In another thread or two I've seen reference to a "glass dome" in the sky that is believed - by someI think it is just scepti. I very much doubt he actually believes it: he hasn't got much to do, so trolls forums with made up shit. He likes the attention.
It is never projected on the sides. The sun doesn't reach that far on the Antarctica rim.
So with this dome there is a sunset right? The sun is projected onto the side of the dome and there we have it, sunset. So if that is happening then where on earth is someone simultaneously experiencing an overhead noon sun?Take a bit of time and actually look into what's been said over time and you might grasp it. You are in dismissal mode and always have been, so you probably won't ever grasp it, which is fine. You have your thoughts, so stick to them. It's all on a plate for you and others, so go with the done work, it's much easier and you have the backing of billions.
Not possible. Good bye dome hypothesis.
As discussed in the other thread recently, it is an ILLUSION that the sun is as low as the Earth landscape. The reason it is always a perfect circle is because it never gets far enough away from the observer before the landscape cuts it off. End of debate.
And his equation was wrong for the simple fact that we can see less distance of the Earth landscape than we do distance of objects in the sky. HEIGHT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.As discussed in the other thread recently, it is an ILLUSION that the sun is as low as the Earth landscape. The reason it is always a perfect circle is because it never gets far enough away from the observer before the landscape cuts it off. End of debate.
Was that the same thread where Rottingroom pointed out that the sun would never get within 10 degrees of the horizon on a FE? And then you invoke an illusion with no evidence so that your world can now fit observation? That is what you are talking about right?
Blah blah blah scepti. Your hypothesis makes no sense.Like I said. It makes no sense to those who ridicule it at first point. Only a deep thinking attitude will gain anyone an insight into it all. Something that most refuse to do. But like I said, it's up to the individual what they go with, as it is with me.
And his equation was wrong for the simple fact that we can see less distance of the Earth landscape than we do distance of objects in the sky. HEIGHT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.As discussed in the other thread recently, it is an ILLUSION that the sun is as low as the Earth landscape. The reason it is always a perfect circle is because it never gets far enough away from the observer before the landscape cuts it off. End of debate.
Was that the same thread where Rottingroom pointed out that the sun would never get within 10 degrees of the horizon on a FE? And then you invoke an illusion with no evidence so that your world can now fit observation? That is what you are talking about right?
Blah blah blah scepti. Your hypothesis makes no sense.Like I said. It makes no sense to those who ridicule it at first point. Only a deep thinking attitude will gain anyone an insight into it all. Something that most refuse to do. But like I said, it's up to the individual what they go with, as it is with me.
Keeping the science world space theories firmly implanted will gain you no alternative headway. Fir enough I say.
Crab, do some research on how crystals are formed. COMPACTED ICE and/or water at high temp. Crystal is natural glass.No. Glass does not have a regular crystalline structure. Glass is a class of amorphous solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_solid). Sceptimatic's "ice dome" of frozen helium, hydrogen, etc., would require temperatures very close to absolute zero.
Almost makes me wonder why you're wasting your time.Blah blah blah scepti. Your hypothesis makes no sense.Like I said. It makes no sense to those who ridicule it at first point. Only a deep thinking attitude will gain anyone an insight into it all. Something that most refuse to do. But like I said, it's up to the individual what they go with, as it is with me.
Keeping the science world space theories firmly implanted will gain you no alternative headway. Fir enough I say.
If only you actually did satisfactorily contend our arguments then a response like this would be warranted. If anyone does take the time to read the novel that's on these forums concerning your horrible hypothesis then it's plain as day. You haven't been able to keep your ideas together. You respond with ways to satisfy your theory which breaks other responses. It is unsound. It is incorrect. It is not reality.
Almost makes me wonder why you're wasting your time.Blah blah blah scepti. Your hypothesis makes no sense.Like I said. It makes no sense to those who ridicule it at first point. Only a deep thinking attitude will gain anyone an insight into it all. Something that most refuse to do. But like I said, it's up to the individual what they go with, as it is with me.
Keeping the science world space theories firmly implanted will gain you no alternative headway. Fir enough I say.
If only you actually did satisfactorily contend our arguments then a response like this would be warranted. If anyone does take the time to read the novel that's on these forums concerning your horrible hypothesis then it's plain as day. You haven't been able to keep your ideas together. You respond with ways to satisfy your theory which breaks other responses. It is unsound. It is incorrect. It is not reality.
Pretending?Almost makes me wonder why you're wasting your time.Blah blah blah scepti. Your hypothesis makes no sense.Like I said. It makes no sense to those who ridicule it at first point. Only a deep thinking attitude will gain anyone an insight into it all. Something that most refuse to do. But like I said, it's up to the individual what they go with, as it is with me.
Keeping the science world space theories firmly implanted will gain you no alternative headway. Fir enough I say.
If only you actually did satisfactorily contend our arguments then a response like this would be warranted. If anyone does take the time to read the novel that's on these forums concerning your horrible hypothesis then it's plain as day. You haven't been able to keep your ideas together. You respond with ways to satisfy your theory which breaks other responses. It is unsound. It is incorrect. It is not reality.
I can't help myself. Oh, and boredom. It's not as bad as wasting time pretending to be a flat earther.
The height of the object in the sky (the sun) was accounted for in the equation. Oblivious.No YOU'RE oblivious....to everything I've been explaining to you. ::) You accounted for the height but NOT the distance of the sun. The sun is BEYOND the landscape.
3000 miles is already absurdly low enough. Any lower and you are getting dramatic ellipses. Period.
The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.
The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.You and most others here are the one's who will need a shrink when the truth is either revealed to the world or you realize it before then. Either way, makes no difference to me. I don't go around calling people names and ridiculing them like you do.
The height of the object in the sky (the sun) was accounted for in the equation. Oblivious.No YOU'RE oblivious....to everything I've been explaining to you. ::) You accounted for the height but NOT the distance of the sun. The sun is BEYOND the landscape.
3000 miles is already absurdly low enough. Any lower and you are getting dramatic ellipses. Period.
The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.
The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.You and most others here are the one's who will need a shrink when the truth is either revealed to the world or you realize it before then. Either way, makes no difference to me. I don't go around calling people names and ridiculing them like you do.
So 3000 miles high, what is the path over the earth at different times of the year?The height of the object in the sky (the sun) was accounted for in the equation. Oblivious.No YOU'RE oblivious....to everything I've been explaining to you. ::) You accounted for the height but NOT the distance of the sun. The sun is BEYOND the landscape.
3000 miles is already absurdly low enough. Any lower and you are getting dramatic ellipses. Period.
The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.
If only you actually did satisfactorily contend our arguments then a response like this would be warranted. If anyone does take the time to read the novel that's on these forums concerning your horrible hypothesis then it's plain as day. You haven't been able to keep your ideas together. You respond with ways to satisfy your theory which breaks other responses. It is unsound. It is incorrect. It is not reality.I'd like to see YOU try and fit the pieces of a jigsaw this big together BY YOURSELF and maybe a few others. It'a a lot of damn work and time. The mainstream model has had more people and more time to put it all together. It's science fiction, not truth. I will laugh my ass off when you realize what a fool you've been. You need to humble yourself and stop being so egotistical and acting intellectually superior.
Haha. No.I see you STILL don't get it. The point is not ONE distance. There are TWO...the landscape (dry Earth or sea) and the object in the sky. TWO DISTANCES. UNDERSTAND?
I accounted for both. I'm sorry that you don't understand basic geometry.
The distance can be anything. You can make it a billion if you want. The sun will still never be below the horizon.
Needless ad hominem.... did you do that on purpose?The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.You and most others here are the one's who will need a shrink when the truth is either revealed to the world or you realize it before then. Either way, makes no difference to me. I don't go around calling people names and ridiculing them like you do.
Will never happen, idiot.
Needless ad hominem.... did you do that on purpose?The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.You and most others here are the one's who will need a shrink when the truth is either revealed to the world or you realize it before then. Either way, makes no difference to me. I don't go around calling people names and ridiculing them like you do.
Will never happen, idiot.
Fixed it for you as well.
2 distances from where to where?Haha. No.I see you STILL don't get it. The point is not ONE distance. There are TWO...the landscape (dry Earth or sea) and the object in the sky. TWO DISTANCES. UNDERSTAND?
I accounted for both. I'm sorry that you don't understand basic geometry.
The distance can be anything. You can make it a billion if you want. The sun will still never be below the horizon.
All it does is make you seem less credible and more angry.Needless ad hominem.... did you do that on purpose?The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.You and most others here are the one's who will need a shrink when the truth is either revealed to the world or you realize it before then. Either way, makes no difference to me. I don't go around calling people names and ridiculing them like you do.
Will never happen, idiot.
Fixed it for you as well.
Of course. I was provoked. I happily tell these guys they are morons. I get banned and come back and do it again. Maybe I'll learn my lesson someday.
All it does is make you seem less credible and more angry.Needless ad hominem.... did you do that on purpose?The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.You and most others here are the one's who will need a shrink when the truth is either revealed to the world or you realize it before then. Either way, makes no difference to me. I don't go around calling people names and ridiculing them like you do.
Will never happen, idiot.
Fixed it for you as well.
Of course. I was provoked. I happily tell these guys they are morons. I get banned and come back and do it again. Maybe I'll learn my lesson someday.
Also, where did you get the idea that people would prefer that we respect lunatics. I think people looking are fine with me ridiculing lunatics.It doesn't offend me or anything, I'm just saying it makes your argument appear less sound when you feel the need to resort to personal attacks on character.
Also, where did you get the idea that people would prefer that we respect lunatics. I think people looking are fine with me ridiculing lunatics.It doesn't offend me or anything, I'm just saying it makes your argument appear less sound when you feel the need to resort to personal attacks on character.
I just wouldn't want to give the lunatics the [seemingly] upper hand. ;)
Fair enough. There is no dome around Earth.Also, where did you get the idea that people would prefer that we respect lunatics. I think people looking are fine with me ridiculing lunatics.It doesn't offend me or anything, I'm just saying it makes your argument appear less sound when you feel the need to resort to personal attacks on character.
I just wouldn't want to give the lunatics the [seemingly] upper hand. ;)
I'll consider that. I said that I'm right. I never said that I wasn't an asshole.
First of all, not many sibscribe to it. I do and one or two others on here.
The dome is ICE, made up of frozen helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc depending on positition in the natural build of it.
It covers all the solid ground we exist on to a unknown height. Maybe 50 miles high as a wild guess.
