Then you would be able to see an infinite distance. However, the air has dust, moister and other stuff in it that hinders the distance it can travel.
It really does go from east to west. The optical illusion comes into play when the sun is so far away that it is approaching the horizon. This distance is at the limit of the sun's light being able to penetrate the air. It simply appears to sink below the horizon as it fades away from view.
I hope this makes sense.
QuoteIt really does go from east to west. The optical illusion comes into play when the sun is so far away that it is approaching the horizon. This distance is at the limit of the sun's light being able to penetrate the air. It simply appears to sink below the horizon as it fades away from view.
I hope this makes sense.
It doesn't.
So how does it get back in the east again to appear to come up from the horizon?
If the Earth were flat.........the sun wouldn't set on the horizon. It would stay high up in the sky and get smaller and smaller as it moved away until you couldn't see it. Similar to a bird flying away from you.
It goes in a circle.
The atmolayer magnifies the size of the sun. It is like a giant magnifying glass.
QuoteIt goes in a circle.
Visual evidence would suggest the only way it is going in a circle on a flat earth is to go under the earth and come back around the other side.
QuoteThe atmolayer magnifies the size of the sun. It is like a giant magnifying glass.
You couldn't even get a 6 year old to buy that explanation.
It is. It gets dimmer and dimmer until it can not be seen anymore.
Like this.
Have you never hear of atmospheric distortion?
QuoteIt really does go from east to west. The optical illusion comes into play when the sun is so far away that it is approaching the horizon. This distance is at the limit of the sun's light being able to penetrate the air. It simply appears to sink below the horizon as it fades away from view.
I hope this makes sense.
It doesn't.
So how does it get back in the east again to appear to come up from the horizon?
It goes in a circle.If the Earth were flat.........the sun wouldn't set on the horizon. It would stay high up in the sky and get smaller and smaller as it moved away until you couldn't see it. Similar to a bird flying away from you.
The atmolayer magnifies the size of the sun. It is like a giant magnifying glass.
Not all magnifying lenses are convex. Some are flat.
(http://www.grannysstore.com/Wilderness_Survival/images/Fresnel_Lens_Fire.jpg)
Not all magnifying lenses are convex. Some are flat.
(http://www.grannysstore.com/Wilderness_Survival/images/Fresnel_Lens_Fire.jpg)
Even that 'flat' lens is a convex, although less convex than ordinary magnifying lenses.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Fresnel_lens.svg/401px-Fresnel_lens.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Fresnel_lens.svg/401px-Fresnel_lens.svg.png)
Not all magnifying lenses are convex. Some are flat.
(http://www.grannysstore.com/Wilderness_Survival/images/Fresnel_Lens_Fire.jpg)
Even that 'flat' lens is a convex, although less convex than ordinary magnifying lenses.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Fresnel_lens.svg/401px-Fresnel_lens.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Fresnel_lens.svg/401px-Fresnel_lens.svg.png)
It just goes to show you that you have misconceptions about magnification.
The air is not perfectly transparent. Even with the most powerful telescope you could not see forever.
The air is not perfectly transparent. Even with the most powerful telescope you could not see forever.
It has been mentioned before on previous threads. But there are such things as infrared films with the proper filters which can eliminate haze and other atmospheric effects. If you used these with a powerful enough telescope you should be able to take pictures of Honolu from San Diego. That is only about 2500 miles. This is just a common thing that a lot of photographers - amateur or professional - do . They use the film and filters to eliminate haze to get clear pictures such as distant mountains, etc.
I would suggest Flat Earthers do this and post their photographs. Diamond Head at Honolulu and Point Loma in San Diego are suggested points for taking the photographs. Why haven't the Flat Earther done this and published the photographs on this website ? It should be very simple to do.....If the earth was flat, that is.
You are seeing through just a relatively thin layer of the earth's atmosphere, but you can see the moon, the sun and stars light years away at night. That is fairly close to infinity.
Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.
On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane. When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane. Do you need for me to draw you a diagram? Can you really not understand this?
Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.
On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane. When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane. Do you need for me to draw you a diagram? Can you really not understand this?
May I ask............what the hell is an atmoplane?
Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.
On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane. When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane. Do you need for me to draw you a diagram? Can you really not understand this?
Yes please make a diagram, because I observe stars the moon and the sun just above the horizon, which shouldn't be possible according to your theory.
Ok, I will. And you will look not so good.
Ok, I will. And you will look not so good.
Can't wait
Well, it sure the heck is not an atmosphere.
QuoteWell, it sure the heck is not an atmosphere.
Because that would be silly?
Ok, I will. And you will look not so good.
Can't wait
I will exercise my patience. I will wait. Got to go now . But I will be back later this evening to see how jroa is going to make Don Quichotte "look not so good." It should be interesting. :D
I told you it's an optical illusion. How can I show you a picture with out the illusion occurring? I don't have an illusion filter for my camera.By that diagram at the equator at the equinox the sun would rise in the north east and set in the north west.QuoteIt goes in a circle.
Visual evidence would suggest the only way it is going in a circle on a flat earth is to go under the earth and come back around the other side.
Like this.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/a/a1/Seasons.png)QuoteThe atmolayer magnifies the size of the sun. It is like a giant magnifying glass.
You couldn't even get a 6 year old to buy that explanation.
Have you never hear of atmospheric distortion?
Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.Wrong, at midnight on the equator at the equinox the sun's light would only travel through the equivalent of 20-25 kilometres of sea level atmopshere.
On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane. When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane. Do you need for me to draw you a diagram? Can you really not understand this?
It seems that Jroa deleted his post, but I'll reply anyway. I'm not making stuff up, it's the observed world. You tell me why we can't see other objects over great distances, because the atmo- plane/layer/sphere is too thick for the light reflecting from these objects to shine through. I ask you why we can see stars, the moon and the sun just above the horizon. They need to travel through that same thickness....so yea, show me your diagram.You see your stars and your moon because you are viewing them through a much less agitated atmosphere.
And don't think that's the end of it, because I'll point to any mistakes. If you have trouble making a diagram, just come clean and admit it. There is nothing to be ashamed of.
It seems that Jroa deleted his post, but I'll reply anyway. I'm not making stuff up, it's the observed world. You tell me why we can't see other objects over great distances, because the atmo- plane/layer/sphere is too thick for the light reflecting from these objects to shine through. I ask you why we can see stars, the moon and the sun just above the horizon. They need to travel through that same thickness....so yea, show me your diagram.You see your stars and your moon because you are viewing them through a much less agitated atmosphere.
And don't think that's the end of it, because I'll point to any mistakes. If you have trouble making a diagram, just come clean and admit it. There is nothing to be ashamed of.
How does the moon fit into your ice dome idea sceptimatic?It's a reflection of earth. Don;t get mixed up like others do and think I mean it's a reflection of earth that we live on, as in reflections of street lights and what not.
I'm sure you have looked down a long road on a hot summers day and saw it look like an agitated mass of waving air, right?It seems that Jroa deleted his post, but I'll reply anyway. I'm not making stuff up, it's the observed world. You tell me why we can't see other objects over great distances, because the atmo- plane/layer/sphere is too thick for the light reflecting from these objects to shine through. I ask you why we can see stars, the moon and the sun just above the horizon. They need to travel through that same thickness....so yea, show me your diagram.You see your stars and your moon because you are viewing them through a much less agitated atmosphere.
And don't think that's the end of it, because I'll point to any mistakes. If you have trouble making a diagram, just come clean and admit it. There is nothing to be ashamed of.
What is an agitated atmosphere ? Besides that, sceptimatic, I thought you were a confirmed FE ? The correct term in that case should have been agitated atmolayer ?
Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?
It's a reflection of earth. Don;t get mixed up like others do and think I mean it's a reflection of earth that we live on, as in reflections of street lights and what not.
I mean it's a reflection of a weaker earth sun through earth crystal which would be abundant at the real centre of earths circle, the one we are told is the north pole and has been navigated, which in my opinion is a massive misdirection of the truth.
Have you ever seen the texture of your face in a mirror?QuoteIt's a reflection of earth. Don;t get mixed up like others do and think I mean it's a reflection of earth that we live on, as in reflections of street lights and what not.
I mean it's a reflection of a weaker earth sun through earth crystal which would be abundant at the real centre of earths circle, the one we are told is the north pole and has been navigated, which in my opinion is a massive misdirection of the truth.
When viewing the moon through a high powered telescope you can see the texture of it's surface. I find it hard to believe we are looking at a reflection.
Have you ever seen the texture of your face in a mirror?
Is that hard to believe it's a reflection?
Try this:
Get a big mirror and a decent torch. Put some patterned wallpaper opposite the mirror and shine a light on the paper. Do this in the dark, so that your torch reflection rebounds back to the mirror and tell me what you see.
Have you ever seen the texture of your face in a mirror?QuoteIt's a reflection of earth. Don;t get mixed up like others do and think I mean it's a reflection of earth that we live on, as in reflections of street lights and what not.
I mean it's a reflection of a weaker earth sun through earth crystal which would be abundant at the real centre of earths circle, the one we are told is the north pole and has been navigated, which in my opinion is a massive misdirection of the truth.
When viewing the moon through a high powered telescope you can see the texture of it's surface. I find it hard to believe we are looking at a reflection.
Is that hard to believe it's a reflection?
Try this:
Get a big mirror and a decent torch. Put some patterned wallpaper opposite the mirror and shine a light on the paper. Do this in the dark, so that your torch reflection rebounds back to the mirror and tell me what you see.
Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?
Put your torch behind a pattered wall paper opposite the mirror in a dark room and then look into the mirror and tell me what you see.QuoteHave you ever seen the texture of your face in a mirror?
Is that hard to believe it's a reflection?
No. Because when I do that I am staring directly into a reflective surface.
When I look up at the sky I do see a reflective surface.
Your analogies are terrible.QuoteTry this:
Get a big mirror and a decent torch. Put some patterned wallpaper opposite the mirror and shine a light on the paper. Do this in the dark, so that your torch reflection rebounds back to the mirror and tell me what you see.
I'll see some wallpaper being lit on fire by a torch.......reflected in a mirror?
Makes zero sense.
Is the Sahara desert blue and green?Have you ever seen the texture of your face in a mirror?QuoteIt's a reflection of earth. Don;t get mixed up like others do and think I mean it's a reflection of earth that we live on, as in reflections of street lights and what not.
