Sceptimatics theory

The air inside is nearly static relative to the plane and at the same pressure than outside...Another clue ?

Let's imagine an object weighting 1 kg at 14.7 psi
You say it's weight at 0 psi is 0 kg
What pressure corresponds to 1/2 kg ?

The air inside isn't near static at all. It may start off as static, as taxiing but as soon as the plane accelerates, the air is compressed. It only evens back out when there is no further sharp acceleration.

It's like holding a saucer of water. If you walk with it, your water stays on the saucer, but if you were to suddenly try to throw the saucer at speed, the saucer would fly off and leave the water behind. It creates a compression and friction due to sudden movement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:16:11 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

What are you talking about?

You said less resistance, I presume you're referring to resistance against motion since that is generally the definition unless you're talking electronics.  There is no motion of an object on a scale, or at least not always, thus nothing to resist.  Logically, resistance from surrounding air plays no part in weighing an object.

Everything on earth is resisting pressure, whether it's moving or still.
the earth weighs nothing.
We use measurement of weight inside of it but the earth has no weight.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:16:11 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

What are you talking about?

You said less resistance, I presume you're referring to resistance against motion since that is generally the definition unless you're talking electronics.  There is no motion of an object on a scale, or at least not always, thus nothing to resist.  Logically, resistance from surrounding air plays no part in weighing an object.

Everything on earth is resisting pressure, whether it's moving or still.
the earth weighs nothing.
We use measurement of weight inside of it but the earth has no weight.

Sure it does. It has a relative weight to it's sun and it's moon.

1. What causes weight if there is no gravity? Gravity is actually in the definition of weight.

Weight is simply different stages of matter in their place in earths sandwich filling. Once something invades that space , sort of against the grain, it becomes heavier or lighter than it, depending on which way it's been done, up or down.

2. I have not personally looked (unfortunaltely I don't currently have a telescope) but you could check for yourself or ask someone else to look.

But you're telling me you can see this and that. Are you just relying on what you've been told?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 12:42:53 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:16:11 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

What are you talking about?

You said less resistance, I presume you're referring to resistance against motion since that is generally the definition unless you're talking electronics.  There is no motion of an object on a scale, or at least not always, thus nothing to resist.  Logically, resistance from surrounding air plays no part in weighing an object.

Everything on earth is resisting pressure, whether it's moving or still.
the earth weighs nothing.
We use measurement of weight inside of it but the earth has no weight.

Sure it does. It has a relative weight to it's sun and it's moon.

The sun in part of the earth, or what you see as the reflection and so is the moon. Earth weighs nothing. It sits in suspended animation in the blackness of what we call a vacuum.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 13, 2013, 12:45:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 12:42:53 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:16:11 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

What are you talking about?

You said less resistance, I presume you're referring to resistance against motion since that is generally the definition unless you're talking electronics.  There is no motion of an object on a scale, or at least not always, thus nothing to resist.  Logically, resistance from surrounding air plays no part in weighing an object.

Everything on earth is resisting pressure, whether it's moving or still.
the earth weighs nothing.
We use measurement of weight inside of it but the earth has no weight.

Sure it does. It has a relative weight to it's sun and it's moon.

The sun in part of the earth, or what you see as the reflection and so is the moon. Earth weighs nothing. It sits in suspended animation in the blackness of what we call a vacuum.

Yeah yeah I know. You believe in what you believe. I'm really not trying to get into it with you. I'm just providing you with the information that in RET planets have weight too.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 12:51:27 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on September 13, 2013, 12:45:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 12:42:53 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:16:11 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

What are you talking about?

You said less resistance, I presume you're referring to resistance against motion since that is generally the definition unless you're talking electronics.  There is no motion of an object on a scale, or at least not always, thus nothing to resist.  Logically, resistance from surrounding air plays no part in weighing an object.

Everything on earth is resisting pressure, whether it's moving or still.
the earth weighs nothing.
We use measurement of weight inside of it but the earth has no weight.

Sure it does. It has a relative weight to it's sun and it's moon.

The sun in part of the earth, or what you see as the reflection and so is the moon. Earth weighs nothing. It sits in suspended animation in the blackness of what we call a vacuum.

Yeah yeah I know. You believe in what you believe. I'm really not trying to get into it with you. I'm just providing you with the information that in RET planets have weight too.

You're quite entitled to think so, but at least you know why I don't.

Quote from: REphoenix

1. What causes weight if there is no gravity? Gravity is actually in the definition of weight.

Weight is simply different stages of matter in their place in earths sandwich filling. Once something invades that space , sort of against the grain, it becomes heavier or lighter than it, depending on which way it's been done, up or down.

Quote from: REphoenix

2. I have not personally looked (unfortunaltely I don't currently have a telescope) but you could check for yourself or ask someone else to look.

But you're telling me you can see this and that. Are you just relying on what you've been told?

