The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: sceptimatic on October 13, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Title: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 13, 2013, 10:07:05 AM
I'll explain why I'm asking after some people have answered.

Let's assume that the earth is what you roundies say it is and everything is how you say it is, EXCEPT, the sun.
Instead of the sun being as big as it is, let us assume that the sun is only 20,000 miles in diameter. How much of the earth would it light up as opposed to what it's supposed to be doing right now?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 13, 2013, 10:30:43 AM
The sunlight would still reach us in the same amount of time and the same area of earth would be receiving that light but the light would be much less radiant and thus would have caused many different things to happen for the development of Earth. First of all I'm not so sure that such a small Sun would have been able to even keep us all in orbit to develop the solar system in the first place and if it had then our orbit around the sun would be much different that it currently is. We'd be likely to be much closer to the sun and it would probably be that the sun would revolve around us instead which would change the dynamics of the whole solar system. The less radiant sun would also not allow for evolution to occur on the level that it has and we might not exist.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 13, 2013, 11:08:20 AM
I'll explain why I'm asking after some people have answered.

Let's assume that the earth is what you roundies say it is and everything is how you say it is, EXCEPT, the sun.
Instead of the sun being as big as it is, let us assume that the sun is only 20,000 miles in diameter. How much of the earth would it light up as opposed to what it's supposed to be doing right now?

Depends more on the Sun's mass.
If it were to stay the same with nothing changed besides diameter, then it would have no other effect than appearing smaller in the sky.
This is assuming that the mass-energy relation is still applicable in this crazy universe.
If the mass was scaled down with the volume, it would have to be about 2,150,000 miles away, or we wouldn't be here to discuss hypothetical questions.
The energy output would be far less than it is in the real world.
Clarify your question!
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 13, 2013, 11:18:29 AM
I'll explain why I'm asking after some people have answered.

Let's assume that the earth is what you roundies say it is and everything is how you say it is, EXCEPT, the sun.
Instead of the sun being as big as it is, let us assume that the sun is only 20,000 miles in diameter. How much of the earth would it light up as opposed to what it's supposed to be doing right now?

Depends more on the Sun's mass.
If it were to stay the same with nothing changed besides diameter, then it would have no other effect than appearing smaller in the sky.
This is assuming that the mass-energy relation is still applicable in this crazy universe.
If the mass was scaled down with the volume, it would have to be about 2,150,000 miles away, or we wouldn't be here to discuss hypothetical questions.
The energy output would be far less than it is in the real world.
Clarify your question!

Yes this is true. I assumed that with smaller diameter that he also meant less mass but even if it was the same mass it might be different because it would fuse more. Perhaps it would be hotter in that case.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 13, 2013, 11:52:34 AM
The sunlight would still reach us in the same amount of time and the same area of earth would be receiving that light but the light would be much less radiant and thus would have caused many different things to happen for the development of Earth. First of all I'm not so sure that such a small Sun would have been able to even keep us all in orbit to develop the solar system in the first place and if it had then our orbit around the sun would be much different that it currently is. We'd be likely to be much closer to the sun and it would probably be that the sun would revolve around us instead which would change the dynamics of the whole solar system. The less radiant sun would also not allow for evolution to occur on the level that it has and we might not exist.
Oh brother.  Don't bring evolution into this.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 13, 2013, 11:57:39 AM
The sunlight would still reach us in the same amount of time and the same area of earth would be receiving that light but the light would be much less radiant and thus would have caused many different things to happen for the development of Earth. First of all I'm not so sure that such a small Sun would have been able to even keep us all in orbit to develop the solar system in the first place and if it had then our orbit around the sun would be much different that it currently is. We'd be likely to be much closer to the sun and it would probably be that the sun would revolve around us instead which would change the dynamics of the whole solar system. The less radiant sun would also not allow for evolution to occur on the level that it has and we might not exist.
Oh brother.  Don't bring evolution into this.

Well it's certainly relevant. Less radiation from the sun would impact life.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 13, 2013, 05:06:07 PM
I'll explain why I'm asking after some people have answered.

Let's assume that the earth is what you roundies say it is and everything is how you say it is, EXCEPT, the sun.
Instead of the sun being as big as it is, let us assume that the sun is only 20,000 miles in diameter. How much of the earth would it light up as opposed to what it's supposed to be doing right now?

It would be a same "part" of the earth that is lit up, but the light would have less luminosity, i.e. it would look much dimmer. But that isn't the main problem, if the sun wasn't as big as it is, we would not be in orbit around it, earth would be significantly colder, there would be no liquid water, and we wouldn't have existed  :-X
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 13, 2013, 05:28:26 PM
I'll explain why I'm asking after some people have answered.

Let's assume that the earth is what you roundies say it is and everything is how you say it is, EXCEPT, the sun.
Instead of the sun being as big as it is, let us assume that the sun is only 20,000 miles in diameter. How much of the earth would it light up as opposed to what it's supposed to be doing right now?

It would be a same "part" of the earth that is lit up, but the light would have less luminosity, i.e. it would look much dimmer. But that isn't the main problem, if the sun wasn't as big as it is, we would not be in orbit around it, earth would be significantly colder, there would be no liquid water, and we wouldn't have existed  :-X

This and the sun is responsible for the formation of the earth so the earth wouldn't even be here.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 13, 2013, 11:55:36 PM
Ok, I've took your answers on board. Now I'd like to go the opposite way.

If the sun was the size you roundies say it is (approx. one million, plus km in diameter) but was 500 million miles away, what earth effects would change, assuming that only distance has changed and nothing else?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 14, 2013, 12:08:46 AM
Ok, I've took your answers on board. Now I'd like to go the opposite way.

If the sun was the size you roundies say it is (approx. one million, plus km in diameter) but was 500 million miles away, what earth effects would change, assuming that only distance has changed and nothing else?

Are we still in orbit around it? That's about 5 times farther than our avg distance to the sun as of now. That's about as far as the distance to Jupiter. So it is safe to say we wouldn't even exist due to no liquid water, temperatures hundreds of degrees colder than earth now, life probably couldn't exist.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 12:14:26 AM
Ok, I've took your answers on board. Now I'd like to go the opposite way.

If the sun was the size you roundies say it is (approx. one million, plus km in diameter) but was 500 million miles away, what earth effects would change, assuming that only distance has changed and nothing else?

Are we still in orbit around it? That's about 5 times farther than our avg distance to the sun as of now. That's about as far as the distance to Jupiter. So it is safe to say we wouldn't even exist due to no liquid water, temperatures hundreds of degrees colder than earth now, life probably couldn't exist.
Everything is the same. The only difference is the sun would be over 5 times the distance, nothing else.
So why would anything change on earth due to this?
It's a vacuum of space isn't it and by your accounts the only difference should be the time it takes for the heat and light to hit earth, as in, instead of this supposed 8 minutes, it would be something like 40 something minutes. I'd just like to get to the bottom of this, so what's the difference?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 14, 2013, 12:19:13 AM
Ok, I've took your answers on board. Now I'd like to go the opposite way.

If the sun was the size you roundies say it is (approx. one million, plus km in diameter) but was 500 million miles away, what earth effects would change, assuming that only distance has changed and nothing else?

The sun would have to be 4,655,543 or so miles in diameter for it to appear the same size in the sky.
Otherwise, it would look much further away / smaller in the sky.
Answer the question about mass?
Mass is more relevant.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 14, 2013, 12:19:36 AM
Ok, I've took your answers on board. Now I'd like to go the opposite way.

If the sun was the size you roundies say it is (approx. one million, plus km in diameter) but was 500 million miles away, what earth effects would change, assuming that only distance has changed and nothing else?
It has to do with the amount of energy that reaches Earth. The sun radiates the same power in every direction, so more of it hits the earth when it is closer, and farther away more if it misses and gets sent into space.
Are we still in orbit around it? That's about 5 times farther than our avg distance to the sun as of now. That's about as far as the distance to Jupiter. So it is safe to say we wouldn't even exist due to no liquid water, temperatures hundreds of degrees colder than earth now, life probably couldn't exist.
Everything is the same. The only difference is the sun would be over 5 times the distance, nothing else.
So why would anything change on earth due to this?
It's a vacuum of space isn't it and by your accounts the only difference should be the time it takes for the heat and light to hit earth, as in, instead of this supposed 8 minutes, it would be something like 40 something minutes. I'd just like to get to the bottom of this, so what's the difference?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 12:22:33 AM
At 5 times the distance, we would receive only 4% of the energy that we receive at this distance (inverse square law). This would not be sufficient to sustain life.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 12:23:00 AM
Ok, I've took your answers on board. Now I'd like to go the opposite way.

If the sun was the size you roundies say it is (approx. one million, plus km in diameter) but was 500 million miles away, what earth effects would change, assuming that only distance has changed and nothing else?

The sun would have to be 4,655,543 or so miles in diameter for it to appear the same size in the sky.
Otherwise, it would look much further away / smaller in the sky.
Answer the question about mass?
Mass is more relevant.
This isn't a question about what it would look like to our eyes. It's a question on how the sun would act upon the earth inside this vacuum of space.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 14, 2013, 12:24:08 AM
Ok, I've took your answers on board. Now I'd like to go the opposite way.

If the sun was the size you roundies say it is (approx. one million, plus km in diameter) but was 500 million miles away, what earth effects would change, assuming that only distance has changed and nothing else?

The sun would have to be 4,655,543 or so miles in diameter for it to appear the same size in the sky.
Otherwise, it would look much further away / smaller in the sky.
Answer the question about mass?
Mass is more relevant.
This isn't a question about what it would look like to our eyes. It's a question on how the sun would act upon the earth inside this vacuum of space.
2 people have now collaboratively answered your question.
I don't see your goal here.
Besides, we need to take mass in to consideration here.
I think it would be safe to say that if the sun were 5x farther away and it had the same mass and diameter as it does, we would not be here to discuss it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 12:26:33 AM
At 5 times the distance, we would receive only 4% of the energy that we receive at this distance (inverse square law). This would not be sufficient to sustain life.
4% of the energy in such a small so called space distance? How does that work out then, inside a vacuum?
If the energy travels to earth, it should travel to earth with no hindrance, other than the time difference.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 14, 2013, 12:28:16 AM
Sorry scepti, I wrote a long answer explaining it but im on mobile and it messed up :( pretty much yeah only a fraction hits the earth, and much less of that fraction at a greater distance, power from the sun is distilributed radially.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 14, 2013, 12:28:52 AM
At 5 times the distance, we would receive only 4% of the energy that we receive at this distance (inverse square law). This would not be sufficient to sustain life.
4% of the energy in such a small so called space distance? How does that work out then, inside a vacuum?
If the energy travels to earth, it should travel to earth with no hindrance, other than the time difference.

We don't receive much energy from distant stars, do we?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 12:29:59 AM
At 5 times the distance, we would receive only 4% of the energy that we receive at this distance (inverse square law). This would not be sufficient to sustain life.
4% of the energy in such a small so called space distance? How does that work out then, inside a vacuum?
If the energy travels to earth, it should travel to earth with no hindrance, other than the time difference.

You're not familiar with the inverse square law are you? It's why your ears don't burst when there's an explosion a mile away that turns a cement truck into scrap metal.

Mythbusters - Cement Truck Explosion (http://#)

And yes, it does work the same with EM radiation in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 12:33:44 AM
Sorry scepti, I wrote a long answer explaining it but im on mobile and it messed up :( pretty much yeah only a fraction hits the earth, and much less of that fraction at a greater distance, power from the sun is distilributed radially.
So at this distance, what would the sun look like to your eye view, compared to how it looks now, as we see it?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 12:36:04 AM
At 5 times the distance, we would receive only 4% of the energy that we receive at this distance (inverse square law). This would not be sufficient to sustain life.
4% of the energy in such a small so called space distance? How does that work out then, inside a vacuum?
If the energy travels to earth, it should travel to earth with no hindrance, other than the time difference.

You're not familiar with the inverse square law are you? It's why your ears don't burst when there's an explosion a mile away that turns a cement truck into scrap metal.

Mythbusters - Cement Truck Explosion (http://#)

And yes, it does work the same with EM radiation in a vacuum.
Let's leave the bull crap myth buster crew out and happenings in an atmosphere here, as I'm not dealing with that.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 14, 2013, 12:37:32 AM
Sorry scepti, I wrote a long answer explaining it but im on mobile and it messed up :( pretty much yeah only a fraction hits the earth, and much less of that fraction at a greater distance, power from the sun is distilributed radially.
So at this distance, what would the sun look like to your eye view, compared to how it looks now, as we see it?
much smaller and not as bright. Its the same way that stars are very dim compared to our sun, they are simply much farther away!
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 12:43:51 AM
Sorry scepti, I wrote a long answer explaining it but im on mobile and it messed up :( pretty much yeah only a fraction hits the earth, and much less of that fraction at a greater distance, power from the sun is distilributed radially.
So at this distance, what would the sun look like to your eye view, compared to how it looks now, as we see it?
much smaller and not as bright. Its the same way that stars are very dim compared to our sun, they are simply much farther away!
Ok, let me try and make this a bit more clear.

From the sun we see, as in the diameter, we should be bathed in the heat and light from that diameter, as it would be aimed at us and travelling through the vacuum, we are led to believe, with nothing to stop it and nothing to dissipate it, until it hits our atmosphere, we are also led to believe, so why should we feel any different effect?
The distance should not be an issue in a vacuum. Only the time to reach us would be different if what we are told is true about it all.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 12:52:04 AM
At 5 times the distance, we would receive only 4% of the energy that we receive at this distance (inverse square law). This would not be sufficient to sustain life.
4% of the energy in such a small so called space distance? How does that work out then, inside a vacuum?
If the energy travels to earth, it should travel to earth with no hindrance, other than the time difference.

You're not familiar with the inverse square law are you? It's why your ears don't burst when there's an explosion a mile away that turns a cement truck into scrap metal.

Mythbusters - Cement Truck Explosion (http://#)

And yes, it does work the same with EM radiation in a vacuum.
Let's leave the bull crap myth buster crew out and happenings in an atmosphere here, as I'm not dealing with that.

Okay, fine, I was trying to give you a nice, simple example, but now I'm going to have to use maths. We're talking in terms of round earth physics here, so I'm going to use that in my explanation.

The sun is roughly spherical, and it emits it's energy in a spherical pattern. To picture that, picture a slightly inflated balloon. That's the energy that the sun emitted in the last microsecond. Now blow that balloon up. That's the energy moving out into space, but do you notice how it's spreading out? getting thinner? The amount of energy is the same, just like the amount of rubber in the skin of the balloon is the same, but now it's covering more area, and it's spread more thinly. Here comes the maths:

The surface area of a sphere is 4πr2, so the surface area of the sun is about 12,000,000,000,000 square miles. At the distance of the earth, the energy is spread over an area of 120,000,000,000,000,000 square miles. At the distance you proposed, the same amount of energy would be spread over an area of about 3,100,000,000,000,000,000 square miles.

Now do you see what I mean? Or are you going to call "bullshit" again because you can't be bothered understanding what's going on?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 01:10:46 AM
At 5 times the distance, we would receive only 4% of the energy that we receive at this distance (inverse square law). This would not be sufficient to sustain life.
4% of the energy in such a small so called space distance? How does that work out then, inside a vacuum?
If the energy travels to earth, it should travel to earth with no hindrance, other than the time difference.

You're not familiar with the inverse square law are you? It's why your ears don't burst when there's an explosion a mile away that turns a cement truck into scrap metal.

Mythbusters - Cement Truck Explosion (http://#)

And yes, it does work the same with EM radiation in a vacuum.
Let's leave the bull crap myth buster crew out and happenings in an atmosphere here, as I'm not dealing with that.

Okay, fine, I was trying to give you a nice, simple example, but now I'm going to have to use maths. We're talking in terms of round earth physics here, so I'm going to use that in my explanation.

The sun is roughly spherical, and it emits it's energy in a spherical pattern. To picture that, picture a slightly inflated balloon. That's the energy that the sun emitted in the last microsecond. Now blow that balloon up. That's the energy moving out into space, but do you notice how it's spreading out? getting thinner? The amount of energy is the same, just like the amount of rubber in the skin of the balloon is the same, but now it's covering more area, and it's spread more thinly. Here comes the maths:

The surface area of a sphere is 4πr2, so the surface area of the sun is about 12,000,000,000,000 square miles. At the distance of the earth, the energy is spread over an area of 120,000,000,000,000,000 square miles. At the distance you proposed, the same amount of energy would be spread over an area of about 3,100,000,000,000,000,000 square miles.

Now do you see what I mean? Or are you going to call "bullshit" again because you can't be bothered understanding what's going on?
I'm not going to call anything. I'm trying to work stuff out. Not by your maths by the way, but anyway, let's get back to basics.

Once the sun has emitted it's heat/radiation or whatever you want to call it, in the direction it is going. Why should it dissipate when it's in this vacuum that you and others say cannot change anything, so how and why would it dissipate. It's not like it's a hair dryer on earth is it, that dissipates because the air makes it happen by creating a barrier against the hot air.
There's no such thing in your vacuum, so what's going on?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 01:21:26 AM
I'm not going to call anything. I'm trying to work stuff out. Not by your maths by the way, but anyway, let's get back to basics.

Once the sun has emitted it's heat/radiation or whatever you want to call it, in the direction it is going. Why should it dissipate when it's in this vacuum that you and others say cannot change anything, so how and why would it dissipate. It's not like it's a hair dryer on earth is it, that dissipates because the air makes it happen by creating a barrier against the hot air.
There's no such thing in your vacuum, so what's going on?

Did you not read my explanation? Here it is again, since you seem to have ignored it:

Okay, fine, I was trying to give you a nice, simple example, but now I'm going to have to use maths. We're talking in terms of round earth physics here, so I'm going to use that in my explanation.

The sun is roughly spherical, and it emits it's energy in a spherical pattern. To picture that, picture a slightly inflated balloon. That's the energy that the sun emitted in the last microsecond. Now blow that balloon up. That's the energy moving out into space, but do you notice how it's spreading out? getting thinner? The amount of energy is the same, just like the amount of rubber in the skin of the balloon is the same, but now it's covering more area, and it's spread more thinly. Here comes the maths:

The surface area of a sphere is 4πr2, so the surface area of the sun is about 12,000,000,000,000 square miles. At the distance of the earth, the energy is spread over an area of 120,000,000,000,000,000 square miles. At the distance you proposed, the same amount of energy would be spread over an area of about 3,100,000,000,000,000,000 square miles.

Now do you see what I mean? Or are you going to call "bullshit" again because you can't be bothered understanding what's going on?

I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, I even gave you a kindergarten level explanation with the balloon. The energy "balloon" expands, covering a greater and greater area with the same amount of energy, which means there is less energy per unit area as distance increases. Try this: get a balloon, blow it up a little bit, draw a square on it with sides of 1cm. Now blow the balloon up to twice it's size and measure the square. It should be about 2cm each side, with a total area of 4cm2. If you can't get your head around that, then I fear there may be no hope for you.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 01:59:11 AM
Just realised I used the sun's diameter in the formula instead of it's radius... Oops! I'll redo those numbers, using more accurate numbers for the sun's radius and the orbital distance of the earth (I was using approximations pulled from memory before).

Surface area of sun (more accurate): 2,400,000,000,000 square miles
Area covered at distance of earth: 110,000,000,000,000,000 square miles
Area covered at scepti's orbital distance: 2,700,000,000,000,000,000 square miles

Sorry about that folks!

Anyway, lets knock 11 0's off those numbers, and pretend they're square centimetres instead of square miles:
Energy emitted by 24cm2 of the sun's surface has spread out to cover 1,100,000cm2 by the time it gets to earth, and 27,000,000cm2 by the time it's reached scepti's orbital distance (assuming I haven't cocked up my maths this time).
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 02:22:33 AM
Just realised I used the sun's diameter in the formula instead of it's radius... Oops! I'll redo those numbers, using more accurate numbers for the sun's radius and the orbital distance of the earth (I was using approximations pulled from memory before).

Surface area of sun (more accurate): 2,400,000,000,000 square miles
Area covered at distance of earth: 110,000,000,000,000,000 square miles
Area covered at scepti's orbital distance: 2,700,000,000,000,000,000 square miles

Sorry about that folks!

Anyway, lets knock 11 0's off those numbers, and pretend they're square centimetres instead of square miles:
Energy emitted by 24cm2 of the sun's surface has spread out to cover 1,100,000cm2 by the time it gets to earth, and 27,000,000cm2 by the time it's reached scepti's orbital distance (assuming I haven't cocked up my maths this time).
How about explaining it in kindergarten type stuff then, instead of putting out stupid numbers.
I'm asking a basic question, so answer it with a simple basic answer, I don't need all this number clap trap.

My question is:
What dissipates the heat once it immediately emits from the sun in one direction, as in earth. I'll make it simpler.
If the sun emitted pancakes constantly from the circle we see, as in 1 million km diameter pancakes. What is in the vacuum to break up those pancakes to stop them hitting the earth with the same energy as what they were originally emitted?

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 02:30:09 AM
How about explaining it in kindergarten type stuff then, instead of putting out stupid numbers.
I'm asking a basic question, so answer it with a simple basic answer, I don't need all this number clap trap.

My question is:
What dissipates the heat once it immediately emits from the sun in one direction, as in earth.

Try this: get a balloon, blow it up a little bit, draw a square on it with sides of 1cm. Now blow the balloon up to twice it's size and measure the square. It should be about 2cm each side, with a total area of 4cm2. If you can't get your head around that, then I fear there may be no hope for you.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 03:13:41 AM
How about explaining it in kindergarten type stuff then, instead of putting out stupid numbers.
I'm asking a basic question, so answer it with a simple basic answer, I don't need all this number clap trap.

My question is:
What dissipates the heat once it immediately emits from the sun in one direction, as in earth.

Try this: get a balloon, blow it up a little bit, draw a square on it with sides of 1cm. Now blow the balloon up to twice it's size and measure the square. It should be about 2cm each side, with a total area of 4cm2. If you can't get your head around that, then I fear there may be no hope for you.
We aren't blowing balloons up. Can you not answer the question?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 14, 2013, 03:27:30 AM
I'll explain why I'm asking after some people have answered.

Let's assume that the earth is what you roundies say it is and everything is how you say it is, EXCEPT, the sun.
Instead of the sun being as big as it is, let us assume that the sun is only 20,000 miles in diameter. How much of the earth would it light up as opposed to what it's supposed to be doing right now?

That size is  smaller than Jupiter. It wouldn't create enough pressure to start a nuclear fusion.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 03:28:16 AM
Does this help?

(http://www.digitalartform.com/assets/Inverse-Square-Law.jpg)

How about this?

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/dx517ae9db.jpg)

The energy doesn't come out like a million mile wide pancake like you think it does, holding together all the way to the earth. It's more like the pieces of shrapnel from an explosion, expanding away from the centre. Kind of like the pieces of this cement truck:

Mythbusters - Cement Truck Explosion (http://#)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 04:32:22 AM
If the sun was a cement truck in atmosphere, I'd go along with what you are saying.
The fact is though, your sun as we are told, is in a VACUUM in space and is 1 million km plus, in diameter as we see it, or as we are told.
It's also a nuclear BALL of fusion, as we are told.
It radiates it's heat and light all over the universe, as we are told.
Nothing affects anything in motion in space, as we are told, so nothing should affect the radiated heat from the second it starts from your sun, all the way to earth.
Why you keep using air and an explosion is beyond me. The sun isn't exploding, it's nuclear fusion isn't it? or so we have been led to believe.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 04:43:08 AM
If the sun was a cement truck in atmosphere, I'd go along with what you are saying.
The fact is though, your sun as we are told, is in a VACUUM in space and is 1 million km plus, in diameter as we see it, or as we are told.
It's also a nuclear BALL of fusion, as we are told.
It radiates it's heat and light all over the universe, as we are told.
Nothing affects anything in motion in space, as we are told, so nothing should affect the radiated heat from the second it starts from your sun, all the way to earth.
Why you keep using air and an explosion is beyond me. The sun isn't exploding, it's nuclear fusion isn't it? or so we have been led to believe.

What do you think happens if something explodes in a vacuum? Does it all go in one direction? Say our hypothetical object shatters into a million pieces, do 100 of those pieces all go one way, or do they spread out?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 05:29:12 AM
If the sun was a cement truck in atmosphere, I'd go along with what you are saying.
The fact is though, your sun as we are told, is in a VACUUM in space and is 1 million km plus, in diameter as we see it, or as we are told.
It's also a nuclear BALL of fusion, as we are told.
It radiates it's heat and light all over the universe, as we are told.
Nothing affects anything in motion in space, as we are told, so nothing should affect the radiated heat from the second it starts from your sun, all the way to earth.
Why you keep using air and an explosion is beyond me. The sun isn't exploding, it's nuclear fusion isn't it? or so we have been led to believe.

What do you think happens if something explodes in a vacuum? Does it all go in one direction? Say our hypothetical object shatters into a million pieces, do 100 of those pieces all go one way, or do they spread out?
Let me try this again.
Your sun is not a bomb. It is not a cement truck filled with explosives.
Your sun, as you are told, is a NUCLEAR FUSION REACTOR.

Let me try and make this easier, going by the science that you go by.
A laser beam pointed at earth from 93 million miles away, SHOULD, according to your vacuum carry on, reach earth as the very same laser beam started, as long as it was constant.

As you all say, there's nothing to stop anything in motion in your vacuum and nothing to dissipate anything, so whichever way something travels, that's the course it travels, UNLESS some force gets in its way, as in your earth atmosphere on the spinning ball you believe in.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 14, 2013, 05:59:59 AM
This will be my final attempt to help you understand. If this fails, I will have to abandon you to your ignorance.

Let's follow two individual packets of energy (aka photons (since we are talking about RE physics, I'll use RE terminology)) on their journey from the sun, past the earth, to your point five times further away. When they leave the surface of the sun, these two photons are, for the sake of this explanation, 1 centimetre apart. By the time they have traveled from the sun to the distance at which the earth orbits, they have, while traveling in an uninterrupted straight line, moved apart so that the gap between them is now 458 metres. When they reach your proposed point five times further away from the sun, they have, while still moving in an uninterrupted straight line, moved further apart, so that the gap between them is now 2.3 kilometres.

Now, when I say straight line, I mean each photon is following it's own straight line, drawn from the centre of the sun to the point where that photon left the sun's surface. Picture their paths as following the spokes of a bicycle wheel and you'll have a rough idea of what I mean.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 06:09:48 AM
This will be my final attempt to help you understand. If this fails, I will have to abandon you to your ignorance.

Let's follow two individual packets of energy (aka photons (since we are talking about RE physics, I'll use RE terminology)) on their journey from the sun, past the earth, to your point five times further away. When they leave the surface of the sun, these two photons are, for the sake of this explanation, 1 centimetre apart. By the time they have traveled from the sun to the distance at which the earth orbits, they have, while traveling in an uninterrupted straight line, moved apart so that the gap between them is now 458 metres. When they reach your proposed point five times further away from the sun, they have, while still moving in an uninterrupted straight line, moved further apart, so that the gap between them is now 2.3 kilometres.

Now, when I say straight line, I mean each photon is following it's own straight line, drawn from the centre of the sun to the point where that photon left the sun's surface. Picture their paths as following the spokes of a bicycle wheel and you'll have a rough idea of what I mean.
Why are they moving away? Are they tadpoles or something?

Do you seriously believe all this stuff or are you on the wind up?
I agree with one thing though. I think you are best just abandoning this thread, at least where I'm concerned, anyway.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 14, 2013, 08:59:10 AM
The photons exited the sun at a minutely different angle. Over distance, this infinitesimal course difference adds up to quite a large distance.

The sun is not a focused energy emitter, it's emitting it in all directions, and while some of that energy will reach us regardless of the distance, a good portion of it passes us by entirely already, not because it's been deflected, but because it left the sun at ever so slightly the wrong angle to hit us. If we were further away, a smaller angle of energy actually hits the earth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 14, 2013, 10:01:57 AM
The photons exited the sun at a minutely different angle. Over distance, this infinitesimal course difference adds up to quite a large distance.

The sun is not a focused energy emitter, it's emitting it in all directions, and while some of that energy will reach us regardless of the distance, a good portion of it passes us by entirely already, not because it's been deflected, but because it left the sun at ever so slightly the wrong angle to hit us. If we were further away, a smaller angle of energy actually hits the earth.
Any particular reason why this huge suns rays does envelope the full earth as in, why don't we see a bright super earth covering light instead of the actual full sun in a small capacity. You know, a sun that you can obscure in front of your eyes with a penny?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 14, 2013, 10:33:11 AM
The photons exited the sun at a minutely different angle. Over distance, this infinitesimal course difference adds up to quite a large distance.

The sun is not a focused energy emitter, it's emitting it in all directions, and while some of that energy will reach us regardless of the distance, a good portion of it passes us by entirely already, not because it's been deflected, but because it left the sun at ever so slightly the wrong angle to hit us. If we were further away, a smaller angle of energy actually hits the earth.
Any particular reason why this huge suns rays does envelope the full earth as in, why don't we see a bright super earth covering light instead of the actual full sun in a small capacity. You know, a sun that you can obscure in front of your eyes with a penny?

The same reason you can cover a Lighthouse's lamp- a good 10 foot lamp on most models- with your pinky. Distance and Perspective.

This is a different question than why most of the light of the sun misses us, of course.

Let's take an imaginary circle of Radius X and an arc on the circumference Y. X is variable, but Y is constant. The Length of Y can also be presented as a measurement of degrees on the circumference. As X gets larger and larger, Y stays the same, and the amount of the circle it takes up is smaller and smaller. That's what the inverse square law is. The farther away you go, the fewer degrees of the 'circle' of energy you take up, and so more energy just misses you.

A simple experiment to demonstrate this effect could be done with a simple sliding track, a few laser pointers in a rig on that track, and a screen at one end.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 14, 2013, 11:33:10 AM
(http://imageshack.us/a/img196/7875/rj6e.png)

See how, even though this rhetorical 2 dimensional Sun is throwing off energy in every direction, only two of the lines hit Earth in my shitty diagram?

All of the other lines shoot off into space.

(http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/inverse_square_law.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/e/6/de6ee5f95f4bd85100de8d126060c87c.png)

Stop ignoring the inverse square law.

I'll try to put it simply, all relative to my poor diagram.

Basically, the light from a single spherical source shoots off energy in every single possible direction.
Obviously, as shown by my poor diagram, not all of that light hits the Earth directly.
Even the light that hits the Earth is effected by the inverse square law.
As light and energy travel in a straight line from the center of the Sun, you could imagine, assuming a spherical Sun (or even a circle Sun), that you would not and could not have any parallel "energy lines".
As you increase distance from the light source to the target, it allows more time for the non-parallel "energy lines" to drift away from one another.
So, increasing distance results in less of the "energy lines" to hit the target object.
You could imagine that if you moved the Earth closer to the Sun that more "energy lines" would hit it, and the opposite if you moved it further away.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue the inverse square law like it's some type of law that only exists on a round-Earth.

Lamps are effected by the inverse square law.
That's why you cant shine a flashlight from space and illuminate Venus.

Read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law)

(http://d2f29brjr0xbt3.cloudfront.net/336_inversesquare/1.jpg)

Your questions have been answered by a few people.
I thought you were going to tell us why you were asking when you got your answer?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 15, 2013, 03:55:13 AM
Imagine you divided $100 between 2 people, each person would get $50. Now imagine you divided $100 between 4 people, each person would get $25. Even though you gave out the same amount of money both times the second time each person got less money. As you get further and further away from the Sun the light from it spreads out more and is divided over a larger and larger area.
Imagine a source of light which gave off 1 watt. 1 meter away the light would be spread over a area of 4*pi or roughly 12.6 square meters. THe intensity would be roughly 0.08 watts per square meter. 2 meters away the light would be spread out over roughly 50.3 square meters. The intensity would be roughly 0.02 watts per square meter.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 04:49:41 AM
Thanks for the explanation fella's but I don't need them. I'm well aware of light spreading in an atmosphere, which is something you are using to try and prove it happens in space, in a MATTER LESS place.
I mean, I know that space does not exist, but this isn't the issue here, as I have to go by your assumptions that a vacuum can somehow make stuff travel and not only travel, but span out.

If your vacuum worked as you say then your sun would envelope the earth. Not by the small amount it does, but by a huge earth killing amount, because even if 10% of that so called sun hits, it's still over a 100, 000 km  diameter hit.

The same goes for your stars. If nothing stops anything in motion in a vacuum, then all your stars will send all their light and heat to the earth, only in the reality of what you lot are trying to push, they would bathe the earth once they reached it, all the billions or trillions of godzillions of them as they are all round are't they? Larger suns we are told.

The earth should be like a beacon or a sun itself with all that heat/light.
Of course. I know, we only see them as specks because of their distance, I know, I know.
You can't have it both ways though.
I mean, if nothing stops the light/heat, then nothing stops the light/heat...UNTIL another force acts upon that light/heat, which to us, would be good old oblate spheroid earth, but here we are laughing at it all and shouting, "come on you pesky huge suns out there, is that all you've got."

What kind of real magic stops all this. Ok, you can have your inverse square law. Just factor it in to the godzillions of other suns aiming their mammoth energy towards us as surely some from each must hit us and at the force it was ejected as there is nothing in space to cool it and what not, right?

Oh...and before you all go off on your, "oh look at scepti, he's uneducated and he doesn't know physics or science." Forget that, just give me it in laymans terms.  :)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 15, 2013, 06:42:31 AM
Go to your the shower, and take a glass.
Put the glass just under the nozzle and note the time to fill it.
Now, empty the glass and put it on the groud, staying  beneath the nozzle. Note the time again.
You should need more time to fill it.
How do you explain it ?


Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 15, 2013, 07:03:18 AM
Thanks for the explanation fella's but I don't need them. I'm well aware of light spreading in an atmosphere, which is something you are using to try and prove it happens in space, in a MATTER LESS place.
I mean, I know that space does not exist, but this isn't the issue here, as I have to go by your assumptions that a vacuum can somehow make stuff travel and not only travel, but span out.
If you'd just listen, it's perfectly plausible in a vacuum.

If your vacuum worked as you say then your sun would envelope the earth. Not by the small amount it does, but by a huge earth killing amount, because even if 10% of that so called sun hits, it's still over a 100, 000 km  diameter hit.
The Earth receives around 0.000000045% of the Sun's energy.

The same goes for your stars. If nothing stops anything in motion in a vacuum, then all your stars will send all their light and heat to the earth, only in the reality of what you lot are trying to push, they would bathe the earth once they reached it, all the billions or trillions of godzillions of them as they are all round are't they? Larger suns we are told.

But, you're wrong again.
Please stop ignoring the inverse square law as a means to explain this.
If you'd educate yourself, it makes a whole lot of perfect sense.
It has nothing to do with the vacuum.
You can actually ignore the vacuum because the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum.
Not all of the stars energy effects us. They're spheroids. They scatter energy and light in every possible direction. Why would all of it just concentrate and beam straight to Earth?
Obviously, some very, very small amounts of light reach us from the stars because there is nothing to stop the light in a vacuum.
But, that's why we see them as tiny little flickers in the sky.

The earth should be like a beacon or a sun itself with all that heat/light.
Of course. I know, we only see them as specks because of their distance, I know, I know.
You can't have it both ways though.
I mean, if nothing stops the light/heat, then nothing stops the light/heat...UNTIL another force acts upon that light/heat, which to us, would be good old oblate spheroid earth, but here we are laughing at it all and shouting, "come on you pesky huge suns out there, is that all you've got."
Nothing stops it, which is why we receive the miniscule amount that we do and rightfully should.
We're not having it both ways.

What kind of real magic stops all this. Ok, you can have your inverse square law. Just factor it in to the godzillions of other suns aiming their mammoth energy towards us as surely some from each must hit us and at the force it was ejected as there is nothing in space to cool it and what not, right?