There is definitely a dome, of this I am certain, because it makes perfect sense.
What does not make any sense is an atmosphere around a ball that somehow stays in place as a gas. It's preposterous and people really need to start thinking for themselves instead of mocking the dome, seriously.
All it does is make you seem less credible and more angry.Needless ad hominem.... did you do that on purpose?The game is over. We have proven the earth is round. It's just a matter of seeing a shrink now. I can find some for you if you need me to.You and most others here are the one's who will need a shrink when the truth is either revealed to the world or you realize it before then. Either way, makes no difference to me. I don't go around calling people names and ridiculing them like you do.
Will never happen, idiot.
Fixed it for you as well.
Of course. I was provoked. I happily tell these guys they are morons. I get banned and come back and do it again. Maybe I'll learn my lesson someday.
Haha. No.I see you STILL don't get it. The point is not ONE distance. There are TWO...the landscape (dry Earth or sea) and the object in the sky. TWO DISTANCES. UNDERSTAND?
I accounted for both. I'm sorry that you don't understand basic geometry.
The distance can be anything. You can make it a billion if you want. The sun will still never be below the horizon.
How long have you said you would play the flat Earther for?Pretending?Almost makes me wonder why you're wasting your time.Blah blah blah scepti. Your hypothesis makes no sense.Like I said. It makes no sense to those who ridicule it at first point. Only a deep thinking attitude will gain anyone an insight into it all. Something that most refuse to do. But like I said, it's up to the individual what they go with, as it is with me.
Keeping the science world space theories firmly implanted will gain you no alternative headway. Fir enough I say.
If only you actually did satisfactorily contend our arguments then a response like this would be warranted. If anyone does take the time to read the novel that's on these forums concerning your horrible hypothesis then it's plain as day. You haven't been able to keep your ideas together. You respond with ways to satisfy your theory which breaks other responses. It is unsound. It is incorrect. It is not reality.
I can't help myself. Oh, and boredom. It's not as bad as wasting time pretending to be a flat earther.
I'm offended.
Thanks for the answer. I've no idea how you've determined it to be so. But at least you gave an answer. Though when you say "There is definitely a dome, of this I am certain, because it makes perfect sense" you lose me. Science isn't progressed by "what makes sense". Intuition is not a reliable metric for determining reality. Intuition is subjective. We get to truth by following the evidence, wherever it may lead.Well, you were curious so I thought I'd tell you. I understand how the mainstream science world cannot be dragged screaming from their beliefs because trust in official givings are paramount to a budding learning scientists future, so why would anyone go against that.
On the point of atmosphere around a round ball: The gasses that comprise the atmosphere have mass. The Earth has a gravitational field (as a result of its mass). It's gravitation that holds captive our atmosphere. It's a pretty well understood phenomenon. Gravity works in the 3 spacial dimensions we inhabit (and likely more).
Back' in the old days it was the church and Jesus.... the inquisition ...For sure, science is the new religion. They can sell us anything they want and anyoner who dares question it will be ridiculed into submission.
Could it now be that,, 'Science; is the new religion that must not be questioned, this is business as usual.
The dome of the rock,,, ISRAEL
(http://www.earthdocumentary.com/pics/dome-of-the-rock-jerusalem.jpg)
Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
I went back and read the thread, it's pretty clear that he accounted for the distance of the sun and the height. Pretty easy to understand, actually.There's actually 3 but I'm talking about the one nobody understands and that is the distance of the sun on the horizon. Do you not agree that the sun is closer at noon than when it's on the horizon? You have the 3000 miles (or 62mi/100km that some of us believe) AND the distance of the sun on the horizon. The angle changes.
I went back and read the thread, it's pretty clear that he accounted for the distance of the sun and the height. Pretty easy to understand, actually.There's actually 3 but I'm talking about the one nobody understands and that is the distance of the sun on the horizon. Do you not agree that the sun is closer at noon than when it's on the horizon? You have the 3000 miles (or 62mi/100km that some of us believe) AND the distance of the sun on the horizon. The angle changes.
Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Yet you cannot produce a coherent description of your version of angles of moon and sun, satellite tv, gps and measured distances without resorting to abuse and rudeness.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
Look. Don't harp onto me about abuse and rudeness. I'm pretty cool with you people. I should actually be abusing you all full on but I sit back and allow you all to abuse me, then watch you all moan then turn it around to make out I'm the abuser.Yet you cannot produce a coherent description of your version of angles of moon and sun, satellite tv, gps and measured distances without resorting to abuse and rudeness.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
One day you might engage your brain. I doubt it but it is possible.
How does your computer and the internet work, all gibberish?Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
One day you might engage your brain. I doubt it but it is possible.
You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety.Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
One day you might engage your brain. I doubt it but it is possible.
I'm actually not referring to arguments about the earth being round or flat here. When I said, "I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at", I was talking about whether or not you understand what an argument is. I hope you understand now. Please post something relevant. The best way for you to prove we are wrong is to prove it. In order to prove it you need to demonstrate it.
You never do that though, you just constantly go on about indoctrination and tell stories about what you think reality is without ever attempting to demonstrate it.
For the record, my demonstration about how a sun cannot set on a flat earth was not memorized or regurgitated. It was demonstrated and it came from me, not a textbook. That is how you demonstrate something.
The computer is real. It's made up of components put together by clever people. The real scientists and engineers of this world.How does your computer and the internet work, all gibberish?Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
One day you might engage your brain. I doubt it but it is possible.
You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety.Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
One day you might engage your brain. I doubt it but it is possible.
I'm actually not referring to arguments about the earth being round or flat here. When I said, "I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at", I was talking about whether or not you understand what an argument is. I hope you understand now. Please post something relevant. The best way for you to prove we are wrong is to prove it. In order to prove it you need to demonstrate it.
You never do that though, you just constantly go on about indoctrination and tell stories about what you think reality is without ever attempting to demonstrate it.
For the record, my demonstration about how a sun cannot set on a flat earth was not memorized or regurgitated. It was demonstrated and it came from me, not a textbook. That is how you demonstrate something.
You merely saying you do this and that whilst I supposedly don't is neither here nor there to me. You're nothing special, you're just an angry little punter having a 10 minute spell every now and again.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/7166/buml.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/buml.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I appreciate that you try. However, I do hope you are aware that it is quite obvious that objects appear closer to the horizon the further away they get. Nobody has a problem with this. You are incorrect though. As demonstrated, it will NEVER EVER get cut off by land or sea on a flat earth. As it approaches the horizon, it will keep getting closer but it will do so infinitely and at smaller and yes smaller intervals forever proportionally to the distance. As it does this, the sun will also get smaller. Neither of these are observed.That's not true. Even it it was, it would never be observed because human eyes cannot see infinitely.
The sun stays nearly the same size and it goes behind the horizon even though it is nearly the same size.
Could it be that,, 'Science; is now the new religion that must not be questioned, this is business as usual.For crying out loud. Where do you guys get the idea that science must not be questioned? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what science is all about. Science wants you to ask lots of questions about everything, including scary questions that religion doesn't want you asking.
I appreciate that you try. However, I do hope you are aware that it is quite obvious that objects appear closer to the horizon the further away they get. Nobody has a problem with this. You are incorrect though. As demonstrated, it will NEVER EVER get cut off by land or sea on a flat earth. As it approaches the horizon, it will keep getting closer but it will do so infinitely and at smaller and yes smaller intervals forever proportionally to the distance. As it does this, the sun will also get smaller. Neither of these are observed.That's not true. Even it it was, it would never be observed because human eyes cannot see infinitely.
The sun stays nearly the same size and it goes behind the horizon even though it is nearly the same size.
The main reason being that the sun doesn't change size, correct?Even it it was, it would never be observed because human eyes cannot see infinitely.I agree. That isn't the observation that matters though. The one that does is that the horizon actually does block out the sun. Which is not possible on a flat earth. As demonstrated. Will you continue to deny this?
So do you understand now, that there are TWO distances on the horizon to factor into your math equation? The distance of the land/sea and the distance of the sun beyond that. The third would be the altitude of the sun (glass sky it's reflected on).
The main reason being that the sun doesn't change size, correct?Even it it was, it would never be observed because human eyes cannot see infinitely.I agree. That isn't the observation that matters though. The one that does is that the horizon actually does block out the sun. Which is not possible on a flat earth. As demonstrated. Will you continue to deny this?
No, the hypotenuse is shorter in your equation because you ended it at the horizon distance. There is INCREASED distance when you factor in the sun BEYOND the horizon.So do you understand now, that there are TWO distances on the horizon to factor into your math equation? The distance of the land/sea and the distance of the sun beyond that. The third would be the altitude of the sun (glass sky it's reflected on).
Do you not understand that the trigonometry used does include the hypotenuse of the triangle in question? Look at the calculator again. All numbers are accounted for.
The computer is real. It's made up of components put together by clever people. The real scientists and engineers of this world.How does your computer and the internet work, all gibberish?Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
One day you might engage your brain. I doubt it but it is possible.
I don't have any issues with stuff like that. Just the bull shit artists.
You don't understand it. Did the diagram even talk about the horizon at all? The point below the sun is simply the size of the flat earth, whatever that may be.So then no math equation is going to prove one way or the other if the horizon is only apparent. This debate is futile.
The location of a horizon on a flat earth is simply an apparent terminator. There isn't a distinct location for this. It really doesn't matter where it is. What matters is that if the earth is flat the sun never touches it.
You don't understand it. Did the diagram even talk about the horizon at all? The point below the sun is simply the size of the flat earth, whatever that may be.So then no math equation is going to prove one way or the other if the horizon is only apparent. This debate is futile.
The location of a horizon on a flat earth is simply an apparent terminator. There isn't a distinct location for this. It really doesn't matter where it is. What matters is that if the earth is flat the sun never touches it.
You don't understand it. Did the diagram even talk about the horizon at all? The point below the sun is simply the size of the flat earth, whatever that may be.You're right, I looked at the circumference thinking it was the horizon. I will continue this topic on that thread.
The location of a horizon on a flat earth is simply an apparent terminator. There isn't a distinct location for this. It really doesn't matter where it is. What matters is that if the earth is flat the sun never touches it.
You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety.Of course I don't understand what you're getting at. It's all made up gibberish. It's not meant to be understood, it's just meant to be memorised and regurgitated which many of you lot do quite well at.Do either of you stop to check if you've actually typed out an argument before you hit the enter key?Stop panicking and fretting.
