeppelin flying over Szczecin, Polish city. It's proved to be fake - (http://www.tygodnik7dni.pl/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/zeppelin.jpg).
There are numerous articles written about Mr. Hyatt (the man who took the recent photograph).
Here's one (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/scczbaciweayzpd/suvw/p1/2014/04/07/rossendale-fairies-john-hyatt_n_5093880.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000022). It's a very interesting read.
I read a little and not only my opinion is:
"They are not doctored apart from I increased the size of a detailed section of a larger photograph along with the DPI to stop them being just large pixels -- normal size enhancement techniques."
This is impossible outside the real of science fiction. Resolution can not be added into a digital photo past the resolution it was taken at.the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?Vaux? The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.QuoteIn that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.
The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.
That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.
why wouldn't they say that? they had people like you called them frauds, it's the easy way out.
you should also not ignore the fact that both maintain they saw fairies still, and frances still says this photo was genuine:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Cottingley-sunbath.jpg)
there's simply no way for photos of this quality to be faked in those times. i am waiting for any of you to back up your assertions with anything. do you have a reason to disbelieve in fairies, do you just reject what is clearly true to try and make yourself feel big? do you have any reason to think these were faked? how could they possibly be faked before photoshop?
arthur conan doyle himself found these genuine, and found that everyone who rejected them as fake did so because they refused to acknowledge the existence of fairies. that is simply closed-mindedness. do you have anything more to add?
Why these images are fake:
1. They look fake.
2. The autors clearly said it was fake.
3. Photomontages were easy then. Just think. You take a normal photo, (in this case) you stick bunch of drawings of fairies and then you take a photo of a real photo and drawings, making that you think there is no 2nd layer (fairies drawings). For example - this is a photo of faked Zeppelin flying over Szczecin, Polish city. It's proved to be fake - (http://www.tygodnik7dni.pl/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/zeppelin.jpg).
they do not look fake. the authors only said that because of outside prejudice, and frances always said at least one was genuine, and both say they did see fairies.
i doubt two children could create a photomontage more convincing than the official ones. are you saying you're smarter than arthur conan doyle? you also don't take into account the fact zeppelins exist, and a real photo was used: so fairies must exist if a photo was to be inserted. completing faking an image was impossible. you've just proven my point.
How are they completely different? Technique is the same as in those photos of phoney fairies.
Where did I propose they had photoshop a hundred years or whatever long time ago? Learn to read. My point was simply that there has been photo manipulation as long as there have been photos, which is demonstratably true.
That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.
Dear god, this thread. My sides hurt.
They are the same, as I said, in that the technique is the same. No fancy technology required then or now, I don't know what you imagine is required to merge exposures. The first pic I posted is recent, but uses the same technique and is not digital and yes ofc it's art, while it's also a photo. The heads in the second one are obviously not all the same head as you implied. Here's another nice oneHow are they completely different? Technique is the same as in those photos of phoney fairies.
Where did I propose they had photoshop a hundred years or whatever long time ago? Learn to read. My point was simply that there has been photo manipulation as long as there have been photos, which is demonstratably true.
how are they at all the same? aside from the fact both required ability and technology far beyond that of children, i'm fairly sure the first is art not a photo and not contemporary, and the second is not only a clear fake due to jaggedness, but only copied that which already existed in the photo.
there might have been manipulation, but nothing of photoshop standards, which would be what was required to fool so many people, including arthur conan doyle, as well as being accessible to children: and girls no less, who would hardly have been well educated in those times.
The simple fact that the girls in question admitted that they were fake, and told how they did it so many years after would negate the pressure of people calling them frauds. You want to say that they waited their entire lives and just before they died from old age they decided there was too much pressure from people calling them frauds that they finally just caved to the pressure. Just about the entire world had already called these photos faked long ago and it was no longer an issue in 1983. No one cared anymore. That reasoning as to why they admitted the hoax and how they did it is completely invalid.
those photos are completely different, and would be far beyond the abilities of children, who you are saying would have that skill, in any case.
the fifth photo, you can clearly see a face and body, and the same fairies as the previous images. if you look at earlier photos, you also have fairies suspended in midair, so they clearly aren't just drawings, and they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist. either way, you've made my point clear.
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:(http://i.imgur.com/jeDyg3r.jpg)
This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.
Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?
Also, Pareidolia, look it up.
So lack of evidence is evidence of existence now?Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?
Also, Pareidolia, look it up.
I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.
Why is it so ridiculous for you to believe that fairies exist? They are simply a product of natural evolution. They're just small-ish (their sizes vary) humans with wings. The fact that they can turn invisible at will is the only reason you haven't seen them yourself. And it's not invisibility, like magical cloak or anything, it's simply active camouflage that evolved naturally to protect them from predators.
Also did you look up Pareidolia yet?
so the photos I posted are real too since they couldn't have been faked. There really was a huge human eyeball on a wall and the other guy existed in two places at one time. Probably due to some aetheric effect but anyway.
Kids can cut pictures out of paper. Not hard at all.