The stars aren't aiming their energy at us, though.
They're spherical.
It doesn't need to cool or slow down.
The energy is "hitting us" at the same speed it was released from the star.
There's just not a whole lot of it left due to the distance.
What's so crazy about this, now?

Oh...and before you all go off on your, "oh look at scepti, he's uneducated and he doesn't know physics or science." Forget that, just give me it in laymans terms.  :)

I tried to explain it as simply as my ability would allow in my last post.
What's so hard to understand, I mean, really?

You're thinking is : There's nothing to stop light or energy in a vacuum, so all light and energy from all stars and the Sun must hit us 100%.
You're just wrong.
It's been clearly explained to you why.
Admit defeat.

There may be some inconsistencies with RE empirical fact, but this is not one of them.
Don't you think the people who come up with this stuff would have taken that into consideration?
Or are you just more observant than every trained expert in the space sciences?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 07:17:29 AM
Quote
Forget that, just give me it in laymans terms.

Why bother? Even in laymans terms you fail to understand basic concepts.

You don't understand how things work in a vacuum. You don't understand the inverse square law. You don't understand that the sun is a sphere spraying light and energy in ALL directions.........which is why only a fraction hits Earth. And you obviously don't understand that if the distance were greater......a lesser fraction would then hit Earth.

You're ignorant. That is the only issue here.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: spaceman spiff on October 15, 2013, 07:55:44 AM
Take some laser pointers and array them in an arc of circle. Now put a sheet of paper very close to them in a way that the outermost pointers point to the edges of the paper, so all the beams hit it. Now start to move away (or ask a friend to do it) from the pointers and keep counting how many beams hit the paper. Tell us what you find out (I hope we can all agree that the light of those pointers travel pretty much in a straight line for the distances involved here).
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 09:08:00 AM
Go to your the shower, and take a glass.
Put the glass just under the nozzle and note the time to fill it.
Now, empty the glass and put it on the groud, staying  beneath the nozzle. Note the time again.
You should need more time to fill it.
How do you explain it ?
Nozzle direction of perforations and water pressure in an atmosphere as well.
As I said earlier, I understand the direction with your sun being a ball of nuclear fusion allegedly and obviously in that fantasy world it would span out as it's a ball shooting out light, but as in the shower scenario, it's still going to bathe the earth  to hell and we should not see the sun as a small disc of light if it hits our eyes inside this vacuum that cannot weaken it, so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 15, 2013, 09:15:37 AM
It would seem to me that you're all trying to explain the inverse square law to scepti, when he's misunderstanding angular resolution.  I may be wrong, but there's my two cents for the last ten pages.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 09:30:46 AM
Quote
Forget that, just give me it in laymans terms.

Why bother? Even in laymans terms you fail to understand basic concepts.

You don't understand how things work in a vacuum. You don't understand the inverse square law. You don't understand that the sun is a sphere spraying light and energy in ALL directions.........which is why only a fraction hits Earth. And you obviously don't understand that if the distance were greater......a lesser fraction would then hit Earth.

You're ignorant. That is the only issue here.
Let me tell you what you don't understand. You do not understand that a vacuum means zilch, nothing, none existent, nothing could operate in it.
You people go on and say, "oh but space isn't a true vacuum it does contain bits of matter.2
How in the hell can it contain bits of matter. It either contains matter or it doesn't and that matter has to be hand in hand all through your universe for it to be anything. You cannot have it just flitting about here and there with empty space in between.
Your universe is a blackness ...but..we are dealing with your sun and I have to go by your miracles of that sun working in spite of it being impossible, so I have to go on the can't stop the juggernaut of light once in motion.
That being the case, you would not see the sun as you see it now if it was the size you people claim it to be.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 15, 2013, 09:38:22 AM
Go to your the shower, and take a glass.
Put the glass just under the nozzle and note the time to fill it.
Now, empty the glass and put it on the groud, staying  beneath the nozzle. Note the time again.
You should need more time to fill it.
How do you explain it ?
Nozzle direction of perforations and water pressure in an atmosphere as well.
As I said earlier, I understand the direction with your sun being a ball of nuclear fusion allegedly and obviously in that fantasy world it would span out as it's a ball shooting out light, but as in the shower scenario, it's still going to bathe the earth  to hell and we should not see the sun as a small disc of light if it hits our eyes inside this vacuum that cannot weaken it, so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
In the shower scenario, the glass receives less water if either the nozzle is narrower or further from it. That's the same with the sun, vacuum or not. You don't want to grasp it?  fine. I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 09:46:58 AM
Go to your the shower, and take a glass.
Put the glass just under the nozzle and note the time to fill it.
Now, empty the glass and put it on the groud, staying  beneath the nozzle. Note the time again.
You should need more time to fill it.
How do you explain it ?
Nozzle direction of perforations and water pressure in an atmosphere as well.
As I said earlier, I understand the direction with your sun being a ball of nuclear fusion allegedly and obviously in that fantasy world it would span out as it's a ball shooting out light, but as in the shower scenario, it's still going to bathe the earth  to hell and we should not see the sun as a small disc of light if it hits our eyes inside this vacuum that cannot weaken it, so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
In the shower scenario, the glass receives less water if either the nozzle is narrower or further from it. That's the same with the sun, vacuum or not. You don't want to grasp it?  fine. I'm not surprised.
I've already told you I grasped it. I knew what you were talking about.
The problem is, you are refusing to grasp what I'm saying because you can't or won't comprehend it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 10:15:51 AM
Quote
You do not understand that a vacuum means zilch, nothing, none existent, nothing could operate in it.


No, all a vacuum means is an isolated enviroment. Space with nothing in it. No interference.

Anything can operate in a vacuum..........but it operates without interference from anything outside the vacuum.

Again, you're only issue is ignorance.

Quote
You people go on and say, "oh but space isn't a true vacuum it does contain bits of matter.2

True statement.
Quote
How in the hell can it contain bits of matter. It either contains matter or it doesn't and that matter has to be hand in hand all through your universe for it to be anything. You cannot have it just flitting about here and there with empty space in between.

Space is vast. With bits of matter.

Ignorance.

Quote
Your universe is a blackness ...but..we are dealing with your sun and I have to go by your miracles of that sun working in spite of it being impossible, so I have to go on the can't stop the juggernaut of light once in motion.

So you think the intensity of a sun ray should be the same regardless of how far you are from it?

Quote
That being the case, you would not see the sun as you see it now if it was the size you people claim it to be.

By you people do you mean ones that aren't completely ignorant and likely insane?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 15, 2013, 10:19:19 AM
Scepti you keep saying a vacuum is nothing but you are dead wrong. There is no example in the world anywhere of what you conceive as nothing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 10:33:51 AM



No, all a vacuum means is an isolated enviroment. Space with nothing in it. No interference.
What do you mean, "all a vacuum means?" A vacuum is exactly what it says, devoid of ALL MATTER, meaning it cannot exist as anything at all. How in the hell can anything move in a none existence?

Anything can operate in a vacuum..........but it operates without interference from anything outside the vacuum.

Ok, you explain to me how something can operate in something that cannot exist.



Space is vast. With bits of matter.

Just bits of matter, eh? Just little bits of matter floating about like orange pips in a bath full of water, eh?
Think about what you're saying.


By you people do you mean ones that aren't completely ignorant and likely insane?
No, I mean Roundies.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 10:38:08 AM
Quote
What do you mean, "all a vacuum means?" A vacuum is exactly what it says, devoid of ALL MATTER, meaning it cannot exist as anything at all. How in the hell can anything move in a none existence?

Are you actually this ignorant or do you just pretend to be?

When someone says vacuum, in science, it means space in isolation, without interference.

Quote
Ok, you explain to me how something can operate in something that cannot exist.

I can't because that isn't what vacuum means.

Quote
Just bits of matter, eh? Just little bits of matter floating about like orange pips in a bath full of water, eh?
Think about what you're saying.

No, not orange pips in a bath full of water. Bits of matter in vast space. You seem to reject every analogy on this thread that people have used to try to explain the answers to your questions..........so please refrain from using ridiculous analogies yourself.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 15, 2013, 10:49:21 AM
so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
The entire sky should be filled with the sun no matter which way we look?  Is that what you're saying?

Objects appear smaller the further away they are, regardless if they're viewed through atmosphere, 1/10 atmosphere, 1/1000 atmosphere, or vacuum. 
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 10:57:25 AM


Are you actually this ignorant or do you just pretend to be?

When someone says vacuum, in science, it means space in isolation, without interference.
What the hell do you mean, "space in isolation?"

Quote
Ok, you explain to me how something can operate in something that cannot exist.
I can't because that isn't what vacuum means.
Of course that's not what it means, to your science. If it did, then we would not be arguing the point.
Your science uses EVACUATED matter in PARTIAL terms to describe a vacuum, which allegedly leaves scattered matter that is independent of each other and you cannot see how ridiculous this is.


No, not orange pips in a bath full of water. Bits of matter in vast space. You seem to reject every analogy on this thread that people have used to try to explain the answers to your questions..........so please refrain from using ridiculous analogies yourself.
As above.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 11:01:44 AM
Quote
What the hell do you mean, "space in isolation?"

Exactly what it means.

Try dictionary.com if you're having trouble understanding what isolation means.

Quote
Of course that's not what it means, to your science. If it did, then we would not be arguing the point.
Your science uses EVACUATED matter in PARTIAL terms to describe a vacuum, which allegedly leaves scattered matter that is independent of each other and you cannot see how ridiculous this is.

Everything in science is ridiculous to you because you have no idea what any of it actually means.

You might as well be trying to read sanskrit and trying to make sense of it.

I don't understand how you can ridicule something you fail to comprehend. It's pure ignorance.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:04:19 AM
Scepti you keep saying a vacuum is nothing but you are dead wrong. There is no example in the world anywhere of what you conceive as nothing.
Correct, you are absolutely correct. There is nowhere in the world of what I conceive as nothing, because in this world, everything is bonded from the densest matter to the lightest. Everything...IN THIS WORLD.
Beyond this world, there is no existence of anything we can see, it's just darkness to our eyes and what is reflected off of it.
That does not mean there is nothing else inside a cell like ours , it's just that we cannot and never will see,  but we can use our imagination to believe that something like our world cell can exist in the suspended animation that we are in.

A perfect vacuum basically describes none existence of ALL matter.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 11:12:18 AM
Too dumb for words.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 15, 2013, 11:12:57 AM
No scepti, space is still something. It is not nothing. I have told you this before. Your definition of nothing is a philosophical concept and it does not represent anything in this universe. Space is space, not nothing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 15, 2013, 11:14:43 AM
If nothing was a possible state of the universe then it would have to exist everywhere. We can't live "in" nothing. Nothing cannot exist simultaneously with something as it would have to with your dome.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
The entire sky should be filled with the sun no matter which way we look?  Is that what you're saying?

Objects appear smaller the further away they are, regardless if they're viewed through atmosphere, 1/10 atmosphere, 1/1000 atmosphere, or vacuum.
Inside earth you see stuff from a distance which looks smaller, fair enough, no problem there. That's because our eyesight cannot magnify as we move away to keep an object the same size, plus the atmosphere would obscure it, eventually.

A strong torch shining into your eyes whilst you back away from it, will become smaller as the reflected light becomes less intense due to atmosphere density over distance.

The way your so called vacuum is described with your huge sun and stars, they do not suffer this problem until they hit earths atmosphere from however many trillions of miles, meaning they should hit with the intensity from which they started emitting in this direction, which would bathe the earth and would not give us any chance of seeing them as any kind of dot that we see now.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:16:34 AM
Quote
What the hell do you mean, "space in isolation?"

Exactly what it means.

Try dictionary.com if you're having trouble understanding what isolation means.

Quote
Of course that's not what it means, to your science. If it did, then we would not be arguing the point.
Your science uses EVACUATED matter in PARTIAL terms to describe a vacuum, which allegedly leaves scattered matter that is independent of each other and you cannot see how ridiculous this is.

Everything in science is ridiculous to you because you have no idea what any of it actually means.

You might as well be trying to read sanskrit and trying to make sense of it.

I don't understand how you can ridicule something you fail to comprehend. It's pure ignorance.
I comprehend it perfectly well. You simply fail to see the logic.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 15, 2013, 11:17:39 AM
so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
The entire sky should be filled with the sun no matter which way we look?  Is that what you're saying?

Objects appear smaller the further away they are, regardless if they're viewed through atmosphere, 1/10 atmosphere, 1/1000 atmosphere, or vacuum.
Inside earth you see stuff from a distance which looks smaller, fair enough, no problem there. That's because our eyesight cannot magnify as we move away to keep an object the same size, plus the atmosphere would obscure it, eventually.

A strong torch shining into your eyes whilst you back away from it, will become smaller as the reflected light becomes less intense due to atmosphere density over distance.

The way your so called vacuum is described with your huge sun and stars, they do not suffer this problem until they hit earths atmosphere from however many trillions of miles, meaning they should hit with the intensity from which they started emitting in this direction, which would bathe the earth and would not give us any chance of seeing them as any kind of dot that we see now.

And each photon does hit with the same intensity but it is just far less photons.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 11:19:14 AM
Quote
I comprehend it perfectly well. You simply fail to see the logic.

What logic?

Until you actually understand what a vacuum is..........or any other basic parts of physics........you shouldn't be commenting on the subject at all.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:22:33 AM
so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
The entire sky should be filled with the sun no matter which way we look?  Is that what you're saying?

Objects appear smaller the further away they are, regardless if they're viewed through atmosphere, 1/10 atmosphere, 1/1000 atmosphere, or vacuum.
Inside earth you see stuff from a distance which looks smaller, fair enough, no problem there. That's because our eyesight cannot magnify as we move away to keep an object the same size, plus the atmosphere would obscure it, eventually.

A strong torch shining into your eyes whilst you back away from it, will become smaller as the reflected light becomes less intense due to atmosphere density over distance.

The way your so called vacuum is described with your huge sun and stars, they do not suffer this problem until they hit earths atmosphere from however many trillions of miles, meaning they should hit with the intensity from which they started emitting in this direction, which would bathe the earth and would not give us any chance of seeing them as any kind of dot that we see now.

And each photon does hit with the same intensity but it is just far less photons.
Far less photons in the general direction of earth you mean, right?

It doesn't matter. If the sun is as big as you say then the earth is going to be bathed to hell and you are not going to see a sun like you do.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 11:25:18 AM
Can you back up that assumption with actual scientific data?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:27:22 AM
No scepti, space is still something. It is not nothing. I have told you this before. Your definition of nothing is a philosophical concept and it does not represent anything in this universe. Space is space, not nothing.
I'll tell you what perceived space is to us. It's what you are sitting in right now as in, among molecules/matter that are all bonded yet are invisible to our meagre eyesight. This is the only type of space we can know.

Outside of earth, there is no space, because matter does not exist in any form at all, to us, except for what we know as blackness or darkness in the true sense of the word.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:32:56 AM
If nothing was a possible state of the universe then it would have to exist everywhere. We can't live "in" nothing. Nothing cannot exist simultaneously with something as it would have to with your dome.
The universe is a figment of our imagination, It exists because we allow it to exist. We do this because we see light against blackness as specks as in what we call stars and brightness of what we see as a sun in this imaginary universe.
It's a trick of our minds because we cannot contemplate what NOTHING  actually means. To us, nothing means no money, no water in the bath or no rain or a zero. We cannot comprehend the real meaning of nothing because there is no such thing that exists as nothing. Head busting isn't it.

Our perceived universe is the colour black, our best perceived, real- nothing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 15, 2013, 11:33:27 AM


Are you actually this ignorant or do you just pretend to be?

When someone says vacuum, in science, it means space in isolation, without interference.
What the hell do you mean, "space in isolation?"

Quote
Ok, you explain to me how something can operate in something that cannot exist.
I can't because that isn't what vacuum means.
Of course that's not what it means, to your science. If it did, then we would not be arguing the point.
Your science uses EVACUATED matter in PARTIAL terms to describe a vacuum, which allegedly leaves scattered matter that is independent of each other and you cannot see how ridiculous this is.


No, not orange pips in a bath full of water. Bits of matter in vast space. You seem to reject every analogy on this thread that people have used to try to explain the answers to your questions..........so please refrain from using ridiculous analogies yourself.
As above.

why there is no like icon? If there was, I would click it ten times.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 15, 2013, 11:35:23 AM
so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
The entire sky should be filled with the sun no matter which way we look?  Is that what you're saying?

Objects appear smaller the further away they are, regardless if they're viewed through atmosphere, 1/10 atmosphere, 1/1000 atmosphere, or vacuum.
Inside earth you see stuff from a distance which looks smaller, fair enough, no problem there. That's because our eyesight cannot magnify as we move away to keep an object the same size, plus the atmosphere would obscure it, eventually.

A strong torch shining into your eyes whilst you back away from it, will become smaller as the reflected light becomes less intense due to atmosphere density over distance.

The way your so called vacuum is described with your huge sun and stars, they do not suffer this problem until they hit earths atmosphere from however many trillions of miles, meaning they should hit with the intensity from which they started emitting in this direction, which would bathe the earth and would not give us any chance of seeing them as any kind of dot that we see now.
Are you still under the assumption that light requires air to propagate through, just like sound?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
Quote
I comprehend it perfectly well. You simply fail to see the logic.

What logic?

Until you actually understand what a vacuum is..........or any other basic parts of physics........you shouldn't be commenting on the subject at all.
Now this is just the problem. You see, If I want to comment on something I believe in, I will do that. I will not stop because you decide I shouldn't, just because you cannot grasp what I'm saying.
We all display ignorance to each other. My ignorance, to you, is my stance against your own ignorance of alternatives to your indoctrination by the ignorance of your indoctrinators to teach you anything other than the version they hold in their books and memory.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:37:35 AM
Can you back up that assumption with actual scientific data?
How about using your common sense.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 15, 2013, 11:39:29 AM
If nothing was a possible state of the universe then it would have to exist everywhere. We can't live "in" nothing. Nothing cannot exist simultaneously with something as it would have to with your dome.
The universe is a figment of our imagination, It exists because we allow it to exist. We do this because we see light against blackness as specks as in what we call stars and brightness of what we see as a sun in this imaginary universe.
It's a trick of our minds because we cannot contemplate what NOTHING  actually means. To us, nothing means no money, no water in the bath or no rain or a zero. We cannot comprehend the real meaning of nothing because there is no such thing that exists as nothing. Head busting isn't it.

Our perceived universe is the colour black, our best perceived, real- nothing.

A very deep contemplation but as a rejecter of science, you forgot that "universe" is part of it.

In brief, I want to tell you that there is nothing called universe.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 11:40:41 AM
Quote
Now this is just the problem. You see, If I want to comment on something I believe in, I will do that. I will not stop because you decide I shouldn't, just because you cannot grasp what I'm saying.
We all display ignorance to each other. My ignorance, to you, is my stance against your own ignorance of alternatives to your indoctrination by the ignorance of your indoctrinators to teach you anything other than the version they hold in their books and memory.

Commenting on something and questioning it is fine..........if you actually know what you are talking about.

Ridiculing something because you aren't educated enough to comprehend it is foolish.

I don't speak Chinese. Should I tell ever Chinese speaking person that are talking gibberish because I don't understand their language?

Of course I can't grasp what you are saying...........nothing you say makes sense.
Quote
How about using your common sense.

Okay.

Common sense says science is correct, pictures of earth from space aren't a conspiracy, and you're a moron.

Hows that?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
The entire sky should be filled with the sun no matter which way we look?  Is that what you're saying?

Objects appear smaller the further away they are, regardless if they're viewed through atmosphere, 1/10 atmosphere, 1/1000 atmosphere, or vacuum.
Inside earth you see stuff from a distance which looks smaller, fair enough, no problem there. That's because our eyesight cannot magnify as we move away to keep an object the same size, plus the atmosphere would obscure it, eventually.

A strong torch shining into your eyes whilst you back away from it, will become smaller as the reflected light becomes less intense due to atmosphere density over distance.

The way your so called vacuum is described with your huge sun and stars, they do not suffer this problem until they hit earths atmosphere from however many trillions of miles, meaning they should hit with the intensity from which they started emitting in this direction, which would bathe the earth and would not give us any chance of seeing them as any kind of dot that we see now.
Are you still under the assumption that light requires air to propagate through, just like sound?
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.
If all matter is not holding hands we cease to exist. It has to be bonded like washing machine bubbles.

We don't see most of what's around us in the air but it's there.
The minute it's not, is the minute we cease to exist as a world.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:45:51 AM
If nothing was a possible state of the universe then it would have to exist everywhere. We can't live "in" nothing. Nothing cannot exist simultaneously with something as it would have to with your dome.
The universe is a figment of our imagination, It exists because we allow it to exist. We do this because we see light against blackness as specks as in what we call stars and brightness of what we see as a sun in this imaginary universe.
It's a trick of our minds because we cannot contemplate what NOTHING  actually means. To us, nothing means no money, no water in the bath or no rain or a zero. We cannot comprehend the real meaning of nothing because there is no such thing that exists as nothing. Head busting isn't it.

Our perceived universe is the colour black, our best perceived, real- nothing.

A very deep contemplation but as a rejecter of science, you forgot that "universe" is part of it.

In brief, I want to tell you that there is nothing called universe.
Correct...universe is merely a word and an imagination of something that people believe exists. Our universe is inside this cell we call earth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 15, 2013, 11:47:11 AM
Can you back up that assumption with actual scientific data?
How about using your common sense.

Or his mind, he and who are like him don't doubt that "science" is simply a word can anyone use it in any fictional idea.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 15, 2013, 11:51:10 AM
If nothing was a possible state of the universe then it would have to exist everywhere. We can't live "in" nothing. Nothing cannot exist simultaneously with something as it would have to with your dome.
The universe is a figment of our imagination, It exists because we allow it to exist. We do this because we see light against blackness as specks as in what we call stars and brightness of what we see as a sun in this imaginary universe.
It's a trick of our minds because we cannot contemplate what NOTHING  actually means. To us, nothing means no money, no water in the bath or no rain or a zero. We cannot comprehend the real meaning of nothing because there is no such thing that exists as nothing. Head busting isn't it.

Our perceived universe is the colour black, our best perceived, real- nothing.

A very deep contemplation but as a rejecter of science, you forgot that "universe" is part of it.

In brief, I want to tell you that there is nothing called universe.
Correct...universe is merely a word and an imagination of something that people believe exists. Our universe is inside this cell we call earth.

No, there is no universe and the earth is not a universe or a cell. The earth is the earth and the sky is the sky and that's it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:54:33 AM

Commenting on something and questioning it is fine..........if you actually know what you are talking about.

Ridiculing something because you aren't educated enough to comprehend it is foolish.

I don't speak Chinese. Should I tell ever Chinese speaking person that are talking gibberish because I don't understand their language?

Of course I can't grasp what you are saying...........nothing you say makes sense.
Quote
If you don't speak Chinese then you can tell them all you want that they are talking gibberish, but if they don't understand English, they will simply believe you are talking gibberish. Some stalemate, eh?



Common sense says science is correct, pictures of earth from space aren't a conspiracy, and you're a moron.

Hows that?
Of course pictures from space aren't a conspiracy, TO YOU.
Bruce Willis stayed back on an asteroid and nuked it. It's true because I was it on TV and it looked damn real to me.

I'll need some proof from you as to your assumption that I'm a moron. Pictures won't do, I need some real proof. Maybe a certificate or moronic excellence or something, stamped and dated and authenticated.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 11:55:58 AM
If nothing was a possible state of the universe then it would have to exist everywhere. We can't live "in" nothing. Nothing cannot exist simultaneously with something as it would have to with your dome.
The universe is a figment of our imagination, It exists because we allow it to exist. We do this because we see light against blackness as specks as in what we call stars and brightness of what we see as a sun in this imaginary universe.
It's a trick of our minds because we cannot contemplate what NOTHING  actually means. To us, nothing means no money, no water in the bath or no rain or a zero. We cannot comprehend the real meaning of nothing because there is no such thing that exists as nothing. Head busting isn't it.

Our perceived universe is the colour black, our best perceived, real- nothing.

A very deep contemplation but as a rejecter of science, you forgot that "universe" is part of it.

In brief, I want to tell you that there is nothing called universe.
Correct...universe is merely a word and an imagination of something that people believe exists. Our universe is inside this cell we call earth.

No, there is no universe and the earth is not a universe or a cell. The earth is the earth and the sky is the sky and that's it.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
Quote
The earth is the earth and the sky is the sky and that's it.

Where do meteors that crash to the earth come from?

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 15, 2013, 12:00:12 PM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 12:01:07 PM
Quote
Of course pictures from space aren't a conspiracy, TO YOU.
Bruce Willis stayed back on an asteroid and nuked it. It's true because I was it on TV and it looked damn real to me.

What does a movie have to do with pictures from space?

Quote
I'll need some proof from you as to your assumption that I'm a moron.


It wasn't an assumption. It was a theory based on the evidence on this thread built from an earlier hypothesis. Each post you contribute pushes it closer to being a fact.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 15, 2013, 12:02:13 PM
Quote
The earth is the earth and the sky is the sky and that's it.

Where do meteors that crash to the earth come from?

From the lower sky.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 12:03:59 PM
Quote
So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

It's a conspiracy.

You actually can hear it but you've been brainwashed not to.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 12:04:34 PM
Quote
From the lower sky.

So they magically appear from no where and then crash to the earth?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 15, 2013, 12:06:05 PM
Scepti- why and how can you be under the impression that light cannot propagate in a vacuum, while at the same time you say that nothing can stop light in a vacuum?

YOU can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 15, 2013, 12:06:21 PM
Quote
So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

It's a conspiracy.

You actually can hear it but you've been brainwashed not to.

Really!

And your heart need to be washed.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
Quote
The earth is the earth and the sky is the sky and that's it.

Where do meteors that crash to the earth come from?
The dome and the centre of earth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 12:20:19 PM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?
Because your eyes can see reflections quicker than your ears can hear them.
Just like you can see a punch before you feel it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 15, 2013, 12:23:18 PM
Quote
The dome and the centre of earth.


So how come we can observe meteors passing by the earth in a telescope.

Or observe meteor showers with our bare eyes?

Explain Haley's comet for me.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 15, 2013, 12:26:56 PM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?
Because your eyes can see reflections quicker than your ears can hear them.
Just like you can see a punch before you feel it.
Are you saying the sight and sound are reaching me at the same time, but one takes longer to register in my brain?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 12:27:17 PM
Scepti- why and how can you be under the impression that light cannot propagate in a vacuum, while at the same time you say that nothing can stop light in a vacuum?

YOU can't have it both ways.
Because if you take the time to read, you will see that I'm using YOUR vacuum as you see it working and turning it against you.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 12:32:36 PM
Quote
The dome and the centre of earth.


So how come we can observe meteors passing by the earth in a telescope.
Why wouldn't you observe what you believe are meteors? They're just mixed element icicles turning back into gas as they hit denser gases. That's why they have tails, they are turning back into gases aided by temperature increases and decreases.
Or observe meteor showers with our bare eyes?
Same thing just breaking up.
Explain Haley's comet for me.
Haleys comet is just a similar thing just larger and slower in disintegration of the lightest elements.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 15, 2013, 12:36:17 PM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?
Because your eyes can see reflections quicker than your ears can hear them.
Just like you can see a punch before you feel it.
Are you saying the sight and sound are reaching me at the same time, but one takes longer to register in my brain?
Nope.

I'm saying that your eyes see the result of , for instance: lightning before the sound reaches your ears.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 15, 2013, 12:57:12 PM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?
Because your eyes can see reflections quicker than your ears can hear them.
Just like you can see a punch before you feel it.
Are you saying the sight and sound are reaching me at the same time, but one takes longer to register in my brain?
Nope.

I'm saying that your eyes see the result of , for instance: lightning before the sound reaches your ears.
The further away a lighting strike is, the longer it takes to hear it.  If light is the end product of sound, then why does it take longer to hear something after seeing it the further away it is?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 15, 2013, 01:06:24 PM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?
Because your eyes can see reflections quicker than your ears can hear them.
Just like you can see a punch before you feel it.
Are you saying the sight and sound are reaching me at the same time, but one takes longer to register in my brain?
Nope.

I'm saying that your eyes see the result of , for instance: lightning before the sound reaches your ears.

Again, I ask, if light is a 'form' of sound, why does it propagate faster than sound? Why does it not propagate where sound does, and vice versa?

Also, you seem to be thinking of the sun and stars as focused spotlights, which they are not. They are throwing light in all directions, and only tiny infinitesimal amounts of that light actually point at earth.

Lastly, the night sky isn't black. Oftentimes, it is many different colors.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 15, 2013, 01:09:24 PM
You know scepti. You are not the first person to think of any of these problems. For instance how light propagates in a mediumless field. This was always a problem in physics and was in fact why the hypothesis of the aether came up in the history of science. Unfortunately we never found the aether and the hypothesis died off after experimental verification found that light creates its own medium. This stuff is not made up. You can say it is all you want but the more you do the more ignorant you appear.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 15, 2013, 01:58:48 PM
Why does it not propagate where sound does, and vice versa?
Something I myself forgot to ask.

Also, you seem to be thinking of the sun and stars as focused spotlights, which they are not. They are throwing light in all directions, and only tiny infinitesimal amounts of that light actually point at earth.
I think scepti is talking about the light coming off the star at angles (thus allowing us to see the edges of a star, along with the side directly facing us) and since the star is bigger than Earth, the same wall of light/energy we'd receive close up from those "parallel rays", should also be received far away.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: g el on October 15, 2013, 02:09:50 PM
About sound and light:

Do you expect a photo sensor and a microphone to register light and sound at the same time from a lighting/thunder? also do you expect to be able to capture sound using a photo-sensor? you know this might save a lot of resources, either that or capturing light using microphones..
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 15, 2013, 02:13:19 PM
Why does it not propagate where sound does, and vice versa?
Something I myself forgot to ask.

Also, you seem to be thinking of the sun and stars as focused spotlights, which they are not. They are throwing light in all directions, and only tiny infinitesimal amounts of that light actually point at earth.
I think scepti is talking about the light coming off the star at angles (thus allowing us to see the edges of a star, along with the side directly facing us) and since the star is bigger than Earth, the same wall of light/energy we'd receive close up from those "parallel rays", should also be received far away.

Yes we can see those photons on the sides but we don't feel the radiation from them.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 15, 2013, 06:13:59 PM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?
Because your eyes can see reflections quicker than your ears can hear them.
Just like you can see a punch before you feel it.
But when the source is close by I can hear and see them at the same time.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 15, 2013, 06:22:44 PM
so we should basically see an earth blanket of sun, not a small disc.
The entire sky should be filled with the sun no matter which way we look?  Is that what you're saying?

Objects appear smaller the further away they are, regardless if they're viewed through atmosphere, 1/10 atmosphere, 1/1000 atmosphere, or vacuum.
Inside earth you see stuff from a distance which looks smaller, fair enough, no problem there. That's because our eyesight cannot magnify as we move away to keep an object the same size, plus the atmosphere would obscure it, eventually.

A strong torch shining into your eyes whilst you back away from it, will become smaller as the reflected light becomes less intense due to atmosphere density over distance.

The way your so called vacuum is described with your huge sun and stars, they do not suffer this problem until they hit earths atmosphere from however many trillions of miles, meaning they should hit with the intensity from which they started emitting in this direction, which would bathe the earth and would not give us any chance of seeing them as any kind of dot that we see now.
Nope, a few meters of air can't really obscure anything.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 15, 2013, 06:47:18 PM
Scepti- why and how can you be under the impression that light cannot propagate in a vacuum, while at the same time you say that nothing can stop light in a vacuum?

YOU can't have it both ways.
Because if you take the time to read, you will see that I'm using YOUR vacuum as you see it working and turning it against you.
I read every post so far.
I see no evidence in favor of you.
I see nothing being used against me.
Vain, uneducated, struggling attempts to do so, on the other hand, are ever plenty.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 15, 2013, 06:50:34 PM
Why does it not propagate where sound does, and vice versa?
Something I myself forgot to ask.

Also, you seem to be thinking of the sun and stars as focused spotlights, which they are not. They are throwing light in all directions, and only tiny infinitesimal amounts of that light actually point at earth.
I think scepti is talking about the light coming off the star at angles (thus allowing us to see the edges of a star, along with the side directly facing us) and since the star is bigger than Earth, the same wall of light/energy we'd receive close up from those "parallel rays", should also be received far away.

Yes we can see those photons on the sides but we don't feel the radiation from them.

Actually, we do. The energy they carry reaches us, whether that energy be visible light, IR (heat), UV or whatever. The reason we aren't getting cooked is that we only receive the energy from the photons that came in this direction, which is a relatively small portion of the total number of photons emitted. Actually, if I can chuck in some more numbers, the earth only receives 4.5x10-10% (if I got my maths right this time ;) ) of the total energy output from the sun, because all the rest of that energy has gone off in other directions. Even that tiny amount of energy is quite powerful though; it's a common occurrence for the bitumen on the roads to melt during summer in my home town, and that's 30 South of the equator!

Oh, and keep in mind, that 4.5x10-10% of the sun's total energy output is spread over the ~255,000,000km2 of the earth's surface that is exposed to the sun at any one time, so the bit that we feel on our ~1m2 of exposed skin (if we're average build and not wearing any clothes) really is a very tiny proportion of the total output (about 1.8x10-24%).
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 02:18:41 AM
Actually, we do. The energy they carry reaches us, whether that energy be visible light, IR (heat), UV or whatever. The reason we aren't getting cooked is that we only receive the energy from the photons that came in this direction, which is a relatively small portion of the total number of photons emitted. Actually, if I can chuck in some more numbers, the earth only receives 4.5x10-10% (if I got my maths right this time ;) ) of the total energy output from the sun, because all the rest of that energy has gone off in other directions. Even that tiny amount of energy is quite powerful though; it's a common occurrence for the bitumen on the roads to melt during summer in my home town, and that's 30 South of the equator!

Oh, and keep in mind, that 4.5x10-10% of the sun's total energy output is spread over the ~255,000,000km2 of the earth's surface that is exposed to the sun at any one time, so the bit that we feel on our ~1m2 of exposed skin (if we're average build and not wearing any clothes) really is a very tiny proportion of the total output (about 1.8x10-24%).
Actually you also need to account the fact that atmosphere reflects or absorbs some of the energy from the sun. Without it, the world would be a lot hotter place.

(http://www.theozonehole.com/images/atmosnasa.jpg)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 16, 2013, 02:28:00 AM
Actually, we do. The energy they carry reaches us, whether that energy be visible light, IR (heat), UV or whatever. The reason we aren't getting cooked is that we only receive the energy from the photons that came in this direction, which is a relatively small portion of the total number of photons emitted. Actually, if I can chuck in some more numbers, the earth only receives 4.5x10-10% (if I got my maths right this time ;) ) of the total energy output from the sun, because all the rest of that energy has gone off in other directions. Even that tiny amount of energy is quite powerful though; it's a common occurrence for the bitumen on the roads to melt during summer in my home town, and that's 30 South of the equator!

Oh, and keep in mind, that 4.5x10-10% of the sun's total energy output is spread over the ~255,000,000km2 of the earth's surface that is exposed to the sun at any one time, so the bit that we feel on our ~1m2 of exposed skin (if we're average build and not wearing any clothes) really is a very tiny proportion of the total output (about 1.8x10-24%).
Actually you also need to account the fact that atmosphere reflects or absorbs some of the energy from the sun. Without it, the world would be a lot hotter place.

(http://www.theozonehole.com/images/atmosnasa.jpg)

Very true, I had forgotten that!
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 07:32:43 AM
I'll explain why I'm asking after some people have answered.

Let's assume that the earth is what you roundies say it is and everything is how you say it is, EXCEPT, the sun.
Instead of the sun being as big as it is, let us assume that the sun is only 20,000 miles in diameter. How much of the earth would it light up as opposed to what it's supposed to be doing right now?