1. Explain how the same object can have different weights in different places.
2. Considering the fact that the planets have been known to exist before space travel was even around I would assume that they are visible with a telescope. Also, you can check this yourself.

Quote from: Antonio on September 13, 2013, 12:01:24 PM

The air inside is nearly static relative to the plane and at the same pressure than outside...Another clue ?

Let's imagine an object weighting 1 kg at 14.7 psi
You say it's weight at 0 psi is 0 kg
What pressure corresponds to 1/2 kg ?

The air inside isn't near static at all. It may start off as static, as taxiing but as soon as the plane accelerates, the air is compressed. It only evens back out when there is no further sharp acceleration.

It's like holding a saucer of water. If you walk with it, your water stays on the saucer, but if you were to suddenly try to throw the saucer at speed, the saucer would fly off and leave the water behind. It creates a compression and friction due to sudden movement.

Let's say we are stopped at the runway. The planes accelerates. You are saying that the air pressure in the back of the cabin is greater than the air pressure in the front ?

You've not answered to my other question.

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

When I saw Saturn I saw a planet with rings. By all means, prove to me that I never saw Saturn.

1. Explain how the same object can have different weights in different places.

Variations in atmospheric pressure upon the object.

2. Considering the fact that the planets have been known to exist before space travel was even around I would assume that they are visible with a telescope. Also, you can check this yourself.

Go and look through a telescope. Pick out somewhere on land or out at sea and tell me how far you can see before the furthest object becomes indescribable.
Ok, you're looking through a thicker atmosphere, but you'll find that you can't see much after tens of miles ,clearly.
Equate that to the sky and add a larger helping of sight and you'll realise that telescopes aren't what you think they are, in terms of this distant planet carry on. Thy're fine for viewing big things in the atmosphere, like, say reflections off of a dome.
Saying planets existed before space travel is pointless because space travel is a figment of over active imaginations and skulduggery.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 12:37:53 PM

Quote from: Antonio on September 13, 2013, 12:01:24 PM

The air inside is nearly static relative to the plane and at the same pressure than outside...Another clue ?

Let's imagine an object weighting 1 kg at 14.7 psi
You say it's weight at 0 psi is 0 kg
What pressure corresponds to 1/2 kg ?

The air inside isn't near static at all. It may start off as static, as taxiing but as soon as the plane accelerates, the air is compressed. It only evens back out when there is no further sharp acceleration.

It's like holding a saucer of water. If you walk with it, your water stays on the saucer, but if you were to suddenly try to throw the saucer at speed, the saucer would fly off and leave the water behind. It creates a compression and friction due to sudden movement.

Let's say we are stopped at the runway. The planes accelerates. You are saying that the air pressure in the back of the cabin is greater than the air pressure in the front ?

You've not answered to my other question.

The best way I can answer this so you can get a clue on it, is to imagine the cockpit filled with water with the pilot in his seat taxiing onto the runway.
The water will be fairly static, just like the air would in his cabin.
Now he accelerates...and as he does so, that water gets pushed back against him and as long as he keeps speeding up...that water will continue to be pushed against the back of the cabin/cockpit but also, it will be pushing against his face, too, until he stops accelerating, in which case the water will return to it's normal pressure, just like the air would.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:02:45 AM

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

When I saw Saturn I saw a planet with rings. By all means, prove to me that I never saw Saturn.

So what exactly did you see? Can you describe it, briefly as in clarity and size to your sight, say compared to seeing the reflection of what people think is a moon.

Quote from: REphoenix

1. Explain how the same object can have different weights in different places.

Variations in atmospheric pressure upon the object.

Quote from: REphoenix

2. Considering the fact that the planets have been known to exist before space travel was even around I would assume that they are visible with a telescope. Also, you can check this yourself.

Go and look through a telescope. Pick out somewhere on land or out at sea and tell me how far you can see before the furthest object becomes indescribable.
Ok, you're looking through a thicker atmosphere, but you'll find that you can't see much after tens of miles ,clearly.
Equate that to the sky and add a larger helping of sight and you'll realise that telescopes aren't what you think they are, in terms of this distant planet carry on. Thy're fine for viewing big things in the atmosphere, like, say reflections off of a dome.
Saying planets existed before space travel is pointless because space travel is a figment of over active imaginations and skulduggery.

What blocks the light from reaching my eyes through space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 04:03:07 PM

Quote from: REphoenix

1. Explain how the same object can have different weights in different places.

Variations in atmospheric pressure upon the object.

Quote from: REphoenix

2. Considering the fact that the planets have been known to exist before space travel was even around I would assume that they are visible with a telescope. Also, you can check this yourself.

Go and look through a telescope. Pick out somewhere on land or out at sea and tell me how far you can see before the furthest object becomes indescribable.
Ok, you're looking through a thicker atmosphere, but you'll find that you can't see much after tens of miles ,clearly.
Equate that to the sky and add a larger helping of sight and you'll realise that telescopes aren't what you think they are, in terms of this distant planet carry on. Thy're fine for viewing big things in the atmosphere, like, say reflections off of a dome.
Saying planets existed before space travel is pointless because space travel is a figment of over active imaginations and skulduggery.

