The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: macrohard on July 17, 2014, 08:26:08 AM

Title: Meteors and Comets
Post by: macrohard on July 17, 2014, 08:26:08 AM
What are the explanation for meteors and comets?
Where do they come from?

I've seen shooting stars in person.  I've visited a few famous craters.  I remember seeing Hale-Bopp after astronomers predicted it's appearance far in advance.  I remember the news when that meteor got caught in Jupiters gravity and broke up and collided.

I'm just interested what the explanation is within the context of FE, UA, and glass dome.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: robintex on July 17, 2014, 08:46:54 AM
What are the explanation for meteors and comets?
Where do they come from?

I've seen shooting stars in person.  I've visited a few famous craters.  I remember seeing Hale-Bopp after astronomers predicted it's appearance far in advance.  I remember the news when that meteor got caught in Jupiters gravity and broke up and collided.

I'm just interested what the explanation is within the context of FE, UA, and glass dome.

Thanks.

Ask sceptimatic.

Meteors and comets are just icicles falling off his ice dome.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 17, 2014, 08:53:16 AM
The "ice dome" is a theory that is entertained by just a few of our members.  Please don't lump us all into the ice dome.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: robintex on July 17, 2014, 09:04:32 AM
The "ice dome" is a theory that is entertained by just a few of our members.  Please don't lump us all into the ice dome.  Thanks.

I cited this as being from sceptimatic. Thankfully you shouldn't lump sceptimatic into "us all."

This was just his explanation which I listed just in case he didn't come across on his own. No offense was intended to you personally, jroa. And even sceptimatic is entitled to  his own opinions..Whatever they may be. Just one example of an explanation FWIW.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Pongo on July 17, 2014, 10:03:19 AM
What are the explanation for meteors and comets?
Where do they come from?

I've seen shooting stars in person.  I've visited a few famous craters.  I remember seeing Hale-Bopp after astronomers predicted it's appearance far in advance.  I remember the news when that meteor got caught in Jupiters gravity and broke up and collided.

I'm just interested what the explanation is within the context of FE, UA, and glass dome.

Thanks.

They are space particles that get to close to the atmolayer and fall towards the earth.  However, meteors never strike the surface.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 17, 2014, 11:33:07 AM
Doesn't anyone find it odd that we never get hit by meteors, considering the crap they tell us about space?
We had the Tungusta one in 1908 I think and yet they couldn't find any evidence of a meteor at all, except for trees blown down.
So given that, is it possible that the meteor wasn't actually anything of the sort from space and was an ice build up that fell into the lower atmosphere and caused a shock wave after gaining in friction before disintegrating into nothing?

We get told time and time again about huge asteroid and what not, heading for Earth and some missing it by so many hundreds of thousands of miles, which we are told is extremely close.

No satellites get hit. the spacestation never gets hit, the Hubble never gets hit. None of the Apollo missions were hit, eitehr to the moon or on it, despite the moon supposedly being peppered to hell.
The missions to mars go without a hitch.
The probes sent billions of miles into space never encounter any hits.

So what's it to be? Is space not full of all this rock and tiny whizzing particles or are these man made craft built with space stone detection systems that take evasive action?

Is it possible that it's none of the above and meteors and comets are not what we are told and do not come from where we are told?
People wonder why this stuff is questioned. I say, it deserves questioning.

Those huge telescopes can see what the average astronomer bear can't. They can see what's in our high atmosphere and can predict ice falls from the dome.
They then tell us all that it's from space, which in effect, it is. It's from - A space in the higher atmosphere.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 17, 2014, 12:02:05 PM
The reason we never get hit by meteors on the surface is that a meteor is defined as an object that burns up completely in the atmosphere. If it makes it to the surface we call it a meteorite. Nice bit of misdirection there jroa.

Tunguska was a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere. It would have had to have been moving very fast. I don't know how high your dome is supposed to be, but since you say that the atmosphere extends all the way up to it, I can't imagine that anything falling from it could build up enough speed to burn up and explode.