Smart question, don't expect an answer. I thought of it. It has its own formula depending on three factors: height, size and strength of the illuminant. With these you can get the lighted space around it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 07:34:46 AM
He got tons of answers. Your ignorance is palpable.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 07:39:53 AM
He got tons of answers. Your ignorance is palpable.

Your ugly pic reflects your ugly words.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 07:47:00 AM
People often think ignorance is a derogatory term. It is simply a word that describes someone who doesn't know anything about a subject. It is a quantifiable assessment. You, Spaceship and Scepti are ignorant about this stuff. It isn't meant to hurt your feelings, it is a fact verified by the things you say.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 07:53:07 AM
People often think ignorance is a derogatory term. It is simply a word that describes someone who doesn't know anything about a subject. It is a quantifiable assessment. You, Spaceship and Scepti are ignorant about this stuff. It isn't meant to hurt your feelings, it is a fact verified by the things you say.

Who's house made of glass, doesn't throw people with stones.

There could be tens of answers but all not related or wrong. I say he will not get the correct answer because who knows the answer for sure knows that the earth is flat.

Take care of your pic.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 07:56:31 AM
My pic is fine. Your username and pic make me want to vomit but that's OK.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 07:58:40 AM
My pic is fine. Your username and pic make me want to vomit but that's OK.

Vomit, I don't mind specially if you've just eaten pork.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 08:06:12 AM
People often think ignorance is a derogatory term. It is simply a word that describes someone who doesn't know anything about a subject. It is a quantifiable assessment. You, Spaceship and Scepti are ignorant about this stuff. It isn't meant to hurt your feelings, it is a fact verified by the things you say.

Who's house made of glass, doesn't throw people with stones.

There could be tens of answers but all not related or wrong. I say he will not get the correct answer because who knows the answer for sure knows that the earth is flat.

Take care of your pic.

How were any of the answers not related or wrong?
I think a bunch of people answered all of his questions pretty concisely.
I think it is you who resides in the glass house.

Besides, he's right. Scepti has shown a few times in this thread alone that he has no idea what he is talking about.
That, or he refuses to even try to comprehend anything other than what he knows.
Both are equally as terrible.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:12:03 AM
People often think ignorance is a derogatory term. It is simply a word that describes someone who doesn't know anything about a subject. It is a quantifiable assessment. You, Spaceship and Scepti are ignorant about this stuff. It isn't meant to hurt your feelings, it is a fact verified by the things you say.

Who's house made of glass, doesn't throw people with stones.

There could be tens of answers but all not related or wrong. I say he will not get the correct answer because who knows the answer for sure knows that the earth is flat.

Take care of your pic.

How were any of the answers not related or wrong?
I think a bunch of people answered all of his questions pretty concisely.
I think it is you who resides in the glass house.

Besides, he's right. Scepti has shown a few times in this thread alone that he has no idea what he is talking about.
That, or he refuses to even try to comprehend anything other than what he knows.
Both are equally as terrible.
None of us know for absolute sure what we are talking about in the reality world, we have to go on the most logical thoughts about what reality is.
Being able to add up and subtract and do equations does not make a person state fact about what they believe is in space, it's simply a commitment to memory from books and what not.
Deny it if you want, but I'm telling you the truth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 08:18:30 AM
People often think ignorance is a derogatory term. It is simply a word that describes someone who doesn't know anything about a subject. It is a quantifiable assessment. You, Spaceship and Scepti are ignorant about this stuff. It isn't meant to hurt your feelings, it is a fact verified by the things you say.

Who's house made of glass, doesn't throw people with stones.

There could be tens of answers but all not related or wrong. I say he will not get the correct answer because who knows the answer for sure knows that the earth is flat.

Take care of your pic.

How were any of the answers not related or wrong?
I think a bunch of people answered all of his questions pretty concisely.
I think it is you who resides in the glass house.

Besides, he's right. Scepti has shown a few times in this thread alone that he has no idea what he is talking about.
That, or he refuses to even try to comprehend anything other than what he knows.
Both are equally as terrible.

I understand Scepti and I exceeded what he achieved.
You're not on that way at all, you're on the opposite one.
You think we don't understand your science, we do understand it even more than you and we rejected it after knowing it and started to find another way. Both ways science and logic can never meet, that's why you think we don't understand you because you're using another language of a complete different way.

* Good that you don't think rotting room's pic is nice.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 08:19:39 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.
Scepti is right:
http://ilumen.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-light-have-weight-does-light-make.html (http://ilumen.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-light-have-weight-does-light-make.html)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2013, 08:23:24 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.
Scepti is right:
http://ilumen.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-light-have-weight-does-light-make.html (http://ilumen.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-light-have-weight-does-light-make.html)

That link says that light can create sound, not that sound can create light.  That link also does not say that light requires a medium to propagate.  What does that link have to do with your assertion that sceptimatic is right?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 08:23:49 AM
None of us know for absolute sure what we are talking about in the reality world, we have to go on the most logical thoughts about what reality is.
Then why do you seem so sure about your own highly illogical thoughts?
I think we know for sure what some things in the "reality world" are and how they operate.
Being able to add up and subtract and do equations does not make a person state fact about what they believe is in space, it's simply a commitment to memory from books and what not.
No, usually numbers do not lie when it comes to human understanding.
If you work the anomalies out of an equation, it's usually just right.
That's not to say there aren't other solutions for said equation.
Deny it if you want, but I'm telling you the truth.
Well, one of us is lying, because I'm also telling you the honest-to-gosh truth.
Besides, I thought none of us knew how the heck the "reality world" works?
How can you be so sure that you're right about this, that you know the truth,
especially when you just said that nobody can be sure about what the truth even is?
You're just that clever that you were the one to crack the true ice-dome-space-isn't-real-there-is-no-Sun-or-planets model, right?
Or maybe you're just as wrong as everyone else is about everything.
Worth some thought.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:29:11 AM
None of us know for absolute sure what we are talking about in the reality world, we have to go on the most logical thoughts about what reality is.
Then why do you seem so sure about your own highly illogical thoughts?
I think we know for sure what some things in the "reality world" are and how they operate.
Being able to add up and subtract and do equations does not make a person state fact about what they believe is in space, it's simply a commitment to memory from books and what not.
No, usually numbers do not lie when it comes to human understanding.
If you work the anomalies out of an equation, it's usually just right.
That's not to say there aren't other solutions for said equation.
Deny it if you want, but I'm telling you the truth.
Well, one of us is lying, because I'm also telling you the honest-to-gosh truth.
Besides, I thought none of us knew how the heck the "reality world" works?
How can you be so sure that you're right about this, that you know the truth?
Especially when you just said that nobody can be sure about what the truth even is?
You're just that clever that you were the one to crack the true ice-dome-space-isn't-real-there-is-no-Sun-or-planets model, right?
Or maybe you're just as wrong as everyone else is about everything.
Worth some thought.
I don't profess to be correct. That's where you make assumptions. I'm giving out my thoughts and sticking rigidly to them when the likes of you try and shoot them down and fail.

One thing I do know for absolute certainty and I mean 100% certainty..and that is, the earth is NOT a rotating globe, it is also not a stationary solid globe either, so logic has to kick in and this is where I'm at. Looking at what is more logical.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:30:13 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2013, 08:33:17 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Why wouldn't it have a tail?  Heat and energy from the sun travels towards the comet, melting the ices on it.  The gases are compelled to travel in the approximately same vector they are struck with, like a pool ball or something.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 16, 2013, 08:34:14 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Well, it's time to explain a basic concept to scepti again.

Light has energy, scepti.  Light comes from the sun.  When this light impacts an icy comet, some of that ice gains energy and melts, forming the characteristic tail.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 08:37:23 AM
People often think ignorance is a derogatory term. It is simply a word that describes someone who doesn't know anything about a subject. It is a quantifiable assessment. You, Spaceship and Scepti are ignorant about this stuff. It isn't meant to hurt your feelings, it is a fact verified by the things you say.

Who's house made of glass, doesn't throw people with stones.

There could be tens of answers but all not related or wrong. I say he will not get the correct answer because who knows the answer for sure knows that the earth is flat.

Take care of your pic.

How were any of the answers not related or wrong?
I think a bunch of people answered all of his questions pretty concisely.
I think it is you who resides in the glass house.

Besides, he's right. Scepti has shown a few times in this thread alone that he has no idea what he is talking about.
That, or he refuses to even try to comprehend anything other than what he knows.
Both are equally as terrible.

I understand Scepti, and I exceeded what he achieved.
You're not on that way at all, you're on the opposite one.
You think we don't understand your science, we do understand it even more than you and we rejected it after knowing it and started to find another way. Both ways science and logic can never meet, that's why you think we don't understand you because you're using another language of a complete different way.

* Good that you don't think rotting room's pic is nice.
How did you strengthen his viewpoint on this subject at all?
There's absolutely nothing wrong about how this is explained.
It needs no revision.
I don't understand how/why it is acceptable for you to make baseless claims and completely dismiss things just because you want to reject them when they work perfectly fine.
If you think the explanation of this is flawed, then you do not understand it.
What do you mean science and logic can never meet? Maybe they never meet in your mind. You would probably get along with scepti and EarthisaSpaceship, as this seems to be a lacking in their minds as well.

There's really nothing complicated about this question, or the answers to the question.
Again, you really think that nobody thought of this before you?
Well, I guess one must have an incredible ego to dismiss empirical facts on a hunch and replace them with something that isn't even supported by any evidence.

On a side note, I like his pic.
I like yours, too.
Let's be civilized here.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:39:25 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Why wouldn't it have a tail?  Heat and energy from the sun travels towards the comet, melting the ices on it.  The gases are compelled to travel in the approximately same vector they are struck with, like a pool ball or something.
It's amazing what can happen in this vacuum of yours isn't it?
Normal things in earth's dome can exhibit a tail of fire or air but in a vacuum with nothing like that, it can still exhibit the very same thing, because the sun is shooting out it's beams and also pulling at the comet.

In a vacuum that is none existent.
Why do you people swallow this garbage, seriously, why do seemingly rational thinking people not see how absurd it all is?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 08:40:48 AM
I don't profess to be correct. That's where you make assumptions. I'm giving out my thoughts and sticking rigidly to them when the likes of you try and shoot them down and fail.

One thing I do know for absolute certainty and I mean 100% certainty..and that is, the earth is NOT a rotating globe, it is also not a stationary solid globe either, so logic has to kick in and this is where I'm at. Looking at what is more logical.
You just said you know something 100% for sure.
A few posts ago you said that nobody can know anything for sure.

If you claim to know something 100%, you are indeed professing to be correct.
No assumptions were made, in this regard, and you have validated that statement.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:42:51 AM
I don't profess to be correct. That's where you make assumptions. I'm giving out my thoughts and sticking rigidly to them when the likes of you try and shoot them down and fail.

One thing I do know for absolute certainty and I mean 100% certainty..and that is, the earth is NOT a rotating globe, it is also not a stationary solid globe either, so logic has to kick in and this is where I'm at. Looking at what is more logical.
You just said you know something 100% for sure.
A few posts ago you said that nobody can know anything for sure.

If you claim to know something 100%, you are indeed professing to be correct.
No assumptions were made, in this regard, and you have validated that statement.
I am correct on that part and to be honest, it shouldn't even need a great deal of thought to see it for what it is, which is nonsense.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 08:44:07 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Solar radiation and the solar wind.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 08:47:31 AM
It's amazing what can happen in this vacuum of yours isn't it?
Normal things in earth's dome can exhibit a tail of fire or air but in a vacuum with nothing like that, it can still exhibit the very same thing, because the sun is shooting out it's beams and also pulling at the comet.

In a vacuum that is none existent.
Why do you people swallow this garbage, seriously, why do seemingly rational thinking people not see how absurd it all is?
Comets only have tails when close to the Sun.
Further away, they are dark, icy, and very cold.
I think you are seriously misunderstanding what a vacuum is.
We have the ability to create vacuums here on Earth.
Are you trying to say that vacuums don't exist?

We swallow the garbage because we can see it for what it really is.
We can understand it.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 08:50:22 AM
I don't profess to be correct.
I am correct.
Anyways, tell me what simple observations of yours disprove a globe.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:53:06 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Solar radiation and the solar wind.
Easy isn't it. Anything can be explained in your vacuum. I mean, solar wind. Solar radiation, in a vacuum with bits of scattered matter just sitting there.

How anyone can believe for one second that something can propagate through a vacuum is beyond me...well, I'm fibbing there, because I suppose it would be hard for many people to even contemplate what a true vacuum actually means and how it would work, so to be told that is doesn't exist, is probably going beyond the brain frying stage...yet more informed thinkers should be able to at least start to grasp it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:55:23 AM
It's amazing what can happen in this vacuum of yours isn't it?
Normal things in earth's dome can exhibit a tail of fire or air but in a vacuum with nothing like that, it can still exhibit the very same thing, because the sun is shooting out it's beams and also pulling at the comet.

In a vacuum that is none existent.
Why do you people swallow this garbage, seriously, why do seemingly rational thinking people not see how absurd it all is?
Comets only have tails when close to the Sun.
Further away, they are dark, icy, and very cold.
I think you are seriously misunderstanding what a vacuum is.
We have the ability to create vacuums here on Earth.
Are you trying to say that vacuums don't exist?

We swallow the garbage because we can see it for what it really is.
We can understand it.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
No, I'm not TRYING to say a true vacuum doesn't exist. I'm telling you a true vacuum cannot exist.
We have the ability to EVACUATE air from a container, we do not have the ability to create a VACUUM.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2013, 08:57:27 AM
It's amazing what can happen in this vacuum of yours isn't it?
Normal things in earth's dome can exhibit a tail of fire or air but in a vacuum with nothing like that, it can still exhibit the very same thing, because the sun is shooting out it's beams and also pulling at the comet.

In a vacuum that is none existent.
Why do you people swallow this garbage, seriously, why do seemingly rational thinking people not see how absurd it all is?
Comets only have tails when close to the Sun.
Further away, they are dark, icy, and very cold.
I think you are seriously misunderstanding what a vacuum is.
We have the ability to create vacuums here on Earth.
Are you trying to say that vacuums don't exist?

We swallow the garbage because we can see it for what it really is.
We can understand it.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
No, I'm not TRYING to say a true vacuum doesn't exist. I'm telling you a true vacuum cannot exist.
We have the ability to EVACUATE air from a container, we do not have the ability to create a VACUUM.

What is the difference between a container evacuated of air and a vacuum?  Not in its properties, just in its definition?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 08:58:55 AM
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:00:06 AM
I don't profess to be correct.
I am correct.
Anyways, tell me what simple observations of yours disprove a globe.
The most basic one is what all normal people are born with. A sense of balance. Of course it can be debunked in your ways, so can everything. I'm just giving you a very basic simple answer.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:03:38 AM
It's amazing what can happen in this vacuum of yours isn't it?
Normal things in earth's dome can exhibit a tail of fire or air but in a vacuum with nothing like that, it can still exhibit the very same thing, because the sun is shooting out it's beams and also pulling at the comet.

In a vacuum that is none existent.
Why do you people swallow this garbage, seriously, why do seemingly rational thinking people not see how absurd it all is?
Comets only have tails when close to the Sun.
Further away, they are dark, icy, and very cold.
I think you are seriously misunderstanding what a vacuum is.
We have the ability to create vacuums here on Earth.
Are you trying to say that vacuums don't exist?

We swallow the garbage because we can see it for what it really is.
We can understand it.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
No, I'm not TRYING to say a true vacuum doesn't exist. I'm telling you a true vacuum cannot exist.
We have the ability to EVACUATE air from a container, we do not have the ability to create a VACUUM.

What is the difference between a container evacuated of air and a vacuum?  Not in its properties, just in its definition?
I didn't say EVACUATED of air, I said we have the ability to EVACUATE air, meaning we can take out most but not all.
A vacuum , a true vacuum contains no matter. Basically to achieve it would make it none existent, which is why we cannot achieve it, obviously.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:11:18 AM
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 09:12:20 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Solar radiation and the solar wind.
Easy isn't it. Anything can be explained in your vacuum. I mean, solar wind. Solar radiation, in a vacuum with bits of scattered matter just sitting there.

How anyone can believe for one second that something can propagate through a vacuum is beyond me...well, I'm fibbing there, because I suppose it would be hard for many people to even contemplate what a true vacuum actually means and how it would work, so to be told that is doesn't exist, is probably going beyond the brain frying stage...yet more informed thinkers should be able to at least start to grasp it.

Yes it is easy to grasp. How you can believe that nothing can travel in vacuum is beyond me...
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 09:13:02 AM
That link says that light can create sound, not that sound can create light.  That link also does not say that light requires a medium to propagate.  What does that link have to do with your assertion that sceptimatic is right?

Oh, my mistake.  I've already mentioned sonoluminescence in another thread.  I thought most of us already knew about it:
Sonarluminescence- is this nuclear fusion? (http://#ws)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:13:37 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Solar radiation and the solar wind.
Easy isn't it. Anything can be explained in your vacuum. I mean, solar wind. Solar radiation, in a vacuum with bits of scattered matter just sitting there.

How anyone can believe for one second that something can propagate through a vacuum is beyond me...well, I'm fibbing there, because I suppose it would be hard for many people to even contemplate what a true vacuum actually means and how it would work, so to be told that is doesn't exist, is probably going beyond the brain frying stage...yet more informed thinkers should be able to at least start to grasp it.

Yes it is easy to grasp. How you can believe that nothing can travel in vacuum is beyond me...
Common sense alone should tell you it's impossible
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 09:17:46 AM
Think of all the sound waves that are travelling through our oceans....no wonder our Earth shines.   :)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:21:06 AM
Think of all the sound waves that are travelling through our oceans....no wonder our Earth shines.   :)
Think of whales being able to detect their sounds from hundreds or more miles away.
Imagine of our ears were more astute, this earth would be singing and we would probably be walking about shouting, "please, please, make it stop, make it stop, I beg of you."  ;D
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 09:21:42 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Solar radiation and the solar wind.
Easy isn't it. Anything can be explained in your vacuum. I mean, solar wind. Solar radiation, in a vacuum with bits of scattered matter just sitting there.

How anyone can believe for one second that something can propagate through a vacuum is beyond me...well, I'm fibbing there, because I suppose it would be hard for many people to even contemplate what a true vacuum actually means and how it would work, so to be told that is doesn't exist, is probably going beyond the brain frying stage...yet more informed thinkers should be able to at least start to grasp it.

Yes it is easy to grasp. How you can believe that nothing can travel in vacuum is beyond me...
Common sense alone should tell you it's impossible

Maybe not for you but my common sense says it is possible.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:25:29 AM
Here's something for you roundies:
Why in the hell would a comet have a tail if it moving about in your so called VACUUM?

Solar radiation and the solar wind.
Easy isn't it. Anything can be explained in your vacuum. I mean, solar wind. Solar radiation, in a vacuum with bits of scattered matter just sitting there.

How anyone can believe for one second that something can propagate through a vacuum is beyond me...well, I'm fibbing there, because I suppose it would be hard for many people to even contemplate what a true vacuum actually means and how it would work, so to be told that is doesn't exist, is probably going beyond the brain frying stage...yet more informed thinkers should be able to at least start to grasp it.

Yes it is easy to grasp. How you can believe that nothing can travel in vacuum is beyond me...
Common sense alone should tell you it's impossible

Maybe not for you but my common sense says it is possible.
Ok then, let's make it simple. If all matter does not exist on this earth, what would this earth be?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2013, 09:26:19 AM
Empty space.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:29:12 AM
Empty space.
And what is empty space?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 09:31:39 AM
Ok then, let's make it simple. If all matter does not exist on this earth, what would this earth be?

This is a wrong premise as Earth itself is composed of matter.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:33:14 AM
Ok then, let's make it simple. If all matter does not exist on this earth, what would this earth be?

This is a wrong premise as Earth itself is composed of matter.
How about reading what I said again and absorb it before answering.
Can anyone else understand what I'm asking?
Rama can.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 09:44:37 AM
Ok then, let's make it simple. If all matter does not exist on this earth, what would this earth be?

This is a wrong premise as Earth itself is composed of matter.
How about reading what I said again and absorb it before answering.
Can anyone else understand what I'm asking?
Rama can.

How about you read again what you have said?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 09:50:02 AM
Look it wouldn't be nothing. It would be empty space. That is not nothing. Science doesn't use the term incorrectly but you've soaked it up incorrectly. Nothing cannot live beside something.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 09:55:07 AM
Look it wouldn't be nothing. It would be empty space. That is not nothing. Science doesn't use the term incorrectly but you've soaked it up incorrectly. Nothing cannot live beside something.
What is empty space?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:01:05 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 16, 2013, 10:05:08 AM
What is empty space?
No air pressure.  Some loose particles of air, dust, asteroids, radiation, and such

Things move about in empty space just fine scepti.  Asteroids, planets, stars, dust, light, individual molecules of air, etc.   It's merely an absence of air pressure. 

Anyway, I'm still curious regarding your view that light is an end product of sound.  If lightning strikes close by, I see and hear it at almost the same time.  If it strikes far away, I see it, and have to wait much longer to hear it.

Myself and a few other did an experiment once with a rifle and a target 400 meters away.  We positioned ourselves off to the side of the target a bit behind some trees.   Someone next to the shooter keyed the mic on a radio as he fired.  We heard the gunshot on our radio, followed a second later by the snap (the bullet was traveling faster than sound) and the bullet impacting, followed a another second later by the actual gunshot sound.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?



Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 10:07:35 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
You answered your own question.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:10:03 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

No. These are just two different phenomena cause by something else. A fire creates light and sound for instance. Neither creates each other.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:11:00 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 10:12:23 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:12:48 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

I'm not implying I know what happened in the first moments of the big bang. I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between nothing and space because they are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:14:43 AM
What is empty space?
No air pressure.  Some loose particles of air, dust, asteroids, radiation, and such

Things move about in empty space just fine scepti.  Asteroids, planets, stars, dust, light, individual molecules of air, etc.   It's merely an absence of air pressure. 

Anyway, I'm still curious regarding your view that light is an end product of sound.  If lightning strikes close by, I see and hear it at almost the same time.  If it strikes far away, I see it, and have to wait much longer to hear it.

Myself and a few other did an experiment once with a rifle and a target 400 meters away.  We positioned ourselves off to the side of the target a bit behind some trees.   Someone next to the shooter keyed the mic on a radio as he fired.  We heard the gunshot on our radio, followed a second later by the snap (the bullet was traveling faster than sound) and the bullet impacting, followed a another second later by the actual gunshot sound.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
To know the answer to this, just think about that lightning strike.

To YOU, the sound comes later. In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning and because you are already looking and focused , you see it, then your primitive ears catch the vibration of it.

Does this explain it?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:16:21 AM
What is empty space?
No air pressure.  Some loose particles of air, dust, asteroids, radiation, and such

Things move about in empty space just fine scepti.  Asteroids, planets, stars, dust, light, individual molecules of air, etc.   It's merely an absence of air pressure. 

Anyway, I'm still curious regarding your view that light is an end product of sound.  If lightning strikes close by, I see and hear it at almost the same time.  If it strikes far away, I see it, and have to wait much longer to hear it.

Myself and a few other did an experiment once with a rifle and a target 400 meters away.  We positioned ourselves off to the side of the target a bit behind some trees.   Someone next to the shooter keyed the mic on a radio as he fired.  We heard the gunshot on our radio, followed a second later by the snap (the bullet was traveling faster than sound) and the bullet impacting, followed a another second later by the actual gunshot sound.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
To know the answer to this, just think about that lightning strike.

To YOU, the sound comes later. In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning and because you are already looking and focused , you see it, then your primitive ears catch the vibration of it.

Does this explain it?

Weird because I'm pretty sure if you and I were in a dark room you could hear me knock you out just fine without seeing a thing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:17:15 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

No. These are just two different phenomena cause by something else. A fire creates light and sound for instance. Neither creates each other.
To create a fire you have to create a friction and to create a friction you have to create a vibration and creating this has to start with sound which creates the energy that you see and hear and what not.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 10:19:07 AM
 :-X I have nothing to say but "man lost his mind in this strange age".
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2013, 10:19:18 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
You answered your own question.

This appears to be in violation of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum.  You need to think it through a little further.  I also want to know how I can make rainbows come out of my mouth by singing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:20:53 AM
:-X I have nothing to say but "man lost his mind in this strange age".
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

That's hilarious coming from somebody who thinks the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2013, 10:21:52 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

No. These are just two different phenomena cause by something else. A fire creates light and sound for instance. Neither creates each other.
To create a fire you have to create a friction and to create a friction you have to create a vibration and creating this has to start with sound which creates the energy that you see and hear and what not.

There are many ways to create fire which do not involve friction.  A vibration does not always create sound either.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:23:50 AM
What is empty space?
No air pressure.  Some loose particles of air, dust, asteroids, radiation, and such

Things move about in empty space just fine scepti.  Asteroids, planets, stars, dust, light, individual molecules of air, etc.   It's merely an absence of air pressure. 

Anyway, I'm still curious regarding your view that light is an end product of sound.  If lightning strikes close by, I see and hear it at almost the same time.  If it strikes far away, I see it, and have to wait much longer to hear it.

Myself and a few other did an experiment once with a rifle and a target 400 meters away.  We positioned ourselves off to the side of the target a bit behind some trees.   Someone next to the shooter keyed the mic on a radio as he fired.  We heard the gunshot on our radio, followed a second later by the snap (the bullet was traveling faster than sound) and the bullet impacting, followed a another second later by the actual gunshot sound.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
To know the answer to this, just think about that lightning strike.

To YOU, the sound comes later. In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning and because you are already looking and focused , you see it, then your primitive ears catch the vibration of it.

Does this explain it?

Weird because I'm pretty sure if you and I were in a dark room you could hear me knock you out just fine without seeing a thing.
I probably wouldn't hear the punch or feel it. Maybe I would from someone that could punch,  ;) but anyway, if it was dark, then I wouldn't see any light, would I, so that's a bit pointless.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:24:37 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:25:37 AM
What is empty space?
No air pressure.  Some loose particles of air, dust, asteroids, radiation, and such

Things move about in empty space just fine scepti.  Asteroids, planets, stars, dust, light, individual molecules of air, etc.   It's merely an absence of air pressure. 

Anyway, I'm still curious regarding your view that light is an end product of sound.  If lightning strikes close by, I see and hear it at almost the same time.  If it strikes far away, I see it, and have to wait much longer to hear it.

Myself and a few other did an experiment once with a rifle and a target 400 meters away.  We positioned ourselves off to the side of the target a bit behind some trees.   Someone next to the shooter keyed the mic on a radio as he fired.  We heard the gunshot on our radio, followed a second later by the snap (the bullet was traveling faster than sound) and the bullet impacting, followed a another second later by the actual gunshot sound.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
To know the answer to this, just think about that lightning strike.

To YOU, the sound comes later. In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning and because you are already looking and focused , you see it, then your primitive ears catch the vibration of it.

Does this explain it?

Weird because I'm pretty sure if you and I were in a dark room you could hear me knock you out just fine without seeing a thing.
I probably wouldn't hear the punch or feel it. Maybe I would from someone that could punch,  ;) but anyway, if it was dark, then I wouldn't see any light, would I, so that's a bit pointless.

Yes so the sound of me knocking you out ISN'T producing light. End of story.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:25:50 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

I'm not implying I know what happened in the first moments of the big bang. I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between nothing and space because they are not the same thing.
And I'm trying to help you understand that no matter means no existence.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:28:28 AM
What is empty space?
No air pressure.  Some loose particles of air, dust, asteroids, radiation, and such

Things move about in empty space just fine scepti.  Asteroids, planets, stars, dust, light, individual molecules of air, etc.   It's merely an absence of air pressure. 

Anyway, I'm still curious regarding your view that light is an end product of sound.  If lightning strikes close by, I see and hear it at almost the same time.  If it strikes far away, I see it, and have to wait much longer to hear it.

Myself and a few other did an experiment once with a rifle and a target 400 meters away.  We positioned ourselves off to the side of the target a bit behind some trees.   Someone next to the shooter keyed the mic on a radio as he fired.  We heard the gunshot on our radio, followed a second later by the snap (the bullet was traveling faster than sound) and the bullet impacting, followed a another second later by the actual gunshot sound.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
To know the answer to this, just think about that lightning strike.

To YOU, the sound comes later. In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning and because you are already looking and focused , you see it, then your primitive ears catch the vibration of it.

Does this explain it?

Weird because I'm pretty sure if you and I were in a dark room you could hear me knock you out just fine without seeing a thing.
I probably wouldn't hear the punch or feel it. Maybe I would from someone that could punch,  ;) but anyway, if it was dark, then I wouldn't see any light, would I, so that's a bit pointless.

Yes so the sound of me knocking you out ISN'T producing light. End of story.
Why should it?

Energy/vibration and frequency. Your hand produces this in slow motion compared to light producing friction.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 16, 2013, 10:29:18 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

I'm not implying I know what happened in the first moments of the big bang. I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between nothing and space because they are not the same thing.
And I'm trying to help you understand that no matter means no existence.

You have an experiment or objective observation to back that up, then?  If not, there's no reason to believe such.

To be clear, common sense is not an objective observation, as it's reliant on the person making the observation.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:29:43 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

I'm not implying I know what happened in the first moments of the big bang. I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between nothing and space because they are not the same thing.
And I'm trying to help you understand that no matter means no existence.

Are you talking about life? Cause if you are then this statement is true but what we have been talking about is your problem with space when you say it is nothing. It isn't.

As far as light propagating through space, we've been through that too. Light is not like sound. Light doesn't need a medium because it is both a particle and a wave and because it goes at the speed of light, it doesn't experience time. Light is essentially a timeless time traveler.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 16, 2013, 10:31:34 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
You answered your own question.


To know the answer to this, just think about that lightning strike.

To YOU, the sound comes later. In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning and because you are already looking and focused , you see it, then your primitive ears catch the vibration of it.

Does this explain it?

So we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.




Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 10:33:56 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.
I have perfectly working ears, thank you. It seems LED produces light due to electrons losing energy (electroluminescence).

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/PnJunction-LED-E.svg/395px-PnJunction-LED-E.svg.png)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 16, 2013, 10:34:50 AM
In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning

This is also interesting.  If the sound created the lightning, what created the sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:37:24 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

I'm not implying I know what happened in the first moments of the big bang. I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between nothing and space because they are not the same thing.
And I'm trying to help you understand that no matter means no existence.

Are you talking about life? Cause if you are then this statement is true but what we have been talking about is your problem with space when you say it is nothing. It isn't.

As far as light propagating through space, we've been through that too. Light is not like sound. Light doesn't need a medium because it is both a particle and a wave and because it goes at the speed of light, it doesn't experience time. Light is essentially a timeless time traveler.
Light is the end product of sound. light is caused by friction, vibration, frequency. Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Why can't you ever explain anything other than to say "think carefully and you will see". Imagine if that's how education worked. No real explanations, just "think carefully and you will see" footnoted on the bottom of every page of every text book.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:41:13 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

Again, how is light the end product of sound when light travels much faster?
You answered your own question.


To know the answer to this, just think about that lightning strike.

To YOU, the sound comes later. In the cloud, the sound creates the lightning and because you are already looking and focused , you see it, then your primitive ears catch the vibration of it.

Does this explain it?

So we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.
They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:42:36 AM
Why can't you ever explain anything other than to say "think carefully and you will see". Imagine if that's how education worked. No real explanations, just "think carefully and you will see" footnoted on the bottom of every page of every text book.
It requires people to think carefully. Try and think outside of the indoctrinated box and you can see that I'm correct.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2013, 10:43:26 AM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 16, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.

Forget our ears, Microphones should be able to pick up the wave form of light if it is indeed a form of sound.

Light and Sound are not inherently causally linked. Light can be produced without sound, and sound can be produced without light. Light propagates where Sound cannot, and Sound propagates through materials that block or reflect light.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:49:24 AM
What an explanation everyone. "Just think about it". How genius.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:51:37 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.

Forget our ears, Microphones should be able to pick up the wave form of light if it is indeed a form of sound.

Light and Sound are not inherently causally linked. Light can be produced without sound, and sound can be produced without light. Light propagates where Sound cannot, and Sound propagates through materials that block or reflect light.
Stand your microphone out when it's thundering and lightning, it will pick up the sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
What an explanation everyone. "Just think about it". How genius.
I've gave you the explanation and now I'm asking you to think about it. What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 16, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
So we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.
They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 16, 2013, 10:57:09 AM
You haven't explained it at all. All you've said is that sound creates light without explaining how this is possible nor presenting any evidence. The only thing that came close to an explanation was when you said "think about it". Which is a joke. You are a nut job dude.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:00:30 AM
So we can agree then that light and sound are completely different and travel by completely different means.
They are exactly the same thing. Light is sound, it's the end product of sound.
Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
Because your eyes are already focused on the end product of that sound that produces the light, so the sound follows behind it.

It's like you seeing the head light of my bike and as I get closer, you hear the whizz of my tyre dynamo that produces that light. Crude analogy I know.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 16, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
Just a point.. Light is electromagnetic radiation, movement of photons, or em waves, or whatever you want to think, travels at 2.998x10^8 m/s and has no mass. Sound is the movement of air particles in longitudinal wave patterns. The molecules in the air hit each other in a sort of domino effect, and sound waves dont actually have substance. Light can exist in a vacuum, sound cannot. The average sound wave moves at 343m/s in air, and faster depending on the medium it is going through. A denser material will allow less "space" before the particles "hit" each other and cause the sound wave, and thus the wave moves faster. They are two completely different phenomena.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 11:02:14 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

Okay, I watched this live a bit ago and I figured it was relevant enough to post :
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing (http://#ws)

The fact is, scepti, we don't know what nothing is.
Watch the whole thing.
Very interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
You haven't explained it at all. All you've said is that sound creates light without explaining how this is possible nor presenting any evidence. The only thing that came close to an explanation was when you said "think about it". Which is a joke. You are a nut job dude.
And yet, here you are taking me on, me being a nut job an all.  :P
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:05:04 AM
Just a point.. Light is electromagnetic radiation, movement of photons, or em waves, or whatever you want to think, travels at 2.998x10^8 m/s and has no mass. Sound is the movement of air particles in longitudinal wave patterns. The molecules in the air hit each other in a sort of domino effect, and sound waves dont actually have substance. Light can exist in a vacuum, sound cannot. The average sound wave moves at 343m/s in air, and faster depending on the medium it is going through. A denser material will allow less "space" before the particles "hit" each other and cause the sound wave, and thus the wave moves faster. They are two completely different phenomena.
You can stick any amount of equations onto it as you want to. The top and bottom is simple, though.
If there is no sound, there is no light and that's the truth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:06:09 AM
Let me help you understand it like this. When the big bang happened space and time began to exist. Before this, there was no space and there was no time. It is theorized that space has a boundary. Before this there was nothing. The space between here and Mars for instance is not that same concept.
Trying to make me understand something like that is incredible, it really is. Why in the hell do you follow this?
The big bang started from nothing, basically. That's what you are implying. Come on, you're smarter than that. What the hell have they done to you people? Have they plugged your heads into the national grid or something?

Okay, I watched this live a bit ago and I figured it was relevant enough to post :
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing (http://#ws)

The fact is, scepti, we don't know what nothing is.
Watch the whole thing.
Very interesting stuff.
I'll make a point in watching it later on.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 16, 2013, 11:11:08 AM
Just a point.. Light is electromagnetic radiation, movement of photons, or em waves, or whatever you want to think, travels at 2.998x10^8 m/s and has no mass. Sound is the movement of air particles in longitudinal wave patterns. The molecules in the air hit each other in a sort of domino effect, and sound waves dont actually have substance. Light can exist in a vacuum, sound cannot. The average sound wave moves at 343m/s in air, and faster depending on the medium it is going through. A denser material will allow less "space" before the particles "hit" each other and cause the sound wave, and thus the wave moves faster. They are two completely different phenomena.
You can stick any amount of equations onto it as you want to. The top and bottom is simple, though.
If there is no sound, there is no light and that's the truth.
what kind of sound does the sun make? The stars? Surely they must have a particular frequency, and if so what is this frequency? Your statement also implies sound makes light. So, go into a dark room, throw something, and try to see if it creates light. Also, radio waves are electromagnetic radiation, aka light, at a different frequency, so they should make a sound as well.