I mean it's a reflection of a weaker earth sun through earth crystal which would be abundant at the real centre of earths circle, the one we are told is the north pole and has been navigated, which in my opinion is a massive misdirection of the truth.
When viewing the moon through a high powered telescope you can see the texture of it's surface. I find it hard to believe we are looking at a reflection.
Is that hard to believe it's a reflection?
Try this:
Get a big mirror and a decent torch. Put some patterned wallpaper opposite the mirror and shine a light on the paper. Do this in the dark, so that your torch reflection rebounds back to the mirror and tell me what you see.
You're really of the chart, aren't you? Whenever I look in the mirror I see myself in clear details. It ressembles me. Although I can't be sure of my face, it does show the clothes I wear, etc. You're saying the moon is a reflection of the earth. I've never seen the amount of craters on earth which I see on the surface of the moon. The moon is all grey, while whenever I look at the earth it's blue and green mostly. It's just plain stupidity if you think it's the earth's reflection.
I see wallpaper with light behind it.So what do you think you might see off a perfect dome mirror, against blackness?
It's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.
So what do you think you might see off a perfect dome mirror, against blackness?
I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.QuoteIt's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.
It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.
Completely defies logic.
Is the Sahara desert blue and green?Have you ever seen the texture of your face in a mirror?QuoteIt's a reflection of earth. Don;t get mixed up like others do and think I mean it's a reflection of earth that we live on, as in reflections of street lights and what not.
I mean it's a reflection of a weaker earth sun through earth crystal which would be abundant at the real centre of earths circle, the one we are told is the north pole and has been navigated, which in my opinion is a massive misdirection of the truth.
When viewing the moon through a high powered telescope you can see the texture of it's surface. I find it hard to believe we are looking at a reflection.
Is that hard to believe it's a reflection?
Try this:
Get a big mirror and a decent torch. Put some patterned wallpaper opposite the mirror and shine a light on the paper. Do this in the dark, so that your torch reflection rebounds back to the mirror and tell me what you see.
You're really of the chart, aren't you? Whenever I look in the mirror I see myself in clear details. It ressembles me. Although I can't be sure of my face, it does show the clothes I wear, etc. You're saying the moon is a reflection of the earth. I've never seen the amount of craters on earth which I see on the surface of the moon. The moon is all grey, while whenever I look at the earth it's blue and green mostly. It's just plain stupidity if you think it's the earth's reflection.
What about ice covered land?
What about the oceans?
You've only seen what you can afford or are allowed to see, or is as close as you'll ever see without threatening your existence due to massive atmospheric change.
It's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.
I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.QuoteIt's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.
It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.
Completely defies logic.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.
Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?
That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.
Why Do We Only See One Side of the Moon?If you believe all that, then nothing is ever going to change your mind. I'll deck out of this with you as your goal here is to push the rotating globe, not question it.
You may have heard references made to the "dark side" of the Moon. This popular, although somewhat inaccurate term refers to the fact that only one face of the Moon, the "near side", is visible to us. The dark side or far side is permanently rotated away from our planet.
Why is this the case? We all know that the Earth rotates on its own axis, so theoretically, the Moon should also do the same, allowing us to get a full picture of the planetoid. Why are we limited to seeing only 50 percent? It turns out that the speed at which the Moon rotates has led to this particular phenomenon. Millions of years ago, the Moon spun at a much faster pace than it does now. However, the gravitational influence of the Earth has gradually acted upon the Moon to slow its rotation down, in the same way that the much smaller gravitational influence of the Moon acts upon the Earth to create tides. This influence slowed the rotational period of the Moon to match that of its orbit – about 29.5 days – and it is now "locked in" to this period.
If the Moon didn't spin at all, then eventually it would show its far side to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit. However, since the rotational period is exactly the same as the orbital period, the same portion of the Moon's sphere is always facing the Earth.
Another interesting fact is that actually a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface is observable from Earth. Since the Moon's orbit is elliptical, and not circular, the speed of its orbital travel increases and decreases depending on how close it is to our planet. The rotational speed of the Moon is constant however – and this difference between orbital speed and rotational speed means that when the Moon is farthest from the Earth, its orbital speed slows down just enough to allow its rotational speed to overtake it, giving observers a small glimpse of the usually hidden area. The term for this "rocking" motion of the Moon is called libration and it allows for 59 percent of the Moon to be seen in total (over time).
Finally, the reason that the far side of the Moon is frequently referred to as the "dark side" is because many people mistakenly think that it never sees any light from the sun. This notion results from a misinterpretation of the fact that it is never illuminated so that it can be observed from Earth. In fact, since the Moon is constantly rotating on its own axis, there is no area of the planetoid which is in permanent darkness, and the far side of the Moon is only completely devoid of sunlight during a Full Moon – when the Sun is facing the Moon with the Earth in between.
If you believe all that, then nothing is ever going to change your mind. I'll deck out of this with you as your goal here is to push the rotating globe, not question it.
I'm well aware of how they say it works. The question should be...why the hell people accept it. It makes no logical sense for the moon to do this. None whatsoever.I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.QuoteIt's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.
It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.
Completely defies logic.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.
I can explain in words, but this video tells more than 1000 words. Only takes 2 minutes to watch. Pretty simple, uh?
Why only one side of the moon is visible (http://#)
Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?
That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.
What? It is still there. Just click on the link of that quote.
Or, click here. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774)
Fine, no problem here. You're not alone. There's many on here that absolutely refuse to question what's been put into their heads.QuoteIf you believe all that, then nothing is ever going to change your mind. I'll deck out of this with you as your goal here is to push the rotating globe, not question it.
I don't see a logical reason to question it. Nor do I see anything factual that disputes it.
Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?
That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.
What? It is still there. Just click on the link of that quote.
Or, click here. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774)
There is no diagram Jroa to show how this could be possible. If you talk nonsense about making a diagram which you don't make.....what other nonsense might you be telling?
Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.
On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane. When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane. Do you need for me to draw you a diagram? Can you really not understand this?
Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?
That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.
What? It is still there. Just click on the link of that quote.
Or, click here. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774)
There is no diagram Jroa to show how this could be possible. If you talk nonsense about making a diagram which you don't make.....what other nonsense might you be telling?
Here. Note that this is not to scale.
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2013-11-07124207_zpsed08c10b.png)
Can you not see that the light has to pass through a lot more air when it is at an angle?
Light refracts as it passes through different density layers. This causes the illusion that the sun is closer to the horizon than it is.
Light refracts as it passes through different density layers. This causes the illusion that the sun is closer to the horizon than it is.It's the other way around. Refraction makes the sun appearing higher above the horizon than it is (and stars as well).
Light refracts as it passes through different density layers. This causes the illusion that the sun is closer to the horizon than it is.It's the other way around. Refraction makes the sun appearing higher above the horizon than it is (and stars as well).
(http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/ekshiksha/images_human_eye_10/figure_9.JPG)
Mind you, this works on a flat earth and on a round earth either.
Fine, no problem here. You're not alone. There's many on here that absolutely refuse to question what's been put into their heads.
You carry on with the way you are going though, because all you will learn is exactly what you have already learned, which in my honest opinion, is bull crap.
I've been there and questioned them all to come to where I am. What have you done, other than to simply, accept what science books tell you?QuoteFine, no problem here. You're not alone. There's many on here that absolutely refuse to question what's been put into their heads.
You carry on with the way you are going though, because all you will learn is exactly what you have already learned, which in my honest opinion, is bull crap.
When you say all I will learn is what I have already learned..................that is completely false.
We learn new things in the field of science constantly. Do you think the same theories that exist now were exactly the same 50 years ago? There is always something new to learn.
You are trying to say I'm close minded...........and all you're doing is successfully showing how stubborn and close minded you are yourself.
I don't see how you equate making up things like an ice dome and saying the moon is a reflection of the earth (downright ridiculous) into being an example of having an open mind and questioning things.
I've been there and questioned them all to come to where I am. What have you done, other than to simply, accept what science books tell you?
If I was closed minded, I would stick rigidly to one thing, like you're doing, yet I'm still open to correction on my thoughts, to a certain extent.
What I'm not open to, is having my mind changed from an ice dome, because I'm certain in my own mind that we do live under one.
I'm also 1 million per cent certain that the earth is not a Rotating ball in a vacuum of what we are told, space is.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
If I keep telling you I have a Labrador but you have never witnessed it for yourself, yet you see me buying a few large tins of dog meat that happen to have a Labradors face on the label and a massive bag of mixer that also has a Labradors face on the packaging, it will go a long way into making your mind up that I have a Labrador.QuoteI've been there and questioned them all to come to where I am. What have you done, other than to simply, accept what science books tell you?
Why do you automatically assume I accept what science books tell me?
Wouldn't someone with an open mind not make such assumptions?QuoteIf I was closed minded, I would stick rigidly to one thing, like you're doing, yet I'm still open to correction on my thoughts, to a certain extent.
You mean like rigidly rejecting mainstream science..........saying there is nothing in space but blackness...........and saying man has never been to space?
Would those be examples of being rigid and close minded?QuoteWhat I'm not open to, is having my mind changed from an ice dome, because I'm certain in my own mind that we do live under one.
There is nothing to suggest your idea is true.
Absolutely nothing.QuoteI'm also 1 million per cent certain that the earth is not a Rotating ball in a vacuum of what we are told, space is.
Yet you are clearly open minded.QuoteI could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I don't actually. To be truthful.
I have no idea, outside of just wanting to be different, how someone would come up with the ideas you have.
If I keep telling you I have a Labrador but you have never witnessed it for yourself, yet you see me buying a few large tins of dog meat that happen to have a Labradors face on the label and a massive bag of mixer that also has a Labradors face on the packaging, it will go a long way into making your mind up that I have a Labrador.
If I then go on to buying the largest dog basket in the store, then you will see enough information that convinces you that I do actually have a Labrador.
If someone comes up to you and tells you that my dog is a Yorkshire terrier, then you are going to tell that person that he's dead wrong, because you have seen the evidence that my dog is indeed a Labrador or at least a large breed of dog.
This is what's happening to you people when you get shown pictures of earth and get told it's a ball that is rotating.
When someone tells you it's not, you say you have enough evidence to convince you.
Because it takes the same amount of time to rotate as it does to orbit.I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.QuoteIt's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.