That is an insect. I'm talking about the other pictures.Kids can cut pictures out of paper. Not hard at all.
when your paper stands up on its edge, doesn't crease, exhibits motion blur in some, and can fly, let me know.
your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.
there is much evidence for doing so. not only are they a universal concept, but you have photos like these:
(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle, and existed long before photoshop or any manipulative tools, and were recorded in such old journals, confirming that fact. this is a genuine image, too old to be questionable. they are very clear in what they show.
you accept photographic evidence from people who have photoshop, of a fantasy round earth. you should accept this.
closed mindedness is not an argument.
so the photos I posted are real too since they couldn't have been faked. There really was a huge human eyeball on a wall and the other guy existed in two places at one time. Probably due to some aetheric effect but anyway.
they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist
i notice none of you have given a method. how can you be sure those photos are faked if you can't even give a believable method? remember, your method must be a) available and simple enough for children to do, b) able to produce fairies in flight, c) not reliant on an existing image of fairies, if you even want to make a start at disproving what was shown.
Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?
Also, Pareidolia, look it up.
I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.
Why is it so ridiculous for you to believe that fairies exist? They are simply a product of natural evolution. They're just small-ish (their sizes vary) humans with wings. The fact that they can turn invisible at will is the only reason you haven't seen them yourself. And it's not invisibility, like magical cloak or anything, it's simply active camouflage that evolved naturally to protect them from predators.
And, evolution only works when the transition is helpful, not just the end result. You're a human that's at an average of 4 feet, about as large as a child, with stubs for wings. That human wouldn't survive, then not transmitting this mutated gene.
Being shorter seems negative. Can't reach them apples.And, evolution only works when the transition is helpful, not just the end result. You're a human that's at an average of 4 feet, about as large as a child, with stubs for wings. That human wouldn't survive, then not transmitting this mutated gene.
no, evolution process can be going on for days only if mutations aren't negative. they can be neutral or positive, but not negative. if mutation is negative, every organism with this mutation will die in next hundreds of years.
Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?
Also, Pareidolia, look it up.
I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.
Why is it so ridiculous for you to believe that fairies exist? They are simply a product of natural evolution. They're just small-ish (their sizes vary) humans with wings. The fact that they can turn invisible at will is the only reason you haven't seen them yourself. And it's not invisibility, like magical cloak or anything, it's simply active camouflage that evolved naturally to protect them from predators.
you don't understand what evolution is. evolution is the slow process based on blind mutations, which are then decided by nature if these mutations are somewhat positive for organism or negative. i don't see how fairies could evolve from people and organise wings on their back. it's impossible and would take even billions of years to create 0,5 cm organisms from 180 cm people.
I'm replying in defense of Vauxhall to a response in the "M-M-M-Moster Fail" thread. The theory that Vauxhall is referring to is well known and documented. It states that fairies evolved from insects by mixing human DNA with the blood-stealing mosquito's DNA. This DNA theft over time caused the mosquito to literally anthropomorphize itself. This is all in line with current theories of evolution and is another reason we cannot trust scientists. I do sympathize though, imagine if scientists released the knowledge to the public that there are evil fairies out there infecting people with Malaria, West Nile, and HIV.
so the photos I posted are real too since they couldn't have been faked. There really was a huge human eyeball on a wall and the other guy existed in two places at one time. Probably due to some aetheric effect but anyway.
they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist
i notice none of you have given a method. how can you be sure those photos are faked if you can't even give a believable method? remember, your method must be a) available and simple enough for children to do, b) able to produce fairies in flight, c) not reliant on an existing image of fairies, if you even want to make a start at disproving what was shown.
Hell man haven't you realized that the pictures I posted were not made with photoshop?? Those are not digital photographs at all, they are very old chemical photo manipulations. Get it?
Double exposure. There's a method for you.
BTW do these fairies by any chance talk to you?
Vauxhall, you do not believe in fairies, you do not believe that earth is flat and your turtle adventure sounds like stolen from a Manga book. I guess you are a compulsory liar. When did that start? Did you ever consider to begin a therapy?
I'm replying in defense of Vauxhall to a response in the "M-M-M-Moster Fail" thread. The theory that Vauxhall is referring to is well known and documented. It states that fairies evolved from insects by mixing human DNA with the blood-stealing mosquito's DNA. This DNA theft over time caused the mosquito to literally anthropomorphize itself. This is all in line with current theories of evolution and is another reason we cannot trust scientists. I do sympathize though, imagine if scientists released the knowledge to the public that there are evil fairies out there infecting people with Malaria, West Nile, and HIV.
your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.
there is much evidence for doing so. not only are they a universal concept, but you have photos like these:
(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle, and existed long before photoshop or any manipulative tools, and were recorded in such old journals, confirming that fact. this is a genuine image, too old to be questionable. they are very clear in what they show.
you accept photographic evidence from people who have photoshop, of a fantasy round earth. you should accept this.
closed mindedness is not an argument.
JRowe, you do not need photoshop to manipulate pictures. A darkroom does as well. In the case of your fairy photos, they clearly are cut out of paper. They do not fly, they are fixed at the twigs. Also their wings are not blurred, obviously they didn't move. You do not even need knowledge of photographic technique to produce such pictures. They are nice by the way.
Only the spirit can see spirits. You can't take pictures of them.
Where is this coming from? Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim or are you just trying to maintain your fantasy world by denying the possible existence of faeries on a flat Earth?
Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?
Also, Pareidolia, look it up.
I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.
Why is it so ridiculous for you to believe that fairies exist? They are simply a product of natural evolution. They're just small-ish (their sizes vary) humans with wings. The fact that they can turn invisible at will is the only reason you haven't seen them yourself. And it's not invisibility, like magical cloak or anything, it's simply active camouflage that evolved naturally to protect them from predators.
you don't understand what evolution is. evolution is the slow process based on blind mutations, which are then decided by nature if these mutations are somewhat positive for organism or negative. i don't see how fairies could evolve from people and organise wings on their back. it's impossible and would take even billions of years to create 0,5 cm organisms from 180 cm people.