Your statement is false unless you can show that light coming from any of those sources has a sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:16:13 AM
Just a point.. Light is electromagnetic radiation, movement of photons, or em waves, or whatever you want to think, travels at 2.998x10^8 m/s and has no mass. Sound is the movement of air particles in longitudinal wave patterns. The molecules in the air hit each other in a sort of domino effect, and sound waves dont actually have substance. Light can exist in a vacuum, sound cannot. The average sound wave moves at 343m/s in air, and faster depending on the medium it is going through. A denser material will allow less "space" before the particles "hit" each other and cause the sound wave, and thus the wave moves faster. They are two completely different phenomena.
You can stick any amount of equations onto it as you want to. The top and bottom is simple, though.
If there is no sound, there is no light and that's the truth.
what kind of sound does the sun make? The stars? Surely they must have a particular frequency, and if so what is this frequency? Your statement also implies sound makes light. So, go into a dark room, throw something, and try to see if it creates light. Also, radio waves are electromagnetic radiation, aka light, at a different frequency, so they should make a sound as well.

Your statement is false unless you can show that light coming from any of those sources has a sound.
It all depends on what you throw and how fast you throw it.
Once light is created, it's sound that started it off, right?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 11:18:02 AM
Why can't you ever explain anything other than to say "think carefully and you will see". Imagine if that's how education worked. No real explanations, just "think carefully and you will see" footnoted on the bottom of every page of every text book.
That's because you've been conditioned to figure out things with complicated explanations when in reality, it's a matter of simplicity and common sense.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2013, 11:19:10 AM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:19:21 AM
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

The Power of Friction (http://#)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:23:29 AM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 11:28:59 AM
Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
This was already answered.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 16, 2013, 11:33:01 AM
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 16, 2013, 11:35:23 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.

Forget our ears, Microphones should be able to pick up the wave form of light if it is indeed a form of sound.

Light and Sound are not inherently causally linked. Light can be produced without sound, and sound can be produced without light. Light propagates where Sound cannot, and Sound propagates through materials that block or reflect light.
Stand your microphone out when it's thundering and lightning, it will pick up the sound.

My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 11:35:33 AM
what kind of sound does the sun make? The stars? Surely they must have a particular frequency, and if so what is this frequency? Your statement also implies sound makes light. So, go into a dark room, throw something, and try to see if it creates light. Also, radio waves are electromagnetic radiation, aka light, at a different frequency, so they should make a sound as well.

Your statement is false unless you can show that light coming from any of those sources has a sound.
Here are 3 links for you:



[url=http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/confirmed-aurora-borealis-makes-sounds]http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/confirmed-aurora-borealis-makes-sounds (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/confirmed-aurora-borealis-makes-sounds)[/url]

How to Turn Sound Into Light: Sonoluminescence (http://#ws)

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-03/sound-becomes-light (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-03/sound-becomes-light)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 11:37:46 AM
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

The Power of Friction (http://#)

What is the relation between this and the OP?!
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 11:38:54 AM
My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Are you not smart enough to realize that humans cannot hear every sound?  Unless that microphone is hooked up to something that measures sound waves, you probably won't hear anything through a speaker.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 16, 2013, 11:39:33 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

No. These are just two different phenomena cause by something else. A fire creates light and sound for instance. Neither creates each other.
To create a fire you have to create a friction and to create a friction you have to create a vibration and creating this has to start with sound which creates the energy that you see and hear and what not.
You can create a fire with a magnifying glass or by say putting potassium in water.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:39:34 AM
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter, which would mean a none existence, which means they are using the word wrong.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.

Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:42:52 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.

Forget our ears, Microphones should be able to pick up the wave form of light if it is indeed a form of sound.

Light and Sound are not inherently causally linked. Light can be produced without sound, and sound can be produced without light. Light propagates where Sound cannot, and Sound propagates through materials that block or reflect light.
Stand your microphone out when it's thundering and lightning, it will pick up the sound.

My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Your microphone is not sensitive enough to pick up the vibration of those items but it is good enough to pick up the sound from that lightning strike.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 11:43:46 AM
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
This is a classical intro into QM. QM is definitely full of weird stuffs. Even Einstein designed a thought experiment to try to disprove the idea of entanglement.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:44:33 AM
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

The Power of Friction (http://#)

What is the relation between this and the OP?!
A slightly different path. It often happens.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:46:10 AM
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

No. These are just two different phenomena cause by something else. A fire creates light and sound for instance. Neither creates each other.
To create a fire you have to create a friction and to create a friction you have to create a vibration and creating this has to start with sound which creates the energy that you see and hear and what not.
You can create a fire with a magnifying glass or by say putting potassium in water.
And what do you think it creating the light that shines through the magnifying glass and what do you think the reaction is with potassium in water?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Happy Forever on October 16, 2013, 11:46:18 AM
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

The Power of Friction (http://#)

What is the relation between this and the OP?!
A slightly different path. It often happens.

Ok but not slightly, it's completely different.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 11:46:26 AM
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

The Power of Friction (http://#)
What is the relation between this and the OP?!
The only relation is that both are from the same poster.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 16, 2013, 11:50:38 AM
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
They did.  Check the Oxford English.  In fact, I'll do it for you.
Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary
noun (plural vacuums or vacua /-jʊə/)
1.  a space entirely devoid of matter.
         a space or container from which the air has been completely or partly removed.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/vacuum?q=vacuum (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/vacuum?q=vacuum)

Notice the elaboration under the definition.  The word itself means both true vacuum, a space devoid of matter, and near vacuum, a space mostly devoid of matter.  In the context of space and experiments, it is almost always used to mean near vacuum, as there has been no observed instance of a true vacuum in reality.

The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter,
Only sometimes.
which would mean a none existence,
It means no such thing, space devoid of matter is just empty space.  There is no reason to believe that space ceases to exist.
which means they are using the word wrong.
Or they use a different definition.  Which, they do.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.
So by your standard, the use of the phrase "A bit cold" shouldn't be allowed, because cold means lack of heat, and no matter how low something's temperature is, it still has heat meaning cold shouldn't be used.
Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.
You're the one that started it by insisting vacuum means a lack of anything, rather than a space totally or near totally evacuated of matter.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:51:36 AM
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

The Power of Friction (http://#)

What is the relation between this and the OP?!
A slightly different path. It often happens.

Ok but not slightly, it's completely different.
Yes it is, you are correct.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 16, 2013, 11:53:30 AM
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter, which would mean a none existence, which means they are using the word wrong.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.

Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 11:54:37 AM
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
They did.  Check the Oxford English.  In fact, I'll do it for you.
Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary
noun (plural vacuums or vacua /-jʊə/)
1.  a space entirely devoid of matter.
         a space or container from which the air has been completely or partly removed.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/vacuum?q=vacuum (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/vacuum?q=vacuum)

Notice the elaboration under the definition.  The word itself means both true vacuum, a space devoid of matter, and near vacuum, a space mostly devoid of matter.  In the context of space and experiments, it is almost always used to mean near vacuum, as there has been no observed instance of a true vacuum in reality.

The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter,
Only sometimes.
which would mean a none existence,
It means no such thing, space devoid of matter is just empty space.  There is no reason to believe that space ceases to exist.
which means they are using the word wrong.
Or they use a different definition.  Which, they do.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.
So by your standard, the use of the phrase "A bit cold" shouldn't be allowed, because cold means lack of heat, and no matter how low something's temperature is, it still has heat meaning cold shouldn't be used.
Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.
You're the one that started it by insisting vacuum means a lack of anything, rather than a space totally or near totally evacuated of matter.
As I said, it's not worth arguing over. You've had your say and fair enough. We will leave it at that, because no head way will be gained from it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2013, 12:01:21 PM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 12:04:02 PM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
I don't see the relevance of it .
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 16, 2013, 12:04:18 PM

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
Because your eyes are already focused on the end product of that sound that produces the light, so the sound follows behind it.
Are you saying there is no difference in the time between the lighting we see and the thunder we hear when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike?  I've witnessed lighting both close and far.  The further away lightning is, the longer it takes to hear, regardless of my eyes being focused on it the moment of the strike.

It's like you seeing the head light of my bike and as I get closer, you hear the whizz of my tyre dynamo that produces that light. Crude analogy I know.
pointless analogy actually.  A constant light source and sound from a source moving toward me at a much slower pace than the light and sound it's emitting versus a momentary light and sound source.

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
This was already answered.
No it wasn't.  scepti has not answered why it takes longer to hear the thunder after seeing the lightning the further away it is.  He has only stated our ears register it slower. 

If light and sound are traveling the same speed, there would be no difference in the time between seeing and hearing when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike.

Yet there is a difference, a big difference.  Why.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2013, 12:07:40 PM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
I don't see the relevance of it .
Well, you keep saying that sound and light are the same thing, so I was wondering if you can explain how light can act like a particle when sound is a wave?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 12:10:25 PM

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
Because your eyes are already focused on the end product of that sound that produces the light, so the sound follows behind it.
Are you saying there is no difference in the time between the lighting we see and the thunder we hear when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike?  I've witnessed lighting both close and far.  The further away lightning is, the longer it takes to hear, regardless of my eyes being focused on it the moment of the strike.

It's like you seeing the head light of my bike and as I get closer, you hear the whizz of my tyre dynamo that produces that light. Crude analogy I know.
pointless analogy actually.  A constant light source and sound from a source moving toward me at a much slower pace than the light and sound it's emitting versus a momentary light and sound source.

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
This was already answered.
No it wasn't.  scepti has not answered why it takes longer to hear the thunder after seeing the lightning the further away it is.  He has only stated our ears register it slower. 

If light and sound are traveling the same speed, there would be no difference in the time between seeing and hearing when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike.

Yet there is a difference, a big difference.  Why.
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 12:16:36 PM
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?
Lightning happens first.  Lightning superheats the air that it travels through greatly reducing the air pressure.  As cooler air rushes in to equalize the pressure, the sound that we call thunder occurs.
What creates the lightning.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2013, 12:21:36 PM
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?
Lightning happens first.  Lightning superheats the air that it travels through greatly reducing the air pressure.  As cooler air rushes in to equalize the pressure, the sound that we call thunder occurs.
What creates the lightning.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_lightning.htm (http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_lightning.htm)
Quote
Lightning is produced in thunderstorms when liquid and ice particles above the freezing level collide, and build up large electrical fields in the clouds. Once these electric fields become large enough, a giant "spark" occurs between them (or between them and the ground) like static electricity, reducing the charge separation. The lightning spark can occur between clouds, between the cloud and air, or between the cloud and ground.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 12:25:17 PM
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?
Lightning happens first.  Lightning superheats the air that it travels through greatly reducing the air pressure.  As cooler air rushes in to equalize the pressure, the sound that we call thunder occurs.
What creates the lightning.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_lightning.htm (http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_lightning.htm)
Quote
Lightning is produced in thunderstorms when liquid and ice particles above the freezing level collide, and build up large electrical fields in the clouds. Once these electric fields become large enough, a giant "spark" occurs between them (or between them and the ground) like static electricity, reducing the charge separation. The lightning spark can occur between clouds, between the cloud and air, or between the cloud and ground.
Friction right? Dense friction.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2013, 12:31:20 PM
Yes, friction causes static electricity.  But friction does not directly cause thunder.
Dense friction.
What is "dense friction"?  ???
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 12:42:02 PM
Yes, friction causes static electricity.  But friction does not directly cause thunder.
Dense friction.
What is "dense friction"?  ???
Friction through a dense atmosphere, as in dense clouds, I didn't think you needed to have this clarified.
Anyway, the friction is the cause of the thunder by causing the static, so it thunders and lightning  (to our perception in close up) at the same time but the reality is, the friction comes before the light and as I said...close up you will hear the thunder and lighting practically in unison but from distance, you see the light before hearing the thunder because your ears have to wait for the sound wave to reach them.

Like striking a match or striking the flint in your lighter, it's all friction. vibration frequency and energy build up from that, that determines what you see or hear dependent on the frequency.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 16, 2013, 12:49:09 PM
you see the light before hearing the thunder because your ears have to wait for the sound wave to reach them.
So light and sound are separate then and travel at very different speeds.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2013, 12:56:41 PM
Anyway, the friction is the cause of the thunder by causing the static...
And what exactly is static?  Static is electricity, right?  And lightning is the discharge of this static electricity, right?  This electric discharge vibrates the air, right?  So, we have lightning which is static electricity and we have thunder which is vibrating air; two completely different things. 

So can we agree that friction can cause completely different phenomena?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2013, 12:57:13 PM
Scepti, just my two cents,
You're misinterpreting this whole thing again.
Sound does not make light.
Albeit, in certain situations under some precise conditions, sound waves can be employed to produce light.
Mostly it is a byproduct of different chemical and nuclear reactions, or electricity.
The reason friction can cause light to be emitted is that the higher thermal energy something has, the more its electrons are excited.
Obviously, prolonged friction increases thermal energy.
The more the electrons are excited, the higher the electrons jump from their normal state.
The higher they jump, the higher the energy of the photon released is.
That's why molten steel glows.
That's why friction makes things glow.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 16, 2013, 01:04:07 PM
My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Are you not smart enough to realize that humans cannot hear every sound?  Unless that microphone is hooked up to something that measures sound waves, you probably won't hear anything through a speaker.

Sorry, did my speaking about Waveform previously not clue you in that I'm not talking about what the f*ck humans can hear and instead what will produce measurable waveforms that a Microphone can record and a computer can display?
Seriously, you wonder why some people get angry and you toss out lines like 'Are you not smart enough to realize humans cannot hear every sound' without even paying goddamn attention to the thread?

For the attention impaired, My Microphone will RECORD NO WAVEFORMS for those things, because they are not sounds.

Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.

Forget our ears, Microphones should be able to pick up the wave form of light if it is indeed a form of sound.

Light and Sound are not inherently causally linked. Light can be produced without sound, and sound can be produced without light. Light propagates where Sound cannot, and Sound propagates through materials that block or reflect light.
Stand your microphone out when it's thundering and lightning, it will pick up the sound.

My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Your microphone is not sensitive enough to pick up the vibration of those items but it is good enough to pick up the sound from that lightning strike.

My Microphone will pick up the thunder, because thunder is a sound. It will not pick up Lightning or a Lightbulb or even a High intensity laser because THESE ARE NOT SOUNDS.

And no, 'Dense Friction' is not involved in the buildup of electricity that is the precursor to a Lightning strike.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 02:12:57 PM
Pie eater,
Go eat some pie and calm down.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 16, 2013, 02:36:58 PM
Light is the end product of sound.

This from someone who thinks the inverse square law is nonsense?? Please excuse me while I ROTFLMAO.

Okay, now that I'm done with that,

sound:
1.
a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

light:
1. Physics
a. Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye.

Yeah, one and the same! ::)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2013, 03:57:16 PM
hewholikespie, please watch your language in the upper fora.  If you feel like using the "F" word, please use it in the CN and AR sections.

Thanks
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 16, 2013, 08:30:27 PM
Pie eater,
Go eat some pie and calm down.

Actually read the thread before replying half cocked.

You chose to tone troll instead of answer any of my points. QED.

hewholikespie, please watch your language in the upper fora.  If you feel like using the "F" word, please use it in the CN and AR sections.

Thanks

Are you seriously trying to censor my use of the word f*ck? Not as an insult but just to use it?

That's frankly ridiculous. Are there any other naughty words you want to prohibit while we're at it?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Alchemist21 on October 16, 2013, 08:43:36 PM
Is a request to stop using one profanity too much to ask for that you can't comply without spazzing out?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 16, 2013, 08:48:06 PM
Is a request to stop using one profanity too much to ask for that you can't comply without spazzing out?

Who said I was spazzing out? I just think it's a very ridiculous request to censor basic profanity in general when it's not used in an injurious way.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 17, 2013, 01:32:03 AM
Yes, any word that the average person would think is not socially acceptable to use around young children, their mother, or at church is not to be used in the upper fora.  The lower fora can not be viewed by unregistered guests, and therefore, is much less regulated.  Keep your potty mouth down their.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 02:59:39 AM
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
I don't see the relevance of it .
Well, you keep saying that sound and light are the same thing, so I was wondering if you can explain how light can act like a particle when sound is a wave?
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 03:06:42 AM
you see the light before hearing the thunder because your ears have to wait for the sound wave to reach them.
So light and sound are separate then and travel at very different speeds.
Different frequencies produce different energy strengths, it's all pressure and density and all light that you see is the end product of all this , as in vibration/frequency/sound/energy.

Your light may act in different forms to you but it's the end product of sound, it cannot work any other way unless people would like to use some kind on imaginary magic, which wouldn't surprise me, as it's done on a regular basis and has been in the past.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 03:08:48 AM
Anyway, the friction is the cause of the thunder by causing the static...
And what exactly is static?  Static is electricity, right?  And lightning is the discharge of this static electricity, right?  This electric discharge vibrates the air, right?  So, we have lightning which is static electricity and we have thunder which is vibrating air; two completely different things. 

So can we agree that friction can cause completely different phenomena?
Your static is the direct result of friction. Go and rub a balloon on your head.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 03:14:29 AM
Scepti, just my two cents,
You're misinterpreting this whole thing again.
Sound does not make light.
Albeit, in certain situations under some precise conditions, sound waves can be employed to produce light.
Mostly it is a byproduct of different chemical and nuclear reactions, or electricity.
The reason friction can cause light to be emitted is that the higher thermal energy something has, the more its electrons are excited.
Obviously, prolonged friction increases thermal energy.
The more the electrons are excited, the higher the electrons jump from their normal state.
The higher they jump, the higher the energy of the photon released is.
That's why molten steel glows.
That's why friction makes things glow.
Excited electrons and what not. What do you think excited means?

Everything glows by super excited elements in whatever density. For this to happen, it must create sound before light, it cannot happen any other way no matter how you look at it.
Everything inside earth contains matter and density, EVERYTHING.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 03:20:00 AM
Light is the end product of sound.

This from someone who thinks the inverse square law is nonsense?? Please excuse me while I ROTFLMAO.

Okay, now that I'm done with that,

sound:
1.
a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

light:
1. Physics
a. Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye.

Yeah, one and the same! ::)
Show me where I said inverse square law is nonsense. Stop making stuff up man.

You looked up light I see.
Now here's a little clue.

ELECTROMAGNETIC. Have a think about this and we can go on from there if you want to.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 03:25:24 AM
Pie eater,
Go eat some pie and calm down.

Actually read the thread before replying half cocked.

You chose to tone troll instead of answer any of my points. QED.

hewholikespie, please watch your language in the upper fora.  If you feel like using the "F" word, please use it in the CN and AR sections.

Thanks

Are you seriously trying to censor my use of the word f*ck? Not as an insult but just to use it?

That's frankly ridiculous. Are there any other naughty words you want to prohibit while we're at it?
Allowing the use of words like that would soon turn this place into a foul mouthed debate area, so I don't think the mods are asking much, are they, in asking you not to use profanities, because let's face it, it doesn't et a point over any more clearer.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 03:28:23 AM
Is a request to stop using one profanity too much to ask for that you can't comply without spazzing out?

Who said I was spazzing out? I just think it's a very ridiculous request to censor basic profanity in general when it's not used in an injurious way.
You're not that dense that you cannot see how it can offend people who don't like to see the use of those words, surely.
I'm a nut job, unstable, uneducated idiot and I can refrain from using it, so It shouldn't be too hard for a Harvard professor in astro physics and super no sound light particle physics to adhere to a simple rule, should it.  ;)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 17, 2013, 03:58:36 AM
Show me where I said inverse square law is nonsense. Stop making stuff up man.

Do you seriously believe all this stuff or are you on the wind up?

So, not in so many words, but the implication is quite clear.

In our entire exchange on the inverse square law, you completely failed to grasp that it is independent of what the source of the energy is, and how that energy gets from the source to the observer. It is simply a consequence of energy expanding in all directions from an unfocused source (the cement truck in the video, or the sun in our solar system). You dismissed all of that with the very clear implication that, as far as you were concerned, it was all nonsense, and your explanation was somehow superior. Your explanation defies logic, plain and simple, and yet you consider yourself to be "100% correct".
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 04:17:19 AM
Show me where I said inverse square law is nonsense. Stop making stuff up man.

Do you seriously believe all this stuff or are you on the wind up?

So, not in so many words, but the implication is quite clear.

In our entire exchange on the inverse square law, you completely failed to grasp that it is independent of what the source of the energy is, and how that energy gets from the source to the observer. It is simply a consequence of energy expanding in all directions from an unfocused source (the cement truck in the video, or the sun in our solar system). You dismissed all of that with the very clear implication that, as far as you were concerned, it was all nonsense, and your explanation was somehow superior. Your explanation defies logic, plain and simple, and yet you consider yourself to be "100% correct".
You will never get very far by twisting stuff to try and suit your agenda with me.

You have brought up a quote that means nothing and decided to turn it into something that I said about inverse square law being garbage, which I've never said.

It's just frustration on your part, I understand that, but if you want to prove me wrong then don't bring up stuff that you decide I have said by using quotes that imply nothing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 05:29:33 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 05:54:21 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 17, 2013, 06:59:29 AM
Is a request to stop using one profanity too much to ask for that you can't comply without spazzing out?

Who said I was spazzing out? I just think it's a very ridiculous request to censor basic profanity in general when it's not used in an injurious way.
You're not that dense that you cannot see how it can offend people who don't like to see the use of those words, surely.
I'm a nut job, unstable, uneducated idiot and I can refrain from using it, so It shouldn't be too hard for a Harvard professor in astro physics and super no sound light particle physics to adhere to a simple rule, should it.  ;)

Your post demonstrates perfectly why such a rule is so ridiculous. No, you haven't used a swear word, but you've done your damndest to insult me anyways, whereas my use of profanity was not directed at anyone. I sought expression, you seek to offend.

You keep thinking that all interaction between any too objects is just friction. This is not the case. While friction is an important factor in keeping everything moving, it's not the only one.

And not every act of friction produces sound.
This is what I mean when I say you try and oversimplify your model to the point of nonsense. Not everything is friction.

You know, I've noticed that you've consistently evaded the question about how light and sound propagate through and are halted by entirely different mediums and the lack thereof.

Or the fact that one cannot pick up light with a microphone, or sound with a optics only camera.

Sounds like you know addressing that exposes how weak your 'light is sound' argument really is.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2013, 07:10:33 AM
Excited electrons and what not. What do you think excited means?

Everything glows by super excited elements in whatever density. For this to happen, it must create sound before light, it cannot happen any other way no matter how you look at it.
Everything inside earth contains matter and density, EVERYTHING.
The more excited an electron is, the more it differentiates from its natural state.
Why are we discussing density now?
What does that have to do with anything?

Your viewpoint is flawed.
Light is not always the end result of sound.
Everything on Earth is obviously comprised of matter...
All you keep saying is that sound makes light.
You have no evidence.
Again, a baseless assumption.
If you're going to make outlandish claims as such, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.

Your capability to answer my post in the most irrelevant way possible astounds me.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 07:31:12 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
How good are you at hearing a dog whistle?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 07:36:43 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
How good are you at hearing a dog whistle?

There are devices that can detect ultrasonic sound. I ask you to use any technological device available today to detect any sound produced by LED not using your ears.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 07:42:15 AM
Is a request to stop using one profanity too much to ask for that you can't comply without spazzing out?

Who said I was spazzing out? I just think it's a very ridiculous request to censor basic profanity in general when it's not used in an injurious way.
You're not that dense that you cannot see how it can offend people who don't like to see the use of those words, surely.
I'm a nut job, unstable, uneducated idiot and I can refrain from using it, so It shouldn't be too hard for a Harvard professor in astro physics and super no sound light particle physics to adhere to a simple rule, should it.  ;)

Your post demonstrates perfectly why such a rule is so ridiculous. No, you haven't used a swear word, but you've done your damndest to insult me anyways, whereas my use of profanity was not directed at anyone. I sought expression, you seek to offend.

You keep thinking that all interaction between any
Quote
too
[/b] objects is just friction. This is not the case. While friction is an important factor in keeping everything moving, it's not the only one.

And not every act of friction produces sound.
This is what I mean when I say you try and oversimplify your model to the point of nonsense. Not everything is friction.

You know, I've noticed that you've consistently evaded the question about how light and sound propagate through and are halted by entirely different mediums and the lack thereof.

Or the fact that one cannot pick up light with a microphone, or sound with a optics only camera.

Sounds like you know addressing that exposes how weak your 'light is sound' argument really is.
First of all, I spent more time insulting myself, but anyway.

Your ears are weak, but strong enough to pick up the sounds that matter. You have to remember that we aren't the only organisms on this earth that use sound and the many ways sound is projected.
Look at a fire fly, a house fly. An electric eel. Birds migrating, etc. They all use sound is whatever forms and frequency.
It's ALL vibrations/friction and it all gives out light, only our eyes are not strong enough to see it all, except what's needed to go about our daily lives.

A glow of light takes different form through friction. Take infra red for instance. You cannot see a persons body glow but an infra red camera can and it sees the varying colours of that glow dependent in the frequency of the vibration of the cells on and in our bodies.

We are all humming and I don't mean just stinking  ;D.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2013, 07:43:03 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
How good are you at hearing a dog whistle?

Our inability to hear certain sound frequencies is not evidence for LEDs producing sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2013, 07:46:23 AM
Is a request to stop using one profanity too much to ask for that you can't comply without spazzing out?

Who said I was spazzing out? I just think it's a very ridiculous request to censor basic profanity in general when it's not used in an injurious way.
You're not that dense that you cannot see how it can offend people who don't like to see the use of those words, surely.
I'm a nut job, unstable, uneducated idiot and I can refrain from using it, so It shouldn't be too hard for a Harvard professor in astro physics and super no sound light particle physics to adhere to a simple rule, should it.  ;)

Your post demonstrates perfectly why such a rule is so ridiculous. No, you haven't used a swear word, but you've done your damndest to insult me anyways, whereas my use of profanity was not directed at anyone. I sought expression, you seek to offend.

You keep thinking that all interaction between any
Quote
too
[/b] objects is just friction. This is not the case. While friction is an important factor in keeping everything moving, it's not the only one.

And not every act of friction produces sound.
This is what I mean when I say you try and oversimplify your model to the point of nonsense. Not everything is friction.

You know, I've noticed that you've consistently evaded the question about how light and sound propagate through and are halted by entirely different mediums and the lack thereof.

Or the fact that one cannot pick up light with a microphone, or sound with a optics only camera.

Sounds like you know addressing that exposes how weak your 'light is sound' argument really is.
First of all, I spent more time insulting myself, but anyway.

Your ears are weak, but strong enough to pick up the sounds that matter. You have to remember that we aren't the only organisms on this earth that use sound and the many ways sound is projected.
Look at a fire fly, a house fly. An electric eel. Birds migrating, etc. They all use sound is whatever forms and frequency.
It's ALL vibrations/friction and it all gives out light, only our eyes are not strong enough to see it all, except what's needed to go about our daily lives.

A glow of light takes different form through friction. Take infra red for instance. You cannot see a persons body glow but an infra red camera can and it sees the varying colours of that glow dependent in the frequency of the vibration of the cells on and in our bodies.

We are all humming and I don't mean just stinking  ;D.
I guess if you want to get this deep into this argument without admitting you may be wrong...
Isn't everything just vibrations when you get right down to it?
Is that the point you're trying to make?
Again, I think you're wording this whole thing poorly.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 17, 2013, 08:04:45 AM
Your post demonstrates perfectly why such a rule is so ridiculous. No, you haven't used a swear word, but you've done your damndest to insult me anyways, whereas my use of profanity was not directed at anyone. I sought expression, you seek to offend.
I would say YOU are the one who seeks to insult.  After reading over most of your posts, 90% of them contain insults!
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 08:08:32 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
How good are you at hearing a dog whistle?

Our inability to hear certain sound frequencies is not evidence for LEDs producing sound.
Well, that's where you have to really think on it. It's up to you whether you accept it or not. I'm just telling you what I know.
You do not get light without sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2013, 08:19:18 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 08:24:11 AM
Sound waves and light waves are two completely different things.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 08:34:47 AM
you see the light before hearing the thunder because your ears have to wait for the sound wave to reach them.
So light and sound are separate then and travel at very different speeds.
Different frequencies produce different energy strengths, it's all pressure and density and all light that you see is the end product of all this , as in vibration/frequency/sound/energy.

Your light may act in different forms to you but it's the end product of sound, it cannot work any other way unless people would like to use some kind on imaginary magic, which wouldn't surprise me, as it's done on a regular basis and has been in the past.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 09:07:21 AM
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.
Did you even read about how LEDs work before posting this?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:20:39 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Life is a story, Rama and we are all characters in that story and the author dictates how that story unfolds.
The bigger characters in that story (mainstream) are the ones that stand out and the smaller characters tend to get overlooked when the main of that story is recited from memory.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:23:40 AM
Sound waves and light waves are two completely different things.
Ice, water and steam appear to be different things, yet they are the product of the very same thing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:27:52 AM
you see the light before hearing the thunder because your ears have to wait for the sound wave to reach them.
So light and sound are separate then and travel at very different speeds.
Different frequencies produce different energy strengths, it's all pressure and density and all light that you see is the end product of all this , as in vibration/frequency/sound/energy.

Your light may act in different forms to you but it's the end product of sound, it cannot work any other way unless people would like to use some kind on imaginary magic, which wouldn't surprise me, as it's done on a regular basis and has been in the past.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:29:59 AM
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.
Did you even read about how LEDs work before posting this?
Yes, do we have to go into the full scientific detail of it all to explain the basics, because I don't find that relevant in simply showing that light is sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2013, 09:31:37 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Life is a story, Rama and we are all characters in that story and the author dictates how that story unfolds.
The bigger characters in that story (mainstream) are the ones that stand out and the smaller characters tend to get overlooked when the main of that story is recited from memory.

Your pretentious analogy falls flat. You are not getting overlooked because you are a small character. It's because when people do give you a chance, you have not even tried hard enough to find evidence, or thought about how to find evidence or even appear to be concerned with more than your mental exercise or creating self-consistent fantasies. People see that you are truly not committed to learning about things outside yourself and dismiss your ideas that you say pertain to the world outside of you. Your "outside the box" thinking is only one step towards discovering the truth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 17, 2013, 09:35:07 AM
Sound waves and light waves are two completely different things.
Ice, water and steam appear to be different things, yet they are the product of the very same thing.

Ice, water, and steam are not products of the same thing.  They are the same thing, on a molecular level.  Electromagnetic radiation and the kinetic movement of atoms and molecules, while products of friction in many cases, aren't even on the same scale.  One is subatomic while the other is atomic or molecular.  To call them one and the same demonstrates a total lack of knowledge in the field of physics.

In short what I'm saying is, get an education or do the experiments to prove your hypothesis right and everyone else wrong.  One or the other, or stop asserting that you're right without knowledge of the subject.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:40:27 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Life is a story, Rama and we are all characters in that story and the author dictates how that story unfolds.
The bigger characters in that story (mainstream) are the ones that stand out and the smaller characters tend to get overlooked when the main of that story is recited from memory.

Your pretentious analogy falls flat. You are not getting overlooked because you are a small character. It's because when people do give you a chance, you have not even tried hard enough to find evidence, or thought about how to find evidence or even appear to be concerned with more than your mental exercise or creating self-consistent fantasies. People see that you are truly not committed to learning about things outside yourself and dismiss your ideas that you say pertain to the world outside of you. Your "outside the box" thinking is only one step towards discovering the truth.
No Rama. People are scared of simplicity, especially those that are trained in the art of complication.
Simplicity scares you because you feel it demeans your scientific mind.
Most people who use simple concepts in explanations are mostly ridiculed and intimidated and cast off as nut jobs. It forces people to try and be more scientific savvy in order to be like those they are arguing with.
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 09:44:47 AM
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Ok then.  Glad that is settled.

Let's use an explosive.  I set off an explosive close by.  I see and hear it almost instantly.  I set off an explosive 500 meters away.  I see it, but hear it a couple seconds later. 

Now, if the light/sound is moving at the same speed from the event, and reaching me at the same time, then why do I witness an increasing delay between seeing the event and hearing the event as the distance over which it travels increases?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:46:41 AM
Sound waves and light waves are two completely different things.
Ice, water and steam appear to be different things, yet they are the product of the very same thing.

Ice, water, and steam are not products of the same thing.  They are the same thing, on a molecular level.  Electromagnetic radiation and the kinetic movement of atoms and molecules, while products of friction in many cases, aren't even on the same scale.  One is subatomic while the other is atomic or molecular.  To call them one and the same demonstrates a total lack of knowledge in the field of physics.

In short what I'm saying is, get an education or do the experiments to prove your hypothesis right and everyone else wrong.  One or the other, or stop asserting that you're right without knowledge of the subject.
You can play the master scientific game all you want to, but the average person looking in will look away if explanations of things start becoming complicated...more complicated than need be to explain the basics of things.

You can harp on about sub atomic and atomic this and that all day long and I'll be sticking out my tongue and shouting, "yeah yeah", because we are dealing with basics, that's all, just basics.
The basic fact is, light is sound and that's as basic as you get.

Is it as simple as just that?
Yes...but, it becomes more difficult once it becomes hard to differentiate the frequencies of it that make up the technology we all become accustomed to, yet never think of the workings to.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:48:33 AM
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Ok then.  Glad that is settled.

Let's use an explosive.  I set off an explosive close by.  I see and hear it almost instantly.  I set off an explosive 500 meters away.  I see it, but hear it a couple seconds later. 

Now, if the light/sound is moving at the same speed from the event, and reaching me at the same time, then why do I witness an increasing delay between seeing the event and hearing the event as the distance over which it travels increases?
Your primitive ears. Why can't you grasp this?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 09:55:07 AM
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Ok then.  Glad that is settled.

Let's use an explosive.  I set off an explosive close by.  I see and hear it almost instantly.  I set off an explosive 500 meters away.  I see it, but hear it a couple seconds later. 

Now, if the light/sound is moving at the same speed from the event, and reaching me at the same time, then why do I witness an increasing delay between seeing the event and hearing the event as the distance over which it travels increases?
Your primitive ears. Why can't you grasp this?
You claim the light and sound is reaching me at the same time. 

According to you, I should see the event and hear the event at the same time, or at least witness a consistent delay between seeing and hearing the event regardless of distance.

This is not what happens. 

What causes this variable delay?

Why can't you grasp this?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 17, 2013, 10:03:34 AM
You can play the master scientific game all you want to, but the average person looking in will look away if explanations of things start becoming complicated...more complicated than need be to explain the basics of things.

You can harp on about sub atomic and atomic this and that all day long and I'll be sticking out my tongue and shouting, "yeah yeah", because we are dealing with basics, that's all, just basics.
The basic fact is, light is sound and that's as basic as you get.

Is it as simple as just that?
Yes...but, it becomes more difficult once it becomes hard to differentiate the frequencies of it that make up the technology we all become accustomed to, yet never think of the workings to.
Nice to see you implying that the average person isn't willing to educate themselves.

Scepti, the basics include light not being on the same scale as sound.  You're comparing an orange and the sun.  They're both orange (waveforms), and they're both round (energy), but the disparity in scale is huge and each presents characteristics that the other doesn't (Sound diminishes with less medium, light diminishes with more medium.  Sound transmits fastest through a dense, crystalline medium, light transmits fastest through as little medium as possible, etc.)

What you're telling me further is that you don't understand the difference between a camera and a microphone.  At least in the way that they work.  Perhaps starting your research from old time silver nitrate film cameras would be best, then.  Try to get old time film to develop with sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 17, 2013, 10:13:39 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2013, 10:19:44 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Life is a story, Rama and we are all characters in that story and the author dictates how that story unfolds.
The bigger characters in that story (mainstream) are the ones that stand out and the smaller characters tend to get overlooked when the main of that story is recited from memory.