Nobody's asking you to respond, just sit back and chill out and enjoy basking in your global Earth bull shit.
Absolutely incapable of posting an actual argument. I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at.
One day you might engage your brain. I doubt it but it is possible.
I'm actually not referring to arguments about the earth being round or flat here. When I said, "I wonder if you even understand what I'm getting at", I was talking about whether or not you understand what an argument is. I hope you understand now. Please post something relevant. The best way for you to prove we are wrong is to prove it. In order to prove it you need to demonstrate it.
You never do that though, you just constantly go on about indoctrination and tell stories about what you think reality is without ever attempting to demonstrate it.
For the record, my demonstration about how a sun cannot set on a flat earth was not memorized or regurgitated. It was demonstrated and it came from me, not a textbook. That is how you demonstrate something.
You merely saying you do this and that whilst I supposedly don't is neither here nor there to me. You're nothing special, you're just an angry little punter having a 10 minute spell every now and again.
Amongst the gluttony of other wacky ideas you have, you're wrong to claim that "You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety." There IS someone who knows the true Earth in its entirety: YOU! You've said at least twice now (that I'm aware of; I'm 'certain' it's happened many more times) where you are "certain" of the 'truth' of your claims.Are you people CERTAIN that your Earth is a rotating globe and space is what they tell you? I think your answer would be, "yes we are certain." You will say that without actually knowing, except the indoctrinators told you how it all is, so it is; of that you are certain.
Could it be, that it's all about light ,, no light, no space,, (no space no time,)Well, we are our own universe. We are cocooned and see what we see from the light reflected over and around the dome which has to reflect back from the dome itself because it cannot enter through the dome into nothing, or like you mention...true darkness.
think about true darkness,,
Imo it is light that creates this 3D' realm,,
could it be that nobody knows' what's outer space,, or outside our space,,, the big bang was to create the (our) dome,,,,
Could it be that we are the' center of our' universe,,,
So to see a space you need light, so could it be that light creates space...and if you have space than there is time,,, I'm just googleing the brain,,,,Yes, that's a good way of looking at it.
Basically you can't have space without a medium for light to reflect in. The space we are in is full of reflective properties, which is all the space we will see.
so you cant have space without a light to see it,,, a blind man can't experience space,,,
I really appreciated the information you gave me.
Wow. What an exchange. All that evidence. All those diagrams and all that logic. /sYep, they all help those who can observe reality. Try it sometime.
Wow. What an exchange.It must have felt like this in Ancient Greece as the great thinkers of the day took part in Socratic Dialogue.
We are being told a pack of lies, one way or the other.That, or you are a total fuckwit.
We've come a long way in just a few hundred years. Does any rational person believe that we shoot into technology only in the past 100 years and yet there were all those absolute experts of planerty observations and what not from 500-ad and onwards just shooting out genius after genius.
I mean, does it seem possible that we just came out of the basic ages only 100 years ago?
We are being told a pack of lies, one way or the other.
We are being told a pack of lies, one way or the other.That, or you are a total fuckwit.
Amongst the gluttony of other wacky ideas you have, you're wrong to claim that "You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety." There IS someone who knows the true Earth in its entirety: YOU! You've said at least twice now (that I'm aware of; I'm 'certain' it's happened many more times) where you are "certain" of the 'truth' of your claims.Are you people CERTAIN that your Earth is a rotating globe and space is what they tell you? I think your answer would be, "yes we are certain." You will say that without actually knowing, except the indoctrinators told you how it all is, so it is; of that you are certain.
If it's good for the Goose, it's good for the Gander.
I'm 100% certain of the dome. I'm 100% certain space does not exist how we are told. I'm 100% certain that all life on Earth and all the things we see and feel, including sun/moon, etc, are all inside the dome.
We are sealed in. We do not walk about on a silly spinning ball with hot suns and balls of rocks floating around us.
I expect ignorant people to believe this. People that are ignorant of the truth because of the feeding of lies and not having the common sense to bother to see it all for the nonsense it really is.
I would expect anyone who has studied it, to actually clearly see it for the nonsense that it is, yet very few are awake to it and most refuse to question what their masters have put into their brains.
Could it be, that it's all about light ,, no light, no space,, (no space no time,)Well, we are our own universe. We are cocooned and see what we see from the light reflected over and around the dome which has to reflect back from the dome itself because it cannot enter through the dome into nothing, or like you mention...true darkness.
think about true darkness,,
Imo it is light that creates this 3D' realm,,
could it be that nobody knows' what's outer space,, or outside our space,,, the big bang was to create the (our) dome,,,,
Could it be that we are the' center of our' universe,,,
A medium is always needed to light otherwise it cannot exist as light at all.
That's why the speed of light is absolute nonsense. It's the speed of sound because it's sound that creates light due to friction. No friction, no sound. No sound and no light.
The speed of light from sound is dependent on the energy applied and how frequent.
so you cant have space without a light to see it,,, a blind man can't experience space,,,
I really appreciated the information you gave me.
We've come a long way in just a few hundred years. Does any rational person believe that we shoot into technology only in the past 100 years and yet there were all those absolute experts of planerty observations and what not from 500-ad and onwards just shooting out genius after genius.
I mean, does it seem possible that we just came out of the basic ages only 100 years ago?
We are being told a pack of lies, one way or the other.
Our technology has been supressed severely in my opinion.We've come a long way in just a few hundred years. Does any rational person believe that we shoot into technology only in the past 100 years and yet there were all those absolute experts of planerty observations and what not from 500-ad and onwards just shooting out genius after genius.
I mean, does it seem possible that we just came out of the basic ages only 100 years ago?
We are being told a pack of lies, one way or the other.
Of course it's possible. Knowledge and technology aren't linear paths. Once one thing is known or one piece of technology is developed it branches out in many directions. Many of those branches diverge to form even more branches. Before you know it, that narrow bottleneck explodes into the forest of modern technology, with a massive body of knowledge budding in many directions.
You are 100% sure of something you or your FE friends invented, with absolutely no evidence to support it. I don't even know what observations led you to invent that dome thing.Amongst the gluttony of other wacky ideas you have, you're wrong to claim that "You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety." There IS someone who knows the true Earth in its entirety: YOU! You've said at least twice now (that I'm aware of; I'm 'certain' it's happened many more times) where you are "certain" of the 'truth' of your claims.Are you people CERTAIN that your Earth is a rotating globe and space is what they tell you? I think your answer would be, "yes we are certain." You will say that without actually knowing, except the indoctrinators told you how it all is, so it is; of that you are certain.
If it's good for the Goose, it's good for the Gander.
I'm 100% certain of the dome. I'm 100% certain space does not exist how we are told. I'm 100% certain that all life on Earth and all the things we see and feel, including sun/moon, etc, are all inside the dome.
We are sealed in. We do not walk about on a silly spinning ball with hot suns and balls of rocks floating around us.
I expect ignorant people to believe this. People that are ignorant of the truth because of the feeding of lies and not having the common sense to bother to see it all for the nonsense it really is.
I would expect anyone who has studied it, to actually clearly see it for the nonsense that it is, yet very few are awake to it and most refuse to question what their masters have put into their brains.
Stephen Hawking can think up any old flannel and you people accept it, even though he can't do anything, or so it appears.You are 100% sure of something you or your FE friends invented, with absolutely no evidence to support it. I don't even know what observations led you to invent that dome thing.Amongst the gluttony of other wacky ideas you have, you're wrong to claim that "You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety." There IS someone who knows the true Earth in its entirety: YOU! You've said at least twice now (that I'm aware of; I'm 'certain' it's happened many more times) where you are "certain" of the 'truth' of your claims.Are you people CERTAIN that your Earth is a rotating globe and space is what they tell you? I think your answer would be, "yes we are certain." You will say that without actually knowing, except the indoctrinators told you how it all is, so it is; of that you are certain.
If it's good for the Goose, it's good for the Gander.
I'm 100% certain of the dome. I'm 100% certain space does not exist how we are told. I'm 100% certain that all life on Earth and all the things we see and feel, including sun/moon, etc, are all inside the dome.
We are sealed in. We do not walk about on a silly spinning ball with hot suns and balls of rocks floating around us.
I expect ignorant people to believe this. People that are ignorant of the truth because of the feeding of lies and not having the common sense to bother to see it all for the nonsense it really is.
I would expect anyone who has studied it, to actually clearly see it for the nonsense that it is, yet very few are awake to it and most refuse to question what their masters have put into their brains.
We, on the other hand, are 100% sure of something that yes, we are told, but supported by tons of evidence, like experiments, pictures and videos, etc. And sorry, but it makes much more sense to me that the Earth is round than your "theory", if it can even be called that.
Can you please stop repeating the same shit about us being brainwashed, garbage in our heads, conspiracy, etc., please? The fact that you don't want it to be true isn't going to make it false. Earth is round. Your dome theory is pure BS, even more stupid than the standard FET.Stephen Hawking can think up any old flannel and you people accept it, even though he can't do anything, or so it appears.You are 100% sure of something you or your FE friends invented, with absolutely no evidence to support it. I don't even know what observations led you to invent that dome thing.Amongst the gluttony of other wacky ideas you have, you're wrong to claim that "You've demonstrated nothing factual. Nobody really has, because none of us really know the true Earth in its entirety." There IS someone who knows the true Earth in its entirety: YOU! You've said at least twice now (that I'm aware of; I'm 'certain' it's happened many more times) where you are "certain" of the 'truth' of your claims.Are you people CERTAIN that your Earth is a rotating globe and space is what they tell you? I think your answer would be, "yes we are certain." You will say that without actually knowing, except the indoctrinators told you how it all is, so it is; of that you are certain.
If it's good for the Goose, it's good for the Gander.
I'm 100% certain of the dome. I'm 100% certain space does not exist how we are told. I'm 100% certain that all life on Earth and all the things we see and feel, including sun/moon, etc, are all inside the dome.
We are sealed in. We do not walk about on a silly spinning ball with hot suns and balls of rocks floating around us.
I expect ignorant people to believe this. People that are ignorant of the truth because of the feeding of lies and not having the common sense to bother to see it all for the nonsense it really is.
I would expect anyone who has studied it, to actually clearly see it for the nonsense that it is, yet very few are awake to it and most refuse to question what their masters have put into their brains.
We, on the other hand, are 100% sure of something that yes, we are told, but supported by tons of evidence, like experiments, pictures and videos, etc. And sorry, but it makes much more sense to me that the Earth is round than your "theory", if it can even be called that.