Where did I say that fairies evolved from humans? They are just similar to humans. My personal theory is that they evolved from insects.
I'm replying in defense of Vauxhall to a response in the "M-M-M-Moster Fail" thread. The theory that Vauxhall is referring to is well known and documented. It states that fairies evolved from insects by mixing human DNA with the blood-stealing mosquito's DNA. This DNA theft over time caused the mosquito to literally anthropomorphize itself. This is all in line with current theories of evolution and is another reason we cannot trust scientists. I do sympathize though, imagine if scientists released the knowledge to the public that there are evil fairies out there infecting people with Malaria, West Nile, and HIV.your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.
there is much evidence for doing so. not only are they a universal concept, but you have photos like these:
(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle, and existed long before photoshop or any manipulative tools, and were recorded in such old journals, confirming that fact. this is a genuine image, too old to be questionable. they are very clear in what they show.
you accept photographic evidence from people who have photoshop, of a fantasy round earth. you should accept this.
closed mindedness is not an argument.
JRowe, you do not need photoshop to manipulate pictures. A darkroom does as well. In the case of your fairy photos, they clearly are cut out of paper. They do not fly, they are fixed at the twigs. Also their wings are not blurred, obviously they didn't move. You do not even need knowledge of photographic technique to produce such pictures. They are nice by the way.
Only the spirit can see spirits. You can't take pictures of them.
their wings would not have to move all the time.
how could paper be fixed to twigs without a hole being obvious? nothing you're saying makes sense.
in addition, how could children be such good artists, if they were somehow drawn or faked?
so the photos I posted are real too since they couldn't have been faked. There really was a huge human eyeball on a wall and the other guy existed in two places at one time. Probably due to some aetheric effect but anyway.
they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist
i notice none of you have given a method. how can you be sure those photos are faked if you can't even give a believable method? remember, your method must be a) available and simple enough for children to do, b) able to produce fairies in flight, c) not reliant on an existing image of fairies, if you even want to make a start at disproving what was shown.
Hell man haven't you realized that the pictures I posted were not made with photoshop?? Those are not digital photographs at all, they are very old chemical photo manipulations. Get it?
Double exposure. There's a method for you.
BTW do these fairies by any chance talk to you?
oh, chemical manipulations, chemicals must be in easy access to children, and they must be that about it all the time. really?
double exposure is not that defined and clear.
i have not had the opportunity to speak with fairies, unfortunately.
on the evolution of fairies, i think it should be acknowledged that there are more ways to survive than thick muscles and brawn. nature has evolved perfect hunters, perfect defenders, what about perfect hiders? the fairies are fast, nimble, able to evade any predator, and clearly they are adept at hiding. it is probably only the presence of children (who resemble them more than adults) and likely girls (as fairies do tend to appear feminine) which lure them out as, compared to grown humans, they seem less alien.
fairies could indeed happily evolve. personally i think they would share a common ancestor with humans, and adapted more for speed and stealth, and possibly intelligence, than the brawn of the great apes. i can see how insects could also be responsible, however.
unfortunately, like birds, it seems likely fairies would have hollow and fragile bones, so any fossils will be incredibly hard to find, especially considering that fairies enjoy hiding themselves.
Perfect height for predators? Are you sure you're familiar with evolution? You seem to be confused about why We are the size we are. I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with RET.
when you understand the idea of 'common ancestor', come back. this is basic evolutionary theory, seriously. especially considering that fairies have delicate skeletal structures, they would diminish inside very rapidly.
as i also said, fairies are not predators, so a perfect height for predators is completely irrelevant. learn to read.
in addition, if they are, as you suggest, cut out drawings, not only should we expect to see jagged edges, but you run into the multiple problems with blaming paper. photos were taken in a birdbath and near a waterfall, you expect this paper to magically be immune to water?
When the girls who exposed and processed these photos using their dad's camera and dark room, yes, they obviously had access to the needed chemicals.so the photos I posted are real too since they couldn't have been faked. There really was a huge human eyeball on a wall and the other guy existed in two places at one time. Probably due to some aetheric effect but anyway.
they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist
i notice none of you have given a method. how can you be sure those photos are faked if you can't even give a believable method? remember, your method must be a) available and simple enough for children to do, b) able to produce fairies in flight, c) not reliant on an existing image of fairies, if you even want to make a start at disproving what was shown.
Hell man haven't you realized that the pictures I posted were not made with photoshop?? Those are not digital photographs at all, they are very old chemical photo manipulations. Get it?
Double exposure. There's a method for you.
BTW do these fairies by any chance talk to you?
oh, chemical manipulations, chemicals must be in easy access to children, and they must be that about it all the time. really?
double exposure is not that defined and clear.
i have not had the opportunity to speak with fairies, unfortunately.
Perfect height for predators? Are you sure you're familiar with evolution? You seem to be confused about why We are the size we are. I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with RET.
i'm completely familiar with evolution, i've been talking about it for hours between me and creationists. because of mutations that made us a bit taller, we were better at survival than the shorter. that's why shorter representants of its sub-specie died and lasted only the taller, making people at the end 180 cm tall.
I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faeries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.
Aetheric researchers have discovered...
I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faeries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.