It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.
Completely defies logic.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. You can say it's wrong all day but it won't change the fact that you don't have any evidence that it's wrong and have no evidence your ideas are correct. Why have you not done any experiments to test you ideas? How can you be so sure of them otherwise.I'm well aware of how they say it works. The question should be...why the hell people accept it. It makes no logical sense for the moon to do this. None whatsoever.I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.QuoteIt's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.
It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.
Completely defies logic.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.
I can explain in words, but this video tells more than 1000 words. Only takes 2 minutes to watch. Pretty simple, uh?
Why only one side of the moon is visible (http://#)
The reason is obvious. It's because it was made to fit, just like every other coincidence.
Okay let me make this easier for you Sceptimatic by telling you what these are. The first is the Estov effect. An effect where objects travelling in the same direction as the earth rotates weighing less then objects travelling in the opposite direction due to centrifugal forces.http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60071.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60071.0.html)Okay just answer these two links. You haven't even responded yo these two yet.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.0.html (http://www.theflatearthforum.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.0.html)
The second one is where someone DOES AN EXPERIMENT finds that they are able to see less of a mountain at further distances due to the earth's curvature.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59073.60 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59073.60) here we have 100 miles or 160 kilometres of view at sea level. When it's right above the sunlight has to travel through the equivalent of approximately 8 kilometres of 5 miles of sea level air. Going by the FE sun distance of 3000 miles, to travel through the equivalent of 100 miles or 160 kilometres of sea level air the horizontal distance have have to be approximately 60000 miles, this many times further then it ever gets.Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?
That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.
What? It is still there. Just click on the link of that quote.
Or, click here. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774)
There is no diagram Jroa to show how this could be possible. If you talk nonsense about making a diagram which you don't make.....what other nonsense might you be telling?
Here. Note that this is not to scale.
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2013-11-07124207_zpsed08c10b.png)
Can you not see that the light has to pass through a lot more air when it is at an angle?Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.
On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane. When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane. Do you need for me to draw you a diagram? Can you really not understand this?
You could see as far as history goes back, to the 'Cosmic Dawn'I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
This is a picture of stars (galaxies, actually) that are 13.5 billion light years away. A terrestrial telescope is able to see it, too. Chile telescope, hawaii telescope and a couple of non-terrestrial NASA telescopes: spitzer and hubble.
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/spitzer/20131121/pia17558-640.jpg)
So why does the sun disappear while at the same time stars are visible on the horizon? Why aren't foggy days shorter?
To an ant, a person is impossibly large. But we still exist.You could see as far as history goes back, to the 'Cosmic Dawn'I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
This is a picture of stars (galaxies, actually) that are 13.5 billion light years away. A terrestrial telescope is able to see it, too. Chile telescope, hawaii telescope and a couple of non-terrestrial NASA telescopes: spitzer and hubble.
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/spitzer/20131121/pia17558-640.jpg)
So why does the sun disappear while at the same time stars are visible on the horizon? Why aren't foggy days shorter?
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.
I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.
Maybe he/she/it thinks a ly is a measurement of time.I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.
Well, one could argue that, in some ways, a light year could be used as a measure of time. After all, when you say that a galaxy is 13.5 billion light years away, you're also saying that you are looking at that galaxy as it was 13.5 billion years ago because it took that long for its light to reach us.Maybe he/she/it thinks a ly is a measurement of time.I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.
Well, one could argue that, in some ways, a light year could be used as a measure of time. After all, when you say that a galaxy is 13.5 billion light years away, you're also saying that you are looking at that galaxy as it was 13.5 billion years ago because it took that long for its light to reach us.Maybe he/she/it thinks a ly is a measurement of time.I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.
You could see as far as history goes back, to the 'Cosmic Dawn'I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
This is a picture of stars (galaxies, actually) that are 13.5 billion light years away. A terrestrial telescope is able to see it, too. Chile telescope, hawaii telescope and a couple of non-terrestrial NASA telescopes: spitzer and hubble.
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/spitzer/20131121/pia17558-640.jpg)
So why does the sun disappear while at the same time stars are visible on the horizon? Why aren't foggy days shorter?
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.
Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Yes,yes, I know, I know, but, but, it's not true, you can see into the past, you see stars as they WERE hundreds/thousands/millions or whatever years ago, because that's how long it takes the light to reach your eyes.
Have a word will you all, because it's getting beyond ridiculous, the amount of brainwashing you lot are willing to accept.
I'll give you a plain...LOGICAL and SIMPLE and EASY way to understand. Will you grasp it?...will you accept it?.... No you won't, because science has told you the big fabricated stories and that's amazing enough for you lot, but here goes.
When you see a car move away from you at night, with it's lights on...you see that car and it's lights get further away....BUT...you are seeing them AS IS, not as it was in the past.
If the car stopped a mile up the road, you see the light from that point, meaning, you see the light of that car at say 12.00 pm just as the person in that car will see 12.00 pm on his/her clock.
The point of light we see is the point of light directly from the source. The rest of it is scattered light around us.
The sooner people get this stupid notion that light has a set speed, out of their heads, they might and I say MIGHT start to see the real logic in science, instead of believing you are smarter than the average bear because you can reel off pathetic numbers and equations, supposedly to describe a whole lot of absolute nonsense.
Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you? I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct? If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye). Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't. The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye. That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Try reading what I said and absorb it.Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you? I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct? If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye). Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't. The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye. That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Try reading what I said and absorb it.Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you? I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct? If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye). Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't. The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye. That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
It is instantaneous to your eye.Try reading what I said and absorb it.Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you? I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct? If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye). Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't. The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye. That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Did you watch the video?
Is light instantaneous? Or can it be observed in motion?
It is instantaneous to your eye.Try reading what I said and absorb it.Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you? I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct? If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye). Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't. The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye. That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Did you watch the video?
Is light instantaneous? Or can it be observed in motion?
Let's try and see if I can get through to you.It is instantaneous to your eye.Try reading what I said and absorb it.Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you? I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct? If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye). Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't. The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye. That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Did you watch the video?
Is light instantaneous? Or can it be observed in motion?
That doesn't answer if light is instantaneous.
Some things are invisible to our eyes. Does that mean nothing can see them?
You're just not getting it, are you.So you have no concept of what a photon is? Light is emitted like bullets. Yes, if you turn on your light and then turn it off there will still be light traveling out of it to distant eyes. Those distant eyes will not be in sync with your eyes.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
You're certainly not educated. You are simply brainwashed. I agree though, you most probably are a child, which would make sense and I suppose I have to let you off the hook as far as being naive goes, because it's not your fault, but when you grow up, try and use your brain.You're just not getting it, are you.So you have no concept of what a photon is? Light is emitted like bullets. Yes, if you turn on your light and then turn it off there will still be light traveling out of it to distant eyes. Those distant eyes will not be in sync with your eyes.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
The only thing embarrassing when an educated adult debates with a child is that the adult keeps trying.
Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
what about sound?
Is that the same or does that travel?
In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?
Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
what about sound?
Is that the same or does that travel?
In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?
Sound is a vibration frequency, it either creates an audible (to us) noise or a visible (to us) light.Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
what about sound?
Is that the same or does that travel?
In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?
do does that mean you think sound travels instantaneously too?
Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.
If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?
does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.
If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?
There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.
If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?
Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.
There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.
If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?
Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.
Does light travel the same way as sound? Yes or no.There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.
If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?
Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.
We know this statement to be 100% false. It's not debatable.Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
what about sound?
Is that the same or does that travel?
In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?
We know this statement to be 100% false. It's not debatable.
While true, some things he says are more outlandish than others.We know this statement to be 100% false. It's not debatable.
I wasn't aware that was a problem on here?
No.Does light travel the same way as sound? Yes or no.There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.
If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?
Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.
You stick to your mixing water solubles and stuff.We know this statement to be 100% false. It's not debatable.Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.
As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.
If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.
The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.
what about sound?
Is that the same or does that travel?
In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?
Look through the air. You are looking through molecules that reflect light and your eyes see that from whichever point it originates.There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.
If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?
Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.
So why is there a delay between seeing a lightening flash and hearing thunder? Or fireworks in the distance.
Does light travel the same way as sound? Yes or no.No.
They are the exact same thing as in, you cannot produce light without first producing vibration/agitation/sound, but they do not act in the same manner to your perception.
Light is super agitated sound vibrations.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me?The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Yes or no.
Light waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.They are the same thing.
Explain.
Not the same thing.
QuoteSo we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.which would mean it's possible to travel faster than light, through air, since you claim perfect vaccuum does not exist.
Why do you spend so much time on attempting to trip me up when clearly you are not doing that.Does light travel the same way as sound? Yes or no.No.
They are the exact same thing as in, you cannot produce light without first producing vibration/agitation/sound, but they do not act in the same manner to your perception.
So are you saying light doesn't travel by vibration through air? Because in another thread not long ago you said the following:Light is super agitated sound vibrations.
andDoes the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me?The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Yes or no.
andLight waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.They are the same thing.
Explain.
Not the same thing.
andQuoteSo we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
and regarding light being instantaneous...You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.which would mean it's possible to travel faster than light, through air, since you claim perfect vaccuum does not exist.
You are dumb and you say dumb things.Why do you spend so much time on attempting to trip me up when clearly you are not doing that.Does light travel the same way as sound? Yes or no.No.
They are the exact same thing as in, you cannot produce light without first producing vibration/agitation/sound, but they do not act in the same manner to your perception.
So are you saying light doesn't travel by vibration through air? Because in another thread not long ago you said the following:Light is super agitated sound vibrations.
andDoes the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me?The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Yes or no.
andLight waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.They are the same thing.
Explain.
Not the same thing.
andQuoteSo we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
and regarding light being instantaneous...You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.which would mean it's possible to travel faster than light, through air, since you claim perfect vaccuum does not exist.
I think I'll just play games with you, that's all you're worth.
Typical ginger response, lol.You are dumb and you say dumb things.Why do you spend so much time on attempting to trip me up when clearly you are not doing that.Does light travel the same way as sound? Yes or no.No.
They are the exact same thing as in, you cannot produce light without first producing vibration/agitation/sound, but they do not act in the same manner to your perception.
So are you saying light doesn't travel by vibration through air? Because in another thread not long ago you said the following:Light is super agitated sound vibrations.
andDoes the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me?The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Yes or no.
andLight waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.They are the same thing.