You're living on fantasy theories that you think have been peer reviewed legitimately.
All things start off as a theory. My dome is my theory, regardless of the science world saying that theory is basically fact and I have to prove it.
They fill you full of so much garbage that your heads are literally swimming and drowning in it all. Higgs boson particle was thought up by Peter Higgs, supposedly. He just thought, " hmmm, there has to be a god particle."
Build a big fake LHC and bang, there it is: found after many many years. What a complete load of old flannel.
The bull shit list is literally endless with what the story tellers come out with. I feel sorry for the actual real scientists of this world who know the truth and can't say nothing, so have to plod away by following protocol.
Don't bother arguing it with me, argue it all with your own senses, because that's what need refreshing. If you didn't live in fantasy land you might actually see some of the stuff for the blatant tripe is clearly is.
Can you please stop repeating the same shit about us being brainwashed, garbage in our heads, conspiracy, etc., please?I'm only repeating the truth. You are severely brainwashed and do have heads full of garbage where this stuff is concerned. You may be intelligent but your naivety is off the chart.
The fact that you don't want it to be true isn't going to make it false. Earth is round. Your dome theory is pure BS, even more stupid than the standard FET.Earth maybe round. It's just not a rotating globe.
I think about what they tell me. And of course, there are things I don't understand. Maybe a couple of things don't make sense to me, but not a single word of your theory makes any sense, so I'll stick with the round EarthIt doesn't make sense because you refuse to engage your brain into it and are also scared of upsetting your peers if you agree to anything other than what you were programmed to accept.
I don't have to argue with my senses, because I am not guided by them in this. I'd probably think Earth was flat if I did that. But i prefer to use my reasoning.You aren't using your reasoning. You are simply regurgitating what has been programmed into your head by whatever means officially put out. Let your real senses guide you and you will see things differently. Don;t even start to do it until you strengthen up, as you are extremely weak minded at the moment. It doesn't always have to be this way. It's basically down to you.
Anyway I don't know how your senses can tell you there is an ice dome covering Earth.Because there has to be an ice dome. It is 100% certain. There is no other way. The problem you have is by not understanding why it is this way, because your head is full of ball turning sea and greenery that you allegedly saw in space pictures, going around a humongous ball of fire just burning away in your space.
Because there has to be an ice dome. It is 100% certain. There is no other way. The problem you have is by not understanding why it is this way, because your head is full of ball turning sea and greenery that you allegedly saw in space pictures, going around a humongous ball of fire just burning away in your space.Not only you don't provide evidence, but you don't even say why you think there is a dome. How am I supposed to understand you then? You just say "there has to be an ice dome", but you complain that we don't understand you. I have tried to think what would happen if the Earth was flat, but it is a stupid theory to me. For crying out loud, there are a lot of things your "theory" can't even explain!
You aren't using your reasoning. You are simply regurgitating what has been programmed into your head by whatever means officially put out. Let your real senses guide you and you will see things differently. Don;t even start to do it until you strengthen up, as you are extremely weak minded at the moment. It doesn't always have to be this way. It's basically down to you.Don't you realise YOU are the one dismissing any picture, evidence or whatever just because you are absolutely convinced the Earth is flat? I have tried to think like you, I tried, but it didn't make sense to me. C'mon scepti, just try to think for a moment that the Earth is round. You are the one who has to open his mind. You are using your reasoning, that's for sure. But you are using it wrong.
I'm only repeating the truth. You are severely brainwashed and do have heads full of garbage where this stuff is concerned. You may be intelligent but your naivety is off the chart.
Earth maybe round. It's just not a rotating globe.
It doesn't make sense because you refuse to engage your brain into it and are also scared of upsetting your peers if you agree to anything other than what you were programmed to accept.
You aren't using your reasoning. You are simply regurgitating what has been programmed into your head by whatever means officially put out. Let your real senses guide you and you will see things differently. Don;t even start to do it until you strengthen up, as you are extremely weak minded at the moment. It doesn't always have to be this way. It's basically down to you.
Because there has to be an ice dome. It is 100% certain. There is no other way. The problem you have is by not understanding why it is this way, because your head is full of ball turning sea and greenery that you allegedly saw in space pictures, going around a humongous ball of fire just burning away in your space.
You are scared of seeing science in it's easy form because that makes every person privvy to it all, which then destroys the hype that scientific people put upon each other, believing they are smarter than the average bear. It's nonsense.
I'm only repeating the truth. You are severely brainwashed and do have heads full of garbage where this stuff is concerned. You may be intelligent but your naivety is off the chart.
No, you're only repeating utter bull crap.Quote from: SceptimaticEarth maybe round. It's just not a rotating globe.
Yeah, we know, like a pizza in the sky. Forever tossed upwards towards the great glass dome made of pixie dust. ::)
Quote from: SceptimaticIt doesn't make sense because you refuse to engage your brain into it and are also scared of upsetting your peers if you agree to anything other than what you were programmed to accept.
I'm pretty sure that no one here is "scared of upsetting their peers" by 'learning the truth'. I'm pretty sure that affliction only plagues you.Quote from: SceptimaticYou aren't using your reasoning. You are simply regurgitating what has been programmed into your head by whatever means officially put out. Let your real senses guide you and you will see things differently. Don;t even start to do it until you strengthen up, as you are extremely weak minded at the moment. It doesn't always have to be this way. It's basically down to you.
Reasoning tells us that for the entire world of scientists to be in on some great conspiracy to brainwash the masses into thinking science is "hard" and that the Earth is a ball is absolutely absurd. Science is applied methodology. Science is neither "hard" nor "easy". It simply IS. Anyone with sufficient motivation can actively partake in science.Quote from: SceptimaticBecause there has to be an ice dome. It is 100% certain. There is no other way. The problem you have is by not understanding why it is this way, because your head is full of ball turning sea and greenery that you allegedly saw in space pictures, going around a humongous ball of fire just burning away in your space.
You are scared of seeing science in it's easy form because that makes every person privvy to it all, which then destroys the hype that scientific people put upon each other, believing they are smarter than the average bear. It's nonsense.
And, again, your 100% certainty claim of stuff you have no evidence for (other than your own hyper-paranoia brain disorder) makes ME 100% certain that you're either outright lying or 100% out of touch with reality. I'm leaning towards the latter.
I'm only repeating the truth. You are severely brainwashed and do have heads full of garbage where this stuff is concerned. You may be intelligent but your naivety is off the chart.
No, you're only repeating utter bull crap.Quote from: SceptimaticEarth maybe round. It's just not a rotating globe.
Yeah, we know, like a pizza in the sky. Forever tossed upwards towards the great glass dome made of pixie dust. ::)
Quote from: SceptimaticIt doesn't make sense because you refuse to engage your brain into it and are also scared of upsetting your peers if you agree to anything other than what you were programmed to accept.
I'm pretty sure that no one here is "scared of upsetting their peers" by 'learning the truth'. I'm pretty sure that affliction only plagues you.Quote from: SceptimaticYou aren't using your reasoning. You are simply regurgitating what has been programmed into your head by whatever means officially put out. Let your real senses guide you and you will see things differently. Don;t even start to do it until you strengthen up, as you are extremely weak minded at the moment. It doesn't always have to be this way. It's basically down to you.
Reasoning tells us that for the entire world of scientists to be in on some great conspiracy to brainwash the masses into thinking science is "hard" and that the Earth is a ball is absolutely absurd. Science is applied methodology. Science is neither "hard" nor "easy". It simply IS. Anyone with sufficient motivation can actively partake in science.Quote from: SceptimaticBecause there has to be an ice dome. It is 100% certain. There is no other way. The problem you have is by not understanding why it is this way, because your head is full of ball turning sea and greenery that you allegedly saw in space pictures, going around a humongous ball of fire just burning away in your space.
You are scared of seeing science in it's easy form because that makes every person privvy to it all, which then destroys the hype that scientific people put upon each other, believing they are smarter than the average bear. It's nonsense.
And, again, your 100% certainty claim of stuff you have no evidence for (other than your own hyper-paranoia brain disorder) makes ME 100% certain that you're either outright lying or 100% out of touch with reality. I'm leaning towards the latter.
My idea (which I won't call a theory, hypothesis or whatever) is that this website is just run by a bunch of people who no more believe in a so-called "Flat Earth Society" than anyone. But they just think of the most absurd ideas for the sake of argument. And of course they are never going to admit it. If they did , this website would collapse. Either that or Big Blue Marble is right on all counts and they really do have a problem.I think people who created this page don't think Earth is actually flat, but they were joined by people who do and trolls who pretend to be FErs
My idea (which I won't call a theory, hypothesis or whatever) is that this website is just run by a bunch of people who no more believe in a so-called "Flat Earth Society" than anyone. But they just think of the most absurd ideas for the sake of argument. And of course they are never going to admit it. If they did , this website would collapse. Either that or Big Blue Marble is right on all counts and they really do have a problem.I think people who created this page don't think Earth is actually flat, but they were joined by people who do and trolls who pretend to be FErs
I'm only repeating the truth. You are severely brainwashed and do have heads full of garbage where this stuff is concerned. You may be intelligent but your naivety is off the chart.
No, you're only repeating utter bull crap.Quote from: SceptimaticEarth maybe round. It's just not a rotating globe.
Yeah, we know, like a pizza in the sky. Forever tossed upwards towards the great glass dome made of pixie dust. ::)
Quote from: SceptimaticIt doesn't make sense because you refuse to engage your brain into it and are also scared of upsetting your peers if you agree to anything other than what you were programmed to accept.
I'm pretty sure that no one here is "scared of upsetting their peers" by 'learning the truth'. I'm pretty sure that affliction only plagues you.Quote from: SceptimaticYou aren't using your reasoning. You are simply regurgitating what has been programmed into your head by whatever means officially put out. Let your real senses guide you and you will see things differently. Don;t even start to do it until you strengthen up, as you are extremely weak minded at the moment. It doesn't always have to be this way. It's basically down to you.
Reasoning tells us that for the entire world of scientists to be in on some great conspiracy to brainwash the masses into thinking science is "hard" and that the Earth is a ball is absolutely absurd. Science is applied methodology. Science is neither "hard" nor "easy". It simply IS. Anyone with sufficient motivation can actively partake in science.Quote from: SceptimaticBecause there has to be an ice dome. It is 100% certain. There is no other way. The problem you have is by not understanding why it is this way, because your head is full of ball turning sea and greenery that you allegedly saw in space pictures, going around a humongous ball of fire just burning away in your space.