Your pretentious analogy falls flat. You are not getting overlooked because you are a small character. It's because when people do give you a chance, you have not even tried hard enough to find evidence, or thought about how to find evidence or even appear to be concerned with more than your mental exercise or creating self-consistent fantasies. People see that you are truly not committed to learning about things outside yourself and dismiss your ideas that you say pertain to the world outside of you. Your "outside the box" thinking is only one step towards discovering the truth.
No Rama. People are scared of simplicity, especially those that are trained in the art of complication.
Simplicity scares you because you feel it demeans your scientific mind.
Most people who use simple concepts in explanations are mostly ridiculed and intimidated and cast off as nut jobs. It forces people to try and be more scientific savvy in order to be like those they are arguing with.
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.

Simplicity scares me?  There you go again making up self-consistent fantasies again. No, I find it scarier when people reject ideas because it does not mesh with their internal sense of what is logical. You are speaking for the masses for some reason that is beyond me as well. Anyway, no one has ever proved you wrong because when something is presented that refutes your position, you deny it, so how could anyone prove you wrong? Anyway, I look forward to you maybe one day presenting evidence of something you assert so we can have meaningful conversation.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 10:26:09 AM
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Ok then.  Glad that is settled.

Let's use an explosive.  I set off an explosive close by.  I see and hear it almost instantly.  I set off an explosive 500 meters away.  I see it, but hear it a couple seconds later. 

Now, if the light/sound is moving at the same speed from the event, and reaching me at the same time, then why do I witness an increasing delay between seeing the event and hearing the event as the distance over which it travels increases?
Your primitive ears. Why can't you grasp this?
You claim the light and sound is reaching me at the same time. 

According to you, I should see the event and hear the event at the same time, or at least witness a consistent delay between seeing and hearing the event regardless of distance.

This is not what happens. 

What causes this variable delay?

Why can't you grasp this?
No, I'm not saying you should see the event and hear it at the same time, at all.
I'm saying that the event happens virtually at the same time, one causes the other, as in vibration/friction results in light, but because it's took time to build up that light, you see that light and then hear that build up to it, dependent on the strength of the friction that made it glow enough in the distance being strong enough to reach your ears.

It's the reason why the speed of light is an absolute joke.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 10:27:51 AM
You can play the master scientific game all you want to, but the average person looking in will look away if explanations of things start becoming complicated...more complicated than need be to explain the basics of things.

You can harp on about sub atomic and atomic this and that all day long and I'll be sticking out my tongue and shouting, "yeah yeah", because we are dealing with basics, that's all, just basics.
The basic fact is, light is sound and that's as basic as you get.

Is it as simple as just that?
Yes...but, it becomes more difficult once it becomes hard to differentiate the frequencies of it that make up the technology we all become accustomed to, yet never think of the workings to.
Nice to see you implying that the average person isn't willing to educate themselves.

Scepti, the basics include light not being on the same scale as sound.  You're comparing an orange and the sun.  They're both orange (waveforms), and they're both round (energy), but the disparity in scale is huge and each presents characteristics that the other doesn't (Sound diminishes with less medium, light diminishes with more medium.  Sound transmits fastest through a dense, crystalline medium, light transmits fastest through as little medium as possible, etc.)

What you're telling me further is that you don't understand the difference between a camera and a microphone.  At least in the way that they work.  Perhaps starting your research from old time silver nitrate film cameras would be best, then.  Try to get old time film to develop with sound.
Come back to me when you become less smug.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 10:29:41 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Give me something specific to work from and I'll do my best.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 17, 2013, 10:33:13 AM
Nice to see you implying that the average person isn't willing to educate themselves.

Scepti, the basics include light not being on the same scale as sound.  You're comparing an orange and the sun.  They're both orange (waveforms), and they're both round (energy), but the disparity in scale is huge and each presents characteristics that the other doesn't (Sound diminishes with less medium, light diminishes with more medium.  Sound transmits fastest through a dense, crystalline medium, light transmits fastest through as little medium as possible, etc.)

What you're telling me further is that you don't understand the difference between a camera and a microphone.  At least in the way that they work.  Perhaps starting your research from old time silver nitrate film cameras would be best, then.  Try to get old time film to develop with sound.
Come back to me when you become less smug.
Sorry if I come off that way, you're making it too easy.  Light and sound have very different characteristics.  If you don't want to acknowledge that, you're the one ignoring simplicity, not us.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 10:40:31 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Life is a story, Rama and we are all characters in that story and the author dictates how that story unfolds.
The bigger characters in that story (mainstream) are the ones that stand out and the smaller characters tend to get overlooked when the main of that story is recited from memory.

Your pretentious analogy falls flat. You are not getting overlooked because you are a small character. It's because when people do give you a chance, you have not even tried hard enough to find evidence, or thought about how to find evidence or even appear to be concerned with more than your mental exercise or creating self-consistent fantasies. People see that you are truly not committed to learning about things outside yourself and dismiss your ideas that you say pertain to the world outside of you. Your "outside the box" thinking is only one step towards discovering the truth.
No Rama. People are scared of simplicity, especially those that are trained in the art of complication.
Simplicity scares you because you feel it demeans your scientific mind.
Most people who use simple concepts in explanations are mostly ridiculed and intimidated and cast off as nut jobs. It forces people to try and be more scientific savvy in order to be like those they are arguing with.
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.

Simplicity scares me?  There you go again making up self-consistent fantasies again. No, I find it scarier when people reject ideas because it does not mesh with their internal sense of what is logical. You are speaking for the masses for some reason that is beyond me as well. Anyway, no one has ever proved you wrong because when something is presented that refutes your position, you deny it, so how could anyone prove you wrong? Anyway, I look forward to you maybe one day presenting evidence of something you assert so we can have meaningful conversation.
You can have a meaningful conversation any time , it just depends on your stance.
You see. You say that I cannot prove what I'm saying and I'm simply saying, try and open up your mind and delve into what I'm saying, which means you have to (for a time) put your perceived scientific memorisation to one side and have a look at the other side, the simpler side.
Yes, yes, I know you're not going to waste your time pondering stupid musings without evidence, yet you have willingly accepted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo about space fabric/time/gravity/black holes/dark matter and a whole host of other stuff that CANNOT be proven and yet it's accepted because it supposedly works, because you are told it works or it has to work, because if it didn't, why would the sun be this and the planets be that and space be this...and yet there it is, it's all true because the puppets of the establishment says it is true.

You are made to observe the puppet, it's the puppet who controls you. The person operating that puppet, stays in the background.
You are told what to believe and you memorise it all. You will stay behind the wall until you decide to kick your ball over it and go and retrieve it. Only then will you see what's beyond it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 10:41:24 AM
Quote
Ice, water and steam appear to be different things, yet they are the product of the very same thing.

Great.

Sound waves and light waves are COMPLETELY different.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 10:49:09 AM
Nice to see you implying that the average person isn't willing to educate themselves.

Scepti, the basics include light not being on the same scale as sound.  You're comparing an orange and the sun.  They're both orange (waveforms), and they're both round (energy), but the disparity in scale is huge and each presents characteristics that the other doesn't (Sound diminishes with less medium, light diminishes with more medium.  Sound transmits fastest through a dense, crystalline medium, light transmits fastest through as little medium as possible, etc.)

What you're telling me further is that you don't understand the difference between a camera and a microphone.  At least in the way that they work.  Perhaps starting your research from old time silver nitrate film cameras would be best, then.  Try to get old time film to develop with sound.
Come back to me when you become less smug.
Sorry if I come off that way, you're making it too easy.  Light and sound have very different characteristics.  If you don't want to acknowledge that, you're the one ignoring simplicity, not us.
This is just a face slapping contest to see who stings the most, it's going nowhere.

What you have to remember is, I have been on your side of the fence and said the very same type of things, as in, " nooo, don't be silly, the earth is round" and " well it's the speed of light, it's 186,000 miles per second, it's obvious" and stuff like that and you do feel a bit smug when explaining stuff like that to people who inquire only to later realise that what you have been doing, is regurgitating what you memorised from the books that you accepted as gospel truth.

It takes a lot to sway from a life time of this, so I can't knock anyone for adhering to what they have been basically trained to think.
I'm also not here to puff out my chest and play appendage measuring contests, I'm simply using what I should have used all along, which is, my own mind to question the validity of what was drummed into it and here I am.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 10:50:18 AM
Light is electromagnetic radiation. Sound waves are mechanical waves.

Light is made of waves as well as particles. Sound is only a wave. No particle nature in sound.

Light waves can travel in a vacuum. Sound waves require a medium.

Speed of light in a medium is constant while the velocity of sound waves can change.

Light waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.

Not the same thing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 10:51:34 AM
Quote
Ice, water and steam appear to be different things, yet they are the product of the very same thing.

Great.

Sound waves and light waves are COMPLETELY different.
The waves may be different waves but they emanate from the same thing. vibration/sound/frequency.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 10:54:43 AM
Quote
What you have to remember is, I have been on your side of the fence and said the very same type of things, as in, " nooo, don't be silly, the earth is round" and " well it's the speed of light, it's 186,000 miles per second, it's obvious" and stuff like that and you do feel a bit smug when explaining stuff like that to people who inquire only to later realise that what you have been doing, is regurgitating what you memorised from the books that you accepted as gospel truth.

It takes a lot to sway from a life time of this, so I can't knock anyone for adhering to what they have been basically trained to think.
I'm also not here to puff out my chest and play appendage measuring contests, I'm simply using what I should have used all along, which is, my own mind to question the validity of what was drummed into it and here I am.

So, basically what you are saying is that in the absence of learning science.........a field of study with thousands of years of research, experiments, theories......put forth by some of the greatest minds the world has ever seen..................you choose to just make stuff up and go with that instead?

How is pushing forward ridiculous ideas (dome covering the world, stars a reflection of light beaming out of the earth) that has no evidence to back it supposed to be more enlightening than trusting science?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 10:55:47 AM
Quote
The waves may be different waves but they emanate from the same thing. vibration/sound/frequency.

They both have frequency and vibration because they are waves.

They don't emanate from the same thing. They are seperate.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 10:58:27 AM
Light is electromagnetic radiation. Sound waves are mechnical waves.
What do you think causes electromagnetism?


Light waves can travel in a vacuum. Sound waves require a medium.
No they cannot travel in a vacuum at all.
Speed of light in a medium is constant while the velocity of sound waves can change.
No it's not constant at all. Give me an example of this constant.
Light waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.
Explain.
Not the same thing.
They are the same thing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 11:08:56 AM
Quote
What you have to remember is, I have been on your side of the fence and said the very same type of things, as in, " nooo, don't be silly, the earth is round" and " well it's the speed of light, it's 186,000 miles per second, it's obvious" and stuff like that and you do feel a bit smug when explaining stuff like that to people who inquire only to later realise that what you have been doing, is regurgitating what you memorised from the books that you accepted as gospel truth.

It takes a lot to sway from a life time of this, so I can't knock anyone for adhering to what they have been basically trained to think.
I'm also not here to puff out my chest and play appendage measuring contests, I'm simply using what I should have used all along, which is, my own mind to question the validity of what was drummed into it and here I am.

So, basically what you are saying is that in the absence of learning science.........a field of study with thousands of years of research, experiments, theories......put forth by some of the greatest minds the world has ever seen..................you choose to just make stuff up and go with that instead?

How is pushing forward ridiculous ideas (dome covering the world, stars a reflection of light beaming out of the earth) that has no evidence to back it supposed to be more enlightening than trusting science?
Nobody is forcing you to change your stance. That has to come from within you. If you think it's ridiculous then fair enough, that's your prerogative.
One day, just ponder what's been said...just ponder it and ask questions of what you have been trained to accept and maybe, just maybe, one small thing might just not make sense and that's all it needs to push you on.

Like I said. That's entirely up to you and your choice alone. If you decide that I'm a stark raving clown, lunatic and don't want to entertain on letter of what I've said or any tiny part of other flat earth theories, then fine. All I am doing is putting my thoughts into words. They can be there to muse over, or laughed at or ridiculed or whatever.

The fact is, I'm stead fast in what I believe an d just as tough on my stance as you are on yours and yet I have the added extra of being on the other side before seeing things in a different light.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 11:12:32 AM
Quote
What do you think causes electromagnetism?

In your delusional world? Probably drunk fairies.

In reality........electromagnetism is how charged bodies interact.

Quote
No they cannot travel in a vacuum at all.

Light waves can travel in a vacuum. Sound waves can't.

No one can hear you scream in space. But they can see you. Of course..........in your world space doesn't exist............so nevermind.

Quote
No it's not constant at all. Give me an example of this constant.

Speed of light is a constant. Meaning it's not effected a medium. Sound waves can be manipulated by a medium.

Recently the theory of varible speed of light has been studied but the speed of light has been observed to be constant.
Quote
Light waves can be polarized..........sound waves can't.
Explain.

Why? You either won't understant of won't accept the answer.

Light waves like waves from the sun or a lightbulb or candle are unpolarized......they vibrate in every direction. To polarize a light wave is to filter out the vibrations and only allow, say, half of them to occur.

You can do this to light waves because they are transverse. Sound waves are longitudinal meaning they move parallel to the direction of motion........they can't be polarized.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 17, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
Speed of light is a constant. Meaning it's not effected a medium.
Actually, the speed of light is affected by the medium that it's travelling through.  How do you think refraction works?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 11:19:55 AM
Quote
Nobody is forcing you to change your stance. That has to come from within you. If you think it's ridiculous then fair enough, that's your prerogative.
One day, just ponder what's been said...just ponder it and ask questions of what you have been trained to accept and maybe, just maybe, one small thing might just not make sense and that's all it needs to push you on.

A lot of things don't make sense to me in science. Tons of it, actually.

But should I come to the conclusion that it's all made up junk and insert my own version of events or further study the work that has already been done and use it as a building block for the future.

Science never stops. Theories are changed over time. New theories change the way we look at old ones. Science doesn't have all the answers and it's never claimed to. We're still very primitive today compared to where we need to be in order to fully understant the universe. It won't happen in my life time. Maybe not even in my grandkids lifetime. But by the time they are adults..........they will know more about the world than I currently do.

Look back 200 years and see where science and technology were. Look at where it is today. It's a huge jump.

Because one small thing doesn't make sense doesn't mean you tear down everything and say it's all a lie.

Quote
Like I said. That's entirely up to you and your choice alone. If you decide that I'm a stark raving clown, lunatic and don't want to entertain on letter of what I've said or any tiny part of other flat earth theories, then fine. All I am doing is putting my thoughts into words. They can be there to muse over, or laughed at or ridiculed or whatever.


Nothing you push forward deserves to be treated with respect because it's absurd. We know too much today about science and the universe for anything you're saying to even remotely make sense.

If you had been born 200 years ago or even 100 years ago you might have a chance. But not today.

Quote
The fact is, I'm stead fast in what I believe an d just as tough on my stance as you are on yours and yet I have the added extra of being on the other side before seeing things in a different light.

The difference is I can back up what I say with facts and evidence.

You............can only reject the actual facts and evidence and say it's a big conspiracy then push your own ideas through but not back them up because in your fantasy world it's not possible to.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 11:24:51 AM


Light waves like waves from the sun or a lightbulb or candle are unpolarized......they vibrate in every direction. To polarize a light wave is to filter out the vibrations and only allow, say, half of them to occur.

You can do this to light waves because they are transverse. Sound waves are longitudinal meaning they move parallel to the direction of motion........they can't be polarized.
This is the bit that should help you to understand the reality in a simplistic way. VIBRATION.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 17, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
Sorry if I come off that way, you're making it too easy.  Light and sound have very different characteristics.  If you don't want to acknowledge that, you're the one ignoring simplicity, not us.
This is just a face slapping contest to see who stings the most, it's going nowhere.
I'm hardly doing a thing to offend you.  I'm pointing out facts that you have yet to refute, and then making an observation contrary to one you made.  If you consider me saying that you're ignoring simplicity by making assertions against fact and doing nothing to back them up, again, sorry.  You do something much the same, except you complain that of the ones asserting empirical fact with nothing to disprove them.

What you have to remember is, I have been on your side of the fence and said the very same type of things, as in, " nooo, don't be silly, the earth is round" and " well it's the speed of light, it's 186,000 miles per second, it's obvious" and stuff like that and you do feel a bit smug when explaining stuff like that to people who inquire only to later realise that what you have been doing, is regurgitating what you memorised from the books that you accepted as gospel truth.
I'll freely admit that I'm regurgitating the opinions of experts in the field.  I've seen nothing to the contrary, from you or anyone else, and I'm not qualified in the field to make a judgement call without evidence.  Just because some lunatic on a forum wants to ignore the obvious differences in properties between light and sound does not mean anyone should be convinced by him. 

Now again, if you were to show that these didn't exist, or perform an experiment showing light and sound to be one and the same, we'd lend you an ear.  You haven't, don't seem like you're inclined to, and until you do your sophistry is just that - fallacious and deliberately misleading, however nice it sounds on paper.

I'm also not here to puff out my chest and play appendage measuring contests, I'm simply using what I should have used all along, which is, my own mind to question the validity of what was drummed into it and here I am.
As I said previously, if you weren't criticising fields you refuse to understand, we'd probably be more inclined to hear you out.  We still probably wouldn't believe you because you still have no empirical evidence, but you'd be taken more seriously in general and not constantly shot down for philosophising.



Speed of light is a constant. Meaning it's not effected a medium. Sound waves can be manipulated by a medium.

Recently the theory of varible speed of light has been studied but the speed of light has been observed to be constant.
Er, I feel the need to elaborate.  The speed of light through a medium is not constant, due to the photon being absorbed and emitted as it progresses through the medium, assuming a transparent medium.  However, the speed of the actual photon in between the emission and absorption is still c, the speed of light in a vacuum, so the speed of light never changes although it takes it longer to get through some mediums than others.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: markjo link=topic=60166u.msg1554893#msg1554893 date=1381945406
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
fire from potassium reacting with water. Light bulbs.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) (http://#ws)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
I don't see the relevance of it .
Well, you keep saying that sound and light are the same thing, so I was wondering if you can explain how light can act like a particle when sound is a wave?
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 11:30:13 AM
Quote
Nobody is forcing you to change your stance. That has to come from within you. If you think it's ridiculous then fair enough, that's your prerogative.
One day, just ponder what's been said...just ponder it and ask questions of what you have been trained to accept and maybe, just maybe, one small thing might just not make sense and that's all it needs to push you on.

A lot of things don't make sense to me in science. Tons of it, actually.

But should I come to the conclusion that it's all made up junk and insert my own version of events or further study the work that has already been done and use it as a building block for the future.

Science never stops. Theories are changed over time. New theories change the way we look at old ones. Science doesn't have all the answers and it's never claimed to. We're still very primitive today compared to where we need to be in order to fully understant the universe. It won't happen in my life time. Maybe not even in my grandkids lifetime. But by the time they are adults..........they will know more about the world than I currently do.

Look back 200 years and see where science and technology were. Look at where it is today. It's a huge jump.

Because one small thing doesn't make sense doesn't mean you tear down everything and say it's all a lie.

Quote
Like I said. That's entirely up to you and your choice alone. If you decide that I'm a stark raving clown, lunatic and don't want to entertain on letter of what I've said or any tiny part of other flat earth theories, then fine. All I am doing is putting my thoughts into words. They can be there to muse over, or laughed at or ridiculed or whatever.


Nothing you push forward deserves to be treated with respect because it's absurd. We know too much today about science and the universe for anything you're saying to even remotely make sense.

If you had been born 200 years ago or even 100 years ago you might have a chance. But not today.

Quote
The fact is, I'm stead fast in what I believe an d just as tough on my stance as you are on yours and yet I have the added extra of being on the other side before seeing things in a different light.

The difference is I can back up what I say with facts and evidence.

You............can only reject the actual facts and evidence and say it's a big conspiracy then push your own ideas through but not back them up because in your fantasy world it's not possible to.
If one part of so called space science can be torn apart, it puts the whole of it in jeopardy, that's all it takes, unless another theory is made up to counteract the discrepancy. This is how bogus science works and is the reason it gets questioned at all.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2013, 11:32:27 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Life is a story, Rama and we are all characters in that story and the author dictates how that story unfolds.
The bigger characters in that story (mainstream) are the ones that stand out and the smaller characters tend to get overlooked when the main of that story is recited from memory.

Your pretentious analogy falls flat. You are not getting overlooked because you are a small character. It's because when people do give you a chance, you have not even tried hard enough to find evidence, or thought about how to find evidence or even appear to be concerned with more than your mental exercise or creating self-consistent fantasies. People see that you are truly not committed to learning about things outside yourself and dismiss your ideas that you say pertain to the world outside of you. Your "outside the box" thinking is only one step towards discovering the truth.
No Rama. People are scared of simplicity, especially those that are trained in the art of complication.
Simplicity scares you because you feel it demeans your scientific mind.
Most people who use simple concepts in explanations are mostly ridiculed and intimidated and cast off as nut jobs. It forces people to try and be more scientific savvy in order to be like those they are arguing with.
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.

Simplicity scares me?  There you go again making up self-consistent fantasies again. No, I find it scarier when people reject ideas because it does not mesh with their internal sense of what is logical. You are speaking for the masses for some reason that is beyond me as well. Anyway, no one has ever proved you wrong because when something is presented that refutes your position, you deny it, so how could anyone prove you wrong? Anyway, I look forward to you maybe one day presenting evidence of something you assert so we can have meaningful conversation.
You can have a meaningful conversation any time , it just depends on your stance.
You see. You say that I cannot prove what I'm saying and I'm simply saying, try and open up your mind and delve into what I'm saying, which means you have to (for a time) put your perceived scientific memorisation to one side and have a look at the other side, the simpler side.
Yes, yes, I know you're not going to waste your time pondering stupid musings without evidence, yet you have willingly accepted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo about space fabric/time/gravity/black holes/dark matter and a whole host of other stuff that CANNOT be proven and yet it's accepted because it supposedly works, because you are told it works or it has to work, because if it didn't, why would the sun be this and the planets be that and space be this...and yet there it is, it's all true because the puppets of the establishment says it is true.

You are made to observe the puppet, it's the puppet who controls you. The person operating that puppet, stays in the background.
You are told what to believe and you memorise it all. You will stay behind the wall until you decide to kick your ball over it and go and retrieve it. Only then will you see what's beyond it.

I have pondered your ideas.  Stop thinking that when people disagree with you, that it means they are not considering your idea.  This is a clear example of how you artificially create a situation where you cannot be wrong.  The thing that is blocking us from having a meaningful conversation is that every time I have tried to honestly discuss your ideas, you either ignore me, or get defensive.  Read my next post where I will honestly consider your idea and point out a huge problem with your thinking.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 11:33:38 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
How good are you at hearing a dog whistle?

Our inability to hear certain sound frequencies is not evidence for LEDs producing sound.
Well, that's where you have to really think on it. It's up to you whether you accept it or not. I'm just telling you what I know.
You do not get light without sound.
Prove it. Also nuclear fusion can produce light without sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2013, 11:34:37 AM
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Ok then.  Glad that is settled.

Let's use an explosive.  I set off an explosive close by.  I see and hear it almost instantly.  I set off an explosive 500 meters away.  I see it, but hear it a couple seconds later. 

Now, if the light/sound is moving at the same speed from the event, and reaching me at the same time, then why do I witness an increasing delay between seeing the event and hearing the event as the distance over which it travels increases?
Your primitive ears. Why can't you grasp this?
You claim the light and sound is reaching me at the same time. 

According to you, I should see the event and hear the event at the same time, or at least witness a consistent delay between seeing and hearing the event regardless of distance.

This is not what happens. 

What causes this variable delay?

Why can't you grasp this?
No, I'm not saying you should see the event and hear it at the same time, at all.
I'm saying that the event happens virtually at the same time, one causes the other, as in vibration/friction results in light, but because it's took time to build up that light, you see that light and then hear that build up to it, dependent on the strength of the friction that made it glow enough in the distance being strong enough to reach your ears.

It's the reason why the speed of light is an absolute joke.

If sound and light travel at the same speed (approximately), why can you still see light when travelling faster than the speed of sound?  To boot, why does light appear to travel at the same, virtually instantaneous speed, when travelling on supersonic jets?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 17, 2013, 11:36:59 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Give me something specific to work from and I'll do my best.
I'll take this as an agreement.
As it has already been asked, start for example with an experiment to prove the variation of an object's weight relative to its surrounding pressure.
 
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 17, 2013, 11:38:20 AM
Quote
This is the bit that should help you to understand the reality in a simplistic way. VIBRATION.

And that has what to do with polarization...........which is what I was talking about?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 11:41:46 AM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
How good are you at hearing a dog whistle?

Our inability to hear certain sound frequencies is not evidence for LEDs producing sound.
Well, that's where you have to really think on it. It's up to you whether you accept it or not. I'm just telling you what I know.
You do not get light without sound.
Prove it. Also nuclear fusion can produce light without sound.
Nuclear fusion does not exist, try again.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 17, 2013, 11:43:40 AM
Nuclear fusion does not exist, try again.
Still waiting to hear your disproof of nuclear fusion from before you rage deleted all your posts.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 11:48:11 AM
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Ok then.  Glad that is settled.

Let's use an explosive.  I set off an explosive close by.  I see and hear it almost instantly.  I set off an explosive 500 meters away.  I see it, but hear it a couple seconds later. 

Now, if the light/sound is moving at the same speed from the event, and reaching me at the same time, then why do I witness an increasing delay between seeing the event and hearing the event as the distance over which it travels increases?
Your primitive ears. Why can't you grasp this?
You claim the light and sound is reaching me at the same time. 

According to you, I should see the event and hear the event at the same time, or at least witness a consistent delay between seeing and hearing the event regardless of distance.

This is not what happens. 

What causes this variable delay?

Why can't you grasp this?
No, I'm not saying you should see the event and hear it at the same time, at all.
I'm saying that the event happens virtually at the same time, one causes the other, as in vibration/friction results in light, but because it's took time to build up that light, you see that light and then hear that build up to it, dependent on the strength of the friction that made it glow enough in the distance being strong enough to reach your ears.

It's the reason why the speed of light is an absolute joke.

If sound and light travel at the same speed (approximately), why can you still see light when travelling faster than the speed of sound?  To boot, why does light appear to travel at the same, virtually instantaneous speed, when travelling on supersonic jets?
You may have to elaborate a little on this because this appears too easy to answer, so maybe what I'm about to say, isn't what you are actually meaning.

You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from  it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.
Yes I know it's a simple answer but If it's not what you want to see then put a scenario to me of what you actually are getting at.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 11:49:43 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Give me something specific to work from and I'll do my best.
I'll take this as an agreement.
As it has already been asked, start for example with an experiment to prove the variation of an object's weight relative to its surrounding pressure.
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to achieve here.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 11:50:04 AM
No, I'm not saying you should see the event and hear it at the same time, at all.

Yes, you are.

If the light and sound are traveling at the same speed, then yes, we should hear them at the same time, or almost the same time if going by your 'ears are slower than the eyes' stance.

I'm saying that the event happens virtually at the same time, one causes the other, as in vibration/friction results in light, but because it's took time to build up that light, you see that light and then hear that build up to it, dependent on the strength of the friction that made it glow enough in the distance being strong enough to reach your ears.

It's the reason why the speed of light is an absolute joke.
An explosion with C4 ,for example, takes place in a fraction of a second. 

If the light and sound always reaches us at the same time, then there is something in our brain that subconsciously slows our registering of the sound, and it somehow does this with extreme accuracy because it bases it on distance, which means our eyes would have to be extremely accurate range finders.

Or

The light and sound travel at different speeds.

Since cameras capturing both video and audio are also subject to this same sound delay, I guess that narrows it down.


Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 11:52:55 AM
Light is a transverse wave, sound is a longititudinal wave.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 11:54:03 AM
You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from  it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.
So anyone traveling at supersonic speeds will not be able to see anything behind them? 

Why has this never been witnessed?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 11:55:04 AM
Well it's not knowledge in the sense of anything that is true. It's more like a story.
Life is a story, Rama and we are all characters in that story and the author dictates how that story unfolds.
The bigger characters in that story (mainstream) are the ones that stand out and the smaller characters tend to get overlooked when the main of that story is recited from memory.

Your pretentious analogy falls flat. You are not getting overlooked because you are a small character. It's because when people do give you a chance, you have not even tried hard enough to find evidence, or thought about how to find evidence or even appear to be concerned with more than your mental exercise or creating self-consistent fantasies. People see that you are truly not committed to learning about things outside yourself and dismiss your ideas that you say pertain to the world outside of you. Your "outside the box" thinking is only one step towards discovering the truth.
No Rama. People are scared of simplicity, especially those that are trained in the art of complication.
Simplicity scares you because you feel it demeans your scientific mind.
Most people who use simple concepts in explanations are mostly ridiculed and intimidated and cast off as nut jobs. It forces people to try and be more scientific savvy in order to be like those they are arguing with.
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
If a scientist where to come up with a theory greatly different to the mainstream and was able to conclusively proof through peer-reviewed repeatable observations and experiments the would be a shoe-in for a noble prize.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 12:03:22 PM
No, I'm not saying you should see the event and hear it at the same time, at all.

Yes, you are.

If the light and sound are traveling at the same speed, then yes, we should hear them at the same time, or almost the same time if going by your 'ears are slower than the eyes' stance.

I'm saying that the event happens virtually at the same time, one causes the other, as in vibration/friction results in light, but because it's took time to build up that light, you see that light and then hear that build up to it, dependent on the strength of the friction that made it glow enough in the distance being strong enough to reach your ears.

It's the reason why the speed of light is an absolute joke.
An explosion with C4 ,for example, takes place in a fraction of a second. 

If the light and sound always reaches us at the same time, then there is something in our brain that subconsciously slows our registering of the sound, and it somehow does this with extreme accuracy because it bases it on distance, which means our eyes would have to be extremely accurate range finders.

Or

The light and sound travel at different speeds.

Since cameras capturing both video and audio are also subject to this same sound delay, I guess that narrows it down.
As I said before. I am not saying you see the event and hear it at the same time.

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 12:47:45 PM
Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 17, 2013, 01:52:18 PM
It doesn't matter how it acts or how it's seen. The fact is, it's still the end result of sound, no matter how you see it, that's what I'm getting at.
Think of anything you like about light and think about how it's produced.
Try and use anything you can think of that I cannot work out a starting point of sound from and I will gladly bow down.

Can you explain how LED produces light (and therefore sound as well in your world)?
It's a light emitting diode and the light is heat and the heat is made by vibration/friction. For any of it to work in the first place the energy has to go through electrical conductors which is friction through a circuit and through a positive to negative metal wire. You cannot hear the sound from it because your ears are crap for stuff like that but the friction is there through speed of electrons basically crowding into what's know as free electrons or the docile crowd longing around being attacked by the baying mob, causing super friction, creating light.
Obviously there's more to it but basically I'm showing you that it's friction/vibration/sound, creating an end product of what we see and on a big scale, would hear.

If you cannot prove that there is sound produced by LED using any technological device available today then maybe there is no sound after all.
How good are you at hearing a dog whistle?

Our inability to hear certain sound frequencies is not evidence for LEDs producing sound.
Well, that's where you have to really think on it. It's up to you whether you accept it or not. I'm just telling you what I know.
You do not get light without sound.
Prove it. Also nuclear fusion can produce light without sound.
Nuclear fusion does not exist, try again.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak_%C3%A0_configuration_variable (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak_%C3%A0_configuration_variable)

Check it out!
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 17, 2013, 04:28:47 PM
Almost,
Nowhere in that link did I read NUCLEAR fusion.  It could be COLD fusion they are performing.

Cold Fusion Reactor (http://#)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 17, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
Almost,
Nowhere in that link did I read NUCLEAR fusion.  It could be COLD fusion they are performing.
Cold fusion.  As in, cold nuclear fusion.  Tokamaks(?) are specifically for use with plasmas, which are generally extremely hot, so that's unlikely at any rate.

Here Spaceship, have the full article on the Tokamak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak)


See, nuclear fusion isn't that uncommon, Scepti.  It's just getting it to put out more usable energy than we put in that's the problem.  I think I explained this to you before your deletion rampage, too.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 17, 2013, 04:42:04 PM
Almost,
Nowhere in that link did I read NUCLEAR fusion.

Earth,
What is 'fusion' in this context?

Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fusion
fusion:
...
4. (Physics / Nuclear Physics) See nuclear fusion

Hmm, righto, seems that in this context 'fusion' refers to 'nuclear fusion' anyway.

Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nuclear+fusion
nuclear fusion:
(Physics / Nuclear Physics) a reaction in which two nuclei combine to form a nucleus with the release of energy. Sometimes shortened to fusion.

Also,

Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cold+fusion
cold fusion:
A hypothetical form of nuclear fusion occurring without the use of extreme temperature or pressure.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Scintific Method on October 17, 2013, 07:22:25 PM
I would very much like to see what scepti has to say about this:

You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from  it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.
So anyone traveling at supersonic speeds will not be able to see anything behind them? 

Why has this never been witnessed?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on October 18, 2013, 12:12:37 AM
They're creating an electric arc in a plastic bottle.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 18, 2013, 02:18:47 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Give me something specific to work from and I'll do my best.
I'll take this as an agreement.
As it has already been asked, start for example with an experiment to prove the variation of an object's weight relative to its surrounding pressure.
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to achieve here.

Ok, let's restart ...

(...)
Does the weight REALLY change with pressure ? yes or no ?
I'm not talking about scales and other measure stuff or recalibration. What says your theory ?

The answer is yes but you are not going to see it change unless you do a low to high pressure test.
All things are under pressure. All things.
The difference is simply down to the equalisation of that pressure which determines the weight of any object against the density of it, or where its place is, in or on or above the earth.
What you physically pick up whether it's light or heavy, is determined by pressure.
We don't knowingly feel it, because we are equalised to the pressure we live under. You put low pressure against our bodies and we then feel the pressure and feel heavier and would be heavier for the duration of that low pressure v high pressure.

Do you remember ? I know it's before your deleting rage episod.
Now please, can you try the low to high pressure test as stated ?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 02:28:14 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Give me something specific to work from and I'll do my best.
I'll take this as an agreement.
As it has already been asked, start for example with an experiment to prove the variation of an object's weight relative to its surrounding pressure.
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to achieve here.

Ok, let's restart ...

(...)
Does the weight REALLY change with pressure ? yes or no ?
I'm not talking about scales and other measure stuff or recalibration. What says your theory ?

The answer is yes but you are not going to see it change unless you do a low to high pressure test.
All things are under pressure. All things.
The difference is simply down to the equalisation of that pressure which determines the weight of any object against the density of it, or where its place is, in or on or above the earth.
What you physically pick up whether it's light or heavy, is determined by pressure.
We don't knowingly feel it, because we are equalised to the pressure we live under. You put low pressure against our bodies and we then feel the pressure and feel heavier and would be heavier for the duration of that low pressure v high pressure.

Do you remember ? I know it's before your deleting rage episod.
Now please, can you try the low to high pressure test as stated ?
What do you mean by try it?

If you mean physically try it, how do you suggest I manage this?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 18, 2013, 02:53:25 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Give me something specific to work from and I'll do my best.
I'll take this as an agreement.
As it has already been asked, start for example with an experiment to prove the variation of an object's weight relative to its surrounding pressure.
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to achieve here.

Ok, let's restart ...

(...)
Does the weight REALLY change with pressure ? yes or no ?
I'm not talking about scales and other measure stuff or recalibration. What says your theory ?

The answer is yes but you are not going to see it change unless you do a low to high pressure test.
All things are under pressure. All things.
The difference is simply down to the equalisation of that pressure which determines the weight of any object against the density of it, or where its place is, in or on or above the earth.
What you physically pick up whether it's light or heavy, is determined by pressure.
We don't knowingly feel it, because we are equalised to the pressure we live under. You put low pressure against our bodies and we then feel the pressure and feel heavier and would be heavier for the duration of that low pressure v high pressure.