Explain.
Not the same thing.
andQuoteSo we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
and regarding light being instantaneous...You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.which would mean it's possible to travel faster than light, through air, since you claim perfect vaccuum does not exist.
I think I'll just play games with you, that's all you're worth.
Cool.Typical ginger response, lol.
You are dumb and you say dumb things.
Why do you spend so much time on attempting to trip me up when clearly you are not doing that.Just pondering your contradictions.
I think I'll just play games with you, that's all you're worth.I look forward to it.
At least try and put some effort in or just keep your ginger nut out instead of crying like a little kid. ;)Cool.Typical ginger response, lol.
You are dumb and you say dumb things.
How should I have responded? Anyone who read 29silhouette post containing your quotes know you are dumb. I just said it, we are all thinking it.
The whole field of spectroscopy shows just how wrong you are. I mean, you are not even remotely close to being correct. I'm not quite sure why we even have to argue this. I'm not putting any effort into in and others shouldn't either. You are just wasting their time.
No contradictions here, kid.Why do you spend so much time on attempting to trip me up when clearly you are not doing that.Just pondering your contradictions.
You say light and sound are the same thing, but also claim they're different. You also claim light travels instantaneously over any given distance unlike sound, but that it also travels the same way as sound in addition to reflecting off particles between the source and one's eyes, even that one could outrun light. Have a word will you.QuoteI think I'll just play games with you, that's all you're worth.I look forward to it.
Can someone please post a video showing light propagating in a vacuum chamber (with no lights on in the room the chamber is in)? Why is it so hard to find this online? Everywhere I look, they use the sun as an example but I want to see evidence of it in a lab.
29,so you've SEEN plasma in a vacuum chamber?
Plasma is the only thing I've seen. Why can't people show a simple flashlight inside one?
Crying? I have a degree and I make 5 times as much as you. Why would I be crying? You greatly overestimate yourself.At least try and put some effort in or just keep your ginger nut out instead of crying like a little kid. ;)Cool.Typical ginger response, lol.
You are dumb and you say dumb things.
How should I have responded? Anyone who read 29silhouette post containing your quotes know you are dumb. I just said it, we are all thinking it.
The whole field of spectroscopy shows just how wrong you are. I mean, you are not even remotely close to being correct. I'm not quite sure why we even have to argue this. I'm not putting any effort into in and others shouldn't either. You are just wasting their time.
You are dumb and you say dumb things.Why do you spend so much time on attempting to trip me up when clearly you are not doing that.Does light travel the same way as sound? Yes or no.No.
They are the exact same thing as in, you cannot produce light without first producing vibration/agitation/sound, but they do not act in the same manner to your perception.
So are you saying light doesn't travel by vibration through air? Because in another thread not long ago you said the following:Light is super agitated sound vibrations.
andDoes the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me?The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Yes or no.
andLight waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.They are the same thing.
Explain.
Not the same thing.
andQuoteSo we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
and regarding light being instantaneous...You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.which would mean it's possible to travel faster than light, through air, since you claim perfect vaccuum does not exist.
I think I'll just play games with you, that's all you're worth.
I used to think it was a shared account where anyone could log in as sceptimatic and then try would try and top each other and post the most dumb thing possible.
I have a theory about sceptimatic.:
IMHO He (or She ?) is a very smart person who has developed a knack for coming up with the dumbest things of which he can think or imagine. Of course this is just my "IMHO". LOL. I think I read somewhere that the FES disowns him (or her ?) and claims no part in him (or her ?).
Incorrect, sokarul is the shared account we use for that.I used to think it was a shared account where anyone could log in as sceptimatic and then try would try and top each other and post the most dumb thing possible.
I have a theory about sceptimatic.:
IMHO He (or She ?) is a very smart person who has developed a knack for coming up with the dumbest things of which he can think or imagine. Of course this is just my "IMHO". LOL. I think I read somewhere that the FES disowns him (or her ?) and claims no part in him (or her ?).
And that video of James May in the chamber has lights on outside the chamber too AND you know as well as I do that chamber is not evacuated as much as a chamber would be without a human inside it. So, no it doesn't qualify.
Well, what is really dumb, ........What is really dumb is arguing the point that seeing the inside of a vacuum chamber illuminated from outside, and seeing things through a vacuum chamber, isn't proof light can propagate inside that vacuum chamber, and that a light source inside that vacuum chamber with the room darkened is the only way to prove it can.
Why not just show me a simple video instead of me having to go through all that trouble? I'm not the one saying that light propagates inside a vacuum. Just because scientists tell me the sun is proof of it, means nothing to me because I don't buy what they sell.In all the videos of vacuum chambers operating you are able to find, are the objects inside visible? Yes or no.
Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.Once again, scepti is right. The sooner you all accept that, the less brainwashed you will be on your last day here on/inside Earth. I understand it is very hard for some of you. That's to be expected. But I will continue with my positive outlook on humanity and KNOW that one day, the truth will reveal itself to all.
In all the videos of vacuum chambers operating you are able to find, are the objects inside visible? Yes or no.Yes because there is light on the OUTSIDE of the chamber. Light obviously propagates through the air we breathe. But that is not the same as light propagating INSIDE the chamber where there is extremely little air. The light from outside the chamber is illuminating the inside of the chamber.
There we have it folks, light propagating through a vacuum. Mystery solved.In all the videos of vacuum chambers operating you are able to find, are the objects inside visible? Yes or no.Yes because there is light on the OUTSIDE of the chamber. Light obviously propagates through the air we breathe. But that is not the same as light propagating INSIDE the chamber where there is extremely little air. The light from outside the chamber is illuminating the inside of the chamber.
In all the videos of vacuum chambers operating you are able to find, are the objects inside visible? Yes or no.Yes because there is light on the OUTSIDE of the chamber. Light obviously propagates through the air we breathe. But that is not the same as light propagating INSIDE the chamber where there is extremely little air. The light from outside the chamber is illuminating the inside of the chamber.
But that's where you are misunderstanding. How can you be sure it's not the glass (medium) that interacts with the light? And Spank, an LED (or any light bulb) is making a sound which turns into light.
Human ears cannot hear sound coming from inside a vacuum chamber. Other creatures probably can. And yes light makes a sound even if you can't hear it. It's all about frequency.
How can you be sure it's not the glass (medium) that interacts with the light?
I'm not even going to respond to your comment UM.no. The microphone wouldnt pick up a sound unless there was direct contact with the bell, any gap would not allow sound transmission.
Spank, let me ask you this. If you put a microphone INSIDE the chamber with a bell ringing and attached it to speakers on the outside of the chamber, could you hear it through the speakers?
My point is, what we perceive on the outside of the chamber is not the same as what is going on on the inside.
By "direct contact", you mean touching it? I meant next to it, inside the chamber.
Well, I cannot answer that until I see undeniable evidence of light coming from INSIDE a vacuum chamber and a microphone in one with a bell.
This question is directed at the flat earther only.
I do not believe the earth to be round and I feel if I had a telescope with enough power I could see great distances maybe even other countries, does this fit with your beliefs?
No, dick head, you and your round earth cronies are the ridiculously naive sheep that willingly walk forward to the cull.QuoteHow can you be sure it's not the glass (medium) that interacts with the light?
You are the dumbest person in the world. Sorry, but you are.
If it was just the glass..........your vision would end with the glass. You wouldn't see what is on the other side.
Pull your head out of scepti's ass.
No, dick head, you and your round earth cronies are the ridiculously naive sheep that willingly walk forward to the cull.
Earthisaspaceship is clued up
something that most of you don't even know the meaning of the word.
It's worrying, it really is.
Bark all you want, you prat, but all you are, is a mental mainstream follower that believes that memorising bull crap, makes you intelligent. lol
A simple youtube video disproved everything you say. We know who is really crying.No, dick head, you and your round earth cronies are the ridiculously naive sheep that willingly walk forward to the cull.QuoteHow can you be sure it's not the glass (medium) that interacts with the light?
You are the dumbest person in the world. Sorry, but you are.
If it was just the glass..........your vision would end with the glass. You wouldn't see what is on the other side.
Pull your head out of scepti's ass.
Earthisaspaceship is clued up...something that most of you don't even know the meaning of the word.
It's worrying, it really is.
Bark all you want, you prat, but all you are, is a mental mainstream follower that believes that memorising bull crap, makes you intelligent. lol
Well if you can see something inside a vacuum chamber then light is passing through it and coming out from inside.Alright this is what I need to see then because the glass chamber is not working to prove my point. Someone please record a flashlight inside a vacuum that is not made of glass!
I can see that bell in the post above so light must be able to pass through a vacuum.
A simple youtube video disproved everything you say. We know who is really crying.The video above? No, it did not disprove anything Scepti or I have said. It proves that a ringing bell inside a vacuum is inaudible to us outside the vacuum. THAT IS ALL.
I will do this. At work the vacuum desiccator is plastic. I will tell you right now, I can see stuff inside of it.Well if you can see something inside a vacuum chamber then light is passing through it and coming out from inside.Alright this is what I need to see then because the glass chamber is not working to prove my point. Someone please record a flashlight inside a vacuum that is not made of glass!
I can see that bell in the post above so light must be able to pass through a vacuum.
There is no air so pressure waves cannot be created. Not rocket science.A simple youtube video disproved everything you say. We know who is really crying.The video above? No, it did not disprove anything Scepti or I have said. It proves that a ringing bell inside a vacuum is inaudible to us outside the vacuum. THAT IS ALL.
A simple youtube video disproved everything you say. We know who is really crying.The video above? No, it did not disprove anything Scepti or I have said. It proves that a ringing bell inside a vacuum is inaudible to us outside the vacuum. THAT IS ALL.
The video above? No, it did not disprove anything Scepti or I have said. It proves that a ringing bell inside a vacuum is inaudible to us outside the vacuum. THAT IS ALL.
Alright this is what I need to see then because the glass chamber is not working to prove my point. Someone please record a flashlight inside a vacuum that is not made of glass!Just for interests sake, what would you like it made of?
There is no air so pressure waves cannot be created. Not rocket science.Yes. So think about it, without pressure waves in space (a vacuum), how can there be light if there is no sound? Light IS sound. A sonogram (sound) creates an image (a visual perception).