LOL... good effort Vauxhall. Now I know you're just having your little joke. :D
BTW, the flies aren't actually "glowing". It's known as chromatic aberration—which is caused by bright image areas that are contiguous with dull areas.
Vauxhall, you do not believe in fairies, you do not believe that earth is flat and your turtle adventure sounds like stolen from a Manga book. I guess you are a compulsory liar. When did that start? Did you ever consider to begin a therapy?
Perfect height for predators? Are you sure you're familiar with evolution? You seem to be confused about why We are the size we are. I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with RET.
i'm completely familiar with evolution, i've been talking about it for hours between me and creationists. because of mutations that made us a bit taller, we were better at survival than the shorter. that's why shorter representants of its sub-specie died and lasted only the taller, making people at the end 180 cm tall.
This goes at odds with your "perfect predator" theory. The perfect predators were literally dinosaurs. Humans are not the perfect predator by any means. The RE explanation for their size is: gravity. Now, this answer seems a bit odd, because if gravity made dinosaurs so big... why aren't humans that big? This question implies a very simple answer: gravity was weaker during the time of the dinosaurs.
However, we are taught that gravity is a constant and hasn't changed for Earth in a long time (if at all). So, this is a contradiction in RET. Aether, however, remedies this. Aetheric researchers have discovered that the Earth used to be much larger than that it is now. The Earth was formed by matter being condensed by the push of the aether, eventually forming a disc. Some of the space junk caught up in the aetheric wind that created the Earth was simply weaker than other parts and fell off the Earth over time (this was a gradual process, and possibly what killed off the dinosaurs). The bigger size of the Earth would have caused the aether more strain when accelerating the Earth, which resulted in a weaker acceleration which resulted in dinosaurs.
nature has evolved perfect hunters, perfect defenders, what about perfect hiders?
now I can use my experience with talking with creationists. here we go.
if we put a group of people from for example thousand years ago and a group of velociraptors, who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors with tiny brain, whose claws can attack on only 1 meter? that's why people are perfect predators - because of their incredible intelligence in a comparass between them and e.g. dinosaurs.
why aren't people that big as dinosaurs are? there are two not excluding each other explanations. it's because a build of dinosaurs was better at big sizes - they are strongly inclined and long, which makes them balance better and not damage their skeletons in a scale of whole life. second of all - in the times of dinosaurs there was more oxygen than now. now oxygen level is lower than 20% in the air, then it was over 50%. it's been tested and checked in the ambers. some farmers also done the test. they increased the level of oxygen in their glasshouse and let tomatoes grow in it. after some days, they returned, and the tomatoes were sometimes even 4 or 5 times bigger.
Are you denying bioluminescence?
Yeah the anatomy would give them such an advantage.now I can use my experience with talking with creationists. here we go.
if we put a group of people from for example thousand years ago and a group of velociraptors, who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors with tiny brain, whose claws can attack on only 1 meter? that's why people are perfect predators - because of their incredible intelligence in a comparass between them and e.g. dinosaurs.
why aren't people that big as dinosaurs are? there are two not excluding each other explanations. it's because a build of dinosaurs was better at big sizes - they are strongly inclined and long, which makes them balance better and not damage their skeletons in a scale of whole life. second of all - in the times of dinosaurs there was more oxygen than now. now oxygen level is lower than 20% in the air, then it was over 50%. it's been tested and checked in the ambers. some farmers also done the test. they increased the level of oxygen in their glasshouse and let tomatoes grow in it. after some days, they returned, and the tomatoes were sometimes even 4 or 5 times bigger.
You're wrong.
Also, you have absolutely no evidence that humans would win in a fight against velociraptors. Nice theory-crafting, but it's not science and the fact that you are trying to pass this off as some sort of hard fact is absolutely astounding and leaves me dumbstruck.
Adding to this, velociraptors are infinitely faster and more dangerous with humans. If you threw them on the same planet together at the same time, I'd say that velociraptors would have the advantage almost immediately. Humans would have to devise ways of defending themselves, but by that time the velociraptors would have torn their small splintered civilization apart. Simply looking at the anatomy of both subjects makes this clear.
now I can use my experience with talking with creationists. here we go.
if we put a group of people from for example thousand years ago and a group of velociraptors, who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors with tiny brain, whose claws can attack on only 1 meter? that's why people are perfect predators - because of their incredible intelligence in a comparass between them and e.g. dinosaurs.
why aren't people that big as dinosaurs are? there are two not excluding each other explanations. it's because a build of dinosaurs was better at big sizes - they are strongly inclined and long, which makes them balance better and not damage their skeletons in a scale of whole life. second of all - in the times of dinosaurs there was more oxygen than now. now oxygen level is lower than 20% in the air, then it was over 50%. it's been tested and checked in the ambers. some farmers also done the test. they increased the level of oxygen in their glasshouse and let tomatoes grow in it. after some days, they returned, and the tomatoes were sometimes even 4 or 5 times bigger.
You're wrong.
Also, you have absolutely no evidence that humans would win in a fight against velociraptors. Nice theory-crafting, but it's not science and the fact that you are trying to pass this off as some sort of hard fact is absolutely astounding and leaves me dumbstruck.
Adding to this, velociraptors are infinitely faster and more dangerous with humans. If you threw them on the same planet together at the same time, I'd say that velociraptors would have the advantage almost immediately. Humans would have to devise ways of defending themselves, but by that time the velociraptors would have torn their small splintered civilization apart. Simply looking at the anatomy of both subjects makes this clear.