Do you remember ? I know it's before your deleting rage episod.
Now please, can you try the low to high pressure test as stated ?
What do you mean by try it?

If you mean physically try it, how do you suggest I manage this?
Please stop dodging. It's your theory, you are 100% sure about it, but you don't have any kind of idea of how to experiment it?
You should have observed something that started your reflexion. Build an experiment around it, make it repeatable and verifiable, give the process and the results and let others do it by their means.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 03:42:20 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

You, nor anyone else has proved what I'm saying is wrong. Telling me they are wrong is not proof.
Nobody can prove you wrong by your standards. You say, "the sky is red", one says "no it's blue, come on, you can see it", you answer " your eyes are sooo primitive, the sky is red, prove me I'm wrong".

Now show a single test you have done. Start by a single one. You are here giving brilliant thoughts but never ever gave ONE SINGLE experimentation result. You may start with your pressure/gravitation "theory", it's very easy to experiment.
Give me something specific to work from and I'll do my best.
I'll take this as an agreement.
As it has already been asked, start for example with an experiment to prove the variation of an object's weight relative to its surrounding pressure.
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to achieve here.

Ok, let's restart ...

(...)
Does the weight REALLY change with pressure ? yes or no ?
I'm not talking about scales and other measure stuff or recalibration. What says your theory ?

The answer is yes but you are not going to see it change unless you do a low to high pressure test.
All things are under pressure. All things.
The difference is simply down to the equalisation of that pressure which determines the weight of any object against the density of it, or where its place is, in or on or above the earth.
What you physically pick up whether it's light or heavy, is determined by pressure.
We don't knowingly feel it, because we are equalised to the pressure we live under. You put low pressure against our bodies and we then feel the pressure and feel heavier and would be heavier for the duration of that low pressure v high pressure.

Do you remember ? I know it's before your deleting rage episod.
Now please, can you try the low to high pressure test as stated ?
What do you mean by try it?

If you mean physically try it, how do you suggest I manage this?
Please stop dodging. It's your theory, you are 100% sure about it, but you don't have any kind of idea of how to experiment it?
You should have observed something that started your reflexion. Build an experiment around it, make it repeatable and verifiable, give the process and the results and let others do it by their means.
As I said before, tell me how I'm supposed to manage this.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 18, 2013, 03:57:57 AM
As I said before, tell me how I'm supposed to manage this.
I don't even understand your theory, how can I be qualified for building tests on it ?
It's your duty, not mine. Don't ask people to prove your ideas. Your theory is built on common sense?
Wikipedia:
Quote
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate

It should be easy to find and achieve such experiments.
The fact is that you are just throwing vague concepts. You never give some reality to it, but you easily dismiss all other experiments and findings.
Go a step further now, face reality, show experiments, the simpler the better.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 05:32:52 AM
As I said before, tell me how I'm supposed to manage this.
I don't even understand your theory, how can I be qualified for building tests on it ?
It's your duty, not mine. Don't ask people to prove your ideas. Your theory is built on common sense?
Wikipedia:
Quote
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate

It should be easy to find and achieve such experiments.
The fact is that you are just throwing vague concepts. You never give some reality to it, but you easily dismiss all other experiments and findings.
Go a step further now, face reality, show experiments, the simpler the better.
If you don't understand my theory, why are you asking me to do an experiment that you obviously don't understand?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 18, 2013, 05:48:19 AM
As I said before, tell me how I'm supposed to manage this.
I don't even understand your theory, how can I be qualified for building tests on it ?
It's your duty, not mine. Don't ask people to prove your ideas. Your theory is built on common sense?
Wikipedia:
Quote
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate

It should be easy to find and achieve such experiments.
The fact is that you are just throwing vague concepts. You never give some reality to it, but you easily dismiss all other experiments and findings.
Go a step further now, face reality, show experiments, the simpler the better.
If you don't understand my theory, why are you asking me to do an experiment that you obviously don't understand?
Stop rhetorics and start experiencing. You are claiming, let's face your writings.
Are you saying that you don't have any clue of any kind of experiment ? really ? for anything you are explaining here ?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 05:53:28 AM
As I said before, tell me how I'm supposed to manage this.
I don't even understand your theory, how can I be qualified for building tests on it ?
It's your duty, not mine. Don't ask people to prove your ideas. Your theory is built on common sense?
Wikipedia:
Quote
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate

It should be easy to find and achieve such experiments.
The fact is that you are just throwing vague concepts. You never give some reality to it, but you easily dismiss all other experiments and findings.
Go a step further now, face reality, show experiments, the simpler the better.
If you don't understand my theory, why are you asking me to do an experiment that you obviously don't understand?
Stop rhetorics and start experiencing. You are claiming, let's face your writings.
Are you saying that you don't have any clue of any kind of experiment ? really ? for anything you are explaining here ?
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 18, 2013, 06:33:46 AM
I don't even know what you are asking me to do.
He's asking you to provide some experimental evidence to support your "theory".  If you don't know how to do that, then that's your problem, not Antonio's.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 18, 2013, 07:11:07 AM
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 10:04:46 AM
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 18, 2013, 12:59:06 PM
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.
All we're asking you to do is to provide some evidence to justify your denial.  Is that really too much to ask?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 18, 2013, 05:40:45 PM
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.
All we're asking you to do is to provide some evidence to justify your denial.  Is that really too much to ask?
Apparently.  ::)
I don't even know what you are asking me to do. Explain what and how you want me to do what you are TELLING me to do and we will go from there.
If you can't, then stop coming back with this nonsense, as it's getting to be a tit for tat thing and you know what happens when I feel that coming on, don't you, Antonioni.
I think he is merely asking that you provide some experimental evidence or otherwise, rather than claiming it is based on "common sense".
I agree with him.
If you are unable to provide one piece of data that is at least in support of your hypothesis, we might be more willing to consider it as a possibility.
The direction that you're going in right now would suggest that you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
You know what usually happens to ideas based on nothing with no evidence for them, right?
Furthermore, did you really deny the existence of nuclear fusion a few pages back?
Come on, man.
Yes I denied it, because it does not exist in how they lead us to believe.
How does it exist, then?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 04:17:40 AM
I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 19, 2013, 07:40:37 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60218.20.html#.UmKV-foazTo (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60218.20.html#.UmKV-foazTo) This threads good, you should read it Sceptimatic. You should post your opinion on Islam there.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:48:15 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60218.20.html#.UmKV-foazTo (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60218.20.html#.UmKV-foazTo) This threads good, you should read it Sceptimatic. You should post your opinion on Islam there.
Why should I post anything on Islam?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 19, 2013, 08:07:48 AM
Quote
Why should I post anything on Islam?

Not knowing anything about the topic at hand hasn't stopped you from talking about science.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 19, 2013, 08:11:43 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 08:33:59 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Umurweird on October 19, 2013, 08:40:04 AM
You've been proven to be wrong multiple times.

You just refuse to accept that you're wrong.

The stalemate exist for this reason.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 19, 2013, 09:14:29 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 09:17:48 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 09:39:40 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 10:11:18 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.
Basically it's air pressure and electromagnetism. It explains everything that we observe happening.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.
Basically it's air pressure and electromagnetism. It explains everything that we observe happening.

We are already talking about how you think it is pressure and electromagnestism in another thread. I'm asking you what you think the RE definition is.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.

It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.

What do you understand the "theory of gravity" to be. Without being obtuse, just state it how you would if you were a round earther.
Basically it's air pressure and electromagnetism. It explains everything that we observe happening.

We are already talking about how you think it is pressure and electromagnestism in another thread. I'm asking you what you think the RE definition is.
The round earth definition appears to be unknown magic, I can't explain it any other way.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 10:36:46 AM
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 10:44:27 AM
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?
In a nutshell, it's that mass attracts mass. I don't ridicule it, I simply question the reason as to how it supposedly comes about, which is an unknown force called gravity.

After all this time, it's unknown.
It's unknown for a reason, which is....it's an easy way of hiding what it really is, which allows it to be used in fictional space exploits and to describe observations of space.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 19, 2013, 10:47:16 AM
Any input on this yet?

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 10:54:12 AM
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?
In a nutshell, it's that mass attracts mass. I don't ridicule it, I simply question the reason as to how it supposedly comes about, which is an unknown force called gravity.

After all this time, it's unknown.
It's unknown for a reason, which is....it's an easy way of hiding what it really is, which allows it to be used in fictional space exploits and to describe observations of space.

Actually here it is.

"the principle that two particles attract each other with forces directly proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them."

Notice how obviously incomplete this definition is? It simply describes gravity as a force but it makes no attempt at explaining what the mechanisms are. This is actually not incompatible with your definition of gravity where you use phenomena like pressure and magnets.

Do you see why it is ridiculous to ridicule this? Newton isn't making any claims about what gravity is at all here. His definition is basically the same as saying "things fall" followed by some mathematically true statements about just how fast those things fall. If those things are falling because of pressure and magnetism then great, what Newton says here doesn't contradict that.

Now, if you look into another thread where you and I are discussing pressure you'll see that pressure and magnets don't seem to have any correlation to whatever is causing gravity. There is no evidence to support this, in fact evidence overwhelmingly contradicts this.

Moving on in history, Einstein came up with General Relativity and that theory actually does try to give a cause to whatever gravity is. We can go on from here but I already know you have difficulty with the concept of spacetime.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 10:55:04 AM
Any input on this yet?

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Light is produced from sound. The light from that sound will reflect through the atmosphere with the atmosphere being a connected mass of molecules/matter, so the reflection will hit you way way faster than the lesser frequency sound that is basically the fading of that light.

To your primitive ears, you may or may not hear that effect, as it's dependent on the size and frequency of it.
That's the basic of basic explanation, without getting into the complicated stuff.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 11:06:07 AM
Let me help you here. You seem to ridicule Newton's gravitational definition. What is that definition?
In a nutshell, it's that mass attracts mass. I don't ridicule it, I simply question the reason as to how it supposedly comes about, which is an unknown force called gravity.

After all this time, it's unknown.
It's unknown for a reason, which is....it's an easy way of hiding what it really is, which allows it to be used in fictional space exploits and to describe observations of space.

Actually here it is.

"the principle that two particles attract each other with forces directly proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them."

Notice how obviously incomplete this definition is? It simply describes gravity as a force but it makes no attempt at explaining what the mechanisms are. This is actually not incompatible with your definition of gravity where you use phenomena like pressure and magnets.

Do you see why it is ridiculous to ridicule this? Newton isn't making any claims about what gravity is at all here. His definition is basically the same as saying "things fall" followed by some mathematically true statements about just how fast those things fall. If those things are falling because of pressure and magnetism then great, what Newton says here doesn't contradict that.

Now, if you look into another thread where you and I are discussing pressure you'll see that pressure and magnets don't seem to have any correlation to whatever is causing gravity. There is no evidence to support this.

Moving on in history, Einstein came up with General Relativity and that theory actually does try to give a cause to whatever gravity is. We can go on from here but I already know you have difficulty with the concept of spacetime.
Here's what you are saying.
Newton is the man who thought up gravity but didn't know what it was, as he explained it far too  basically, as in, things fall due to mass/weight and a force that he does not know, acts upon this mass against mass.
His name is constantly used, but Einstein TRIED to make sense of it and came up with his dolly mixture bags of relativities, each time a problem arose.

Now you are telling me that I have difficulty getting to grips with space time.
I don't have any difficulty at all, it's 100% clear to me, it's just that you cannot accept that, because you believe you understand it and yet I'm basically telling you it's a load of crap and is simply made up like a lot of it is, to cater for what we are told happens up there.

Yes, I know I'm going to be labelled ignorant and uneducated and that's fine, but no matter what you say, you still cannot stake your life on what you have read into as being TRUE...it has to stay theoretical.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 11:11:27 AM
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 11:18:59 AM
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.
Only in the mainstream science world can a theory become a fact, which is basically what they are saying, in a nutshell...EXCEPT, they play a clever game, because by using it as their theory, cast off as virtually, fact, they leave the door open for it to be tweaked, just in case some clever clogs comes along and starts to take it apart, which gives scope for it to be altered.

This is what science is, in terms of sleight of hand type science, where the sheep can be forever confused and baffled to hell by the constant magic that gets bestowed upon their trance like wide eyes and amazed but damped down minds.

Proving gravity with a barometer makes no sense whatsoever, I just don't see how it can prove anything of the sort.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 11:22:55 AM
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.
Only in the mainstream science world can a theory become a fact, which is basically what they are saying, in a nutshell...EXCEPT, they play a clever game, because by using it as their theory, cast off as virtually, fact, they leave the door open for it to be tweaked, just in case some clever clogs comes along and starts to take it apart, which gives scope for it to be altered.

This is what science is, in terms of sleight of hand type science, where the sheep can be forever confused and baffled to hell by the constant magic that gets bestowed upon their trance like wide eyes and amazed but damped down minds.

Proving gravity with a barometer makes no sense whatsoever, I just don't see how it can prove anything of the sort.

Nobody says it is a fact. Nobody is calling it fact except for you.

As far as barometers, I am not trying to prove it with a barometer. Barometer's measure pressure. It is you who is insisting that gravity is caused by pressure. I would never try to "prove" gravity is caused by a barometer because I don't think it is the cause of it. It should be you who would undergo such an experiment because you are trying to match them together with correlation.

What the barometer can do for us in this instance is make us sure without much doubt, that gravity is not caused by air pressure.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.

As much as it pains me, I'll be inclined to agree with scepti about general relativity.
General relativity fails to explain anything really.
It basically says that a theoretical conceptual analogy (space-time) is responsible for gravity.
I for one cannot force myself to subscribe to such a fallacy, for space-time is not physically manifested.
As for special relativity, Tesla pretty much disproved that as well.
The faster-than-light scalar or longitudinal waves Tesla used to magnify and wireless-ly transmit power were able to travel up to ((Pi/2)*(c)) through a solid medium or otherwise.
Einstein was treated and adorned as a celebrity, while the public and the media shunned Tesla and scrapped his ideas.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 19, 2013, 11:35:34 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.
It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.
Again, it's your duty to find an experiment to prove your "theory".  It's too easy to say, "there is none", you keep it in your safe zone.
...You are claiming that your "theory" is as valid as the gravitation one. That's not enough, prove it. Give the relationship between weight and mass. I may recall you that you said the weight was tightly related to atmospheric pressure. Find an experiment involving pressure changes and note the weight variation. Why don't you do this ?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.

As much as it pains me, I'll be inclined to agree with scepti about general relativity.
General relativity fails to explain anything really.
It basically says that a theoretical conceptual analogy (space-time) is creating gravity.
I for one cannot force myself to subscribe to such a fallacy, for space-time is not physically manifested.
As for special relativity, Tesla pretty much disproved that as well.
The faster-than-light scalar or longitudinal waves Tesla used to magnify and wireless-ly transmit power were able to travel up to ((Pi/2)*(c)) through a solid medium or otherwise.
Einstein was treated and adorned as a celebrity, while the public and the media shunned Tesla and scrapped his ideas.

space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.

Also, it is not saying that space-time creates gravity. It is saying that mass affects spacetime and gravity is the result of that.

If you don't understand what proofs there are for this allow me to highlight what I consider to be conclusive proof.

Look up gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens) and look at these pictures.

(http://www.roe.ac.uk/~heymans/website_images/abell2218.jpg)

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2011/04/dkmttr-gravlens.jpeg)

(http://www.dlr.de/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/portal_news/newsarchiv2009_3/4a4a7.jpg)



Tesla is highly revered by the way.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.
It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.
Again, it's your duty to find an experiment to prove your "theory".  It's too easy to say, "there is none", you keep it in your safe zone.
...You are claiming that your "theory" is as valid as the gravitation one. That's not enough, prove it. Give the relationship between weight and mass. I may recall you that you said the weight was tightly related to atmospheric pressure. Find an experiment involving pressure changes and note the weight variation. Why don't you do this ?
I could prove it but it would require a sky scraper and I'm clean out of them where I live. Any where you live?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
You'd use a skyscraper to prove what and how?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Antonio on October 19, 2013, 11:50:00 AM
I'm not one that can be intimidated and I certainly will not follow protocol. I will, however, follow my own thoughts until they do not stand up to the test.

I won't discuss it in this topic. If you are desperate to know, then stick a topic up about it.

No desperation here, this is just a validation of your double standard. You are right until tests prove you are wrong but you will never do these tests. Ergo you are always right, but still open minded of course. How convenient.
Well that's just the way it is with me.
When someone can  prove me wrong, where I have to question what I think, then I will surely take note. I have seen nothing to do that yet. All I see is, little digs and being told I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it and certainly does not make any of you, any credible scientists simply by using scientific words and copied, shoe horned equations.

You see, your stance, as well as others, is....you are right until tests prove you wrong, so there's a sort of stalemate there.
Just because you were pre fed your theories, does not make them especially credible, in what we are discussing.
It's not my stance. I'm not claiming something here. You are doing such a thing. Your task is to give some evidence so we may discuss about the results, not about your stories.
Please give me an honest answer : Why don't you want to do any kind of experiment?
The very same reason why you don't want to give me an experiment. Because there isn't one that can directly prove either theories.
Again, it's your duty to find an experiment to prove your "theory".  It's too easy to say, "there is none", you keep it in your safe zone.
...You are claiming that your "theory" is as valid as the gravitation one. That's not enough, prove it. Give the relationship between weight and mass. I may recall you that you said the weight was tightly related to atmospheric pressure. Find an experiment involving pressure changes and note the weight variation. Why don't you do this ?
I could prove it but it would require a sky scraper and I'm clean out of them where I live. Any where you live?
Nice try.It's your "theory" and your experiences, not mine. Last time you said you needed a mountain, that's was funny too.
Take your pristine Harley Davidson, and go for a little trip. You surely will find some nice places to try your experiments. Or you may find another way to change pressure at home.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 11:56:27 AM
You'd use a skyscraper to prove what and how?
To prove that it's atmospheric pressure that acts upon an object that can make it appear lighter or heavier.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 11:59:10 AM
You'd use a skyscraper to prove what and how?
To prove that it's atmospheric pressure that acts upon an object that can make it appear lighter or heavier.

That sounds like a famous experiment performed by a famous scientist that actually proves the opposite of what you suggest.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 19, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from  it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.
Still hoping to hear of some evidence too of someone witnessing this.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 19, 2013, 12:00:57 PM
You'd use a skyscraper to prove what and how?
To prove that it's atmospheric pressure that acts upon an object that can make it appear lighter or heavier.

All you'd be potentially proving is the inverse square law.  Get a bell jar, measure it at the same elevation so as to be consistent.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Pyrolizard on October 19, 2013, 12:02:38 PM
You are still going to see light when travelling at any speed if you are heading towards it. Going away from  it is a different matter as the light will fade to nothing from your sight.
Still hoping to hear of some evidence too of someone witnessing this.
Along with the nearly one hundred eighty degree field of view that would occur if traveling near scepti's hypothetical speed of light.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2013, 12:10:43 PM
Of course it is theoretical. It is called "the theory of general relativity." It is the title of Einsteins paper after all. To this day however, it has not been proven false while attributing the phenomena we call gravity to pressure is easily dismissable with a barometer. General Relativity is a solid theory, backed with mountains of evidence.

As much as it pains me, I'll be inclined to agree with scepti about general relativity.
General relativity fails to explain anything really.
It basically says that a theoretical conceptual analogy (space-time) is creating gravity.
I for one cannot force myself to subscribe to such a fallacy, for space-time is not physically manifested.
As for special relativity, Tesla pretty much disproved that as well.
The faster-than-light scalar or longitudinal waves Tesla used to magnify and wireless-ly transmit power were able to travel up to ((Pi/2)*(c)) through a solid medium or otherwise.
Einstein was treated and adorned as a celebrity, while the public and the media shunned Tesla and scrapped his ideas.

space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.

Also, it is not saying that space-time creates gravity. It is saying that mass affects spacetime and gravity is the result of that.

If you don't understand what proofs there are for this allow me to highlight what I consider to be conclusive proof.

Look up gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens) and look at these pictures.

(http://www.roe.ac.uk/~heymans/website_images/abell2218.jpg)

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2011/04/dkmttr-gravlens.jpeg)

(http://www.dlr.de/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/portal_news/newsarchiv2009_3/4a4a7.jpg)



Tesla is highly revered by the way.
I'm not trying to debate the existence of gravity.
I'm saying that general relativity is not a satisfactory way to describe what it is.
I believe that Tesla was the smartest most innovative man to ever live.
But, greed accepted Einstein and Edison more.
Space-time is a concept.
It doesn't really exist.
There is no fabric for mass to dent.
I understand how general relativity works.
On a side note : Tesla strongly disagreed with general relativity.
On a side-side note : I changed my poor word choice from "creating" to "responsible for".
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 12:18:48 PM
Saying space time doesn't exist is nonsense. It's a specific location at a specific time. Nothing more. I don't know what complicated ideas you have in your head about what that is, but it's not that. Einstein adds the dimension of time to the dimensions of space for good cause. His theory proposed that time was also influenced by gravitational fields. So unifying space and time was necessary to make this theory complete. This here too is another provable aspect of GR as time is indeed affected by gravity.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2013, 12:26:41 PM
Saying space time doesn't exist is nonsense. It's a specific location at a specific time. Nothing more. I don't know what complicated ideas you have in your head about what that is, but it's not that. Einstein adds the dimension of time to the dimensions of space for good cause. His theory proposed that time was also influenced by gravitational fields. So unifying space and time was necessary to make this theory complete. This here too is another provable aspect of GR as time is indeed affected by gravity.

It's an idea.
General relativity says that an idea is responsible for gravity.
I don't buy it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 12:32:57 PM
Saying space time doesn't exist is nonsense. It's a specific location at a specific time. Nothing more. I don't know what complicated ideas you have in your head about what that is, but it's not that. Einstein adds the dimension of time to the dimensions of space for good cause. His theory proposed that time was also influenced by gravitational fields. So unifying space and time was necessary to make this theory complete. This here too is another provable aspect of GR as time is indeed affected by gravity.

It's an idea.
General relativity says that an idea is responsible for gravity.
I don't buy it.

An idea is responsible for gravity? What are you talking about? General Relativity describes the mechanism of how apparent gravitational effects actually occur. You don't seem to understand it at all.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2013, 01:09:05 PM



space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.



The key word here being concept.
I hate to sound like an FE'er, but use your head, man.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 19, 2013, 01:12:27 PM
You'd use a skyscraper to prove what and how?
To prove that it's atmospheric pressure that acts upon an object that can make it appear lighter or heavier.
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less? 
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 01:14:29 PM



space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.



The key word here being concept.
I hate to sound like an FE'er, but use your head, man.

Oh you definitely sound like one right now. Let me ask you. Do you believe in space and that that space consists of three dimensions?

Now, do you believe that you can describe events using a 4th dimension of time?

Do you think that if I talk to you about an event in history at a particular time I would use the time when it happened and the location that it happened?

This is not a revolutionary idea. It is location + time.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 03:17:00 PM
You'd use a skyscraper to prove what and how?
To prove that it's atmospheric pressure that acts upon an object that can make it appear lighter or heavier.
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.

The only way it can be done is to have two identical sets of scales (preferably digital)  with one calibrated to zero at sea level and the other one calibrated on the roof of the sky scraper to zero. This way, only the object itself will have it's own effect at both levels on those two scales.

I don't have a sky scraper near me to try it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 19, 2013, 03:28:35 PM
Next time you have some gold to sell, you might want to take this into consideration.  You might get more money weighing it at sea level.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 19, 2013, 06:32:28 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure. 
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 06:36:52 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.
One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraper solves this problem.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 06:47:43 PM
Does it matter? If pressure had an effect on weight then barometers would be an integral part of weighing any object. We would always need to account for this but we never do.

Anyways, before you go dropping things off skyscrapers please make sure you have such an event approved by a city. It could be deadly to people below.

Also, don't be silly like EarthisaSpaceship and compare an index card to another object. You have to pick objects that would have the same amount of friction. You can choose any 2 objects with different densities and weights but you obviously don't want any object that would be subject to Bernoulli's Principle.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 19, 2013, 07:03:19 PM
Oh, like a feather?
BTW, this isn't fluid dynamics we're talking about.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:04:09 PM
Does it matter? If pressure had an effect on weight then barometers would be an integral part of weighing any object. We would always need to account for this but we never do.
You have a fixation for this barometer, don't you?
Anyways, before you go dropping things off skyscrapers please make sure you have such an event approved by a city. It could be deadly to people below.
Oh, really? and here's me thinking I could just do it, amid rush hour or something.
Also, don't be silly like EarthisaSpaceship and compare an index card to another object. You have to pick objects that would have the same amount of friction. You can choose any 2 objects with different densities and weights but you obviously don't want any object that would be subject to Bernoulli's Principle.
You mean like a sheet of paper, cut to the same size as a credit card, then drop the cut sheet and the credit card and they will fall the same or is this part where it's a case of, " no, no, you can't have that, it has to be something a little heavier"....?

I'll let you briefly explain Bernoulli's principle, seeing as you've already googled. Just a brief and simple explanation will suffice.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 19, 2013, 07:04:49 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.
One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is. 
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 07:08:58 PM
Barometers measure local pressure. They are very relevant to this discussion.

As far as Bernoulli's principle it is basically the principles of lift, friction and drag.

Mind your googley accusations too. I know all these things because I have a job where I must know things about gravity, pressure, flight and much more. This is why I use a barometer everyday, as I told you earlier.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:15:15 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.
One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is.
The scales may stay at zero but that doesn't mean they will be at zero, only that they say zero.
Why?

Because scales calibrated at sea level atmospheric pressure to read zero, will read zero because the pressure is already bearing down on the plate of the scale in some capacity....BUT...in an evacuated chamber they cannot be calibrated with any accuracy other than guess work, because having them at zero at sea level atmospheric pressure, means they go into the chamber reading zero and once evacuation starts, they will still read zero, yet the pressure on the plate will be marginally released...UNLESS the scale shows that reverse discrepancy, so it can be calibrated from that point on with the gloves that will by that time, look like inflated fingers with little flexibility.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Barometers measure local pressure. They are very relevant to this discussion.

As far as Bernoulli's principle it is basically the principles of lift, friction and drag.

Mind your googley accusations too. I know all these things because I have a job where I must know things about gravity, pressure, flight and much more. This is why I use a barometer everyday, as I told you earlier.
Yes, yes, I know about your gravity job. I mean, you should be ripping me a new one with this being your job, as I'm just an uneducated simpleton.
Anyway: Use Bernoulli to break apart what I'm saying then and for now put your little barometer back into it's rightful place.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 19, 2013, 07:27:25 PM
What are you even talking about? Why are you so defensive to barometers?  What is your problem with Bernoulli's Principle?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 19, 2013, 07:29:45 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.
One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is.
The scales may stay at zero but that doesn't mean they will be at zero, only that they say zero.
Why?

Because scales calibrated at sea level atmospheric pressure to read zero, will read zero because the pressure is already bearing down on the plate of the scale in some capacity....BUT...in an evacuated chamber they cannot be calibrated with any accuracy other than guess work, because having them at zero at sea level atmospheric pressure, means they go into the chamber reading zero and once evacuation starts, they will still read zero, yet the pressure on the plate will be marginally released...UNLESS the scale shows that reverse discrepancy, so it can be calibrated from that point on with the gloves that will by that time, look like inflated fingers with little flexibility.

Yes - the scales can go negative.  If something particularly heavy is on them (say, a 500 ml round-bottomed flask with some chemicals in it) and it is quickly removed, the scale will easily oscillate between negative and positive weights until it reaches zero again for a few moments.

Alternatively, (and I have done this as well), you can 'zero' the balance with something already placed on it (like an empty flask, ready to weigh something into it).  Remove said item, and voila - the scale will go into the negative by exactly whatever the flask weighs.

Honestly Scepti, I'm heavily experienced with this and you're simply wrong.  You won't like that, but you are.

Also, unlike many other things, I do actually have first-hand experience with what I'm talking about and I can 100% verify that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of an object what-so-ever.  There is no guess work - I have literally zeroed the plate before the vacuum is applied (I have done it many times) and when the vacuum is applied, the plate does not drop into the negative.  When I flood the chamber with argon, I must firstly evacuate it of air (so basically put it under vacuum), then I flood it with argon which typically goes to a pressure a little above atmospheric (then I repeat the process twice more to make sure there is no air in there) and the scales will literally sit at zero the whole time (until I place something on the scale).

The 200 g calibration weight (it weighs 200.0000 g exactly) will weigh exactly that regardless of the pressure.  You're just wrong.  If you refuse to believe me then fine.  I can't convince you of the fact we are not encapsulated by a giant ice-dome, I've come to peace with this.  However, if I cannot convince you that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of something, given it is something that I have personally dealt with so many times - then I give up.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2013, 07:31:03 PM



space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.



The key word here being concept.
I hate to sound like an FE'er, but use your head, man.

Oh you definitely sound like one right now. Let me ask you. Do you believe in space and that that space consists of three dimensions?

Now, do you believe that you can describe events using a 4th dimension of time?

Do you think that if I talk to you about an event in history at a particular time I would use the time when it happened and the location that it happened?

This is not a revolutionary idea. It is location + time.
So location + time + mass = gravity.
That explains a lot.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:31:47 PM
What are you even talking about? Why are you so defensive to barometers?  What is your problem with Bernoulli's Principle?
I don't have any problem, I'm waiting for a Bernoulli take out from Rotti to see how palatable it is.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 07:32:31 PM
To be honest anyone else can see that you are wrong and my arguments should be convincing you, but I'm honestly trying to help.

I'm just invoking BP to say that you should avoid using this experiment to compare something like a feather to a bowling ball. The feather is obviously subject to friction and drag in a manner that doesn't affect the ball. This is because we have an atmosphere. This is why you can find YouTube videos that compare a feather to other objects where this isn't a problem in a vacuum because there is essentially no air. It would be more proper to compare something like a bowling ball to a basketball since a skyscraper is not in an airless environment.

By the way, a tool used to measure local pressure certainly belongs in an experiment concerning local pressure. Stop trying to disregard it just because you know such a device shows how blatantly incorrect your hypothesis is.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 07:35:00 PM



space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.



The key word here being concept.
I hate to sound like an FE'er, but use your head, man.

Oh you definitely sound like one right now. Let me ask you. Do you believe in space and that that space consists of three dimensions?

Now, do you believe that you can describe events using a 4th dimension of time?

Do you think that if I talk to you about an event in history at a particular time I would use the time when it happened and the location that it happened?

This is not a revolutionary idea. It is location + time.
So location + time + mass = gravity.
That explains a lot.

I didn't say that. I didn't even get into how general relativity explains how the mechanisms of gravity work. Spacetime is a concept that you have to grasp before you can begin to understand though. The thing is that most people think its some enormously complex concept but it isn't.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:36:04 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.
One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is.
The scales may stay at zero but that doesn't mean they will be at zero, only that they say zero.
Why?

Because scales calibrated at sea level atmospheric pressure to read zero, will read zero because the pressure is already bearing down on the plate of the scale in some capacity....BUT...in an evacuated chamber they cannot be calibrated with any accuracy other than guess work, because having them at zero at sea level atmospheric pressure, means they go into the chamber reading zero and once evacuation starts, they will still read zero, yet the pressure on the plate will be marginally released...UNLESS the scale shows that reverse discrepancy, so it can be calibrated from that point on with the gloves that will by that time, look like inflated fingers with little flexibility.

Yes - the scales can go negative.  If something particularly heavy is on them (say, a 500 ml round-bottomed flask with some chemicals in it) and it is quickly removed, the scale will easily oscillate between negative and positive weights until it reaches zero again for a few moments.

Alternatively, (and I have done this as well), you can 'zero' the balance with something already placed on it (like an empty flask, ready to weigh something into it).  Remove said item, and voila - the scale will go into the negative by exactly whatever the flask weighs.

Honestly Scepti, I'm heavily experienced with this and you're simply wrong.  You won't like that, but you are.

Also, unlike many other things, I do actually have first-hand experience with what I'm talking about and I can 100% verify that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of an object what-so-ever.  There is no guess work - I have literally zeroed the plate before the vacuum is applied (I have done it many times) and when the vacuum is applied, the plate does not drop into the negative.  When I flood the chamber with argon, I must firstly evacuate it of air (so basically put it under vacuum), then I flood it with argon which typically goes to a pressure a little above atmospheric (then I repeat the process twice more to make sure there is no air in there) and the scales will literally sit at zero the whole time (until I place something on the scale).

The 200 g calibration weight (it weighs 200.0000 g exactly) will weigh exactly that regardless of the pressure.  You're just wrong.  If you refuse to believe me then fine.  I can't convince you of the fact we are not encapsulated by a giant ice-dome, I've come to peace with this.  However, if I cannot convince you that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of something, given it is something that I have personally dealt with so many times - then I give up.
If you believe for one second that pressure can have no bearing on weight, then I can't help you if you are not willing to actually take off your blinkers and I'm being 100% serious.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:40:18 PM
To be honest anyone else can see that you are wrong and my arguments should be convincing you, but I'm honestly trying to help.

I'm just invoking BP to say that you should avoid using this experiment to compare something like a feather to a bowling ball. The feather is obviously subject to friction and drag in a manner that doesn't affect the ball. This is because we have an atmosphere. This is why you can find YouTube videos that compare a feather to other objects where this isn't a problem in a vacuum because there is essentially no air. It would be more proper to compare something like a bowling ball to a basketball since a skyscraper is not in an airless environment.

By the way, a tool used to measure local pressure certainly belongs in an experiment concerning local pressure. Stop trying to disregard it just because you know such a device shows how blatantly incorrect your hypothesis is.
There is nothing incorrect about what I'm saying in essence. You have been duped into believing the gravity theory, when it should be clear that atmospheric pressure is the reason for it.
Try and view it again, only this time, pretend space does not exist and just use what we have on earth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 07:41:15 PM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 07:51:48 PM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
The higher force acting on us is from above, plus around us of course.
The thing is, we do feel the force but we don't acknowledge it as a rule, because our bodies are built to equalise it and strong enough to exist within it, it's why you cannot jump very high but you can run fast.
Our natural place is on the deck and we manage quite well in the main, yet we suffer from the classic symptoms of backache, leg ache and for women with large breasts, a downward atmospheric force that adds to back problems.
Our heads and shoulders bear the brunt of the above force , that's why laying down is more comfortable than standing up, because you are spreading your weight and the pressure.
It's why walking up a hill is harder than walking along a straight path, because you have to bend your legs and also align yourself vertically with each step which puts more above atmospheric pressure upon your thighs, plus your calves with having to vertically align as you ascend the gradient.

It's all atmospheric pressure....no such thing as gravity. That's the truth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 07:56:21 PM
Those problems could be attributed to either. We know its not atmospheric pressure for the reasons already stated. Just face it. Go back to the drawing board and find something else for us to debunk.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 19, 2013, 07:57:12 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.
One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is.
The scales may stay at zero but that doesn't mean they will be at zero, only that they say zero.
Why?

Because scales calibrated at sea level atmospheric pressure to read zero, will read zero because the pressure is already bearing down on the plate of the scale in some capacity....BUT...in an evacuated chamber they cannot be calibrated with any accuracy other than guess work, because having them at zero at sea level atmospheric pressure, means they go into the chamber reading zero and once evacuation starts, they will still read zero, yet the pressure on the plate will be marginally released...UNLESS the scale shows that reverse discrepancy, so it can be calibrated from that point on with the gloves that will by that time, look like inflated fingers with little flexibility.

Yes - the scales can go negative.  If something particularly heavy is on them (say, a 500 ml round-bottomed flask with some chemicals in it) and it is quickly removed, the scale will easily oscillate between negative and positive weights until it reaches zero again for a few moments.

Alternatively, (and I have done this as well), you can 'zero' the balance with something already placed on it (like an empty flask, ready to weigh something into it).  Remove said item, and voila - the scale will go into the negative by exactly whatever the flask weighs.