Yes it does proove you wrong. Your claim is that light and light are the same. Since you cannot hear the bell outside the vacuum chamber yet you can still see it, it shows that they are not the same thing.Nope. I see the bell because it is in a LIT room and that light penetrates through the glass. It is not the same as a flashlight inside an opaque vacuum chamber.
You can see the bell, right? But you can't hear it, right?Stop asking me questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop responding to me altogether.
Does that not sink in?
Stop asking me questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop responding to me altogether.
Nope. I see the bell because it is in a LIT room and that light penetrates through the glass. It is not the same as a flashlight inside an opaque vacuum chamber.
how can you see without light?There is no air so pressure waves cannot be created. Not rocket science.Yes. So think about it, without pressure waves in space (a vacuum), how can there be light if there is no sound? Light IS sound. A sonogram (sound) creates an image (a visual perception).
Light not being sound solves all the problems.There is no air so pressure waves cannot be created. Not rocket science.Yes. So think about it, without pressure waves in space (a vacuum), how can there be light if there is no sound? Light IS sound. A sonogram (sound) creates an image (a visual perception).
Sonograms work by measuring the time it takes for the sound waves to bounce back. It then creates an image from those time. The sound wave are used as a signal only. The image is produced by the machine based on the information it gains from the signal.There is no air so pressure waves cannot be created. Not rocket science.Yes. So think about it, without pressure waves in space (a vacuum), how can there be light if there is no sound? Light IS sound. A sonogram (sound) creates an image (a visual perception).
Also, if light and sound were the same thing, when the sound of the bell gets quieter until it is almost completely gone, the inside of the container would also darken as the vacuum is pulled. You would not be able to see inside the container.No it would not. The light is penetrating from the OUTSIDE of the vacuum THROUGH the glass. It amazes me how you guys can't understand this. The light is OUTSIDE THE VACUUM. Show me light that is created INSIDE it.
This in the the top 10 dumbest things ever said on FES.Also, if light and sound were the same thing, when the sound of the bell gets quieter until it is almost completely gone, the inside of the container would also darken as the vacuum is pulled. You would not be able to see inside the container.No it would not. The light is penetrating from the OUTSIDE of the vacuum THROUGH the glass. It amazes me how you guys can't understand this. The light is OUTSIDE THE VACUUM. Show me light that is created INSIDE it.
No it would not. The light is penetrating from the OUTSIDE of the vacuum THROUGH the glass....and through the vacuum to the object, illuminating it, reflecting back through the vacuum, back through the glass, through the air, to your eyes.
It amazes me how you guys can't understand this. The light is OUTSIDE THE VACUUM. Show me light that is created INSIDE it.We have.
Show me light that is created INSIDE it.
Also, if light and sound were the same thing, when the sound of the bell gets quieter until it is almost completely gone, the inside of the container would also darken as the vacuum is pulled. You would not be able to see inside the container.No it would not. The light is penetrating from the OUTSIDE of the vacuum THROUGH the glass. It amazes me how you guys can't understand this. The light is OUTSIDE THE VACUUM. Show me light that is created INSIDE it.
Put a digital camera (or any recording device) inside a vacuum chamber (or outside, for that matter) and a flashlight, TURN OFF ALL THE LIGHTS IN THE ROOM and record the light for me. THEN I will believe you.
*sigh*There is no air so pressure waves cannot be created. Not rocket science.Yes. So think about it, without pressure waves in space (a vacuum), how can there be light if there is no sound? Light IS sound.
You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?Why don't you have the time to prove that a flashlight won't illuminate the inside of a vacuum chamber? We've shown videos of objects visible in vacuum chambers (meaning light is traveling through the vacuum), and videos of darkened rooms with light sources inside (meaning light is traveling through the vacuum).
Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:
Gas-filled tubes
Gas-filled tubes such as discharge tubes and cold cathode tubes are not hard vacuum tubes, though are always filled with gas at less than sea-level atmospheric pressure. Types such as the voltage-regulator tube and thyratron resemble hard vacuum tubes and fit in sockets designed for vacuum tubes. Their distinctive orange, red, or purple glow during operation indicates the presence of gas; electrons flowing in a vacuum do not produce light within that region. These types may still be referred to as "electron tubes" as they do perform electronic functions. High-power rectifiers use mercury vapor to achieve a lower forward voltage drop than high-vacuum tubes. - Wikipedia
Spank,
What makes me think that? The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what. You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?
Spank,
What makes me think that? The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what. You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?
Well if you can see something inside a vacuum chamber then light is passing through it and coming out from inside.Alright this is what I need to see then because the glass chamber is not working to prove my point. Someone please record a flashlight inside a vacuum that is not made of glass!
I can see that bell in the post above so light must be able to pass through a vacuum.
Light bulbs contain gas, either Argon, Neon or Xenon. They are NOT the same as a vacuum chamber.
Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:
Everyone else is confused because they don't grasp the idea that light created outside the glass vacuum is what is illuminating the object inside the vacuum. A proper experiment requires that there be NO LIGHT coming from outside the vacuum. Or if there is, there must be an opaque vacuum with a light inside it. Light bulbs contain gas so they are not considered vacuums. However, they are a light source so they can be used inside the chamber to show that the light propagates or not.
Ok Sci, here's an abstract thought for you...But how does it get out of the vacuum if light can't travel through a vacuum?
What if the only reason you can see inside those vacuum tubes is because the light is visible to us OUTSIDE that vacuum? How can you be 100% sure there is light INSIDE the bulb? We know the energy is there inside the bulb and creates light in our atmosphere but is it creating light in the vacuum where there is no atmosphere?
Ok Sci, here's an abstract thought for you...But how does it get out of the vacuum if light can't travel through a vacuum?
What if the only reason you can see inside those vacuum tubes is because the light is visible to us OUTSIDE that vacuum? How can you be 100% sure there is light INSIDE the bulb? We know the energy is there inside the bulb and creates light in our atmosphere but is it creating light in the vacuum where there is no atmosphere?
Are you suggesting that there is some form of energy that can travel through a vacuum, then when it enters atmosphere it transforms to light?
That is very interesting claim you have made. Care to back it up with some experimentation?
But how does it get out of the vacuum if light can't travel through a vacuum?YES! That is what Eric Dollard said as well. I do not know what the energy is but I would LOVE to back it up.
Are you suggesting that there is some form of energy that can travel through a vacuum, then when it enters atmosphere it transforms to light?
That is very interesting claim you have made. Care to back it up with some experimentation?
Then you better get yourself a vacuum chamber and a flashlight to prove there is.But how does it get out of the vacuum if light can't travel through a vacuum?YES! That is what Eric Dollard said as well. I do not know what the energy is but I would LOVE to back it up.
Are you suggesting that there is some form of energy that can travel through a vacuum, then when it enters atmosphere it transforms to light?
That is very interesting claim you have made. Care to back it up with some experimentation?
Can anyone show me ANYTHING that proves that sound does not make light. Show me one thing that does not use sound to create a light we see.
Anything!
So how does it work then?Can anyone show me ANYTHING that proves that sound does not make light. Show me one thing that does not use sound to create a light we see.
Anything!
Tritium:
(http://web.singnet.com.sg/~desertmn/IMG_1238.JPG)
Get some, and see if you can record any kind of sound from it. I couldn't find anything saying that it did make sound, so am assuming it doesn't until evidence is provided to the contrary.
Can anyone show me ANYTHING that proves that sound does not make light. Show me one thing that does not use sound to create a light we see.Do you own a flashlight?
Anything!
I could put a LED light on the inside of a vacuum. and it would work inside or outside the vacuum, we don't put LED's in vacuums though because they don't need them to work..
Can anyone show me ANYTHING that proves that sound does not make light. Show me one thing that does not use sound to create a light we see.
Anything!
Sokurul and Spank,
Just because you don't hear something doesn't mean it's not creating light and just because you see light doesn't mean there is no sound wave coming from it. Like I said before, it's all about the frequency. Human hears do not hear every sound.
PLEASE READ:
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=36760 (http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=36760)
Don't be so naïve. Not all sound creates light. It must be a certain frequency and strength.
High frequency (as it says in the link I posted) and very strong.
Can anyone show me ANYTHING that proves that sound does not make light. Show me one thing that does not use sound to create a light we see.A light emitting diode (LED).
Anything!
Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:
Gas-filled tubes
Gas-filled tubes such as discharge tubes and cold cathode tubes are not hard vacuum tubes, though are always filled with gas at less than sea-level atmospheric pressure. Types such as the voltage-regulator tube and thyratron resemble hard vacuum tubes and fit in sockets designed for vacuum tubes. Their distinctive orange, red, or purple glow during operation indicates the presence of gas; electrons flowing in a vacuum do not produce light within that region. These types may still be referred to as "electron tubes" as they do perform electronic functions. High-power rectifiers use mercury vapor to achieve a lower forward voltage drop than high-vacuum tubes. - Wikipedia
Spank,
What makes me think that? The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what. You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?
Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:
Gas-filled tubes
Gas-filled tubes such as discharge tubes and cold cathode tubes are not hard vacuum tubes, though are always filled with gas at less than sea-level atmospheric pressure. Types such as the voltage-regulator tube and thyratron resemble hard vacuum tubes and fit in sockets designed for vacuum tubes. Their distinctive orange, red, or purple glow during operation indicates the presence of gas; electrons flowing in a vacuum do not produce light within that region. These types may still be referred to as "electron tubes" as they do perform electronic functions. High-power rectifiers use mercury vapor to achieve a lower forward voltage drop than high-vacuum tubes. - Wikipedia
Spank,
What makes me think that? The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what. You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?
Take it from an old ham radio operator. Old vacuum tubes ....once again I will repeat VACUUM TUBES....do not contain any gas...just by way of definition they are VACUUM TUBES. Same way with common light bulbs. VACUUM. No gas.
I thought that had been made clear by now. ???
Ancient history : Look up 5Y3GT vacuuum tube. Commonly used diode tube rectifier used in a lot old ham radio receivers and transmiters. And it did give off a cheery red glow from the filament inside the tube . ;D
Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:
Gas-filled tubes
Gas-filled tubes such as discharge tubes and cold cathode tubes are not hard vacuum tubes, though are always filled with gas at less than sea-level atmospheric pressure. Types such as the voltage-regulator tube and thyratron resemble hard vacuum tubes and fit in sockets designed for vacuum tubes. Their distinctive orange, red, or purple glow during operation indicates the presence of gas; electrons flowing in a vacuum do not produce light within that region. These types may still be referred to as "electron tubes" as they do perform electronic functions. High-power rectifiers use mercury vapor to achieve a lower forward voltage drop than high-vacuum tubes. - Wikipedia
Spank,
What makes me think that? The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what. You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?