What blocks the light from reaching my eyes through space?

Nothing.
There is no space. It does not exist, except for blackness that you perceive.
Anything you see against that blackness, is mirrored reflections from earth. EVERYTHING.

How can a planet with rings possibly be a reflection?

How can a planet with rings possibly be a reflection?

I'm still waiting for someone to describe this planet from seeing it with their own telescope and not just relying on being told.

Quote from: REphoenix on September 13, 2013, 04:27:39 PM

How can a planet with rings possibly be a reflection?

I'm still waiting for someone to describe this planet from seeing it with their own telescope and not just relying on being told.

Sokarul already did.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 04:31:59 PM

Quote from: REphoenix on September 13, 2013, 04:27:39 PM

How can a planet with rings possibly be a reflection?

I'm still waiting for someone to describe this planet from seeing it with their own telescope and not just relying on being told.

Sokarul already did.

I'm waiting for him to explain what he saw.

Quote from: REphoenix on September 13, 2013, 04:33:51 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 04:31:59 PM

Quote from: REphoenix on September 13, 2013, 04:27:39 PM

How can a planet with rings possibly be a reflection?

I'm still waiting for someone to describe this planet from seeing it with their own telescope and not just relying on being told.

Sokarul already did.

I'm waiting for him to explain what he saw.

He saw a planet with rings. Clearly he was implying that he saw exactly how Saturn is supposed to look.

Quote from: sokarul on September 13, 2013, 01:38:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:02:45 AM

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

When I saw Saturn I saw a planet with rings. By all means, prove to me that I never saw Saturn.

So what exactly did you see? Can you describe it, briefly as in clarity and size to your sight, say compared to seeing the reflection of what people think is a moon.

I saw it over 15 years ago. There was a couple telescopes set up. The one that was looking at Saturn was the biggest telescope. Saturn fit in the field of view of the telescope and took up the whole view from what I remember. It was not in color.The rings were clearly visible, it's how you knew it was Saturn. It didn't look like a dot, it looked like as if you were looking at the moon through weak binoculars.   

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 04:11:22 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 13, 2013, 01:38:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:02:45 AM

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

When I saw Saturn I saw a planet with rings. By all means, prove to me that I never saw Saturn.

So what exactly did you see? Can you describe it, briefly as in clarity and size to your sight, say compared to seeing the reflection of what people think is a moon.

I saw it over 15 years ago. There was a couple telescopes set up. The one that was looking at Saturn was the biggest telescope. Saturn fit in the field of view of the telescope and took up the whole view from what I remember. It was not in color.The rings were clearly visible, it's how you knew it was Saturn. It didn't look like a dot, it looked like as if you were looking at the moon through weak binoculars.   

And tilted of course, right?

Quote from: sokarul on September 13, 2013, 04:38:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 04:11:22 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 13, 2013, 01:38:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:02:45 AM

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

When I saw Saturn I saw a planet with rings. By all means, prove to me that I never saw Saturn.

So what exactly did you see? Can you describe it, briefly as in clarity and size to your sight, say compared to seeing the reflection of what people think is a moon.

I saw it over 15 years ago. There was a couple telescopes set up. The one that was looking at Saturn was the biggest telescope. Saturn fit in the field of view of the telescope and took up the whole view from what I remember. It was not in color.The rings were clearly visible, it's how you knew it was Saturn. It didn't look like a dot, it looked like as if you were looking at the moon through weak binoculars.   

And tilted of course, right?

I think it was.

Here is a video I found. Probably what I saw.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Here is where I was. https://sites.google.com/a/jeffcoschools.us/outdoor-lab/windy-peak
If you check the weekly schedule, they still do it to this day.

1.5 billion supposed miles away and you could see it like that through a telescope?

1.5 billion supposed miles away and you could see it like that through a telescope?

There is nothing in the way to block the light.

1.5 billion supposed miles away and you could see it like that through a telescope?

Yes, just like the youtube video.
The night I saw Saturn I also saw another galaxy. I'm not sure which one.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 04:57:13 PM

1.5 billion supposed miles away and you could see it like that through a telescope?

There is nothing in the way to block the light.

There is nothing for light to travel through. That's why, what you are seeing, is reflections from earth.
Space like you think you know it, does not exist.

1.5 billion supposed miles away and you could see it like that through a telescope?

Saturn is visible with the naked eye.  Telescopes just help you see it better.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 04:57:13 PM

1.5 billion supposed miles away and you could see it like that through a telescope?

Yes, just like the youtube video.
The night I saw Saturn I also saw another galaxy. I'm not sure which one.

Whatever you see up there is not 1.5 billion miles away. It's a reflection from earth on to the dome.