You are scared of seeing science in it's easy form because that makes every person privvy to it all, which then destroys the hype that scientific people put upon each other, believing they are smarter than the average bear. It's nonsense.
And, again, your 100% certainty claim of stuff you have no evidence for (other than your own hyper-paranoia brain disorder) makes ME 100% certain that you're either outright lying or 100% out of touch with reality. I'm leaning towards the latter.
My idea (which I won't call a theory, hypothesis or whatever) is that this website is just run by a bunch of people who no more believe in a so-called "Flat Earth Society" than anyone. But they just think of the most absurd ideas for the sake of argument. And of course they are never going to admit it. If they did , this website would collapse. Either that or Big Blue Marble is right on all counts and they really do have a problem.
We are RE's and the truth , no one comes to the Father but through us,,,
The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.”
― Albert Einstein
(http://sarahelengornrealestate.com/media/blog/250/raw/19250_the-pope-makes-history.jpg)
My idea (which I won't call a theory, hypothesis or whatever) is that this website is just run by a bunch of people who no more believe in a so-called "Flat Earth Society" than anyone. But they just think of the most absurd ideas for the sake of argument. And of course they are never going to admit it. If they did , this website would collapse. Either that or Big Blue Marble is right on all counts and they really do have a problem.
Excellent point Jroa. It is the REs that come here and talk smack who are the REAL Trolls.
Just off to the hardware to get a flat general purpose metal file. Can anyone remember there name.
Excellent point Jroa. It is the REs that come here and talk smack who are the REAL Trolls.
Just off to the hardware to get a flat general purpose metal file. Can anyone remember there name.Yes, it's called a truth file. Don't buy the globufile; they promise you amazing results but fall apart and crumble. The packaging looks superb though.
First of all, not many sibscribe to it. I do and one or two others on here.
The dome is ICE, made up of frozen helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc depending on positition in the natural build of it.
It covers all the solid ground we exist on to a unknown height. Maybe 50 miles high as a wild guess.
There is definitely a dome, of this I am certain, because it makes perfect sense.
What does not make any sense is an atmosphere around a ball that somehow stays in place as a gas. It's preposterous and people really need to start thinking for themselves instead of mocking the dome, seriously.
My idea (which I won't call a theory, hypothesis or whatever) is that this website is just run by a bunch of people who no more believe in a so-called "Flat Earth Society" than anyone. But they just think of the most absurd ideas for the sake of argument. And of course they are never going to admit it. If they did , this website would collapse. Either that or Big Blue Marble is right on all counts and they really do have a problem.
Why would you frequent a website in which you don't believe the people there genuinely believe the stuff they are saying? Are you looking for attention? Or, maybe it is you who is doing the trolling?
I am in love with EarthIsASpaceship. Prove me wrong.What?! How did I miss this? I'm in love with you too Jroa. :-*
First of all, not many sibscribe to it. I do and one or two others on here.
The dome is ICE, made up of frozen helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc depending on positition in the natural build of it.
It covers all the solid ground we exist on to a unknown height. Maybe 50 miles high as a wild guess.
There is definitely a dome, of this I am certain, because it makes perfect sense.
What does not make any sense is an atmosphere around a ball that somehow stays in place as a gas. It's preposterous and people really need to start thinking for themselves instead of mocking the dome, seriously.
It's only logical to those that are prepared to think and understand what I've already explained about it all.First of all, not many sibscribe to it. I do and one or two others on here.
The dome is ICE, made up of frozen helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc depending on positition in the natural build of it.
It covers all the solid ground we exist on to a unknown height. Maybe 50 miles high as a wild guess.
There is definitely a dome, of this I am certain, because it makes perfect sense.
What does not make any sense is an atmosphere around a ball that somehow stays in place as a gas. It's preposterous and people really need to start thinking for themselves instead of mocking the dome, seriously.
Gravity makes no sense, but the Sun not melting the ice right away is the definition of logic.
Ask yourself why the tops of mountains always have snow on them despite the sun being over head.
Ask yourself why you can freeze to death in the hold of a plane at high altitude.
Once you grasp this, you might understand why the dome isn't going to melt, especially when the dome REFLECTS light. It reflects light because it's a perfect mirror.
It's a perfect mirror because the blackness outside of the dome that you call space, is not space at all, it's a perfect vacuum that you see as black, that cannot absorb light nor heat, because it's not a medium and not a colour, except pure darkness to your eyes that you perceive as the colour, black.
I'm a little bit sorry about what I'm going to say, but you seem to be really, really retarded when it comes to pretty any kind of science.Just going by the first line of your reply, I feel it's absolutely pointless explaining anything to you. You haven't even answered what I've been going on about with any real purpose, except to say that things get cold, so there.Ask yourself why the tops of mountains always have snow on them despite the sun being over head.
Snow absorbs a tiny fraction of the sun shining on it, so it heats up very slowly. What melts snow anywhere else is actually warm air. That's why after winter some heaps of snow can literally take weeks to melt if spring is rather cold(just slightly above 0*C). The mountain tops are covered by snow because air around them is way below 0. Therefore, instead of melting snow, it actually redistributes heat away from it, making it last longer without melting. So, this one was slightly justified, as the snow really does not absorb lots of heat from sunlight, but this is by no means the most important factor.Ask yourself why you can freeze to death in the hold of a plane at high altitude.
This is hilariously simple. There is no source of heat to help you, but there is incredibly cold air all around you. It can go as far as -50*C at the cruise altitude. It takes away your heat very quickly.Once you grasp this, you might understand why the dome isn't going to melt, especially when the dome REFLECTS light. It reflects light because it's a perfect mirror.
So is it a perfect mirror, as in reflecting everything and transmitting(if you are not familiar with the term - letting some light pass through it to the other side) or absorbing nothing? And it does not emit any "own" additional light, right? Do i understand it correctly? Then why is it not possible to look up and a bit to the side and see a reflection of the ground lying somewhere else? Have you ever been inside a mirror room? Or seen something like the inside of a mirror sphere? It looks nothing like an almost perfectly black sky you can see at night. Actually if there is any source of light somewhere inside the room(and in your case that would be the Sun, somewhere inside the dome), the only way for the walls to seem pitch black would be for them to either transmit or absorb ALL the light shining on them, reflecting nothing. Or not to exist at all, which is what RErs go with.It's a perfect mirror because the blackness outside of the dome that you call space, is not space at all, it's a perfect vacuum that you see as black, that cannot absorb light nor heat, because it's not a medium and not a colour, except pure darkness to your eyes that you perceive as the colour, black.
What lies beyond it is completely unimportant in this case. It could be perfect emptiness or blazing inferno, it still wouldn't affect our perception of what this perfect mirror shows us reflected from somewhere on "our"(inner) side of the dome. Or are you now saying it is not that perfect? Either way, whether a mirror is bad, good or perfect has NOTHING to do with what lies beyond it. It could only affect its temperature by heating or further cooling it, but a mirror susceptible to such effects can by no means be called "perfect".
But, maybe more importantly, if this dome is so perfect, how the f*ck do you know what lies beyond it?!
Mix one set of waves together and you get white light.
Mix another set and you get black.
Black on Earth is the absorbance of all colour waves. A true black, niot a shiny reflective black, which is key, because there is no light without reflection off something. there has to be something for light to even exist to reflect off, which is why you see what you see.
Heat is light or light is heat. It's waves. It's friction and frequency.
In your vacuum of space that you believe exists, it is a perfect vacuum that my ice dome ends at, due to the last elements Earth gives out being the lightest and most expanded.
Because those elements are fully expanded into their natural state, they freeze against the vacuum which to us is blackness, yet it's only blackness because space is the absence of all light waves. They cannot pass through it because it does not exist as anything. It's not there, except in our heads.
Earth is simply in suspended animation.
All the light from Earth itself is reflected back from that dome because the ice itself is a reflector. A solid, clear reflector, aided by the perfect backing a glass can have which is something that cannot pass through it, as in a vacuum, so anything heading that way, is seen by us.
As for snow on mountains, it's due to lack of agitation of molecules due to expansion. There are less to expand and contract, so once the sun moves away, they freeze due to the lack of friction. Once the suns reflected light comes back, they expand a little again and friction starts, which melts the snow/ice a little and it all trickles down.
Black is the absence of light. It is not a mixture of waves. Go into a room at night. Turn on the light and the room will light up. Turn off the light and the room becomes black. Understand?
Black is the absence of light. It is not a mixture of waves. Go into a room at night. Turn on the light and the room will light up. Turn off the light and the room becomes black. Understand?Yes, black in the absence of reflected light. On Earth at sea level (for instance) you turn on a light in a dark room and the room will light up if there is something to reflect the light which could be dust particles or a white wall, etc.
Try to understand it instead of taking the big scientist stance and you may grasp it. I won't hold my breath because you are here for the very same reasons as most. To simply try and ridicule. It only works in your own mind because that stance just makes me laugh.Black is the absence of light. It is not a mixture of waves. Go into a room at night. Turn on the light and the room will light up. Turn off the light and the room becomes black. Understand?
Well, it is a good example of what is clearly lacking in scepti's knowledge about essential optics, if he wants to discuss such a thing as a massive sky mirror...
Fine. A straight question, i hope: what observations lead you to the conclusion that there is a perfectly empty vacuum beyond the dome, if, as you claim, there is no way of reaching beyond it?First of all, observations in evacuated chambers with a variety of elements can answer a lot of your questions.
For all we know, if such a dome really existed and behaved as you say, nothing on the outside could affect us and be measured. A hundred million devils could be sitting on their asses there doing nothing, and there would be no way of finding out. I think the only valid reason for saying "there is nothing there" is after you have checked really well and actually could not find anything. And even then, the best you could do, is "according to our current level of knowledge, and current technological limitations, there seems to be nothing there". Instead, you seem to postulate that there is nothing there, and at the same time agree it is impossible to actually check. That is massive inconsequence on your side.
Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
By how things work down here with experiments and how we sort elements by man made means. All we are doing is what Earth does naturally from bottom to top.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
And how do you know what the conditions are at the top of the sky?
City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
You can't see where they are coming from because they are invisible to your eye from the centre until they hit something they can reflect off, which is the dome.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
but the lights that do cause appearance of the stars are strong enough even though we can't find where they are coming from in a plane?
You can't see where they are coming from because they are invisible to your eye from the centre until they hit something they can reflect off, which is the dome.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
but the lights that do cause appearance of the stars are strong enough even though we can't find where they are coming from in a plane?