Are you denying bioluminescence?
Uh... nope. Where did I say that?
BTW, I'm getting a horrible feeling in my transverse colon that this is gonna segue into a discussion about moonshrimp. ;D
Yeah the anatomy would give them such an advantage.
(http://olive-drab.com/images/firearms_mg_m2.jpg)
Are you denying bioluminescence?
Uh... nope. Where did I say that?
BTW, I'm getting a horrible feeling in my transverse colon that this is gonna segue into a discussion about moonshrimp. ;D
You certainly implied that the bioluminescence of insects is farfetched.
Let me guess, Geoff, you think that little insects carry around small lanterns. Don't you? I bet you also think these lanterns work underwater, huh?
Have you tried signing up for a forum that's more inclined to children? You might have better luck discussing your "theories" there. ;DYeah the anatomy would give them such an advantage.
(http://olive-drab.com/images/firearms_mg_m2.jpg)
Congratulations on successfully making me laugh out loud. If you read the entire discussion, you'd see how ridiculous posting a picture of a gun is in response to the argument. First, humans would have to build shelter and defensive measures against dinosaurs, while at the same time being pursued by them and having their families eaten alive. Guns would not be developed due to the amount of research it would take to make one, especially when you consider the absurd amounts of pressure that hounding dinosaurs have on a human's mental state.
If anything, society remain stagnant. Humans would be prey and dinosaurs would be the dominant species on the Earth. Fuck, this is WHY they were the dominate species on the Earth for such a long time... because they didn't allow room for other species to advance. They are the ultimate predator. No amount of smarts is going to save you from a planet full of meat eating dinosaurs.
I don't think you know how many dinosaurs were actually roaming the Earth at that time. Sure, we'd take out dinosaurs pretty quick in this day and age... but not when we were a fledgling species, no way in hell.
Are you denying bioluminescence?
Uh... nope. Where did I say that?
BTW, I'm getting a horrible feeling in my transverse colon that this is gonna segue into a discussion about moonshrimp. ;D
You certainly implied that the bioluminescence of insects is farfetched.
Let me guess, Geoff, you think that little insects carry around small lanterns. Don't you? I bet you also think these lanterns work underwater, huh?
Have you tried signing up for a forum that's more inclined to children? You might have better luck discussing your "theories" there. ;DYeah the anatomy would give them such an advantage.
Congratulations on successfully making me laugh out loud. If you read the entire discussion, you'd see how ridiculous posting a picture of a gun is in response to the argument. First, humans would have to build shelter and defensive measures against dinosaurs, while at the same time being pursued by them and having their families eaten alive. Guns would not be developed due to the amount of research it would take to make one, especially when you consider the absurd amounts of pressure that hounding dinosaurs have on a human's mental state.
If anything, society remain stagnant. Humans would be prey and dinosaurs would be the dominant species on the Earth. Fuck, this is WHY they were the dominate species on the Earth for such a long time... because they didn't allow room for other species to advance. They are the ultimate predator. No amount of smarts is going to save you from a planet full of meat eating dinosaurs.
I don't think you know how many dinosaurs were actually roaming the Earth at that time. Sure, we'd take out dinosaurs pretty quick in this day and age... but not when we were a fledgling species, no way in hell.
who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors
In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.
FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.
In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.
FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.
you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.
In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.
FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.
you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.
You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.
Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.
In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.
FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.
you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.
You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.
Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.
quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.
In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.
FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.
you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.
You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.
Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.
quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.
A computerized gun that aims and fires itself is the perfect predator.
If you don't realize what I was initially defending then you only have your own incompetence to blame. No where did I mention the word "guns". I even explained that humans would not have had the chance to develop weapons technology due to constantly defending themselves from dinosaurs. I thought my contention was self-explanatory, but apparently I need to start dumbing down even the simplest of arguments now... great... ::)
In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.
FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.
you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.
You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.
Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.
quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.
You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.
You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.
AI doesn't give a shit who made it. By your logic, unicellular organisms are the perfect predator because they made us.
You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.
AI doesn't give a shit who made it. By your logic, unicellular organisms are the perfect predator because they made us.
They didn't made us, we evolved from them.
In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.
FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.
you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.
You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.
Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.
quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.
A monkey could fire a gun. Probably not with much skill though.
You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.
AI doesn't give a shit who made it. By your logic, unicellular organisms are the perfect predator because they made us.
They didn't made us, we evolved from them.
And? AI would naturally evolve from us.
You're serious?
Frankly FlatBrainer (and I'm going to try to be nice here), I don't like you. I immediately disliked you the moment you made that long derogatory post in response to JRowe. Your understanding of basic (and I mean, REALLY basic) concepts is very lacking, and you are slow to pick up on new ideas - even ones that aren't nonsense. Your username is supposed to be ironic, and it is (don't get me wrong), but it's not ironic for the reasons you think. It's ironic because it describes you. You are basically a child. You are quick to anger and you don't belong here. I think most everyone will agree after they've witnessed your complete breakdown in response to Jrowe, and I don't think you'll be missed.
If you want to grow up a bit and have a civilized debate (snide jabs and comments completely acceptable and encouraged to an extent), then please do so. But if you're going to continue being a spoiled child who pitches fits every time you don't get your way then please leave and don't come back.You're serious?
Yes, I'm absolutely serious. I hope this concept doens't fly over your head like almost all the others appeared to.