Take it from an old ham radio operator. Old vacuum tubes ....once again I will repeat VACUUM TUBES....do not contain any gas...just by way of definition they are VACUUM TUBES. Same way with common light bulbs. VACUUM. No gas.
I thought that had been made clear by now. ???
Ancient history : Look up 5Y3GT vacuuum tube. Commonly used diode tube rectifier used in a lot old ham radio receivers and transmiters. And it did give off a cheery red glow from the filament inside the tube . ;D
Vacuum tubes do not contain a perfect vacuum. Therefore, vacuum tubes contain a gas at a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure.
Vacuum simply means an area of lower pressure. The word is not synonymous with a perfect or even near perfect vacuum. However, you are trying to portray it as such.
Please find me a resource that says that vacuum, in terms of tubes or bulbs, means the absolute absence of gas.
I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.
I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.
Is that a serious question? Atoms themselves cause us to hear a noise, whereas electromagnetic waves are separate from atoms.I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.
You do realize how far apart atoms are at sea level pressure, right? Yet, sound has no trouble at all traveling through this medium, now does it?
Is that a serious question? Atoms themselves cause us to hear a noise, whereas electromagnetic waves are separate from atoms.I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.
You do realize how far apart atoms are at sea level pressure, right? Yet, sound has no trouble at all traveling through this medium, now does it?
Please look up ether theory. You will notice that ether in ether theory is actually everywhere. You can pretend that atoms in a vacuum cover everywhere, but facts will not change.Is that a serious question? Atoms themselves cause us to hear a noise, whereas electromagnetic waves are separate from atoms.I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.
You do realize how far apart atoms are at sea level pressure, right? Yet, sound has no trouble at all traveling through this medium, now does it?
The subject is about energy traveling through a medium or a vacuum. I think we have confirmed that a vacuum tube does in fact contain a medium. You can try to derail this thread all you want to, sokarul, but you can not change facts.
So, are you claiming that ether theory is the correct theory? I am just trying to figure out what you are saying here, as your posts give no definitive statements. You almost seem to do that on purpose, sokarul. If I was not a professional, I would even accuse you of being purposely obtuse in your posts.I make shorts post as to no waste my time on stupid subjects like this one.
So, you are saying no, it is not true, but you are using it to prove your point anyway? I am really having a hard time understanding you, sokarul, between your poor grammar and pointless posts. Please tell me what you are trying to say in one short sentence, so you are likely to make the least amount of spelling and grammar errors. I really do want to know what is going on in your mind.You have shown time and time again that you do not understand simple math, science, and physics. I cannot dumb down my argument enough for you to understand.
So, you are saying no, it is not true, but you are using it to prove your point anyway? I am really having a hard time understanding you, sokarul, between your poor grammar and pointless posts. Please tell me what you are trying to say in one short sentence, so you are likely to make the least amount of spelling and grammar errors. I really do want to know what is going on in your mind.You have shown time and time again that you do not understand simple math, science, and physics. I cannot dumb down my argument enough for you to understand.
Just like the tungsten filament in a light bulb gets excited/vibrated, making a high frequency sound wave and turning it into light.
The subject is about energy traveling through a medium or a vacuum. I think we have confirmed that a vacuum tube does in fact contain a medium. You can try to derail this thread all you want to, sokarul, but you can not change facts.
It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level. The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.Just like the tungsten filament in a light bulb gets excited/vibrated, making a high frequency sound wave and turning it into light.
again, at what frequency and what Decibel level does this occur in your hypothesis?The subject is about energy traveling through a medium or a vacuum. I think we have confirmed that a vacuum tube does in fact contain a medium. You can try to derail this thread all you want to, sokarul, but you can not change facts.
We've already seen a video of a bell going muffled and silent as a vacuum tube is evacuated.
It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level. The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.
Light just does not magically appear and if it does, then tell me how.
It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level.
The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.
Light just does not magically appear and if it does, then tell me how.
Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level.
Really? Every sound has a frequency and dB level, so I think they might be kind of important.The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.
Nope.Light just does not magically appear and if it does, then tell me how.
Did that, you ignored me.
Try this (again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioluminescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioluminescence)
Keep in mind, these interactions are at an atomic level, and are not mechanical, so nothing that could be called sound is produced.
Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.
Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.
So what frequency is the sound produced by tritium?
I can't find any data on any sound produced by tritium or radium.
Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.
So what frequency is the sound produced by tritium?
I can't find any data on any sound produced by tritium or radium.
Probably because the sound is below ear shot. However, did you look up the frequencies at which tritium releases its energy? I am just curious.
Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.
So what frequency sound does an LED produce?Low frequency.
Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.
How much sound is made when an electron releases energy and drops an energy level?Ok I guess we are at an agreement that the answer is zero.
QuoteIt really does go from east to west. The optical illusion comes into play when the sun is so far away that it is approaching the horizon. This distance is at the limit of the sun's light being able to penetrate the air. It simply appears to sink below the horizon as it fades away from view.
I hope this makes sense.
It doesn't.
So how does it get back in the east again to appear to come up from the horizon?
It goes in a circle.If the Earth were flat.........the sun wouldn't set on the horizon. It would stay high up in the sky and get smaller and smaller as it moved away until you couldn't see it. Similar to a bird flying away from you.
The atmolayer magnifies the size of the sun. It is like a giant magnifying glass.
If it goes in a circle, I would expect to see that. Also how can the atmolayer be magnifying things. You know a magnifying glass is a convex. I certainly would not expect the atmo'layer' to be convex on a flat world. Your theory becomes more bizarre by the minute.
1- it is simple, have you ever seen the sun exactly upon your head in any place in the world? no! the question is why? the sun always circulates in a semi circular path from east to west! and during the year it changes it setting places! yet if the earth were spherical the sun set would always have the same setting point even during equinoxes / summer winter solstices!
2- the sun appears hotter, more luminous and smaller at 12:00 PM
at the sun set it becomes colder, red, and bigger!
you can check this out by your self,
3- God has given us all the necessary tools to discover the universe by our selves,
but the new world order thaught us to believe in his vision which is not real!
It is simple, have you ever seen the sun exactly upon your head in any place in the world? no! the question is why? the sun always circulates in a semi circular path from east to west! and during the year it changes it setting places! yet if the earth were spherical the sun set would always have the same setting point even during equinoxes / summer winter solstices!
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Additionally, the sun does not "circulate" in any "path" relative to the earth; it's stationary. And the sun also does not "rise" or "set". They're just convenient figures of speech.
This diagram illustrates the reason why the seasons vary. The "plane of the ecliptic" is the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun. Also note the 23.5º tilt of the earth's axis relative to the perpendicular (and the sun's axis).
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSf1ZGayCkzPVjCZBeU2_bIS940tPJQB7lOlSe8tUb1rWZtbATBtQ)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Let's start from the very basics of primitive life, like rubbing a stick on stone to make a fire.
Yes, yes, I know that science is much more advanced than this...but it wasn't at one time and all things happen because of a frequency, a vibration/friction and the energy to create it to the energy created from it.
If you were to rub your stick along a stone at a slow pace, you will find that your stick becomes warm and makes a reasonably audible sound. If you speed up that rubbing, you find that the audible sound gets less and less and yet the stick starts to glow at the end.
This is all you should need to know to tell you that you do not get light, no matter how much you think it over...if you do not have SOUND.
The trouble with you high forehead scientists, is, you dare not even think on simple lines because it makes your science less amazing to the masses if it was explained in simplistic terms, this is why you all go into spasms when someone comes along to kick you into shape...you all go into the pack mentality of attempted intimidation by using pathetic formulas and ridiculous equations to explain something that in reality can be explained to a child in a way they can understand.
Thankfully there's only a hand full of people on here that do this, as many people actually have enough about them to at least question stuff.
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Pretty stationary isn't stationary. ;)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Nobody lives on the Sun.
Pretty stationary isn't stationary. ;)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.
I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Nobody lives on the Sun.
My God! really?
Who would've thought?
I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :Pretty stationary isn't stationary. ;)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.
2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:
(http://files.myopera.com/L2D2/blog/ED24A8D0.jpg)
Congratulations!
I had a feeling that this would whizz past your illogical head. I tried to use the most basic, but, as we can see, Karul has decided that sticks burn and that's it and you can bang them and rock together.Let's start from the very basics of primitive life, like rubbing a stick on stone to make a fire.
Yes, yes, I know that science is much more advanced than this...but it wasn't at one time and all things happen because of a frequency, a vibration/friction and the energy to create it to the energy created from it.
If you were to rub your stick along a stone at a slow pace, you will find that your stick becomes warm and makes a reasonably audible sound. If you speed up that rubbing, you find that the audible sound gets less and less and yet the stick starts to glow at the end.
This is all you should need to know to tell you that you do not get light, no matter how much you think it over...if you do not have SOUND.
The trouble with you high forehead scientists, is, you dare not even think on simple lines because it makes your science less amazing to the masses if it was explained in simplistic terms, this is why you all go into spasms when someone comes along to kick you into shape...you all go into the pack mentality of attempted intimidation by using pathetic formulas and ridiculous equations to explain something that in reality can be explained to a child in a way they can understand.
Thankfully there's only a hand full of people on here that do this, as many people actually have enough about them to at least question stuff.
You are terrible at logic. Bang the stick and rock together while in the dark. Do they make a sound, yes. Do they make light, no.
In your example the stick starts to glow because of heat. That is why when you stop rubbing the rock and stick together the stick still glows. The stick is hot enough to react with the oxygen in the air.
Not quite sure why you can't understand anything yet have no problem making things up.
Wobbles! have a word for crying out loud. All this fantastic space stuff of so called superb ballerina type planets all working like clockwork and we have a few with weak ankles, so they WOBBLE.I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Nobody lives on the Sun.
My God! really?
Who would've thought?I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :Pretty stationary isn't stationary. ;)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.