You can't any light unless it's reflecting of something.
If someone shone a torch side on to you, you only see the bean because of the matter in the air, like dust and water vapour etc that it reflects off.
You can see city lights from a low flying plane. What's your point here?You can't see where they are coming from because they are invisible to your eye from the centre until they hit something they can reflect off, which is the dome.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
but the lights that do cause appearance of the stars are strong enough even though we can't find where they are coming from in a plane?
You can't any light unless it's reflecting of something.
If someone shone a torch side on to you, you only see the bean because of the matter in the air, like dust and water vapour etc that it reflects off.
lolwut?
We can see city lights just fine and they are less bright than your pretend light. This makes no sense. Is any of this going to ever make sense?
You can see city lights from a low flying plane. What's your point here?You can't see where they are coming from because they are invisible to your eye from the centre until they hit something they can reflect off, which is the dome.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
but the lights that do cause appearance of the stars are strong enough even though we can't find where they are coming from in a plane?
You can't any light unless it's reflecting of something.
If someone shone a torch side on to you, you only see the bean because of the matter in the air, like dust and water vapour etc that it reflects off.
lolwut?
We can see city lights just fine and they are less bright than your pretend light. This makes no sense. Is any of this going to ever make sense?
By how things work down here with experiments and how we sort elements by man made means. All we are doing is what Earth does naturally from bottom to top.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
And how do you know what the conditions are at the top of the sky?
Scepti, to sum your last post towards me: you say that I am mislead or naive IF I just follow the teachings of others, but you talk about stuff boiling and freezing in different conditions like you have tested at least some of these things. Have you? I have studied chemistry at the main Institute of technology in the country where I live. One of the biggest and most important courses we had was kinetics and thermodynamics in chemistry - we had theoretical, computational and practical parts of it. I am now not trying to accuse you of something, but simply to ask: have you conducted any experiments regarding various states of matter relative to the pressures, temperatures, composition of mixtures?I can't help you. You obviously cannot grasp what I'm saying. Your last sentence confirms you either don't grasp what I'm saying or you're intentionally not grasping it for a reason.
There are key "edge" variables limiting what can happen. For example if the Temperature is lower than around -22*C, no matter what pressure you apply, you won't be able to produce pure liquid water. It will either be gaseous, or a solid. A similar thing exists for helium. This time it is pressure; if it is lower than about 2,5 megaPascals, no matter what the temperature is, it is not possible for solid helium to form. You claim that even if there is empty space beyond the dome, it would be absolutely empty. In such case, the ice wouldn't be able to form. And if it was created at some kind of big-bang-like event, it would be boiling vigorously all the time. How does that relate to the alleged composition of the dome? Helium and hydrogen(if I remember correctly that's what it is supposedly made of, the two lightest elements) do not form strong molecular bonds between each other. Helium, in fact, almost doesn't produce any such bonds at all. The dome's surface would become swiss cheese in no time.
By the way, you can see light even if it doesn't bounce off anything. Take a look on a lightbulb, Sun, a candle or a LED.
What do you mean brighter than city lights. What are you talking about?You can see city lights from a low flying plane. What's your point here?You can't see where they are coming from because they are invisible to your eye from the centre until they hit something they can reflect off, which is the dome.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
but the lights that do cause appearance of the stars are strong enough even though we can't find where they are coming from in a plane?
You can't any light unless it's reflecting of something.
If someone shone a torch side on to you, you only see the bean because of the matter in the air, like dust and water vapour etc that it reflects off.
lolwut?
We can see city lights just fine and they are less bright than your pretend light. This makes no sense. Is any of this going to ever make sense?
That much brighter lights than city light should be much easier to see.
I never said helium and hydrogen cause a blue colour. Where did you get this from?By how things work down here with experiments and how we sort elements by man made means. All we are doing is what Earth does naturally from bottom to top.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
And how do you know what the conditions are at the top of the sky?
What experiments are you referring to that show Hydrogen and Helium causing a blue colour down here?
What do you mean brighter than city lights. What are you talking about?You can see city lights from a low flying plane. What's your point here?You can't see where they are coming from because they are invisible to your eye from the centre until they hit something they can reflect off, which is the dome.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
So the bluish reflection is literally a reflection of that helium and hydrogen yet at night, we don't see reflections of city lights, we see stars. The same stars that were around before cities were.
but the lights that do cause appearance of the stars are strong enough even though we can't find where they are coming from in a plane?
You can't any light unless it's reflecting of something.
If someone shone a torch side on to you, you only see the bean because of the matter in the air, like dust and water vapour etc that it reflects off.
lolwut?
We can see city lights just fine and they are less bright than your pretend light. This makes no sense. Is any of this going to ever make sense?
That much brighter lights than city light should be much easier to see.
I never said helium and hydrogen cause a blue colour. Where did you get this from?By how things work down here with experiments and how we sort elements by man made means. All we are doing is what Earth does naturally from bottom to top.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
And how do you know what the conditions are at the top of the sky?
What experiments are you referring to that show Hydrogen and Helium causing a blue colour down here?
I never said helium and hydrogen cause a blue colour. Where did you get this from?
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blueIs your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
You said that these pretend lights are not visible unless they are reflected.What do you think city lights are reflecting off? Have a serous think about it if you think light doesn't need reflection.
I said that we can city lights just fine.
You acknowledged that we can see city lights from a low flying plane.
These lights do not need to be reflected.
Your pretend light is presumably brighter, yet it needs to be reflected.
None of this makes any sense.
Answer my question about sun spots.
I said the shorter wavelength of the spectrum makes us see blue. Stop making stuff up it doesn't help.I never said helium and hydrogen cause a blue colour. Where did you get this from?By how things work down here with experiments and how we sort elements by man made means. All we are doing is what Earth does naturally from bottom to top.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
And how do you know what the conditions are at the top of the sky?
What experiments are you referring to that show Hydrogen and Helium causing a blue colour down here?
You responded to a question about why the color is blue with some crap about helium and hydrogen. What other conclusion should we draw from your ramblings. Answer the question then. Why is the sky blue?
I was on about his bathroom mirror at sea level with a light on, I didn't even address his blue.I never said helium and hydrogen cause a blue colour. Where did you get this from?
Weird because it looks like you did:- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blueIs your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Are you saying that there is a perfect vacuum between the center of the earth where these lights originate from and the ice dome? If not, then it seems that this light should illuminate various particles suspended within the atmosphere as the light travels from the center of the earth to the ice dome. In fact, it seems that if you're right, then we should see stars projected onto clouds at night. Why does this not happen?
You said that these pretend lights are not visible unless they are reflected.What do you think city lights are reflecting off? Have a serous think about it if you think light doesn't need reflection.
I said that we can city lights just fine.
You acknowledged that we can see city lights from a low flying plane.
These lights do not need to be reflected.
Your pretend light is presumably brighter, yet it needs to be reflected.
None of this makes any sense.
Answer my question about sun spots.
What sun spots are these?
When have you see sun spots through your telescope?
The only spots you would ever likely see are negative wavelengths of light blocking out small areas if that.
Show me some genuine sun spots.
The light is emitted through crystals as I said before, in the centre of Earth. It's a super low pressure that is filled all the time, like a vortex.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Are you saying that there is a perfect vacuum between the center of the earth where these lights originate from and the ice dome? If not, then it seems that this light should illuminate various particles suspended within the atmosphere as the light travels from the center of the earth to the ice dome. In fact, it seems that if you're right, then we should see stars projected onto clouds at night. Why does this not happen?
The light is emitted through crystals as I said before, in the centre of Earth. It's a super low pressure that is filled all the time, like a vortex.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Are you saying that there is a perfect vacuum between the center of the earth where these lights originate from and the ice dome? If not, then it seems that this light should illuminate various particles suspended within the atmosphere as the light travels from the center of the earth to the ice dome. In fact, it seems that if you're right, then we should see stars projected onto clouds at night. Why does this not happen?
The light waves through those crystals converge over the centre and are reflected again and again around the dome.
The main source light (the sun) is the lagest emitted light.
There are no clouds in the centre, just around it, like where we all live around the circle, so they're hardly going to be projected onto clouds.
Fine... No boiling, but rapid melting would happen. How does it help you? After looking up charts for the critical curves of helium I have forgotten that it is the very few materials discovered which are superfluids in very low temperatures and pressures, not gaseous. Massive fail on my side. But what does it have to do with keeping the dome solid? You have just posted a video where you claim that instead of being gaseous in low pressure, it would be a superfluid. How does it change the fact that such a dome would fall apart? Try to look up solid helium and zero point energy and think for yourself whether this was all made up when some scientists heard your claim that the dome is made of H and He, or was in works for a long, long time.It's a super fluid at that temperature. That temperature is what man can achieve down here, not what can happen up against a true vacuum.
I can't be bothered to play your game. When you start being a bit more serious I'll oblige. I'm not wasting too much more time typing on you when you ask that question of which you are clearly in the mind of knowing.The light is emitted through crystals as I said before, in the centre of Earth. It's a super low pressure that is filled all the time, like a vortex.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Are you saying that there is a perfect vacuum between the center of the earth where these lights originate from and the ice dome? If not, then it seems that this light should illuminate various particles suspended within the atmosphere as the light travels from the center of the earth to the ice dome. In fact, it seems that if you're right, then we should see stars projected onto clouds at night. Why does this not happen?
The light waves through those crystals converge over the centre and are reflected again and again around the dome.
The main source light (the sun) is the lagest emitted light.
There are no clouds in the centre, just around it, like where we all live around the circle, so they're hardly going to be projected onto clouds.
Refresh my memory, where is this place again?
You better find more bubblegum then.I'm all out of bubblegum, so you know what that means - globulite. ;)
I can't be bothered to play your game. When you start being a bit more serious I'll oblige. I'm not wasting too much more time typing on you when you ask that question of which you are clearly in the mind of knowing.The light is emitted through crystals as I said before, in the centre of Earth. It's a super low pressure that is filled all the time, like a vortex.City lights are not strong enough to be relfected back. the reflections are from the centre of the Earth and are focused up and out to the dome. Our eye sight or telescopes aren't that good to pick up piddly city lights.Are you saying that there is a perfect vacuum between the center of the earth where these lights originate from and the ice dome? If not, then it seems that this light should illuminate various particles suspended within the atmosphere as the light travels from the center of the earth to the ice dome. In fact, it seems that if you're right, then we should see stars projected onto clouds at night. Why does this not happen?