Here's some basic definitions for you, kiddo.
e·volve
ēˈvälv/
verb
1.
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
synonyms: develop, progress, advance; More
Frankly FlatBrainer (and I'm going to try to be nice here), I don't like you. I immediately disliked you the moment you made that long derogatory post in response to JRowe. Your understanding of basic (and I mean, REALLY basic) concepts is very lacking, and you are slow to pick up on new ideas - even ones that aren't nonsense. Your username is supposed to be ironic, and it is (don't get me wrong), but it's not ironic for the reasons you think. It's ironic because it describes you. You are basically a child. You are quick to anger and you don't belong here. I think most everyone will agree after they've witnessed your complete breakdown in response to Jrowe, and I don't think you'll be missed.
If you want to grow up a bit and have a civilized debate (snide jabs and comments completely acceptable and encouraged to an extent), then please do so. But if you're going to continue being a spoiled child who pitches fits every time you don't get your way then please leave and don't come back.You're serious?
Yes, I'm absolutely serious. I hope this concept doens't fly over your head like almost all the others appeared to.
Here's some basic definitions for you, kiddo.
e·volve
ēˈvälv/
verb
1.
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
synonyms: develop, progress, advance; More
Yeah, Mikey is right, FlatBrainer is annoying, just look at his posts: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.200#.VRXnJ_yG_zM (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.200#.VRXnJ_yG_zM)
You certainly implied that the bioluminescence of insects is farfetched.
Some days of our lives shit right here.
No, that is exactly what it is.Also did you look up Pareidolia yet?
I already know what pareidolia is, and this is not that.
Those are clearly faeries. I believe you're seeing insects because of a pre-existing bias.Wait, who's being biased?
You are experiencing pareidolia here, not me.What ever you say
You're the one who sees insects in everything.Not seeing insects in everything, just where they are.
the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist, as in considering the moon to have human featuresSo I see them as insects in a certain kind of lighting that makes them glow. You see them as fairies and therefore state that fairies exist. So who is being biased?
I watched a MTV documentary
Yes, that does happen. Though it will never have us spiral into the sun, the planet will have been destroyed by then, the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth.
Think of that. If the earth were really spinning around the sun as described in gravitational theories, and considering that perpetual motion does not exist, it would oviously come inscreasingly closer to the sun and finally fall into it
Think of that. If the earth were really spinning around the sun as described in gravitational theories, and considering that perpetual motion does not exist, it would oviously come inscreasingly closer to the sun and finally fall into it... The ideas of round earth and gravity are then not only false, but also scientifically terribly illogical. I did find arguments against my theory, but they're mostly irrelevant.
I don't expect us to be saved by that.Yes, that does happen. Though it will never have us spiral into the sun, the planet will have been destroyed by then, the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth.
In time of expanding, Sun will loose its mass, so our orbit will be bigger in time.
I don't expect us to be saved by that.Yes, that does happen. Though it will never have us spiral into the sun, the planet will have been destroyed by then, the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth.
In time of expanding, Sun will loose its mass, so our orbit will be bigger in time.
I don't expect us to be saved by that.Yes, that does happen. Though it will never have us spiral into the sun, the planet will have been destroyed by then, the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth.
In time of expanding, Sun will loose its mass, so our orbit will be bigger in time.
We will live longer than you think. Because Sun is bigger and loses its mass, our orbit will be bigger. Second of all, because it will loose mass, it will loose energy, so temperature will be not that different.
I don't expect us to be saved by that.Yes, that does happen. Though it will never have us spiral into the sun, the planet will have been destroyed by then, the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth.
In time of expanding, Sun will loose its mass, so our orbit will be bigger in time.
We will live longer than you think. Because Sun is bigger and loses its mass, our orbit will be bigger. Second of all, because it will loose mass, it will loose energy, so temperature will be not that different.
Hmm, I'd never thought about that, but it's true. The sun does lose mass and hence its gravitational grip weakens. I wonder what the figures are for that?
I don't expect us to be saved by that.Yes, that does happen. Though it will never have us spiral into the sun, the planet will have been destroyed by then, the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth.
In time of expanding, Sun will loose its mass, so our orbit will be bigger in time.
We will live longer than you think. Because Sun is bigger and loses its mass, our orbit will be bigger. Second of all, because it will loose mass, it will loose energy, so temperature will be not that different.
Hmm, I'd never thought about that, but it's true. The sun does lose mass and hence its gravitational grip weakens. I wonder what the figures are for that?
I don't expect us to be saved by that.Yes, that does happen. Though it will never have us spiral into the sun, the planet will have been destroyed by then, the sun will expand to a red giant and engulf the earth.
In time of expanding, Sun will loose its mass, so our orbit will be bigger in time.
We will live longer than you think. Because Sun is bigger and loses its mass, our orbit will be bigger. Second of all, because it will loose mass, it will loose energy, so temperature will be not that different.
Hmm, I'd never thought about that, but it's true. The sun does lose mass and hence its gravitational grip weakens. I wonder what the figures are for that?
Uh, that doesn't mean we'll live longer than estimated, if anything... we wouldn't live as long. If I understand RET correct, life on Earth formed because we are in the goldilocks zone. If the gravity of the sun weakens and we are further away from it, we would effectively move out of the goldilocks zone and possibly freeze to death or suffer from some other consequence I can't think of right now.
Thankfully this will never happen because the Earth is flat.