As for artificial satellites and probes never getting hit, I don't know for sure that's true. But space is very big, and spacecraft are small. Most objects in the path of an orbiting body were cleaned out of the orbit long ago. So collisions would be expected but very rare.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Pongo on July 17, 2014, 12:06:29 PM
Perhaps something was stomping around on top of the dome and loosed some particles with a greater force?  I don't know the ice-dome theory well enough to speculate.  Is this possible Sceptimatic?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 17, 2014, 12:08:13 PM
Perhaps something was stomping around on top of the dome and loosed some particles with a greater force?
I think giant goats are involved.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Pongo on July 17, 2014, 12:11:59 PM
This is a serious thread Jimmy.  I would speculate that it could be greco-mythological titans or perhaps the moon's shrimp-like creatures, but goats?  What would they breath?  These would be unlike any goats I've ever seen.  So much so I'm not sure they could be classified as goats any longer.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Moosedrool on July 17, 2014, 12:27:43 PM
We had the Tungusta one in 1908 I think and yet they couldn't find any evidence of a meteor at all, except for trees blown down.
So given that, is it possible that the meteor wasn't actually anything of the sort from space and was an ice build up that fell into the lower atmosphere and caused a shock wave after gaining in friction before disintegrating into nothing?

Jesus! You do live under a rock!

(http://)

And the hundreds of fragments people picked up that same day!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pieces+of+russian+meteorite (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pieces+of+russian+meteorite)

Not NASA "Conspiracy" scientist. Average people out of the thousands that witnessed the event.

Biggest chunk intact:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/16/russian_divers_salvage_huge_hunk_of_chelyabinsk_meteorite_from_lake/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/16/russian_divers_salvage_huge_hunk_of_chelyabinsk_meteorite_from_lake/)

(http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=-09OG9vV4FGP0M&tbnid=SlwTkeBlgaE5CM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Fnews%2Frussia-meteor-meteorite-asteroid-chelyabinsk-291%2F&ei=eCPIU-u8J6is0QWy4YGwDg&bvm=bv.71198958,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNGnIPxt8ZIPfyt2y7yHaupOoWQUTg&ust=1405711600224763)

They are space particles that get to close to the atmolayer and fall towards the earth.  However, meteors never strike the surface.
Correct! Because that would make them meteorites! Maybe that little piece of information wouldn't make you look like you're trying to derail a discussion with vague statements.

Here's one that hit a person after ricocheting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russia-meteorite-ann-hodges-science-space-hit/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russia-meteorite-ann-hodges-science-space-hit/)

No satellites get hit. the spacestation never gets hit, the Hubble never gets hit. None of the Apollo missions were hit, eitehr to the moon or on it, despite the moon supposedly being peppered to hell.
The missions to mars go without a hitch.
The probes sent billions of miles into space never encounter any hits.

It is a real threat and unfortunately very likely. Luckily no serious damage was caused by larger sized objects than space dust. But even the dust itself is dangerous due to the extreme velocities something might be traveling relative to a satellite or astronaut. A bigger threat even is the sheer amount of man made debris also in orbit around the earth.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 17, 2014, 12:38:26 PM
Perhaps something was stomping around on top of the dome and loosed some particles with a greater force?  I don't know the ice-dome theory well enough to speculate.  Is this possible Sceptimatic?
Outside of the dome is the end of all matter. The matter ends at the dome. The very last expanded matter freezes against a true vacuum. Nothing exists out side of it, to us. that doesn't mean that other Earth like cells don't exist against that true vacuum, it just means that us as organisms cannot see any further past the dome. All we can see, is what's reflected off the dome.

Everything we see is inside of this Earth cocoon. Nothing gets in and nothing gets out. It's a self sustaining cell that is massive to us but could be a speck to the man behind the microscope. Naturally I don't mean literally, I'm just saying that a bed bug seeing an elephant is like us looking up the empire state building and then some.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 17, 2014, 12:40:19 PM
Perhaps something was stomping around on top of the dome and loosed some particles with a greater force?
I think giant goats are involved.
Are you being serious? How in the hell would giant goats manage to fabricate the boots needed to stamp on the dome? Be serious please as you know that goats are incapable of manufacturing army type boots that would be needed for the job.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 17, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
Perhaps something was stomping around on top of the dome and loosed some particles with a greater force?  I don't know the ice-dome theory well enough to speculate.  Is this possible Sceptimatic?
Outside of the dome is the end of all matter. The matter ends at the dome. The very last expanded matter freezes against a true vacuum. Nothing exists out side of it, to us. that doesn't mean that other Earth like cells don't exist against that true vacuum, it just means that us as organisms cannot see any further past the dome. All we can see, is what's reflected off the dome.