Honestly Scepti, I'm heavily experienced with this and you're simply wrong.  You won't like that, but you are.

Also, unlike many other things, I do actually have first-hand experience with what I'm talking about and I can 100% verify that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of an object what-so-ever.  There is no guess work - I have literally zeroed the plate before the vacuum is applied (I have done it many times) and when the vacuum is applied, the plate does not drop into the negative.  When I flood the chamber with argon, I must firstly evacuate it of air (so basically put it under vacuum), then I flood it with argon which typically goes to a pressure a little above atmospheric (then I repeat the process twice more to make sure there is no air in there) and the scales will literally sit at zero the whole time (until I place something on the scale).

The 200 g calibration weight (it weighs 200.0000 g exactly) will weigh exactly that regardless of the pressure.  You're just wrong.  If you refuse to believe me then fine.  I can't convince you of the fact we are not encapsulated by a giant ice-dome, I've come to peace with this.  However, if I cannot convince you that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of something, given it is something that I have personally dealt with so many times - then I give up.
If you believe for one second that pressure can have no bearing on weight, then I can't help you if you are not willing to actually take off your blinkers and I'm being 100% serious.

Ok, I'm done.  I'm not sure if you are perhaps getting your wires crossed with the fact that pressure exerts force on things or if you just truly are that ignorant.

I've dealt with this first-hand, many, many times - yet you dismiss me on an uneducated, unsubstantiated whim.  I am absolutely qualified to know what I'm talking about here, where as you are absolutely not and probably never will be, but sure - you'r right and I, despite my first-hand experience (along with the rest of the scientific world) am incorrect.

Sure, Scepti.   Sure.



 
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
Those problems could be attributed to either. We know its not atmospheric pressure for the reasons already stated. Just face it. Go back to the drawing board and find something else for us to debunk.
The only way I'm going back to the drawing board is to add to what I know and to show those who want to know.
You are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, as I know your stance is immediate denial and a stead fast refusal to even contemplate an alternate, because to find out you were wrong would destroy all that you have been trained for and make a lot of things about it, meaningless.

For your own sanity, just stick to what you've had drummed into you, because I don't think you are ready to be prised away from what's in your head.
Your questioning should come from you, from your own choice and only that way can you dissect the fact from the fiction.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 19, 2013, 08:06:13 PM
So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?
No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.
So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.
One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is.
The scales may stay at zero but that doesn't mean they will be at zero, only that they say zero.
Why?

Because scales calibrated at sea level atmospheric pressure to read zero, will read zero because the pressure is already bearing down on the plate of the scale in some capacity....BUT...in an evacuated chamber they cannot be calibrated with any accuracy other than guess work, because having them at zero at sea level atmospheric pressure, means they go into the chamber reading zero and once evacuation starts, they will still read zero, yet the pressure on the plate will be marginally released...UNLESS the scale shows that reverse discrepancy, so it can be calibrated from that point on with the gloves that will by that time, look like inflated fingers with little flexibility.

Yes - the scales can go negative.  If something particularly heavy is on them (say, a 500 ml round-bottomed flask with some chemicals in it) and it is quickly removed, the scale will easily oscillate between negative and positive weights until it reaches zero again for a few moments.

Alternatively, (and I have done this as well), you can 'zero' the balance with something already placed on it (like an empty flask, ready to weigh something into it).  Remove said item, and voila - the scale will go into the negative by exactly whatever the flask weighs.

Honestly Scepti, I'm heavily experienced with this and you're simply wrong.  You won't like that, but you are.

Also, unlike many other things, I do actually have first-hand experience with what I'm talking about and I can 100% verify that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of an object what-so-ever.  There is no guess work - I have literally zeroed the plate before the vacuum is applied (I have done it many times) and when the vacuum is applied, the plate does not drop into the negative.  When I flood the chamber with argon, I must firstly evacuate it of air (so basically put it under vacuum), then I flood it with argon which typically goes to a pressure a little above atmospheric (then I repeat the process twice more to make sure there is no air in there) and the scales will literally sit at zero the whole time (until I place something on the scale).

The 200 g calibration weight (it weighs 200.0000 g exactly) will weigh exactly that regardless of the pressure.  You're just wrong.  If you refuse to believe me then fine.  I can't convince you of the fact we are not encapsulated by a giant ice-dome, I've come to peace with this.  However, if I cannot convince you that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of something, given it is something that I have personally dealt with so many times - then I give up.
If you believe for one second that pressure can have no bearing on weight, then I can't help you if you are not willing to actually take off your blinkers and I'm being 100% serious.

Ok, I'm done.  I'm not sure if you are perhaps getting your wires crossed with the fact that pressure exerts force on things or if you just truly are that ignorant.

I've dealt with this first-hand, many, many times - yet you dismiss me on an uneducated, unsubstantiated whim.  I am absolutely qualified to know what I'm talking about here, where as you are absolutely not and probably never will be, but sure - you'r right and I, despite my first-hand experience (along with the rest of the scientific world) am incorrect.

Sure, Scepti.   Sure.
No problem, as I said earlier, I have no wish to drag you screaming from your trained thoughts. I know I'm right and you think you are right. That's good enough for me.
One day you may decide to evaluate it all. One day. Who knows.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 08:09:14 PM
Of course I'll stick to what I know instead of some unsubstantiated  nonsense that a crazy guy on the internet spouts off.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 19, 2013, 08:14:41 PM
If you believe for one second that pressure can have no bearing on weight, then I can't help you if you are not willing to actually take off your blinkers and I'm being 100% serious.
Rabhimself has both the equipment and knowledge to conduct the experiments. 

You have neither, scepti.

It's why walking up a hill is harder than walking along a straight path, because you have to bend your legs and also align yourself vertically with each step which puts more above atmospheric pressure upon your thighs, plus your calves with having to vertically align as you ascend the gradient.

It's all atmospheric pressure....no such thing as gravity. That's the truth.

No, your legs becoming tired is only muscle fatigue from lifting your weight repeatedly, not a buildup of air pressure.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2013, 09:23:32 PM
It's why walking up a hill is harder than walking along a straight path, because you have to bend your legs and also align yourself vertically with each step which puts more above atmospheric pressure upon your thighs, plus your calves with having to vertically align as you ascend the gradient.
That doesn't make any sense.  Atmospheric pressure gets lower the higher you go.  Less atmospheric pressure means less atmosphere pressing on your legs, therefore it should be easier to go up hill, shouldn't it?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2013, 11:26:11 PM



space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.



The key word here being concept.
I hate to sound like an FE'er, but use your head, man.

Oh you definitely sound like one right now. Let me ask you. Do you believe in space and that that space consists of three dimensions?

Now, do you believe that you can describe events using a 4th dimension of time?

Do you think that if I talk to you about an event in history at a particular time I would use the time when it happened and the location that it happened?

This is not a revolutionary idea. It is location + time.
So location + time + mass = gravity.
That explains a lot.

I didn't say that. I didn't even get into how general relativity explains how the mechanisms of gravity work. Spacetime is a concept that you have to grasp before you can begin to understand though. The thing is that most people think its some enormously complex concept but it isn't.
Did I ever once say it was?
I'm not trying to debate space-time as a concept.
I'm simply trying to enlighten you to the fact that it is indeed only a concept.
You seem to know that already.
What are you trying to argue right now?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 03:35:45 AM
If you believe for one second that pressure can have no bearing on weight, then I can't help you if you are not willing to actually take off your blinkers and I'm being 100% serious.
Rabhimself has both the equipment and knowledge to conduct the experiments. 

You have neither, scepti.

It's why walking up a hill is harder than walking along a straight path, because you have to bend your legs and also align yourself vertically with each step which puts more above atmospheric pressure upon your thighs, plus your calves with having to vertically align as you ascend the gradient.

It's all atmospheric pressure....no such thing as gravity. That's the truth.

No, your legs becoming tired is only muscle fatigue from lifting your weight repeatedly, not a buildup of air pressure.
Of course they get tired from lifting your weight. That's only one part. I mean , I think this part is obvious to anyone.
The reason why you are what you are is because of a build up of matter, more dense than the matter you walk about in, in terms of mass, but the reason why you are what you are, in terms of weight, or what we know as weight, as in weighing ourselves, is because you are pushing up your dense body against atmospheric pressure, which is also pushing against you.

You are a mass in your own right and you feel the force of that with every muscle in your body, especially your feet, which bear the brunt of it all in terms of you feeling it, including the atmospheric pressure pushing down on you which wants to squash you into the ground, yet the ground bears the full brunt of all  that you stand on at any point you place your feet, whilst the air pressure all around you is aiding in stopping you from being pancaked. It balances out over area.

You are under pressure, it's your so called gravity. It's plain to see if you can rid your mind of the nonsense that's been put into it.
I don't blame anyone for hanging on to gravity or any other stuff, because most of us have had it all rammed down our throats to the point of acceptance.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 03:40:29 AM
It's why walking up a hill is harder than walking along a straight path, because you have to bend your legs and also align yourself vertically with each step which puts more above atmospheric pressure upon your thighs, plus your calves with having to vertically align as you ascend the gradient.
That doesn't make any sense.  Atmospheric pressure gets lower the higher you go.  Less atmospheric pressure means less atmosphere pressing on your legs, therefore it should be easier to go up hill, shouldn't it?
How high are you intending to walk to show me I'm wrong?
Of course it's lower, but not so low that we would benefit from the effects, because it's also less air to breathe which means less oxygen to the muscles, so physically we would not feel any benefit in the grand scheme of things in terms of proving anything bodily wise.
Nature has a way of evening things out, good or bad to us.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 20, 2013, 04:09:56 AM
Any input on this yet?

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Light is produced from sound. The light from that sound will reflect through the atmosphere with the atmosphere being a connected mass of molecules/matter, so the reflection will hit you way way faster than the lesser frequency sound that is basically the fading of that light.

To your primitive ears, you may or may not hear that effect, as it's dependent on the size and frequency of it.
That's the basic of basic explanation, without getting into the complicated stuff.
Prove it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 04:17:08 AM



space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.



The key word here being concept.
I hate to sound like an FE'er, but use your head, man.

Oh you definitely sound like one right now. Let me ask you. Do you believe in space and that that space consists of three dimensions?

Now, do you believe that you can describe events using a 4th dimension of time?

Do you think that if I talk to you about an event in history at a particular time I would use the time when it happened and the location that it happened?

This is not a revolutionary idea. It is location + time.
So location + time + mass = gravity.
That explains a lot.

I didn't say that. I didn't even get into how general relativity explains how the mechanisms of gravity work. Spacetime is a concept that you have to grasp before you can begin to understand though. The thing is that most people think its some enormously complex concept but it isn't.
Did I ever once say it was?
I'm not trying to debate space-time as a concept.
I'm simply trying to enlighten you to the fact that it is indeed only a concept.
You seem to know that already.
What are you trying to argue right now?

You are the one that inferred that I said that the concept of spacetime alone explains gravity. That's all I mentioned in my last concept and I didn't bother to connect any more dots in this thread. GR as an explanation for gravity is more than just a concept. It just so happens to be the best theory for predicting the motions of the cosmos ever known to man. Without it we couldn't even explain how bodies in our own solar system behave let alone anything beyond it. It is a solid theory because it is the best theory. Not because its some trick.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 05:19:44 AM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
Do aquatic life feel the pressure of the water on them?  Probably not.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 05:25:27 AM
No problem, as I said earlier, I have no wish to drag you screaming from your trained thoughts. I know I'm right and you think you are right. That's good enough for me.
One day you may decide to evaluate it all. One day. Who knows.


If what you are suggesting is correct, then even on a qualitative front, when I pick something up inside the evacuated chamber it should instantly feel lighter than it does at atmospheric pressure.  However, no object ever does - because the weight is the same either way.

I tell you what, I didn't want to muddy the water here but for the sake of trying to convince you one last time - I'm going to make a concession with regards to pressure affecting weight and tell you that things are actually a bit lighter than their true weight when in our atmosphere.  Before I go any further, the weight of an object is the force measured on the object due to gravity.  This is constant for any given gravitational environment.

Allow me to digress - and I apologise to all for the can of worms I may be about to open.

You surely acknowledge that a brick in a pond weighs less than a brick sitting on the ground in the atmosphere?  Do you know why this happens?  I'll explain.  As you should know, pressure increases in a body of water as you go deeper.  This fact is indisputable and if you even try to deny it I will abandon this thread and ignore you immediately (it's something you will surely have experienced yourself).  In other words, at any given moment when an object is submerged in water, the water is actually pressing up on it due to the pressure difference above and below it, and this force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the object so things are lighter underwater - surely you know this?).  This is actually known as Archimedes' principle and actually it extends to all fluids - fluids including gases, i.e. our atmosphere.

So... you can imagine our atmosphere as being rather analogous to the oceans and we are at the bottom of this ocean, where the pressure is greatest.  Like the oceans, the pressure is greater the further down you go, and actually just in the same way that water pushes up on an object with a weight equal to the volume of displaced water - air (or indeed any fluid) does the same thing.  For things on the ground in our atmosphere, the air is actually making them marginally lighter than they would be in a vacuum, however this is virtually negligible at atmospheric pressure and is treated as such.

Now here's the clincher.  Notice that this buoyancy actually makes something (anything) lighter from their 'true' weight.  If I understand you correctly, you are implying that pressure is keeping things pinned to the earth, when really, in reality - the pressure is acting against gravity (it's just negligible for air - but not in water, as you surely have experienced).  So, due to the fact the density of air lessens as you climb in altitude (interestingly, water's density remains pretty much constant regardless of depth - a fact we should be grateful for as it happens) then things should actually be (negligibly) heavier at great altitudes than they are at sea level - ultimately being their heaviest, or 'true' weight within a vacuum.

That being said, do not misconstrue this as pressure changing the true weight of something.  Ultimately, I will re-iterate that the true weight of an object is a measurement of the force on the object due to gravity and gravity alone - and this is constant for the gravitational environment. 

So there Scepti - I just made a concession for you that I didn't really want to make because air buoyancy is negligible.  However, the truth is, with regards to your own theory - pressure actually works in the opposite way to which you suggest.  The pressure of a surrounding fluid actually makes things lighter than they really are - not heavier.  I've clearly spoke about water here so that you understand this, and surely you do.  For air though, this buoyancy is negligible.

So - how does that go down with your way of thinking?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 05:25:46 AM
The only way I'm going back to the drawing board is to add to what I know and to show those who want to know.
You are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, as I know your stance is immediate denial and a stead fast refusal to even contemplate an alternate, because to find out you were wrong would destroy all that you have been trained for and make a lot of things about it, meaningless.

For your own sanity, just stick to what you've had drummed into you, because I don't think you are ready to be prised away from what's in your head.
Your questioning should come from you, from your own choice and only that way can you dissect the fact from the fiction.
If these guys knew the truth (and maybe one day they will, who knows), it would crush them.  Their entire existence would probably be meaningless to them.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 05:50:38 AM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
Do aquatic life feel the pressure of the water on them?  Probably not.

They absolutely do. Aquatic life that lives in the deep sea are not like aquatic life that live in shallow waters.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_creature
The term deep sea creature refers to organisms that live below the photic zone of the ocean. These creatures must survive in extremely harsh conditions, such as hundreds of bars of pressure, small amounts of oxygen, very little food, no sunlight, and constant, extreme cold. Most creatures have to depend on food floating down from above.

These creatures live in very harsh environments, such as the abyssal or hadal zones, which, being thousands of meters below the surface, are almost completely devoid of light. The water is between 3 and 10 degrees Celsius and has low oxygen levels. Due to the depth, the pressure is between 20 and 1,000 bars. Creatures that live hundreds or even thousands of meters deep in the ocean have adapted to the high pressure, lack of light, and other factors.

These animals have evolved to survive the extreme pressure of the sub-photic zones. The pressure increases by about one bar every ten meters. To cope with the pressure, many fish are rather small, usually not exceeding 25 cm in length. Also, scientists have discovered that the deeper these creatures live, the more gelatinous their flesh and more minimal their skeletal structure. These creatures have also eliminated all excess cavities that would collapse under the pressure, such as swim bladders.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 05:51:11 AM
No problem, as I said earlier, I have no wish to drag you screaming from your trained thoughts. I know I'm right and you think you are right. That's good enough for me.
One day you may decide to evaluate it all. One day. Who knows.


If what you are suggesting is correct, then even on a qualitative front, when I pick something up inside the evacuated chamber it should instantly feel lighter than it does at atmospheric pressure.  However, no object ever does - because the weight is the same either way.

I tell you what, I didn't want to muddy the water here but for the sake of trying to convince you one last time - I'm going to make a concession with regards to pressure affecting weight and tell you that things are actually a bit lighter than their true weight when in our atmosphere.  Before I go any further, the weight of an object is the force measured on the object due to gravity.  This is constant for any given gravitational environment.

Allow me to digress - and I apologise to all for the can of worms I may be about to open.

You surely acknowledge that a brick in a pond weighs less than a brick sitting on the ground in the atmosphere?  Do you know why this happens?  I'll explain.  As you should know, pressure increases in a body of water as you go deeper.  This fact is indisputable and if you even try to deny it I will abandon this thread and ignore you immediately (it's something you will surely have experienced yourself).  In other words, at any given moment when an object is submerged in water, the water is actually pressing up on it due to the pressure difference above and below it, and this force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the object so things are lighter underwater - surely you know this?).  This is actually known as Archimedes' principle and actually it extends to all fluids - fluids including gases, i.e. our atmosphere.

So... you can imagine our atmosphere as being rather analogous to the oceans and we are at the bottom of this ocean, where the pressure is greatest.  Like the oceans, the pressure is greater the further down you go, and actually just in the same way that water pushes up on an object with a weight equal to the volume of displaced water - air (or indeed any fluid) does the same thing.  For things on the ground in our atmosphere, the air is actually making them marginally lighter than they would be in a vacuum, however this is virtually negligible at atmospheric pressure and is treated as such.

Now here's the clincher.  Notice that this buoyancy actually makes something (anything) lighter from their 'true' weight.  If I understand you correctly, you are implying that pressure is keeping things pinned to the earth, when really, in reality - the pressure is acting against gravity (it's just negligible for air - but not in water, as you surely have experienced).  So, due to the fact the density of air lessens as you climb in altitude (interestingly, water's density remains pretty much constant regardless of depth - a fact we should be grateful for as it happens) then things should actually be (negligibly) heavier at great altitudes than they are at sea level - ultimately being their heaviest, or 'true' weight within a vacuum.

That being said, do not misconstrue this as pressure changing the true weight of something.  Ultimately, I will re-iterate that the true weight of an object is a measurement of the force on the object due to gravity and gravity alone - and this is constant for the gravitational environment. 

So there Scepti - I just made a concession for you that I didn't really want to make because air buoyancy is negligible.  However, the truth is, with regards to your own theory - pressure actually works in the opposite way to which you suggest.  The pressure of a surrounding fluid actually makes things lighter than they really are - not heavier.  I've clearly spoke about water here so that you understand this, and surely you do.  For air though, this buoyancy is negligible.

So - how does that go down with your way of thinking?

If these guys knew the truth (and maybe one day they will, who knows), it would crush them.  Their entire existence would probably be meaningless to them.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 05:58:07 AM
Rab,
It all depends on how you measure weight.  Obviously, objects seem lighter underwater because the water below it is helping to lift the object.  Water is more dense than air, therefore it has more strength, so to speak, to help lift the object.  You HAVE to account for the density of the environment when weighing something.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 06:02:26 AM
They absolutely do. Aquatic life that lives in the deep sea are not like aquatic life that live in shallow waters.
Anything that involves evolution, I dismiss.  I am a firm believer everything was created specifically for it's environment.  Nothing evolved. 
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 06:06:05 AM
They absolutely do. Aquatic life that lives in the deep sea are not like aquatic life that live in shallow waters.
Anything that involves evolution, I dismiss.  I am a firm believer everything was created specifically for it's environment.  Nothing evolved.

I don't care if you dismiss evolution and my response doesn't require that you believe in it. Sea creatures at the bottom of the ocean are not like other sea creatures. They have bodies capable of surviving those conditions. You don't have to suppose that this is a result of evolution for it to be true.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 06:08:37 AM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
Do aquatic life feel the pressure of the water on them?  Probably not.
Exactly. They are just like us, only adapted to their own environments... and whatever depths sea life survives at, their bodies are designed to cope.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 06:11:35 AM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
Do aquatic life feel the pressure of the water on them?  Probably not.
Exactly. They are just like us, only adapted to their own environments... and whatever depths sea life survives at, their bodies are designed to cope.

I think you should test that hypothesis. Figure out a way to exert a pressure force that would move you at 9.8 m/s/s coming from only one direction. Please do this. :)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 06:29:29 AM
Rab,
It all depends on how you measure weight.  Obviously, objects seem lighter underwater because the water below it is helping to lift the object.  Water is more dense than air, therefore it has more strength, so to speak, to help lift the object.  You HAVE to account for the density of the environment when weighing something.

What?  I am!

Read the post, it's like you actually understand but refuse to digest what I wrote.  Yes, the water exerts more upward force - BUT AIR DOES THE SAME THING, IT'S JUST NEGLIGIBLE IT IS SO SMALL.

The point here is pressure it absolutely NOT keeping things pressed to the earth, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE.  It actually acts AGAINST gravity and makes things LIGHTER.  In other words, things in reality, are actually slightly HEAVIER in a vacuum than at atmospheric pressure. 

This is unreal.  You understand when it is water, you understand that water exerts more force than the air due to it's density, but do you not understand that air is doing exactly the same thing?

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.

He's wrong.

See the light - you've almost got it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 06:46:33 AM
If what you are suggesting is correct, then even on a qualitative front, when I pick something up inside the evacuated chamber it should instantly feel lighter than it does at atmospheric pressure.  However, no object ever does - because the weight is the same either way.
How do you propose to pick something up to measure if it feels lighter to you. You say that no object ever does. How have you managed to do this?
I tell you what, I didn't want to muddy the water here but for the sake of trying to convince you one last time - I'm going to make a concession with regards to pressure affecting weight and tell you that things are actually a bit lighter than their true weight when in our atmosphere.  Before I go any further, the weight of an object is the force measured on the object due to gravity.  This is constant for any given gravitational environment.
Your admittance that air pressure has the effect on the object, should make you question your gravity.
Allow me to digress - and I apologise to all for the can of worms I may be about to open.

You surely acknowledge that a brick in a pond weighs less than a brick sitting on the ground in the atmosphere?   Do you know why this happens?  I'll explain.  As you should know, pressure increases in a body of water as you go deeper.  This fact is indisputable and if you even try to deny it I will abandon this thread and ignore you immediately (it's something you will surely have experienced yourself).  In other words, at any given moment when an object is submerged in water, the water is actually pressing up on it due to the pressure difference above and below it, and this force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the object so things are lighter underwater - surely you know this?).  This is actually known as Archimedes' principle and actually it extends to all fluids - fluids including gases, i.e. our atmosphere.
A brick in a pond would weigh heavier than it would on land. Not because the brick itself is heavier but because the pressure of the water on it would be more than the pressure of air on it.
Try it.
Go to a swimming pool with a breeze block. If anyone stops you, just explain that it's an experiment you are doing for me. Just mention scepti and try and ignore the dropped eye brows and mean stare.
Anyway: Pick up the block outside of the pool, first, now throw it in and dive down to retrieve it and pick it up and you will see.

Can you open a car door easier against air or submerged in water?
Think about it. It's all about pressure.
So... you can imagine our atmosphere as being rather analogous to the oceans and we are at the bottom of this ocean, where the pressure is greatest.  Like the oceans, the pressure is greater the further down you go, and actually just in the same way that water pushes up on an object with a weight equal to the volume of displaced water - air (or indeed any fluid) does the same thing.  For things on the ground in our atmosphere, the air is actually making them marginally lighter than they would be in a vacuum, however this is virtually negligible at atmospheric pressure and is treated as such.
Water does not push up, it pushes around you, like holding a bar of wet soap in your hand in the bath and squeezing.
Now here's the clincher.  Notice that this buoyancy actually makes something (anything) lighter from their 'true' weight.  If I understand you correctly, you are implying that pressure is keeping things pinned to the earth, when really, in reality - the pressure is acting against gravity (it's just negligible for air - but not in water, as you surely have experienced).  So, due to the fact the density of air lessens as you climb in altitude (interestingly, water's density remains pretty much constant regardless of depth - a fact we should be grateful for as it happens) then things should actually be (negligibly) heavier at great altitudes than they are at sea level - ultimately being their heaviest, or 'true' weight within a vacuum.
Your body is made up of many densities of matter/molecules. Some are intended to be lower and some are intended to be higher than sea level but you (as a mass) grew against the pressure and that pressure is trying to separate you back into the sandwich that makes up the earth, but your body is strong and builds up a strength to counteract it. It's a fight to the death, literally and the pressure wins, every time, on anything that fights against it.
If we were blow up dolls of helium, we would be squeezed into the sky, just like we would if were planted at the bottom of a swimming pool.
That being said, do not misconstrue this as pressure changing the true weight of something.  Ultimately, I will re-iterate that the true weight of an object is a measurement of the force on the object due to gravity and gravity alone - and this is constant for the gravitational environment. 
The true weight of something is it's own density which we can only measure in whatever environment it is in and accept it's weight for that environment as being weight, plus pressure on that weight/mass.
So there Scepti - I just made a concession for you that I didn't really want to make because air buoyancy is negligible.  However, the truth is, with regards to your own theory - pressure actually works in the opposite way to which you suggest.  The pressure of a surrounding fluid actually makes things lighter than they really are - not heavier.  I've clearly spoke about water here so that you understand this, and surely you do.  For air though, this buoyancy is negligible.

So - how does that go down with your way of thinking?
Good story, but it is incorrect. Your gravity is nothing other than pressure on earth. It's all pressure.
We...and every other thing, exists because of it, in whatever forms it takes, from vibration and so on.
Accept it or don't, it's your choice.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 06:49:16 AM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
Do aquatic life feel the pressure of the water on them?  Probably not.
Exactly. They are just like us, only adapted to their own environments... and whatever depths sea life survives at, their bodies are designed to cope.

I think you should test that hypothesis. Figure out a way to exert a pressure force that would move you at 9.8 m/s/s coming from only one direction. Please do this. :)
Care to elaborate on this?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 06:53:43 AM
Rab,
It all depends on how you measure weight.  Obviously, objects seem lighter underwater because the water below it is helping to lift the object.  Water is more dense than air, therefore it has more strength, so to speak, to help lift the object.  You HAVE to account for the density of the environment when weighing something.

What?  I am!

Read the post, it's like you actually understand but refuse to digest what I wrote.  Yes, the water exerts more upward force - BUT AIR DOES THE SAME THING, IT'S JUST NEGLIGIBLE IT IS SO SMALL.

The point here is pressure it absolutely NOT keeping things pressed to the earth, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE.  It actually acts AGAINST gravity and makes things LIGHTER.  In other words, things in reality, are actually slightly HEAVIER in a vacuum than at atmospheric pressure. 

This is unreal.  You understand when it is water, you understand that water exerts more force than the air due to it's density, but do you not understand that air is doing exactly the same thing?

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.

He's wrong.

See the light - you've almost got it.
Your problem is the mention of gravitational force when arguing the point. Try and see it from the alternate point of view and dismiss it that way, if you can. Which you can't.
The best way to tear something apart, is to use basics and simplistic ways, because it can be understood by all and give people a better insight into what you are actually getting at.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 07:04:32 AM

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.
You just said that most things are more dense than air.  That's all gravity is.  The force (which is PRESSURE) is not dense enough to keep us up.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 07:05:19 AM
Rab,
It all depends on how you measure weight.  Obviously, objects seem lighter underwater because the water below it is helping to lift the object.  Water is more dense than air, therefore it has more strength, so to speak, to help lift the object.  You HAVE to account for the density of the environment when weighing something.

What?  I am!

Read the post, it's like you actually understand but refuse to digest what I wrote.  Yes, the water exerts more upward force - BUT AIR DOES THE SAME THING, IT'S JUST NEGLIGIBLE IT IS SO SMALL.

The point here is pressure it absolutely NOT keeping things pressed to the earth, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE.  It actually acts AGAINST gravity and makes things LIGHTER.  In other words, things in reality, are actually slightly HEAVIER in a vacuum than at atmospheric pressure. 

This is unreal.  You understand when it is water, you understand that water exerts more force than the air due to it's density, but do you not understand that air is doing exactly the same thing?

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.

He's wrong.

See the light - you've almost got it.
Your problem is the mention of gravitational force when arguing the point. Try and see it from the alternate point of view and dismiss it that way, if you can. Which you can't.
The best way to tear something apart, is to use basics and simplistic ways, because it can be understood by all and give people a better insight into what you are actually getting at.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore.  You just told me things are actually heavier underwater - which they are absolutely not.  I've picked things up under water and they are lighter due to the Archimedes' principle.

You are truly unbelievable.

I went through it all in as much detail as I thought would be suffice for you to understand, and then you tell me to take a breeze-block to a swimming pool and see how heavy it is under water.  It would be EASIER, to pick up because it is no longer as heavy.  I cannot actually believe you honestly think things under water are actually heavier.

My girlfriend can lift me off the swimming pool floor when I am standing in 4 foot of water with ease.  She struggles to do this on land because water buoyancy is greater than air buoyancy.

I've never come across such a deluded individual.

Even a young child can verify that objects are lighter underwater.  I remember diving for bricks at swimming classes when I was about 6 years old and realising that the black blocks we used were easier to pick up under water than on the ground.

Are you actually serious?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 07:07:48 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 07:11:11 AM

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.
You just said that most things are more dense than air.  That's all gravity is.  The force (which is PRESSURE) is not dense enough to keep us up.

I'll just leave you two to conquer the scientific world.

You are both so horribly ignorant that I pity you so.

Come back when you have been awarded the Nobel Prize for debunking physics as a whole.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 07:12:36 AM
First of all pressure in the atmosphere isn't all exerted downward. If it was we would certainly feel it pushing on our heads. There is pressure all around you. If it was caused by pressure it wouldn't be the same as what we perceive as gravity. We would be violently shoved toward the earth.
Do aquatic life feel the pressure of the water on them?  Probably not.
Exactly. They are just like us, only adapted to their own environments... and whatever depths sea life survives at, their bodies are designed to cope.

I think you should test that hypothesis. Figure out a way to exert a pressure force that would move you at 9.8 m/s/s coming from only one direction. Please do this. :)
Care to elaborate on this?

It was a joke. I implying that you wouldn't come out of such an experiment alive.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 07:13:47 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Things are heavier underwater - I still can't get over the fact you believe this.

Yet you sit there and have the audacity to call gravity a con.  Think about that - a man who believes things are heavier underwater, says gravity is a con.

It's truly unbelievable.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
I'll just leave you two to conquer the scientific world.

You are both so horribly ignorant that I pity you so.

Come back when you have been awarded the Nobel Prize for debunking physics as a whole.
LOL No, YOU come back when you understand the truth.  The Earth is flat with a dome over it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 07:14:44 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 07:18:51 AM
Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
It will always be a mystery to you because you believe the Earth is a sphere and we live on the outside of it, exposed to the blackness of space.  Pressure will never be the answer to you as long as you believe a lie.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 07:20:21 AM
I'm not going to bother with you anymore.  You just told me things are actually heavier underwater - which they are absolutely not.  I've picked things up under water and they are lighter due to the Archimedes' principle.

You are truly unbelievable.
No I didn't. I said things appear heavier but are not actually heavier, yet to you (dependent on the object) it can feel heavier.
It depends on how any given object reacts to sitting at the bottom, as in, it may carry some air trapped in it but not enough to stop it hitting the bottom, in which case it can appear lighter and also something with less or no air trapped within it will feel heavier. It's not a simple easily drawn out thing and you should know this.
I went through it all in as much detail as I thought would be suffice for you to understand, and then you tell me to take a breeze-block to a swimming pool and see how heavy it is under water.  It would be EASIER, to pick up because it is no longer as heavy.  I cannot actually believe you honestly think things under water are actually heavier.
Ok. Go to a knee high pool with a man hole cover on a chain. Firstly, pick up the man hole cover up to your knee height, on dry land, against the atmosphere.
Now drop it in the pool and do the same thing and tell me which is easier.
Think about it.
My girlfriend can lift me off the swimming pool floor when I am standing in 4 foot of water with ease.  She struggles to do this on land because water buoyancy is greater than air buoyancy.

I've never come across such a deluded individual.
You're full of air for crying out loud, she's bound to. Are you serious here?
Even a young child can verify that objects are lighter underwater.  I remember diving for bricks at swimming classes when I was about 6 years old and realising that the black blocks we used were easier to pick up under water than on the ground.

Are you actually serious?
The black blocks were made of rubber.
And you're asking me if I'm serious. ::)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 07:21:55 AM
Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
It will always be a mystery to you because you believe the Earth is a sphere and we live on the outside of it, exposed to the blackness of space.  Pressure will never be the answer to you as long as you believe a lie.

It's such a shame that all evidence points to the contrary then isn't it? 

You're a very special individual.  You both are actually. 

One word:  evidence
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 07:22:49 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
Greatest scientific mystery? No, it's not. It's only a mystery as to how people actually swallowed the crap in the first place when atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 07:26:20 AM
Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
It will always be a mystery to you because you believe the Earth is a sphere and we live on the outside of it, exposed to the blackness of space.  Pressure will never be the answer to you as long as you believe a lie.

It's such a shame that all evidence points to the contrary then isn't it? 

You're a very special individual.  You both are actually. 

One word:  evidence
The evidence is all around you. You will never see it if you have a text book jammed against your face. Open your eyes and mind.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 07:26:33 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
Greatest scientific mystery? No, it's not. It's only a mystery as to how people actually swallowed the crap in the first place when atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it.

We keep showing you contradictions and you offer nothing but pseudo-explanations. It fails at explaining anything. If you think it does then you need to refine your explanations. As it currently stands it does nothing but beg to be dismissed.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: REphoenix on October 20, 2013, 07:26:58 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
Greatest scientific mystery? No, it's not. It's only a mystery as to how people actually swallowed the crap in the first place when atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it.
It only explains it if you ignore everything that these people are saying to you.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 07:33:01 AM
I'm not going to bother with you anymore.  You just told me things are actually heavier underwater - which they are absolutely not.  I've picked things up under water and they are lighter due to the Archimedes' principle.

You are truly unbelievable.
No I didn't. I said things appear heavier but are not actually heavier, yet to you (dependent on the object) it can feel heavier.
It depends on how any given object reacts to sitting at the bottom, as in, it may carry some air trapped in it but not enough to stop it hitting the bottom, in which case it can appear lighter and also something with less or no air trapped within it will feel heavier. It's not a simple easily drawn out thing and you should know this.
I went through it all in as much detail as I thought would be suffice for you to understand, and then you tell me to take a breeze-block to a swimming pool and see how heavy it is under water.  It would be EASIER, to pick up because it is no longer as heavy.  I cannot actually believe you honestly think things under water are actually heavier.
Ok. Go to a knee high pool with a man hold cover on a chain. Firstly, pick up the man hold cover up to your knee height, on dry land, against the atmosphere.
Now drop it in the pool and do the same thing and tell me which is easier.
Think about it.
My girlfriend can lift me off the swimming pool floor when I am standing in 4 foot of water with ease.  She struggles to do this on land because water buoyancy is greater than air buoyancy.

I've never come across such a deluded individual.
You're full of air for crying out loud, she's bound to. Are you serious here?
Even a young child can verify that objects are lighter underwater.  I remember diving for bricks at swimming classes when I was about 6 years old and realising that the black blocks we used were easier to pick up under water than on the ground.

Are you actually serious?
The black blocks were made of rubber.
And you're asking me if I'm serious. ::)

You're unreal.

The manhole would be easier to lift in water - 100%.  This isn't even debatable.  Forget the how and why, it's simply a fact that things are easier to lift underwater. 