2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:
(http://files.myopera.com/L2D2/blog/ED24A8D0.jpg)
Congratulations!
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective
Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun
One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries
If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.
I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Nobody lives on the Sun.
My God! really?
Who would've thought?I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :Pretty stationary isn't stationary. ;)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.
2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:
(http://files.myopera.com/L2D2/blog/ED24A8D0.jpg)
Congratulations!
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective
Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun
One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries
If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.
I had a feeling that this would whizz past your illogical head. I tried to use the most basic, but, as we can see, Karul has decided that sticks burn and that's it and you can bang them and rock together.None of what you have ever said has ever been above any one person's level of intelligence.
Should I up it a notch so you can understand or am I wasting my time talking to you. ;)
I understand, and was working out some apparent discrepancies.I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Nobody lives on the Sun.
My God! really?
Who would've thought?I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :Pretty stationary isn't stationary. ;)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.
2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:
(http://files.myopera.com/L2D2/blog/ED24A8D0.jpg)
Congratulations!
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective
Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun
One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries
If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.
Nothing you said is false but the core purpose of this discussion is that the sun does not move in a circular motion above earth's surface but that the global earth moves around the sun.
Your argument of motion relative to our solar system is accurate but comparing the circular small sun motion FE's describe to the pretty stationary rotating wobbling object is what this debate is about.
Wobbles! have a word for crying out loud. All this fantastic space stuff of so called superb ballerina type planets all working like clockwork and we have a few with weak ankles, so they WOBBLE.
Take some time out and look in the mirror and have a real good word with yourself and don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone, even if they tell you that the earth is a square block, because what you subscribe to is the silliest of the lot.
I need my ego when dealing with people like you. My ego allows me to educate people like you into the simplistic basics of the earth.I had a feeling that this would whizz past your illogical head. I tried to use the most basic, but, as we can see, Karul has decided that sticks burn and that's it and you can bang them and rock together.None of what you have ever said has ever been above any one person's level of intelligence.
Should I up it a notch so you can understand or am I wasting my time talking to you. ;)
You are just constantly making insane claims with no evidence at all to back it up.
"Rubbing two sticks together makes fire and light, while also making sound. Therefore, sound is responsible for all light and there could never be any light without sound."
You don't see the colossally gargantuan logical misstep(s) here?
You're just not very educated.
You seem to just enjoy stroking your ego - never taking into even the slightest amount of consideration that there is any possibility that you may be wrong.
I understand, and was working out some apparent discrepancies.I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Nobody lives on the Sun.
My God! really?
Who would've thought?I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :Pretty stationary isn't stationary. ;)
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.
2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:
(http://files.myopera.com/L2D2/blog/ED24A8D0.jpg)
Congratulations!
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective
Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun
One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries
If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.
Nothing you said is false but the core purpose of this discussion is that the sun does not move in a circular motion above earth's surface but that the global earth moves around the sun.
Your argument of motion relative to our solar system is accurate but comparing the circular small sun motion FE's describe to the pretty stationary rotating wobbling object is what this debate is about.
Just trying to help.
No need for the hostility.
Don't be looking up definitions. Look at your logic and ask yourself why the sun or the earth would WOBBLE in your space.Wobbles! have a word for crying out loud. All this fantastic space stuff of so called superb ballerina type planets all working like clockwork and we have a few with weak ankles, so they WOBBLE.
Take some time out and look in the mirror and have a real good word with yourself and don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone, even if they tell you that the earth is a square block, because what you subscribe to is the silliest of the lot.
What's wrong with the word wobble? That's what it does.
Stop making me be your guys' dictionary.
Wobble Definition
v. verb
To move or rotate with an uneven or rocking motion or unsteadily from side to side.
I understand this, I was just saying that the Sun will never be completely stationary relative to any carbon based Earth-dweller.
Good, Scepti is the new nominee. lel
But just for future sake, a living organism is not required for a reference point.
Relative to our solar system the sun is a much more stationary object smack bang in the centre of this than any of the planets, asteroids, gas and comets orbiting it.
Don't be looking up definitions. Look at your logic and ask yourself why the sun or the earth would WOBBLE in your space.Why is it ludicrous to have a solution for "discrepancies" in any theory?
The answer is obviously quite simple. It's to cater for the discrepancies of what is noted at certain times on earth. It's so ludicrous, it shocks me that normal rational people cannot see the absolute bull crap in it all. Seriously it does.
Don't be looking up definitions. Look at your logic and ask yourself why the sun or the earth would WOBBLE in your space.Wobbles! have a word for crying out loud. All this fantastic space stuff of so called superb ballerina type planets all working like clockwork and we have a few with weak ankles, so they WOBBLE.
Take some time out and look in the mirror and have a real good word with yourself and don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone, even if they tell you that the earth is a square block, because what you subscribe to is the silliest of the lot.
What's wrong with the word wobble? That's what it does.
Stop making me be your guys' dictionary.
Wobble Definition
v. verb
To move or rotate with an uneven or rocking motion or unsteadily from side to side.
The answer is obviously quite simple. It's to cater for the discrepancies of what is noted at certain times on earth. It's so ludicrous, it shocks me that normal rational people cannot see the absolute bull crap in it all. Seriously it does.
Have a read back at what you are saying and maybe, just maybe you might...one day...hear a clink. If you do...that will be the penny dropping and you will at least know that it's time to think alternatively to the drivel you have been fed. It would be a massive start for you and then you can go back to basics.Don't be looking up definitions. Look at your logic and ask yourself why the sun or the earth would WOBBLE in your space.Why is it ludicrous to have a solution for "discrepancies" in any theory?
The answer is obviously quite simple. It's to cater for the discrepancies of what is noted at certain times on earth. It's so ludicrous, it shocks me that normal rational people cannot see the absolute bull crap in it all. Seriously it does.
Just a general question, because round Earth is certainly not a theory.
The Sun and Earth both wobble because of opposing gravitational pulls.
The poles are slightly bulged.
This results in a slight wobble.
Have you substantiated enough evidence to call any of your half-baked ideas theories?
I'd think not.
There is no hope for you. Absolutely no hope whatsoever. Don't "you" and your other cyborgs, ever mention that this forum is a joke when you post stupidity like that.Don't be looking up definitions. Look at your logic and ask yourself why the sun or the earth would WOBBLE in your space.Wobbles! have a word for crying out loud. All this fantastic space stuff of so called superb ballerina type planets all working like clockwork and we have a few with weak ankles, so they WOBBLE.
Take some time out and look in the mirror and have a real good word with yourself and don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone, even if they tell you that the earth is a square block, because what you subscribe to is the silliest of the lot.
What's wrong with the word wobble? That's what it does.
Stop making me be your guys' dictionary.
Wobble Definition
v. verb
To move or rotate with an uneven or rocking motion or unsteadily from side to side.
The answer is obviously quite simple. It's to cater for the discrepancies of what is noted at certain times on earth. It's so ludicrous, it shocks me that normal rational people cannot see the absolute bull crap in it all. Seriously it does.
What discrepancies? Actually it proves that nothing is in perfect balance in our solar system really not to mention the planets also affect the sun's movement with uhm... what is that word..? I'm gonna say it... Gravity!
Animated stereo twin space craft picture of the sun:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/BLUE_STEREO_3D_Time_for_Space_Wiggle.gif)
Have a read back at what you are saying and maybe, just maybe you might...one day...hear a clink. If you do...that will be the penny dropping and you will at least know that it's time to think alternatively to the drivel you have been fed. It would be a massive start for you and then you can go back to basics.This is the classic scepti defense.
Slightly bulged.
Slight wobble.
I'd love to swear and tell you to go and get la la la...but I'm smirking and also we are in the upper forums, so I'll just say: search your mind and stop being led by the big howling wolves. Howl back and take the lead and don't be intimidated into following a model that you know 100% is not correct.
There is no hope for you. Absolutely no hope whatsoever. Don't "you" and your other cyborgs, ever mention that this forum is a joke when you post stupidity like that.
There's nothing open about your mind, except to be open to more global earth mumbo jumbo.Have a read back at what you are saying and maybe, just maybe you might...one day...hear a clink. If you do...that will be the penny dropping and you will at least know that it's time to think alternatively to the drivel you have been fed. It would be a massive start for you and then you can go back to basics.This is the classic scepti defense.
Slightly bulged.
Slight wobble.
I'd love to swear and tell you to go and get la la la...but I'm smirking and also we are in the upper forums, so I'll just say: search your mind and stop being led by the big howling wolves. Howl back and take the lead and don't be intimidated into following a model that you know 100% is not correct.
"All I know is that I'm 100% right. You are all brainwashed and closed-minded."
But that's a self-contradicting statement.
I keep an open mind, scepti.
I'm just sane.
I'm sorry you don't get to experience what it's like to have clear and distinguished thoughts that follow a logical pattern from a start to a conclusion.
...don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone...
You can ignore mine for as long as you live, it's no skin off my nose. I'm under no illusions whatsoever about your total brainwashed mind ever changing. You're too far gone for that....don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone...
So you won't mind if I totally ignore yours then? Given that your "theory" has nothing other than your imagination to back it up, I think I'll stick to the theories which have repeatable experimental evidence on their side. Cheers!
The air is not perfectly transparent. Even with the most powerful telescope you could not see forever.Jroa explaned it perfecley
The Sun is certainly not stationary.
depends on your frame of reference.
Nobody lives on the Sun.
If you were to rub your stick along a stone at a slow pace, you will find that your stick becomes warm and makes a reasonably audible sound. If you speed up that rubbing, you find that the audible sound gets less and less and yet the stick starts to glow at the end.
This is all you should need to know to tell you that you do not get light, no matter how much you think it over...if you do not have SOUND.
I can accept I'm wrong on any occasion as long as it's against another logical reasoning. You and your crew do not know the meaning of the word, logic.
Don't be looking up definitions.
It's not me that's lacking, it's you lacking the ability to use some logic that you clearly have, yet refuse to bring it to the fore, because you are too busy babysitting a shed full of lies.Quote
If you were to rub your stick along a stone at a slow pace, you will find that your stick becomes warm and makes a reasonably audible sound. If you speed up that rubbing, you find that the audible sound gets less and less and yet the stick starts to glow at the end.
This is all you should need to know to tell you that you do not get light, no matter how much you think it over...if you do not have SOUND.