Everything we see is inside of this Earth cocoon. Nothing gets in and nothing gets out. It's a self sustaining cell that is massive to us but could be a speck to the man behind the microscope. Naturally I don't mean literally, I'm just saying that a bed bug seeing an elephant is like us looking up the empire state building and then some.

If nothing gets in or out, what's preventing heat from the Sun building up and boiling us all to death? And melting the ice dome? If the Earth has been around for billions of years with the Sun shining the whole time, shouldn't we all be cooked by now?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 17, 2014, 01:56:56 PM
This is a serious thread Jimmy.  I would speculate that it could be greco-mythological titans or perhaps the moon's shrimp-like creatures, but goats?  What would they breath?  These would be unlike any goats I've ever seen.  So much so I'm not sure they could be classified as goats any longer.
They looked like goats in my dream, that's all I'm sayin.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 17, 2014, 11:21:59 PM
This is a serious thread Jimmy.  I would speculate that it could be greco-mythological titans or perhaps the moon's shrimp-like creatures, but goats?  What would they breath?  These would be unlike any goats I've ever seen.  So much so I'm not sure they could be classified as goats any longer.
They looked like goats in my dream, that's all I'm sayin.

If you don't have a flat Earth question or answer to provide, then please refrain from posting in the FE Q&A forum.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 06:06:12 AM


If nothing gets in or out, what's preventing heat from the Sun building up and boiling us all to death? And melting the ice dome? If the Earth has been around for billions of years with the Sun shining the whole time, shouldn't we all be cooked by now?
The heat from the sun doesn't build up because the Earth has a cooling system, as in, ice and water, just like our bodies do.
Earth is a living cell. It'self sufficient just like we are and all other organisms, which all contribute to the Earth sustaining itself. However, it does become ill at times when bad bacteria, (probably us) attack it but it's immune system will always fight back.
Over time, thousands of years, the earth will go into hibernation to allow itself to rid itself of the bad stuff and replenish it's energy. Basically it will shrink after full expansion.

The ice dome doesn't melt because there's very little friction of atmosphere under the dome at the top, so it's simply being heat swept. You can call it Earth domes windown cleaner if you want to.

Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2014, 06:09:55 AM
Scepti, I don't think you understand how heat works.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 06:18:50 AM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 06:38:31 AM
Scepti, I don't think you understand how heat works.
That's your opinion. Simply saying I don't is not proof I don't, unless you state why I don't.
Let me put it into a simple nutshell for you, as easy as pie.

Heat is the direct result of friction/vibration of matter/molecules/elements. It's that simple.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 06:39:54 AM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 18, 2014, 07:20:04 AM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 02:09:33 PM
The reason we never get hit by meteors on the surface is that a meteor is defined as an object that burns up completely in the atmosphere. If it makes it to the surface we call it a meteorite. Nice bit of misdirection there jroa.

Perhaps you could quote what I said that lead you to accuse me of misdirecting this thread?  That would be nice, because I am confused. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 03:46:23 PM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 04:09:28 PM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.

Heat is simply a measure of stored energy.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 04:11:07 PM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.

Heat is simply a measure of store energy.

Thank you for the definition. I'm not sure what your point is.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 04:12:31 PM
I fixed my typo. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 04:14:55 PM
Oh good. That somehow made it more relevant.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 05:05:22 PM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 05:10:48 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 05:14:52 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?
Read a bit more of the topic then come back.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 05:16:57 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?
Read a bit more of the topic then come back.
I did and all I saw was your lack of understanding.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 05:21:44 PM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?