The light waves through those crystals converge over the centre and are reflected again and again around the dome.
The main source light (the sun) is the lagest emitted light.
There are no clouds in the centre, just around it, like where we all live around the circle, so they're hardly going to be projected onto clouds.
Refresh my memory, where is this place again?
The light is emitted through crystals as I said before, in the centre of Earth. It's a super low pressure that is filled all the time, like a vortex.Have you personally seen these crystals or measured the pressure at the center of the earth?
The light waves through those crystals converge over the centre and are reflected again and again around the dome.The main source light (the sun) is the lagest emitted light.But don't those light waves have to travel through the atmosphere in order to get to the dome?
There are no clouds in the centre, just around it, like where we all live around the circle, so they're hardly going to be projected onto clouds.
But don't those light waves have to travel through the atmosphere in order to get to the dome?
I never said helium and hydrogen cause a blue colour. Where did you get this from?By how things work down here with experiments and how we sort elements by man made means. All we are doing is what Earth does naturally from bottom to top.Here's what I know that I didn't need to read any fancy science books to find out:Is your bathroom filled with helium and hydrogen that is fully expanded?
- No kind of ice I've ever seen or heard of naturally forms into a perfect mirror
- When I do see a regular bathroom mirror and the light is on, I see a reflection of myself and the room, not a featureless blue
You are at sea level pressure, why would you even try and equate that to the very top of the sky?
And how do you know what the conditions are at the top of the sky?
What experiments are you referring to that show Hydrogen and Helium causing a blue colour down here?
@scepti, in your "model" why do we have sunsets? Can you draw a diagram to explain.I'll draw a diagram later. The sunsets are when the reflected light (sun) moves over the dome, away from your view through the thick atmosphere.
Once you have done that you can explain why we have seasons.
A vacuum has no temperature. It where everything ceases to move.
No, you won't. You can't.@scepti, in your "model" why do we have sunsets? Can you draw a diagram to explain.I'll draw a diagram later.
Once you have done that you can explain why we have seasons.
The sunsets are when the reflected light (sun) moves over the dome, away from your view through the thick atmosphere.How is the sun moving? Why do the periods of light and dark change over the year, apart from for people on the equator?
As for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.lol - nice 5th rate sci-fi. You aren't really trying now are you? Sounds like a dream you had after eating too much cheese.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
If you want to understand what I'm saying then you're gonna have to lose the fantasy space that has been battered into your head and the fact that you think a vacuum can have something freely moving in it. Until you get that out of your head, you'll nefver understand it.QuoteA vacuum has no temperature. It where everything ceases to move.
Correct, vacuum has no temperature. But things in vacuum DO have temperature, why not? Temperature has nothing to do with what surrounds a piece of matter, it is directly connected to the particles' kinetic energy. Actually stuff already present in vacuum in its stable state(I mean like a piece of metal, for which the preferred state in 0Pa and reasonably low temperatures is solid) will loose heat way slower than when surrounded by anything colder than it. If the state is stable, then no heat will be consumed in phase changes. There would also be no "lower temperature" molecules floating around to take some kinetic energy. The only way to loose energy would be through radiation, and it is a very weak effect compared to others.
Anyways, how would the dome form at all, as some elements require high pressure to become solids at all, even at extremely low temperatures?
And another thing, about your "glowing carbon" stuff. If it is in the center - why cannot we find it? There is no such stuff at the pole.
I think it's pointless wasting my time with you. Just stick to your globe and be done with it. You don't need answers and you are certainly not going to extertain any thoughts no matter what. If it goes against your indoctrination it's dismissed, simple as that, so why are you here?No, you won't. You can't.@scepti, in your "model" why do we have sunsets? Can you draw a diagram to explain.I'll draw a diagram later.
Once you have done that you can explain why we have seasons.QuoteThe sunsets are when the reflected light (sun) moves over the dome, away from your view through the thick atmosphere.How is the sun moving? Why do the periods of light and dark change over the year, apart from for people on the equator?QuoteAs for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.lol - nice 5th rate sci-fi. You aren't really trying now are you? Sounds like a dream you had after eating too much cheese.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
How does this explain how different parts of the earth have different seasons at the same time? Why is it winter in the UK when it is summer in Australia?
Sooo... You completely disagree with whatever both RE and FErs say about what we call the north pole, and "debunk" some of the most basic laws of physic, just like that? With nothing more than ideas? They are not theories. They are not even justified hypotheses. Good luck with that. I am really amazed how you can survive in the current world, as you see massive conspiracies and steaming piles of bullsh*t everywhere aside from things "you have tested". Is that "true vacuum" something you personally have experienced? Maybe read about somewhere? No?... What a shame. You have absolutely no base to claim it exists and behaves in a way you know. These are your ideas on how to explain stuff. Stuff that does not actually happen anywhere, mind you.I don't care whether you kind of agree that I'm a jester, a nerd, a nutter, a psychopath, a sociopath, a tin foil hat wearing loner or any other thoughts. You are here for no other purpose than to attempt ridicule like the rest of the indoctrinated. It only works if you think it works. I'm sat laughing at you whilst you attempt this.
My take on things is that if some theory can be partially backed by evidence, and there is no evidence to the contrary of it, then it quite possibly may be true.
Example: a sample of solid cools down slower the lower the pressure of gas surrounding it is. It seems that no phase change will happen for the sample as the pressure goes down. No one has ever presented evidence that something strange happens at extremely low pressure to any known substance, that cannot be predicted by known laws of physics. All currently known laws suggest a predicted behaviour. Therefore, unless someone proves otherwise(by actually conducting a relevant experiment), it is a safe bet that the tendency will go all the way down to perfect vacuum.
I now partially agree with other guys saying you are a kind of our local jester. A kind of, as real life jesters usually were able to provide cleverly formulated insight into important manners, or ridiculed stupid ideas of their masters in a simple and funny way for them to realize that they sounded like morons. You, on the other hand, usually provide nothing but gibberish and mad babbling.
Well, if there is no way of even getting you to think about what you do by sticking to the subject(like the first paragraph of my last post - how comes you think the "super vacuum" even exists, if you have never encountered it in any way, or even read something clearly defining its properties with some evidence?), what can a man do but laugh at how stubborn you are? I give you examples how your ideas are widely inconsistent with themselves, hoping you would go something like "Hmm... It indeed seems like it is either this or that... But which one?". You scream back how indoctrinated I am. Whatever, even if the Earth was flat, some of your claims contradict each other. It is like saying that some place does not exist, followed by saying that you are already right there.Ok, I'll make a deal with you. I'll admit that I can't produce evidence for most of what I say and any evidence I did produce like the one I produced on the ice lake to prove a flat Earth will be classed as no evidence, So here's the deal.
This whole forum is pointless, get over it. It's a time wasting diversion, that is all. Grow some balls and play the game properly.I think it's pointless wasting my time with you.No, you won't. You can't.@scepti, in your "model" why do we have sunsets? Can you draw a diagram to explain.I'll draw a diagram later.
Once you have done that you can explain why we have seasons.QuoteThe sunsets are when the reflected light (sun) moves over the dome, away from your view through the thick atmosphere.How is the sun moving? Why do the periods of light and dark change over the year, apart from for people on the equator?QuoteAs for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.lol - nice 5th rate sci-fi. You aren't really trying now are you? Sounds like a dream you had after eating too much cheese.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
How does this explain how different parts of the earth have different seasons at the same time? Why is it winter in the UK when it is summer in Australia?
Just stick to your globe and be done with it. You don't need answers and you are certainly not going to extertain any thoughts no matter what. If it goes against your indoctrination it's dismissed, simple as that, so why are you here?This is your usual avoidance when backed into a corner. You can't draw a diagram of your "model", you can't explain cycles of day light and you can't explain seasons.
Well just go with that Jimbob and be happy about it.This whole forum is pointless, get over it. It's a time wasting diversion, that is all. Grow some balls and play the game properly.I think it's pointless wasting my time with you.No, you won't. You can't.@scepti, in your "model" why do we have sunsets? Can you draw a diagram to explain.I'll draw a diagram later.
Once you have done that you can explain why we have seasons.QuoteThe sunsets are when the reflected light (sun) moves over the dome, away from your view through the thick atmosphere.How is the sun moving? Why do the periods of light and dark change over the year, apart from for people on the equator?QuoteAs for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it.lol - nice 5th rate sci-fi. You aren't really trying now are you? Sounds like a dream you had after eating too much cheese.
This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
How does this explain how different parts of the earth have different seasons at the same time? Why is it winter in the UK when it is summer in Australia?QuoteJust stick to your globe and be done with it. You don't need answers and you are certainly not going to extertain any thoughts no matter what. If it goes against your indoctrination it's dismissed, simple as that, so why are you here?This is your usual avoidance when backed into a corner. You can't draw a diagram of your "model", you can't explain cycles of day light and you can't explain seasons.
Your hypothesis is completely broken, and you know it, as you know it all comes from your imagination.
So much for "kicking global arse" ::)That's already been done since this forum started but let's not dwell on tit for tat's.
So you admit darkness comes from lack of light and not from wave combinations?When you grasp what I'm talking about, then make assumptions, not until.
I'd be more than content if you never looked at another post made by me and that goes for your like-minded buddies.
I can't help but notice that any thread that sceptimatic gets involved with immediately turns into an intellectual, philosophical and deductive cesspool of his ludicrous pseudo-scientific drivel. Page after page of unadulterated bullshit.
Seriously guys... it's a total waste of time even trying to engage sceptimatic in any meaningful scientific debate. He obviously has very little understanding of either geophysics or astrophysics, let alone mechanics, optical theory, magnetism and electromagnetism, aeronautics, propagation of light, Newtonian physics, non-Euclidean geometry... and the list goes on.
—Save the wear and tear on your retinas guys, and consign his absurd ramblings to the circular file where they belong.
Well, if there is no way of even getting you to think about what you do by sticking to the subject(like the first paragraph of my last post - how comes you think the "super vacuum" even exists, if you have never encountered it in any way, or even read something clearly defining its properties with some evidence?), what can a man do but laugh at how stubborn you are? I give you examples how your ideas are widely inconsistent with themselves, hoping you would go something like "Hmm... It indeed seems like it is either this or that... But which one?". You scream back how indoctrinated I am. Whatever, even if the Earth was flat, some of your claims contradict each other. It is like saying that some place does not exist, followed by saying that you are already right there.Ok, I'll make a deal with you. I'll admit that I can't produce evidence for most of what I say and any evidence I did produce like the one I produced on the ice lake to prove a flat Earth will be classed as no evidence, So here's the deal.