Oh dear... this reasoning is so wrong on all counts I dunno where to start LOL.
I just can't believe that sceptimatic's "understanding" of simple science is so lacking! He seems determined to conflate two entirely different energy sources into one. That is; oxidation (or burning) with sound.
I'd like to ask sceptimatic to listen to a burning 60 watt light bulb in his house, and tell me what sort of "sound" it's making? Or listen to a 9V globe in a battery flashlight, or an LED (light-emitting diode) timer on his oven.
What he will notice is that along with light, heat is produced, but not any sounds whatsoever.
He's also obviously unaware of luminescent animals that glow—with light—without making a single peep or squeak.
—And I can't wait for his response to this one.
You're getting there. Slowly but surely. Keep it up.
Don't be looking up definitions.
Shit no! That's the last thing any conscientious investigator of scientific claims needs to do! What were we thinking?
Much better to totally ignore several centuries' worth of scientific data and proven theories about our planet and its solar system.
Obviously the sun moves in a circular orbit, and the earth is flat, and gravity doesn't exist. Why would anybody question that sound reasoning—backed up by.....?
[EDIT: spell checker not working WTF?]
Why do you think that humans show heat source when seen through infra red?
We emit light because our bodies are under friction, all the time, like everything is, including your LED lights.
Why do you think that humans show heat source when seen through infra red?
Because all living objects emit infrared radiation (or black-body radiation) which is detected by a thermographic camera. Simple.
Anyway, what does this particular question have to do with your light and sound theory? And have you listened to some light sources as I suggested to see if they're making any noise?
You can no more hear them than you can hear a dog whistle over a short distance, but the noise is there, it's just that we are too primitive to notice it.
What instrument would you suggest a person could use to hear a bell in a partially evacuated chamber?
You can no more hear them than you can hear a dog whistle over a short distance, but the noise is there, it's just that we are too primitive to notice it.
Then can you—personally—hear the sound that a light bulb is making if you're "too primitive" to notice it? What electronic instrument can you suggest that would amplify the sound and make it audible to a human?
And does an incandescent light bulb emit a different sound to an LED or a flashlight bulb?
You also claim that the sounds are too high for human hearing to detect; what then are the frequencies you're talking about?
What instrument would you suggest a person could use to hear a bell in a partially evacuated chamber?
It's patently obvious that you're trying to avoid answering my question by simply asking me another one. That distraction won't work here I'm afraid.When I find out what can be used to hear the sound of a bell in a partially evacuated chamber I will let you know. In the mean time, do you know of anything that could do this?
So I'll ask you again, and expect an answer:
How can you—personally—hear the sound that a light bulb is making if you're "too primitive" to notice it? What electronic instrument can you suggest that would amplify the sound and make it audible to a human?
I mean really? Do you guys need to be this silly.Everything on earth is magnetic. The air you breathe is all magnetic.
Visible light is electromagnetic radiation, transverse waves between 400 and 700 nm in wavelength.
Higher frequencies give x-rays gamma rays and all sorts of dangerous things. Lower frequencies gives infra red, radio waves and microwaves.
It moves at 299,792 km/s
Sound is longitudinal pressure waves that requires a mass medium and is audible between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz for humans.
Lower frequencies struggles to sustain and becomes wind rather than sound. Higher frequencies are used in the industry as ultrasonic sound that can travel through tissue reflecting of harder surfaces with great precision.
It moves at 343 m/s at see level atmospheric pressure.
When I find out what can be used to hear the sound of a bell in a partially evacuated chamber I will let you know. In the mean time, do you know of anything that could do this?
There's nothing open about your mind, except to be open to more global earth mumbo jumbo.Have a read back at what you are saying and maybe, just maybe you might...one day...hear a clink. If you do...that will be the penny dropping and you will at least know that it's time to think alternatively to the drivel you have been fed. It would be a massive start for you and then you can go back to basics.This is the classic scepti defense.
Slightly bulged.
Slight wobble.
I'd love to swear and tell you to go and get la la la...but I'm smirking and also we are in the upper forums, so I'll just say: search your mind and stop being led by the big howling wolves. Howl back and take the lead and don't be intimidated into following a model that you know 100% is not correct.
"All I know is that I'm 100% right. You are all brainwashed and closed-minded."
But that's a self-contradicting statement.
I keep an open mind, scepti.
I'm just sane.
I'm sorry you don't get to experience what it's like to have clear and distinguished thoughts that follow a logical pattern from a start to a conclusion.
dear th3rm0m3t3r0,Not sure what that means.
keep watching me in Algeria,
it's 22:40 PM (to night) but
I'm watching the sun now,
it's getting more and more
closer to its boiling spring! :(
When I find out what can be used to hear the sound of a bell in a partially evacuated chamber I will let you know. In the mean time, do you know of anything that could do this?
Here's your answer: BELL IN EVACUATED BELL JAR (http://bit.ly/JK3O42)
So I'll now await your answer to my question:
"How can you—personally—hear the sound that a light bulb is making if you're "too primitive" to notice it?"
I answered. Look back.
When I find out what can be used to hear the sound of a bell in a partially evacuated chamber I will let you know. In the mean time, do you know of anything that could do this?
Here's your answer: BELL IN EVACUATED BELL JAR (http://bit.ly/JK3O42)
So I'll now await your answer to my question:
"How can you—personally—hear the sound that a light bulb is making if you're "too primitive" to notice it?"
I'm still awaiting your answer to this question sceptimatic 24 hours later.
I answered. Look back.
Everything on earth is magnetic. The air you breathe is all magnetic.
If you start thinking about bar magnets and stuff then you will just confuse the issue.
I can't personally hear it and like I explained before. If you can find something that can personally hear the bell in a partially evacuated chamber then let me know, as it may be the very thing that can also hear the sound in a bulb. How's that?
I answered. Look back.
Nope. You avoided the my question totally.
This is the only post you made since I asked you (and after I posted my video link of the ringing bell in the evacuated jar):QuoteEverything on earth is magnetic. The air you breathe is all magnetic.
If you start thinking about bar magnets and stuff then you will just confuse the issue.
How then can you claim to have answered my question: How can you—personally—hear the sound that a light bulb is making if you're "too primitive" to notice it?
I can't personally hear it and like I explained before.
If you can find something that can personally hear the bell in a partially evacuated chamber then let me know, as it may be the very thing that can also hear the sound in a bulb. How's that?
I can't personally hear it and like I explained before.
Thank you. That was the admission I was seeking after you claimed that light bulbs made a noise. So you obviously can't be certain that they do? Apparently you're relying on third-party evidence, which you yourself always dismiss as being unacceptable in any argument. According to you, if one can't hear or see something personally, then it's not guaranteed to be authentic, and is nothing more than hearsay.
So now you're moving the goalposts in an attempt to justify the faulty logic of your argument. Not good enough.QuoteIf you can find something that can personally hear the bell in a partially evacuated chamber then let me know, as it may be the very thing that can also hear the sound in a bulb. How's that?
I've already posted the video link: HERE (http://bit.ly/JK3O42)
The sound is being picked up by the microphone on an ordinary digital camera.
So what do you think about this?
I can't prove anything to you people. You lot are so thoroughly brainwashed or ordered to keep up a ruse that nothing can be said, shown or anything else that can make you even give it a thought. Your minds are already made up, which is fair enough, because I was under no illusions that I was dealing with anything less.
You mean, I have to develop experiments to prove what I'm saying and you lot can provide none to back up anything you lot say?I can't prove anything to you people. You lot are so thoroughly brainwashed or ordered to keep up a ruse that nothing can be said, shown or anything else that can make you even give it a thought. Your minds are already made up, which is fair enough, because I was under no illusions that I was dealing with anything less.
Once again. You can't prove anything to me because YOU haven't done any sort of investigative experiments. If light and sound are the same, then develop an experiment and show it.
If atmospheric pressure caused what we perceive as gravity, develop an experiment and prove it.
List what you have done in your experiments and let everyone here know about them. GIve us enough information to repeat the experiments. It is that simple scepti.
When questioned to elaborate on your ideas, don't just say "Figure it out yourself. Use your logic"
You mean, I have to develop experiments to prove what I'm saying and you lot can provide none to back up anything you lot say?I can't prove anything to you people. You lot are so thoroughly brainwashed or ordered to keep up a ruse that nothing can be said, shown or anything else that can make you even give it a thought. Your minds are already made up, which is fair enough, because I was under no illusions that I was dealing with anything less.
Once again. You can't prove anything to me because YOU haven't done any sort of investigative experiments. If light and sound are the same, then develop an experiment and show it.
If atmospheric pressure caused what we perceive as gravity, develop an experiment and prove it.
List what you have done in your experiments and let everyone here know about them. GIve us enough information to repeat the experiments. It is that simple scepti.
When questioned to elaborate on your ideas, don't just say "Figure it out yourself. Use your logic"
You mean, I have to develop experiments to prove what I'm saying and you lot can provide none to back up anything you lot say?I can't prove anything to you people. You lot are so thoroughly brainwashed or ordered to keep up a ruse that nothing can be said, shown or anything else that can make you even give it a thought. Your minds are already made up, which is fair enough, because I was under no illusions that I was dealing with anything less.
Once again. You can't prove anything to me because YOU haven't done any sort of investigative experiments. If light and sound are the same, then develop an experiment and show it.
If atmospheric pressure caused what we perceive as gravity, develop an experiment and prove it.
List what you have done in your experiments and let everyone here know about them. GIve us enough information to repeat the experiments. It is that simple scepti.
When questioned to elaborate on your ideas, don't just say "Figure it out yourself. Use your logic"
You mean, I have to develop experiments to prove what I'm saying and you lot can provide none to back up anything you lot say?I can't prove anything to you people. You lot are so thoroughly brainwashed or ordered to keep up a ruse that nothing can be said, shown or anything else that can make you even give it a thought. Your minds are already made up, which is fair enough, because I was under no illusions that I was dealing with anything less.
Once again. You can't prove anything to me because YOU haven't done any sort of investigative experiments. If light and sound are the same, then develop an experiment and show it.
If atmospheric pressure caused what we perceive as gravity, develop an experiment and prove it.
List what you have done in your experiments and let everyone here know about them. GIve us enough information to repeat the experiments. It is that simple scepti.
When questioned to elaborate on your ideas, don't just say "Figure it out yourself. Use your logic"