Actually I think the blocks were simply paint coated iron blocks.

You really do live in a world of your own.

As for having a text book jammed against my face - I've told you about real life scenarios I have been involved in but you see all that as BS as well.  You do not care what I have to offer you that indicates the contrary to your absurd theory.

You're effectively putting your fingers in your ears and going 'lalalalala'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy)

Everything in that article applies to air as well.
Title: Check this out!
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 07:40:36 AM

Ship floating on nothing! :: Physikshow Uni Bonn (http://#)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 07:41:24 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
Greatest scientific mystery? No, it's not. It's only a mystery as to how people actually swallowed the crap in the first place when atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it.

We keep showing you contradictions and you offer nothing but pseudo-explanations. It fails at explaining anything. If you think it does then you need to refine your explanations. As it currently stands it does nothing but beg to be dismissed.
My explanations are perfectly fine. I can't help if if you refuse to see the truth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 07:43:21 AM
I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.
Greatest scientific mystery? No, it's not. It's only a mystery as to how people actually swallowed the crap in the first place when atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it.
It only explains it if you ignore everything that these people are saying to you.
Why should I follow something that is clearly wrong. It makes no sense. The ones ignoring the truth are the ones hanging on to gravity.
Title: Re: Check this out!
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 07:48:37 AM

Ship floating on nothing! :: Physikshow Uni Bonn (http://#)

What is your point?  The gas inside the chamber is clearly a very heavy dense one like SF6 or elemental Xenon.

Scepti's belief is that pressure holds things down, what exactly is yours? - because it clearly isn't the same as his.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 08:40:17 AM
Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.  It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2013, 09:38:56 AM



space-time is a theory? It is simply a 4 dimensional representation of 2 things. The 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. This is hardly a disputable concept.



The key word here being concept.
I hate to sound like an FE'er, but use your head, man.

Oh you definitely sound like one right now. Let me ask you. Do you believe in space and that that space consists of three dimensions?

Now, do you believe that you can describe events using a 4th dimension of time?

Do you think that if I talk to you about an event in history at a particular time I would use the time when it happened and the location that it happened?

This is not a revolutionary idea. It is location + time.
So location + time + mass = gravity.
That explains a lot.

I didn't say that. I didn't even get into how general relativity explains how the mechanisms of gravity work. Spacetime is a concept that you have to grasp before you can begin to understand though. The thing is that most people think its some enormously complex concept but it isn't.
Did I ever once say it was?
I'm not trying to debate space-time as a concept.
I'm simply trying to enlighten you to the fact that it is indeed only a concept.
You seem to know that already.
What are you trying to argue right now?

You are the one that inferred that I said that the concept of spacetime alone explains gravity. That's all I mentioned in my last concept and I didn't bother to connect any more dots in this thread. GR as an explanation for gravity is more than just a concept. It just so happens to be the best theory for predicting the motions of the cosmos ever known to man. Without it we couldn't even explain how bodies in our own solar system behave let alone anything beyond it. It is a solid theory because it is the best theory. Not because its some trick.
It's a very large part of it.
I never said it was some trick.
I don't know why you're trying to put words in my mouth.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2013, 09:44:28 AM
Tesla on Relativity         
          

Tesla was highly critical of Eintein's Relativity

"...Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed."

He also claimed that the theory pre-dated Einstein

"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..."

And if you think the above is strong

"...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 09:51:20 AM
But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed."

It doesn't matter if it seems impossible by thinking about it. That's the type of thing scepti does. There is empirical evidence that suggests it is there and it does explain the motions of bodies as observed, with precision.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.  It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.

Incorrect.  The aluminium boat is filled with air, which is much less dense than the gas the foil is sitting on, so the boat is buoyant.  This is exactly why we can float boats that weigh thousands of tonnes on water - the volume of air they carry within them.  If they were to fill the boat with the gas below it then it would sink - which they actually did in the video!  How am I supposed to take you seriously?

Also can you be any more condescending?  I hold a 1st class masters degree in chemistry and soon I'll also hold a PhD in the same field so I know what I'm talking about, especially in comparison to you.  Yet, you question me about pressure?

You are so, so incredibly ignorant.

Look, I'll leave you both to your madness.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 20, 2013, 10:25:57 AM
Can you open a car door easier against air or submerged in water?
Think about it. It's all about pressure.

Indeed.  The density and weight of the water outside vs the density weight of the air inside.

Think about it.


Go to a knee high pool with a man hole cover on a chain. Firstly, pick up the man hole cover up to your knee height, on dry land, against the atmosphere.
Now drop it in the pool and do the same thing and tell me which is easier.
Think about it.

Hmm, a flat object sitting flat on the bottom.  Think about it.  Surely you realized something than is not aerodynamic in air, will also result in more resistance in water, especially in that first moment of lift as the water first has to flow back in underneath it.  Of course you realized this.  That's why you picked a manhole cover. 

Let's set in on a couple bricks or something, and then slowly lift it, or simply hold it in place in the water.  Better yet, let's use something that isn't flat.

Think about it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM
Can you open a car door easier against air or submerged in water?
Think about it. It's all about pressure.

Indeed.  The density and weight of the water outside vs the density weight of the air inside.

Think about it.


Go to a knee high pool with a man hole cover on a chain. Firstly, pick up the man hole cover up to your knee height, on dry land, against the atmosphere.
Now drop it in the pool and do the same thing and tell me which is easier.
Think about it.

Hmm, a flat object sitting flat on the bottom.  Think about it.  Surely you realized something than is not aerodynamic in air, will also result in more resistance in water, especially in that first moment of lift as the water first has to flow back in underneath it.  Of course you realized this.  That's why you picked a manhole cover. 

Let's set in on a couple bricks or something, and then slowly lift it, or simply hold it in place in the water.  Better yet, let's use something that isn't flat.

Think about it.
I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.
What difference is bricks under a man hole cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 20, 2013, 10:55:55 AM
Any input on this yet?

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.
So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Light is produced from sound. The light from that sound will reflect through the atmosphere with the atmosphere being a connected mass of molecules/matter, so the reflection will hit you way way faster than the lesser frequency sound that is basically the fading of that light.

To your primitive ears, you may or may not hear that effect, as it's dependent on the size and frequency of it.
That's the basic of basic explanation, without getting into the complicated stuff.
So light travels faster than sound.  Ok glad that's settled.

Now as you claim they propagate through the atmosphere by molecules bumping into molecules, explain how molecules transmitting the 'light' bump into others faster than they do for sound.

Can you show an experiment showing this vast difference in speed of sound based on frequency.  You claim light is a different frequency of sound, so is there a measurable difference in speed of audible frequencies of sound?

Explain how sound can travel through denser matter (water/metal/etc ) faster and further, while light (being 'faster sound' according to you) can be stopped completely by a piece of construction paper.

Also, if you could, explain why a white surface reflects more light than a black surface, if light is nothing more than sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 11:00:29 AM

So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.
Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.
The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.
Light is produced from sound. The light from that sound will reflect through the atmosphere with the atmosphere being a connected mass of molecules/matter, so the reflection will hit you way way faster than the lesser frequency sound that is basically the fading of that light.

To your primitive ears, you may or may not hear that effect, as it's dependent on the size and frequency of it.
That's the basic of basic explanation, without getting into the complicated stuff.
[/quote]
So light travels faster than sound.  Ok glad that's settled.

Now as you claim they propagate through the atmosphere by molecules bumping into molecules, explain how molecules transmitting the 'light' bump into others faster than they do for sound.

Can you show an experiment showing this vast difference in speed of sound based on frequency.  You claim light is a different frequency of sound, so is there a measurable difference in speed of audible frequencies of sound?

Explain how sound can travel through denser matter (water/metal/etc ) faster and further, while light (being 'faster sound' according to you) can be stopped completely by a piece of construction paper.

Also, if you could, explain why a white surface reflects more light than a black surface, if light is nothing more than sound.
[/quote]Pick one question at a time, which is it to be.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 20, 2013, 11:23:18 AM
I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.
Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 11:33:19 AM
I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.
Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?
When you want to play a civil game, come back to me.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 20, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
Scepti, he is being civil, and he's making extremely cogent points that you simply don't want to address.

When you talk about other people being civil, especially given your general demeanor, it comes across as nothing more than looking for any excuse you can find to weasel out of responding, or admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 20, 2013, 03:30:36 PM
super e
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 03:44:32 PM
Scepti, he is being civil, and he's making extremely cogent points that you simply don't want to address.

When you talk about other people being civil, especially given your general demeanor, it comes across as nothing more than looking for any excuse you can find to weasel out of responding, or admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.
Nah, I don't think so.
I answer everything that's thrown at me. I'd like to see you answer them all in succession. So when someone comes in with a smug attitude, I just let them know and chill out and wait for them to ask questions in a civil manner. If not, then fair enough, they don't get any feedback.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 04:35:44 PM
Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.   It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.

Incorrect.  The aluminium boat is filled with air, which is much less dense than the gas the foil is sitting on, so the boat is buoyant. 
Is that not what I said?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 20, 2013, 04:43:11 PM
You said on top of the boat, Rabhimself did not.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 20, 2013, 09:51:48 PM
Scepti, he is being civil, and he's making extremely cogent points that you simply don't want to address.

When you talk about other people being civil, especially given your general demeanor, it comes across as nothing more than looking for any excuse you can find to weasel out of responding, or admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.
Nah, I don't think so.
I answer everything that's thrown at me.

No, you don't. You've ignored quite a lot of what people say to you, and what you do respond to, you rarely actually answer. I'd say more than half the time, you toss out a 'think about it' or 'it's common sense,' not answering anything at all and generally trying to act superior to everyone.

Quote
I'd like to see you answer them all in succession. So when someone comes in with a smug attitude, I just let them know and chill out and wait for them to ask questions in a civil manner. If not, then fair enough, they don't get any feedback.

So you admit you are picking and choosing what to respond to based on a perceived tone in your opponent's argument?
Yes, that's weaseling out of responding to relevant arguments if I've ever heard it, and I've definitely heard it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: robintex on October 20, 2013, 10:15:27 PM
I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2013, 10:38:26 PM
But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed."

It doesn't matter if it seems impossible by thinking about it. That's the type of thing scepti does. There is empirical evidence that suggests it is there and it does explain the motions of bodies as observed, with precision.
I didn't say it.
Tesla did.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 10:42:46 PM
But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed."

It doesn't matter if it seems impossible by thinking about it. That's the type of thing scepti does. There is empirical evidence that suggests it is there and it does explain the motions of bodies as observed, with precision.
I didn't say it.
Tesla did.

Well he is wrong. We use GR to predict everything from asteroids to orbits. We use it to send man made space machines deep into and beyond the solar system.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 21, 2013, 05:38:40 AM
In regards to Einstein being some kind of plaigiarizer, this sort of thought goes along with a poor understanding of the state of science at the time. What made Einstein's work groundbreaking was not that he devised 4D transformations in space, or showed the invariance of the speed of light or what not, it was that Einstein showed physical connections where none had been previously seen. This is specifically in regards to relativity; his modelling of Brownian motion and work on the Photoelectric effect, the latter  won him the Nobel Prize, are another matter. And just so you know how awesome this guy was, he published his papers on all the above topics (SR, not GR) in one year. A career most physicists dream of while working as a part-time physicist.  [/fanboy]
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 21, 2013, 07:12:46 AM
Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.   It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.

Incorrect.  The aluminium boat is filled with air, which is much less dense than the gas the foil is sitting on, so the boat is buoyant. 
Is that not what I said?

No you didn't say that.

You keep focusing on pressure and it isn't pressure difference that is causing what you can see.  The pressure within that tank (an open system) and the pressure outside it will be virtually the same - such is the expansive nature of gases.  There is nothing compressing the gas in that tank other than the air (another gas) on top of it.  So what happens?  The gas in the box pushes outwards until it meets the pressure of the gas pushing down on it.  If this was not true then the gas in the box would flow upwards and out of the box because the pressure within is greater than the pressure outwith.

Imagine you punched a hole in the side of a deodorant can (a closed system - so now you create an open one), the pressurized gases within would eject through the hole until the moment the pressure within the can is equal to the pressure surrounding it, then diffusion would, over time, see air molecules enter the can and the other deodorant gases leave.

That box of SF6 is an open system, like the deodorant can with the hole in it.  It's pressure is in equilibrium with the pressure surrounding it.  The reason the diffusion process is so slow is because the SF6 is so much heavier and dense than the air above, so gravity contains it within the box rather well - not pressure.

Why am I even trying to explain this to you?  You have no idea what you are talking about and you don't trust what I am telling you, even though I'm qualified to talk about this. 

It's useless, you don't understand so you will keep trying to refute me when you have no idea what you're on about.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 21, 2013, 07:50:07 AM
Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 08:36:11 AM
Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.
Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.

Think of it like a rock star diving off a stage against a crowd of outstretched hands. He stays above, or buoyant, because his dense mass cannot overcome the amount of hands. That's a basic answer. It sure as hell isn't gravity.

How the earth formed is anybody's guess, but if scientists can say it started from nothing, then any guess will do, won't it.
I'm not quite as far as solving how we came to be as a cell, but I could give you an answer that would beg another answer, which would beg another answer. (infinitely)
I think you get the drift.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 09:20:33 AM
Pick one question at a time, which is it to be.
Ok, first question.

Now as you claim light and sound propagate through the atmosphere by molecules bumping into molecules, explain how molecules transmitting the 'light' bump into others faster than they do for sound.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 09:35:59 AM
I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.
Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?
When you want to play a civil game, come back to me.
Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 09:48:57 AM
I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.
Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?
When you want to play a civil game, come back to me.
Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.
I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight. It should be plain and simple to you that to lift a heavy object, (assuming it has little or no buoyancy), it will feel heavier to pull up than it would to do the same thing on dry land.
Thinking it won't, is like saying that air friction is more dense than water friction.

In your rock in a container case, it's bound to be heavier  as you lift it out , because it's filled with water as you expose it to the atmosphere, which changes the whole set up, as you know.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 09:58:39 AM
Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.
Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.
Speaking of buoyancy, here's something else that I was wondering about with your theory.

I have two balloons of equal size volume and color.  I fill one with helium, and one with oxygen, both with the same amount so they're both the same size, temperature, and pressure.

According to you the air above is what pushes things down, so why does one balloon drop and the other rise.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 10:11:47 AM
Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.
Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.
Speaking of buoyancy, here's something else that I was wondering about with your theory.

I have two balloons of equal size volume and color.  I fill one with helium, and one with oxygen, both with the same amount so they're both the same size, temperature, and pressure.

According to you the air above is what pushes things down, so why does one balloon drop and the other rise.
The air filled balloon is much more dense and cannot be squeezed up, as it's part of it's own environment, plus the added balloon.
The helium balloon if filled with much much less density and it less agitated , meaning the more dense agitated air molecules agitate it upwards.

Liken it to dropping a balloon full of marbles into a large vibrating container. The balloon will fall through to the bottom due to the more dense fill of it with likewise marbles.
Now imagine another balloon filled with polystyrene larger balls filling that balloon and sitting that on the marbles in the container. It can vibrate all it likes but all it will do is keep pushing that balloon up. It will not fall through.
Try it if you want.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 10:31:33 AM
Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.
I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight. It should be plain and simple to you that to lift a heavy object, (assuming it has little or no buoyancy), it will feel heavier to pull up than it would to do the same thing on dry land.
Thinking it won't, is like saying that air friction is more dense than water friction.

In your rock in a container case, it's bound to be heavier  as you lift it out , because it's filled with water as you expose it to the atmosphere, which changes the whole set up, as you know.
It was easier to lift in the water than it was out of the water.  Things are lighter in water. 

It was a milk crate.  They don't have a solid bottom or sides.  Look up an image of one.  The water drains out as fast as you can lift it out of the water. 

Floating Bowling Balls - Cool Science Experiment (http://#ws)
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 10:50:32 AM
Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.
I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight. It should be plain and simple to you that to lift a heavy object, (assuming it has little or no buoyancy), it will feel heavier to pull up than it would to do the same thing on dry land.
Thinking it won't, is like saying that air friction is more dense than water friction.

In your rock in a container case, it's bound to be heavier  as you lift it out , because it's filled with water as you expose it to the atmosphere, which changes the whole set up, as you know.
It was easier to lift in the water than it was out of the water.  Things are lighter in water. 

It was a milk crate.  They don't have a solid bottom or sides.  Look up an image of one.  The water drains out as fast as you can lift it out of the water. 

Floating Bowling Balls - Cool Science Experiment (http://#ws)
I don't actually think you read anything I say, or maybe snippets.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 10:56:09 AM
I don't actually think you read anything I say, or maybe snippets.
You are claiming objects aren't lighter under water.  Is this correct?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 10:59:50 AM
I don't actually think you read anything I say, or maybe snippets.
You are claiming objects aren't lighter under water.  Is this correct?
Objects are neither lighter nor heavier, underwater. They are just perceived to be due to varying factors, such as buoyancy, density, area and absorption.

If you read my posts you will see that I'm talking about lifting an object like a man hole cover. Read that and understand what I'm saying and you will get a better idea.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: rottingroom on October 21, 2013, 11:09:58 AM
Silhouette, scepti has me blocked so he won't see this but he doesn't understand that weight is a word that has everything to do with gravity. What he means to say is mass.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on October 21, 2013, 01:08:29 PM
I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.
So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 21, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.
So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?

They do not propagate as easily, and are considerably less useful for detecting objects. They can still certainly be used, but are not as ideal as the other.

But the matter of mediums is important for distinguishing between light and sound.

For example, light can travel through a near vacuum with no issue at all, while sound has difficulty, dropping in volume or stopping entirely.

Sound travels quite well through opaque gases, liquids, and solids, but light is stopped entirely.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 03:34:14 PM
I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.
So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?

They do not propagate as easily, and are considerably less useful for detecting objects. They can still certainly be used, but are not as ideal as the other.

But the matter of mediums is important for distinguishing between light and sound.

For example, light can travel through a near vacuum with no issue at all, while sound has difficulty, dropping in volume or stopping entirely.

Sound travels quite well through opaque gases, liquids, and solids, but light is stopped entirely.
Light is the mere reflection of the effect of sound   so naturally it's going to reflect through anything that allows it to, like glass and such.
The following sound will always hit a barrier, if that barrier is a solid barrier.

It's just a case of frequencies.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rama Set on October 21, 2013, 05:32:45 PM
What's a case of frequencies?  You have a syntax problem. Sound hitting a barrier is a case of frequencies?  In what way?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: hewholikespie on October 21, 2013, 08:34:10 PM
I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.
So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?

They do not propagate as easily, and are considerably less useful for detecting objects. They can still certainly be used, but are not as ideal as the other.

But the matter of mediums is important for distinguishing between light and sound.

For example, light can travel through a near vacuum with no issue at all, while sound has difficulty, dropping in volume or stopping entirely.

Sound travels quite well through opaque gases, liquids, and solids, but light is stopped entirely.
Light is the mere reflection of the effect of sound   so naturally it's going to reflect through anything that allows it to, like glass and such.
The following sound will always hit a barrier, if that barrier is a solid barrier.

It's just a case of frequencies.

Monkey Tuna Aardvark Bumblebee Walabee Rhubarb Sarsaparilla.

Now that we have traded nonsense word salads, would you care to try and explain in terms that you know the meaning of why Light is blocked by mediums which pose no issue to sound, and more importantly, why SOUND is blocked my mediums that pose no barrier to light, such as extreme near vacuum?

Also, you seem to be unable to decide whether Light IS Sound, straight up, or if Light is a contingent byproduct of Sound (And not simply a byproduct of a third process which can produce both light and/or sound).
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on October 21, 2013, 08:49:58 PM
Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.
Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.
Speaking of buoyancy, here's something else that I was wondering about with your theory.

I have two balloons of equal size volume and color.  I fill one with helium, and one with oxygen, both with the same amount so they're both the same size, temperature, and pressure.

According to you the air above is what pushes things down, so why does one balloon drop and the other rise.
The air filled balloon is much more dense and cannot be squeezed up, as it's part of it's own environment, plus the added balloon.
The helium balloon if filled with much much less density and it less agitated , meaning the more dense agitated air molecules agitate it upwards.

Liken it to dropping a balloon full of marbles into a large vibrating container. The balloon will fall through to the bottom due to the more dense fill of it with likewise marbles.
Now imagine another balloon filled with polystyrene larger balls filling that balloon and sitting that on the marbles in the container. It can vibrate all it likes but all it will do is keep pushing that balloon up. It will not fall through.
Try it if you want.
But they have rubber separating them from the rest of the atmosphere, and what do you mean by less agitated.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 10:49:33 PM
Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.
Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.
Speaking of buoyancy, here's something else that I was wondering about with your theory.

I have two balloons of equal size volume and color.  I fill one with helium, and one with oxygen, both with the same amount so they're both the same size, temperature, and pressure.

According to you the air above is what pushes things down, so why does one balloon drop and the other rise.
The air filled balloon is much more dense and cannot be squeezed up, as it's part of it's own environment, plus the added balloon.
The helium balloon if filled with much much less density and it less agitated , meaning the more dense agitated air molecules agitate it upwards.

Liken it to dropping a balloon full of marbles into a large vibrating container. The balloon will fall through to the bottom due to the more dense fill of it with likewise marbles.
Now imagine another balloon filled with polystyrene larger balls filling that balloon and sitting that on the marbles in the container. It can vibrate all it likes but all it will do is keep pushing that balloon up. It will not fall through.
Try it if you want.
If the oxygen is more agitated, then that means it's hotter, the balloon would expand, and it would be less dense.  As I stated, the two balloons are the same temperature.

The oxygen is the same temperature as the helium, and it's denser than the helium, and the surface area for the atmosphere to push down on for each balloon is the same, which means your atmospheric force pushing down on each balloon is the same.  So why would the Oxygen balloon be 'heavier'?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 22, 2013, 12:00:31 AM
I don't actually think you read anything I say, or maybe snippets.
You are claiming objects aren't lighter under water.  Is this correct?
Objects are neither lighter nor heavier, underwater. They are just perceived to be due to varying factors, such as buoyancy, density, area and absorption.

Buoyancy and density.  These are both crutial here.

Quote from: sceptimatic
If you read my posts you will see that I'm talking about lifting an object like a man hole cover. Read that and understand what I'm saying and you will get a better idea.
Indeed.  I see you're talking about lifting an object, yes I got that.  A dense object that is displacing an amount of water equal to it's volume. The weight of that volume of water is how much the percieved weight (not the true weight) of that object will be reduced.

Assuming our manhole cover is no longer flat on the bottom (the suction I mentioned) and it isn't being lifted at a quick rate (resistance of moving through the water), it will be slightly easier to raise than when it gets out of the water.

Here's simple yes or no question:  Will a hanging scale attached to the lifting chain register a difference between the manhole cover being in the water versus out of the water?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 22, 2013, 12:09:05 AM
I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight.
Also, you realize the word 'weight' has everything to do with gravity right?

I assume you're aware of the difference between weight and mass?
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 02:57:55 AM
What's a case of frequencies?  You have a syntax problem. Sound hitting a barrier is a case of frequencies?  In what way?
If you can't or won't read into what I'm saying then don't bother answering and trying to be clever by trying to twist what I'm saying.
Don't even argue this point and no one else come in to do likewise, just grasp what I'm saying and go from there. If you can't grasp it or won't, then don't correspond with me.
Come back with any tit for tat and you will be blanked, simple as that.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 03:12:30 AM
I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.
So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?

They do not propagate as easily, and are considerably less useful for detecting objects. They can still certainly be used, but are not as ideal as the other.

But the matter of mediums is important for distinguishing between light and sound.

For example, light can travel through a near vacuum with no issue at all, while sound has difficulty, dropping in volume or stopping entirely.

Sound travels quite well through opaque gases, liquids, and solids, but light is stopped entirely.
Light is the mere reflection of the effect of sound   so naturally it's going to reflect through anything that allows it to, like glass and such.
The following sound will always hit a barrier, if that barrier is a solid barrier.

It's just a case of frequencies.

Monkey Tuna Aardvark Bumblebee Walabee Rhubarb Sarsaparilla.

Now that we have traded nonsense word salads, would you care to try and explain in terms that you know the meaning of why Light is blocked by mediums which pose no issue to sound, and more importantly, why SOUND is blocked my mediums that pose no barrier to light, such as extreme near vacuum?

Also, you seem to be unable to decide whether Light IS Sound, straight up, or if Light is a contingent byproduct of Sound (And not simply a byproduct of a third process which can produce both light and/or sound).
When you decide not to be clever and give me a specific question at a time, come back to me, if not, no problem.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 03:44:34 AM
Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.
Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.
Speaking of buoyancy, here's something else that I was wondering about with your theory.

I have two balloons of equal size volume and color.  I fill one with helium, and one with oxygen, both with the same amount so they're both the same size, temperature, and pressure.

According to you the air above is what pushes things down, so why does one balloon drop and the other rise.
The air filled balloon is much more dense and cannot be squeezed up, as it's part of it's own environment, plus the added balloon.
The helium balloon if filled with much much less density and it less agitated , meaning the more dense agitated air molecules agitate it upwards.

Liken it to dropping a balloon full of marbles into a large vibrating container. The balloon will fall through to the bottom due to the more dense fill of it with likewise marbles.
Now imagine another balloon filled with polystyrene larger balls filling that balloon and sitting that on the marbles in the container. It can vibrate all it likes but all it will do is keep pushing that balloon up. It will not fall through.
Try it if you want.
But they have rubber separating them from the rest of the atmosphere, and what do you mean by less agitated.
Do you agree that the air you are under is agitated under higher temperature?
It also becomes less agitated in cooler temperatures and even less and less, the colder it becomes.

That's fine, but we are dealing with the two balloons, which, although temperature is a factor, it's the pressure of molecules inside the balloons, meaning air pressure is more compact inside of the balloon, against what it is outside, meaning it's more dense  and less agitated against the air it is in due to it being squashed.
This also applies to the helium balloon, but the difference is, the helium balloon is filled with much less dense molecules due to it being a separation from what is inside air molecules...basically it's out on it's own and obviously much lighter against the agitated air molecules under it.

Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 03:58:15 AM
If the oxygen is more agitated, then that means it's hotter, the balloon would expand, and it would be less dense.  As I stated, the two balloons are the same temperature.
Temperature differences would act on the balloons but both balloons would equally be in that temperature from the start, so that's negligible.
The issue is about the density of air that is trapped in that balloon, plus the balloon itself, against the lesser resistance of air under it. Helium is more expanded molecules and much lighter and larger than the denser air molecules, which contain many other elements that makes it more compact.
The oxygen is the same temperature as the helium, and it's denser than the helium, and the surface area for the atmosphere to push down on for each balloon is the same, which means your atmospheric force pushing down on each balloon is the same.  So why would the Oxygen balloon be 'heavier'?
There is no PUSHING DOWN as such. It's more to do with resistance of each molecule in the stacking sandwich from the ground to the dome.

It's hard to explain to someone who is not willing to understand it and who is simply just hell bent on caring more about trying to keep a lie alive than to actually question it all.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 04:13:03 AM
Here's simple yes or no question:  Will a hanging scale attached to the lifting chain register a difference between the manhole cover being in the water versus out of the water?
That depends on the depth. You see, this is where something like this can easily be misconstrued by people. For instance.

Let's assume we have a man hole cover hanging from a scale above a pool and that man hole cover is flat area about to be lowered. (we've hired a crane for this).  ;)

Ok, so we weight the man hole cover before it hits the water. say , 50 kg.
As soon as that man hole cover hits the water...the water immediately creates a resistance, so naturally you are going to see the man hole cover, register less weight on that scale. I think we can all accept this.

As it's being lowered, depending on the depth of the pool. The weight will appear to increase, due to the volume of water acting above the man hole cover.

Try and lift that man hole cover back out and you will see a massive spike in the weight on the scales due to the man hole cover being pulled against the pressure of the water above it.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 04:19:04 AM
I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight.
Also, you realize the word 'weight' has everything to do with gravity right?

I assume you're aware of the difference between weight and mass?
For any viewers looking in. This is where mainstream science tries to dupe you into accepting gravity, by differentiating weight and mass, when in truth, mass and weight are the same thing, essentially and it's just the density of matter that makes up the mass.
Weight is just the measurement of any mass. This is where science likes to confuse people and baffle the mind, just like they do with much of unprovable science.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: Rabhimself on October 22, 2013, 09:51:33 AM
If the oxygen is more agitated, then that means it's hotter, the balloon would expand, and it would be less dense.  As I stated, the two balloons are the same temperature.
Temperature differences would act on the balloons but both balloons would equally be in that temperature from the start, so that's negligible.
The issue is about the density of air that is trapped in that balloon, plus the balloon itself, against the lesser resistance of air under it. Helium is more expanded molecules and much lighter and larger than the denser air molecules, which contain many other elements that makes it more compact.

Or...

OR, the mass of helium is much smaller than that of the main constituents of air, and as such a balloon of this will float on the ocean of air molecules it is submerged in - so up it goes.

YES - oxygen and nitrogen are more dense than Helium.  However, do you even grasp what you are talking about when you say that?  All it means is that the mass per unit volume for oxygen and nitrogen is higher than that for helium - and this is purely because they are heavier than helium, it isn't to do with how 'compact' they are.

In the gas phase at atmospheric pressure (and 0 C),  if you take 1 litre of ANY of the three gases - each will contain about the SAME NUMBER OF MOLES of molecules (about 0.0446 moles = about 26858120000000000000000 molecules).  Oxygen, Nitrogen and Helium - 1 litre of each will contain about that many molecules of each element.   If you put the gases under pressure or elevated temperature, then there would still be about the same number of atoms per litre for the 3 of them (just a proportionally greater number for each).

SO Scepti, in your balloon of air, versus your balloon of Helium - your air balloon basically has about the same number of molecules in it as your Helium balloon.  The increased pressure within the balloon simply means the number of atoms per litre will increase for each gas, but the relative number of molecules in each balloon will be about the same.

Now what, Scepti? Your air balloon is actually just as compact as your helium balloon - the helium balloon is simply less dense because helium is a lighter element than nitrogen or oxygen.  About the same number of atoms exist per cubic centimeter in a He balloon as there does in an air balloon - the elements of air are simply heavier, thus the density (i.e the mass per unit volume) is greater - so the weight of the rubber balloon is enough to take it back down to earth under gravity - as where despite the rubber balloon, the He balloon will rise.

The oxygen is the same temperature as the helium, and it's denser than the helium, and the surface area for the atmosphere to push down on for each balloon is the same, which means your atmospheric force pushing down on each balloon is the same.  So why would the Oxygen balloon be 'heavier'?
There is no PUSHING DOWN as such. It's more to do with resistance of each molecule in the stacking sandwich from the ground to the dome.

It's hard to explain to someone who is not willing to understand it and who is simply just hell bent on caring more about trying to keep a lie alive than to actually question it all.

That's why he is giving you the example of the gases in a balloon.  The helium atoms are not coming into contact with any air molecules of air so they can't even enter the sandwich.  Helium is simply lighter than air, in fact, it is so light that it will even float the balloon containing the gas.

You talk about 'not willing to understand' - how can you possibly throw that at someone else when all you do is sit there and make up theories with no evidence to back it up?  You probably won't even understand the math-work above and just declare it is all bullshit.

Helium is a monatomic gas (He) with a mass of 4 g/mol and a density of 0.1786 g/L (at STP).
Nitrogen is diatomic (N2) and has a mass of 28 g/mol and a density of 1.251 g/L.
Oxygen is diatomic (O2) and has a mass of 32 g/mol and a density of 1.429 g/L g/L.

I'll walk you through it: Divide the densities of each gas by their molar masses.  I think you'll find that comes to about 0.0446 moles for each gas.  Multiply this by avogadros number to see the number of molecules - 26858120000000000000000.  I only did this because I'm guessing you don't understand the concept of a mole (other than the subterranean dwelling mammal) - that's not an insult towards you, but you wouldn't know unless you have studied any chemistry (going out on a limb here and saying no you haven't).  So, having a figure for the number of molecules is easier for the explanation.

I have a feeling I've wasted my time, but hey-ho, maybe - just maybe - you will concede.

For any viewers looking in. This is where mainstream science tries to dupe you into accepting gravity, by differentiating weight and mass, when in truth, mass and weight are the same thing, essentially and it's just the density of matter that makes up the mass.
Weight is just the measurement of any mass. This is where science likes to confuse people and baffle the mind, just like they do with much of unprovable science.

The values for somethings mass and weight are equivalent at gravitational acceleration.  They are not the same thing, we measure mass at our gravitational constant because it is obviously convenient for us to do so.

However, we can create weightless environments right here, within the atmosphere (or 'dome' as you would prefer) in so-called 'vomit-comets'.   You know this - regardless of your belief about space or the shape of the earth, these 0G environments can be created, an environment where the net force acting upon you is zero and so you are effectively weightless.   However, you still have a mass.  Matter always has a mass.

It's the same deal if you weigh something underwater or on land.  Due to the buoyancy of water an object will weigh less in water than it does on land.  You can deny this all you want, it's just a simple fact that is true once again regardless of your beliefs about the earth's shape or space.  However, the object retains the same mass on land or in water, it just weighs differently depending if it is in water or on land.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 10:13:31 AM
Ok, Rab, let me explain something to you about your above post. You have committed the cardinal sin of trying to appear clever and to confuse the average bear with all that mumbo jumbo of figures, when we are dealing with the basics, here.

If we want to get values for things, as in safety of use, then calculations are necessary. I understand that.
This is not the case in explaining the basics of something, though, simply to make people understand.
This is where people just read, get bored to hell, snap their pencils and scream...."NOOOOOOOOOOOO, I'VE HAD ENOUGH" ...and then they simply just accept that it has to be right, because, well, look at the numbers involved.
Next time, use basic talk and do it as if you are talking to a class of kids, making sure that they grasp the crux of what you are saying, before you start experimenting to show them how things add up.


Below, is ....shall I say it?  nonsensical.
(about 0.0446 moles = about 26858120000000000000000 molecules).
Why you even felt the need to do this, I can only guess at , as trying your best to confuse the issue, so that nobody comes on board to back me up for fear that they will be ridiculed for not knowing the numbers.

Anyone who is intimidated by this, stop being a sissy and take these people on in your own basic way. It frustrates them, because they hate talking basic...it damages their scientific indoctrinated street cred and makes them feel, ORDINARY.

If you want to debate with me, Rab..you can cut this garbage out and play the game or this is what you will see, time and time again.
Your techniques have been tried and better tried on me and all failed, yet most who take me on, do so by playing it the way it should be played...by keeping it simple. Try it!

I'd answer you but I don't really know where to start with all that, so how about trying to stump me, by putting something forward that makes me eat my words, in simple terms.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 22, 2013, 10:30:18 AM
If you want to debate with me, Rab..you can cut this garbage out and play the game or this is what you will see, time and time again.
Ignorance?
Your techniques have been tried and better tried on me and all failed, yet most who take me on, do so by playing it the way it should be played...by keeping it simple. Try it!
We have, several times since you joined this site.
I'd answer you but I don't really know where to start with all that, so how about trying to stump me,
We have, several times since you joined this site.
by putting something forward that makes me eat my words, in simple terms.
He did.  He conducted an experiment showing physical evidence contradicting your theory.
Title: Re: Can anyone answer this question.
Post by: sceptimatic on October 22, 2013, 10:33:27 AM
If you want to debate with me, Rab..you can cut this garbage out and play the game or this is what you will see, time and time again.
Ignorance?
Your techniques have been tried and better tried on me and all failed, yet most who take me on, do so by playing it the way it should be played...by keeping it simple. Try it!
We have, several times since you joined this site.
I'd answer you but I don't really know where to start with all that, so how about trying to stump me,
We have, several times since you joined this site.
by putting something forward that makes me eat my words, in simple terms.
He did.  He conducted an experiment showing physical evidence contradicting your theory.
Nothing any of you have said has stumped me. The ignorance is on your side, that much I'm certain of.