Since I can't directly prove my stuff and can only hypothesise, how about you directly proving that you are right and I am wrong.
Let's start with gravity. All I want you to do is to tell me what gravity is and how the force is provable.
I don't want to hear stuff like, "well things fall." You know, stuff like that. I want direct proof.
So tell me what gravity IS, first of all.
Once you do this, you can then tell me about warped space time and how it's proved. Higgs boson - Dark matter - Black holes- fabric of space - big bang - special relativity - general relativity and E=MC2.
It's only fair I ask for proof of these as it's the only way I can evaluate my own thoughts and see if they are wrong.
Over to you. One thing at a time, so start with. What is gravity?
Scepti, it's one thing to have a hypothesis and develop that into a theory based on little to no evidence. In fact, you could argue that's what string theory does. The big difference is that your ideas aren't even internally consistent. When two parts of your theory contradict each other, that's generally considered a problem. If you want to rant about me being "indoctrinated" now for a while be my guest. Being indoctrinated with basic logic is something I can live with.First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form. It's hard to completely wipe it all from our minds. It's a constant fight. It's the reason why I don't hold it against genuine people who believe in the rotating globe model.
Scepti, it's one thing to have a hypothesis and develop that into a theory based on little to no evidence. In fact, you could argue that's what string theory does. The big difference is that your ideas aren't even internally consistent. When two parts of your theory contradict each other, that's generally considered a problem. If you want to rant about me being "indoctrinated" now for a while be my guest. Being indoctrinated with basic logic is something I can live with.First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form. It's hard to completely wipe it all from our minds. It's a constant fight. It's the reason why I don't hold it against genuine people who believe in the rotating globe model.
I've also stated time and time again that my model is not complete by a long shot and requires a lot of addition and fine tuning.
I do this by firstly eliminating the stuff that I consider to be lies or pseudo science - the very science that people stick rigidly to yet don't actually know why or how it really works. I'm referring to the stuff like string theory and all the other stuff I've mentioned.
I do not have any problem with general science as a whole and in-fact I am impressed with mans ability to harness the elements and produce wonders for which we all benefit in terms of comfort and technological advancement.
If I could sit down in front of you and ask you how you know about the stuff I argue against, your only answer is indoctrination by verbal or text or the vision of pictures made available to you, whether still or moving.
Basically you are doing exactly what I am doing and yet you are claiming credit for knowing something that is handed to you on a plate and believe that it puts you on a higher pedestal when up against my thoughts.
<other various Sceptified ranting>
Shmeggley: You have totally missed the whole point of my post. Take your time and read it thoroughly then absorb it, then you might grasp what I'm saying.
First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form...blah....blah...blah...You seem to have a lot of time for page after page of inane gibber jabber, but strangely can't spare the 5 minutes it would take to make a diagram of how sunsets would work with your ice dome thing.
Responding to anything I say means you are worried that people will be thinking for themselves through what I say. By not responding, I will assume that you are just an ordinary person, simply bored and participating on a forum. Cheers.
I was told I can't do one and that it would be pointless me trying, so I decided not to do one, as it would be a waste of time.First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form...blah....blah...blah...You seem to have a lot of time for page after page of inane gibber jabber, but strangely can't spare the 5 minutes it would take to make a diagram of how sunsets would work with your ice dome thing.
Why is that?
The truth is actually refreshing. It does not hurt. The biggest obstacle is being told the truth...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
Responding to anything I say means you are worried that people will be thinking for themselves through what I say. By not responding, I will assume that you are just an ordinary person, simply bored and participating on a forum. Cheers.
Oh dear... this is one of the most illogical responses I've seen from you sceptimatic. And there's been plenty to choose from. ;D
Unfortunately, there'll inevitably be a tiny percentage of the population who'll momentarily consider that your totally ludicrous opinions on the sciences as actually containing some kernel of truth. Although, in the majority of cases, even those folks will come to understand that you have absolutely no idea of what you're rambling on about. "Denpressure" anyone LOL?
I do agree that many people will be "thinking for themselves" when they read your drivel, and that's precisely why they'll reject your comments as coming from waaay out of left field. Sorry, but the truth can hurt.
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WW6YMMxltcc/TB6DUbw79mI/AAAAAAAABCw/Tv5Lk7HUxBA/s1600/australia_censored.jpg)
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?
Than again maybe not.
And your cronies? Hmmm... 400 maybe? ;D
—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make? Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?
Than again maybe not.
And your cronies? Hmmm... 400 maybe? ;D
—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make? Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?
Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea. How sad. Keep working on your debate skill, mate. You will get there some day.
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?
Than again maybe not.
And your cronies? Hmmm... 400 maybe? ;D
—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make? Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?
Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea. How sad. Keep working on your debate skill, mate. You will get there some day.
It does irritate me too but millions of scientists reaching similar results independently from each is nothing to scoff at. I do wish he would tone down on asking for citations and using ad populum tactics though. The point of fet is that we are being lied to so I don't find it to be effective to say stuff like that. If the earth actually is flat then there would be a conspiracy and it would be difficult to find citations and people who know "the truth". There are plenty of good ways to embarrass fet without resorting to common logical fallacies.
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?
Than again maybe not.
And your cronies? Hmmm... 400 maybe? ;D
Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea. How sad. Keep working on your debate skill, mate. You will get there some day.
I remember watching a series of who wants to be a millionaire. I remember the person asked the audience for the answer. I think, about 70% gave him the same answer, so naturally he went with that. His answer was wrong.Your point is?
Are you seriously saying you can't understand the point I'm making?I remember watching a series of who wants to be a millionaire. I remember the person asked the audience for the answer. I think, about 70% gave him the same answer, so naturally he went with that. His answer was wrong.Your point is?
ps. I see discussion and evidence of how things we use everyday work has ended with no fe answers.
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?
Than again maybe not.
And your cronies? Hmmm... 400 maybe? ;D
—And how can it be that although you claim that you've got me on your IGNORE list, you inevitably respond to every comment I make? Can't resist learning something of the real world from someone who knows?
Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea. How sad. Keep working on your debate skill, mate. You will get there some day.
And, so, that does make you right.Are you seriously saying you can't understand the point I'm making?I remember watching a series of who wants to be a millionaire. I remember the person asked the audience for the answer. I think, about 70% gave him the same answer, so naturally he went with that. His answer was wrong.Your point is?
ps. I see discussion and evidence of how things we use everyday work has ended with no fe answers.
Let's clarify it.
What I'm saying is, 70% of people, at least can believe they know the answer to something and yet they can all be wrong.
Think of the percentage that could be wrong about other stuff that they believed they knew the answer to.
...something that you and your cronies are incapable of providing.
Uh... you do understand that my "cronies" number 6 million scientists, and 7 billion people across the planet don't you?
Than again maybe not.
And your cronies? Hmmm... 400 maybe? ;D
Once again, ausGeoff tries to impress everyone with an argumentum ad numerum/ ad populum/ ab auctoritate plea. How sad. Keep working on your debate skill, mate. You will get there some day.
Once again, jroa tries to deflect the significance of the numbers I quote with fancy Latin phrases LOL. You really need to be addressing why exactly those numbers are so divergent as far as the acceptance of unevidenced flat earth hypotheses and accredited round earth science.
Are you seriously claiming that a mere 400 individuals spread across the entire planet are the only people who know the "real" shape of earth? And at the same time you can't even name half a dozen academically-accredited scientists who believe the earth is flat?
Your argument about an appeal to numbers and/or authority simply don't apply to the evidence at hand jroa; you're struggling with the classic straw man as your defence. Apparently, in a court of law if you were being tried for a crime, you'd use the defence of argumentum ad numerum to claim the jury's decision of guilty was inappropriate, and call for a retrial? See how silly your argument becomes—even with a dozen people versus one person.
If, at some hypothetical level, there were 2 billion flat earthers versus 5 billion round earthers, your claim of an appeal to the numbers may well have some validity. Otherwise, forget it. Sorry.
There are well over 500 FE'ers in the current membership register.
No you won't. You are all mouth and no trousers.I was told I can't do one and that it would be pointless me trying, so I decided not to do one, as it would be a waste of time.First of all, we are all indoctrinated in some form...blah....blah...blah...You seem to have a lot of time for page after page of inane gibber jabber, but strangely can't spare the 5 minutes it would take to make a diagram of how sunsets would work with your ice dome thing.
Why is that?
I'll do them for those that are interested.
99 people could be wrong and 1 person could be right. Numbers, in this case, do not mean anything. You sling numbers around like they are definite proof.
one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a6/a62adc62400529788d11c1bb9acb77e8e13b3a24d5fe7312f373df8a350c3963.jpg (http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a6/a62adc62400529788d11c1bb9acb77e8e13b3a24d5fe7312f373df8a350c3963.jpg)
99 people could be wrong and 1 person could be right. Numbers, in this case, do not mean anything. You sling numbers around like they are definite proof.
Of course they possibly could. I agree. But it's unlikely if you know anything about statistical analysis and bell curves. You're simply talking about the outliers which are normally discarded from any statistical analysis. In your example, you might discard the top 5 respondents (red zone) and the bottom 5 respondents (green zone). This then gives us 100% round earth believers. Sorry.(http://therabbitway.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BellCurve-1024x696.png)On the Gaussian bell curve the outliers are irrelevant since the bulk of data is in the middle (the average).
Outliers are unlikely and can be safely ignored (since the odds of finding one decrease exponentially as you move away from the average).
At any rate, you example of 1 in 100 is meaningless anyway. That equates to one percent of the sample group. Your 500 flat earthers amount to a mere 0.00000714 per cent of the sample group.
Can I assume you know nothing about statistics from this?
The truth is not the truth because of statistics. In fact, statistics have nothing at all to do with truth.
Virtually everyone used to think that blood letting and leaching would "balance the humors" and cure diseases. Today, most people understand that this is not true. According to you, it was the truth hundreds of years ago and time caused it to not be true today. This is a retarded way of thinking.
Do you really not understand that the majority of people can be wrong? Statistics is not about finding the truth; it is about finding the likelihood. You should really learn the difference.
So jroa is probably making a bit of a straw man to knock down here.
The dude on about Australia being 95% un populated, does know Aus is 95% dessert. You can drive for days and not see fuck all living things in the GFA or great fuck all. Imagine driving from Texas to the west coast and seeing a few trees and a shit load of flies.