Uh, that doesn't mean we'll live longer than estimated, if anything... we wouldn't live as long. If I understand RET correct, life on Earth formed because we are in the goldilocks zone. If the gravity of the sun weakens and we are further away from it, we would effectively move out of the goldilocks zone and possibly freeze to death or suffer from some other consequence I can't think of right now.
Thankfully this will never happen because the Earth is flat.
Uh, that doesn't mean we'll live longer than estimated, if anything... we wouldn't live as long. If I understand RET correct, life on Earth formed because we are in the goldilocks zone. If the gravity of the sun weakens and we are further away from it, we would effectively move out of the goldilocks zone and possibly freeze to death or suffer from some other consequence I can't think of right now.
Thankfully this will never happen because the Earth is flat.
"These conditions must be met for A to be true. We observe A to be true. Therefore B is true."
-Vauxhall
Our Sun will be like that after next 1,5 billion years, so... people will now almost magic technics to survive and will can possibly do synthetic air and oxygen, synthetic food and great bases in which we could live when outiside there is +200 Celsius or -100 Celsius temperature.
Do you have a problem with my post? Because I don't see the relevance of your response.
Are you trying to say that we're not in the goldilocks zone according to RET? ???
Do you have a problem with my post? Because I don't see the relevance of your response.
Are you trying to say that we're not in the goldilocks zone according to RET? ???
Nope (we'd all be dead).
Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your post. If you're trying to make an argument for something, it helps when your argument makes logical sense. Otherwise it will be dismissed.
Uh, that doesn't mean we'll live longer than estimated, if anything... we wouldn't live as long. If I understand RET correct, life on Earth formed because we are in the goldilocks zone. If the gravity of the sun weakens and we are further away from it, we would effectively move out of the goldilocks zone and possibly freeze to death or suffer from some other consequence I can't think of right now.
Thankfully this will never happen because the Earth is flat.
"These conditions must be met for A to be true. We observe A to be true. Therefore B is true."
-Vauxhall
Do you have a problem with my post? Because I don't see the relevance of your response.
Are you trying to say that we're not in the goldilocks zone according to RET? ???Our Sun will be like that after next 1,5 billion years, so... people will now almost magic technics to survive and will can possibly do synthetic air and oxygen, synthetic food and great bases in which we could live when outiside there is +200 Celsius or -100 Celsius temperature.
You're just theory crafting at this point.
Do you have a problem with my post? Because I don't see the relevance of your response.
Are you trying to say that we're not in the goldilocks zone according to RET? ???
Nope (we'd all be dead).
Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your post. If you're trying to make an argument for something, it helps when your argument makes logical sense. Otherwise it will be dismissed.
So you think that the Earth moving outside of the goldilocks zone is beneficial for humanity? That was my argument. Maybe you've misunderstood something.
Do you have a problem with my post? Because I don't see the relevance of your response.
Are you trying to say that we're not in the goldilocks zone according to RET? ???
Nope (we'd all be dead).
Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your post. If you're trying to make an argument for something, it helps when your argument makes logical sense. Otherwise it will be dismissed.
So you think that the Earth moving outside of the goldilocks zone is beneficial for humanity? That was my argument. Maybe you've misunderstood something.
Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
If the sun was expanding, yes. But it seems like you're saying that the Sun loses mass:Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
Are you now changing your opinion? Does the Sun gain or lose mass over time (according to you)?
If the sun lost mass, the gravitational pull of the sun would weaken and we'd possibly be moved out of the goldilocks zone. If the sun gained mass, we'd very easily be burned to a crisp. Either way, it doesn't look good for humanity.
If the sun was expanding, yes. But it seems like you're saying that the Sun loses mass:Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
Are you now changing your opinion? Does the Sun gain or lose mass over time (according to you)?
If the sun lost mass, the gravitational pull of the sun would weaken and we'd possibly be moved out of the goldilocks zone. If the sun gained mass, we'd very easily be burned to a crisp. Either way, it doesn't look good for humanity.
If the sun was expanding, yes. But it seems like you're saying that the Sun loses mass:Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
Are you now changing your opinion? Does the Sun gain or lose mass over time (according to you)?
If the sun lost mass, the gravitational pull of the sun would weaken and we'd possibly be moved out of the goldilocks zone. If the sun gained mass, we'd very easily be burned to a crisp. Either way, it doesn't look good for humanity.
It looses mass, but not fast enough to make a noticeable difference. The Sun will die before Earth's orbit changes significantly.
If the sun was expanding, yes. But it seems like you're saying that the Sun loses mass:Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
Are you now changing your opinion? Does the Sun gain or lose mass over time (according to you)?
If the sun lost mass, the gravitational pull of the sun would weaken and we'd possibly be moved out of the goldilocks zone. If the sun gained mass, we'd very easily be burned to a crisp. Either way, it doesn't look good for humanity.
It looses mass, but not fast enough to make a noticeable difference. The Sun will die before Earth's orbit changes significantly.
Prove it.
If the sun was expanding, yes. But it seems like you're saying that the Sun loses mass:Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
Are you now changing your opinion? Does the Sun gain or lose mass over time (according to you)?
If the sun lost mass, the gravitational pull of the sun would weaken and we'd possibly be moved out of the goldilocks zone. If the sun gained mass, we'd very easily be burned to a crisp. Either way, it doesn't look good for humanity.
It looses mass, but not fast enough to make a noticeable difference. The Sun will die before Earth's orbit changes significantly.
Prove it.
Here is a good start: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html)
The majority of the Suns hydrogen mass is conserved as helium, only a tiny percentage is lost as energy.
If the sun was expanding, yes. But it seems like you're saying that the Sun loses mass:Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
Are you now changing your opinion? Does the Sun gain or lose mass over time (according to you)?
If the sun lost mass, the gravitational pull of the sun would weaken and we'd possibly be moved out of the goldilocks zone. If the sun gained mass, we'd very easily be burned to a crisp. Either way, it doesn't look good for humanity.
It looses mass, but not fast enough to make a noticeable difference. The Sun will die before Earth's orbit changes significantly.
Prove it.
Here is a good start: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html)
The majority of the Suns hydrogen mass is conserved as helium, only a tiny percentage is lost as energy.
Thanks. That's what I'm waiting for - evidence. And you, FE'ers, still can't do that.
If the sun was expanding, yes. But it seems like you're saying that the Sun loses mass:Every star loses mass when it gains more on age. I studied physics on University of Warsaw, but I also like astrophysics.
Are you now changing your opinion? Does the Sun gain or lose mass over time (according to you)?
If the sun lost mass, the gravitational pull of the sun would weaken and we'd possibly be moved out of the goldilocks zone. If the sun gained mass, we'd very easily be burned to a crisp. Either way, it doesn't look good for humanity.
It looses mass, but not fast enough to make a noticeable difference. The Sun will die before Earth's orbit changes significantly.
Prove it.
Here is a good start: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html)
The majority of the Suns hydrogen mass is conserved as helium, only a tiny percentage is lost as energy.
Thanks. That's what I'm waiting for - evidence. And you, FE'ers, still can't do that.
You don't seem to realize there are plenty of evidences, as shown by the maps available on the website.
your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.
there is much evidence for doing so. not only are they a universal concept, but you have photos like these:
(http://www.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cottingley_Fairies_1_article.jpeg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Cottingley-sunbath.jpg)
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle, and existed long before photoshop or any manipulative tools, and were recorded in such old journals, confirming that fact. this is a genuine image, too old to be questionable. they are very clear in what they show.
you accept photographic evidence from people who have photoshop, of a fantasy round earth. you should accept this.
closed mindedness is not an argument.
(http://i.imgur.com/9zF3XPL.jpg)Whatever, if this is the sort of indisputable proof offered I fear for this site! Before taking it too seriously, just check on http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2014/11/real-or-fake-derbyshire-fairy.html (http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2014/11/real-or-fake-derbyshire-fairy.html).
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.
SO what is it that we breath in and out several times a minute, day in and day out?
nothing. breathing is a motion that heats up the body, keeping us alive. there's force, but that doesn't mean air, it means force.
Wow, resurrecting an ancient thread from when I was ill. Real honest tactics from your REers.
And you claim to be capable of actual discussion...
Wow, resurrecting an ancient thread from when I was ill. Real honest tactics from your REers.1) I did not know that you were ill at the time. Sorry about that. I may have read it, but I am afraid my memory is not what it used to be - not that I would boast about that.
And you claim to be capable of actual discussion...
like many here, i have noticed on several occasions the blind obedience with which round earthers view scientists. this is bs. we cannot trust scientists, and there are several reasons for this, all of which may be verified with some simple, common sense.
they want money
scientists are paid to do experiments. oil companies pay then, and climate change stops existing. sugar companies pay them, and there's no link between sugar and obesity. you can look up all of those examples, and that's just the ones they'll admit to. scientists don't care about honesty, they care about the cash.
how do you trust what they say when they aren't after the truth? they'll find what they're asked to find. when they make up new fantasies every day to explain holes (dark energy, gravity, spacetime, string theory) with nothing except "but we can't be wrong!" as evidence, they have long since stopped being anything other than crooks and liars after your money.
they are wrong about gravity
if the earth is stationary, gravity does not exist as we should be moving. if the earth is moving, it would not have formed a sphere as we would be pushed along until we're flat, and then gravity would have torn the earth apart. gravity is obviously impossible. if it existed, the earth should be crushed to diamond by now and yet, not only isn't it, but round earther scientists want you to believe that there is liquid inside the earth, despite the combined weight of the world's entire outer surface coming down and crushing it.
this is complete and utter bs, clearly.
they are wrong about air
this is a simple one. if something as small as a speck of sand gets in your eyes, it stings, yet scientists believe your eyes are constantly being bombarded by air molecules. open your eyes (literally and figuratively). no such pain. it is the simplest thing in the world to see air has been invented as a fiction, to explain away the refractive and resistive properties of aether.
we breathe, and this keeps us warm due to motion. when poisonous chemicals enter into us, we react. gases exist, but it is obvious the fable of an all-consuming air crushing us and gouging into our eyes is not true.
these are three simple examples of why scientists are utterly discredited. think for yourselves.
There. If anyone still doubted that JRowe is a troll, you don't need further evidence.The evidence... The examples provided in OP are so bad they are actually good have some laugh.
Wow, resurrecting an ancient thread from when I was ill. Real honest tactics from your REers.
And you claim to be capable of actual discussion...
Wow, resurrecting an ancient thread from when I was ill. Real honest tactics from your REers.
And you claim to be capable of actual discussion...
You sad that before. Do you have to keep reminding us?Wow, resurrecting an ancient thread from when I was ill. Real honest tactics from your REers.
And you claim to be capable of actual discussion...
You sad that before. Do you have to keep reminding us?When you persist in the same dishonesty, clearly I do.