Scepti if you "slow down the agitation of matter" you are taking the energy out of that matter, which has to go somewhere. Heat naturally flows from a warmer place to a cooler place. To move heat the other way takes more energy and the end result is that the system as a whole gets warmer. Any system that could move heat from a cooler place to a warmer place without any expenditure of energy violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is not possible.

In a closed system entropy can only increase. Your Earth is a perfectly closed system. So you can never cool it.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 05:39:13 PM
Heat is simply a measure of stored energy.
Nope. For example, Heat is not a measure of stored energy of the stored potential energy of a 1 kg mass on a cliff 1 km high above the FE surface.

You do understand that FET embraces GR's mass-energy equivalence,, right? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence)
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 05:44:51 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 05:52:54 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 05:55:21 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 05:58:41 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.

???

I said that condensers require a vent which is quite consistent with what you said. I know you are desperate to win a debate. Keep at it kid. You'll get there one day. Just as soon as you argue round.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 06:05:25 PM

Scepti if you "slow down the agitation of matter" you are taking the energy out of that matter, which has to go somewhere. Heat naturally flows from a warmer place to a cooler place. To move heat the other way takes more energy and the end result is that the system as a whole gets warmer. Any system that could move heat from a cooler place to a warmer place without any expenditure of energy violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is not possible.

In a closed system entropy can only increase. Your Earth is a perfectly closed system. So you can never cool it.
Ok let me try and explain.

At sea level, we know that when the sun is over us we get hot. We get hot because the sun has caused the molecules to get excited or agitate. What has really happened is the molecules are being expanded making the pressure less because more expanded molecules mean less molecules per area.

Those molecules are agitating around your skin. It's like a someone giving you a body friction burn. Your body immediately sweats to cool it.
Cooling it is simply stopping the agitation of molecules are making them more dense and more dormant, meaning less movement.

Higher up in the sky, the molecules are already much more expanded and because of this their agitation is not severe like it was at sea level dense pressure. The higher they go, the more expanded they go and even less agitation can occur, meaning it's cold to our perception.

Venting isn't really anything like people think in the grand scheme of things. People just assume that venting is forcing heat away but that heat has tio go somewhere. It doesn't have to go anywhere because all heat is, is the expansion and contraction of matter.

If you rub your hands together you feel them get hot. As soon as you stop rubbing them together, they cool down...to your perception. They cool down because you have stopped agitating matter so it reverts back to it's original form now that you took the energy away.
The sun does the same. As soon as it moves away, the agitation slows down. It doesn't have to vent.

Can you understand what I'm trying to tell you?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 06:05:54 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.

???

I said that condensers require a vent which is quite consistent with what you said. I know you are desperate to win a debate. Keep at it kid. You'll get there one day. Just as soon as you argue round.

So, now, condensers do not work by pressure?  What are you RE'ers going to make up next? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 06:08:07 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.

???

I said that condensers require a vent which is quite consistent with what you said. I know you are desperate to win a debate. Keep at it kid. You'll get there one day. Just as soon as you argue round.

So, now, condensers do not work by pressure?  What are you RE'ers going to make up next? 

I'm not saying that at all.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 06:10:16 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.

???

I said that condensers require a vent which is quite consistent with what you said. I know you are desperate to win a debate. Keep at it kid. You'll get there one day. Just as soon as you argue round.

So, now, condensers do not work by pressure?  What are you RE'ers going to make up next? 

I'm not saying that at all.

Yes, actually you did, unless I have forgotten the ancient art of reading English. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 06:35:17 PM
It's highly possible that you have.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 07:18:04 PM
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
You do understand that a condenser does not get rid of heat, right? The heat that the system wants to "shed" must go somewhere. I assume that FET abides by the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:09:35 PM

Scepti if you "slow down the agitation of matter" you are taking the energy out of that matter, which has to go somewhere. Heat naturally flows from a warmer place to a cooler place. To move heat the other way takes more energy and the end result is that the system as a whole gets warmer. Any system that could move heat from a cooler place to a warmer place without any expenditure of energy violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is not possible.

In a closed system entropy can only increase. Your Earth is a perfectly closed system. So you can never cool it.
Ok let me try and explain.

At sea level, we know that when the sun is over us we get hot. We get hot because the sun has caused the molecules to get excited or agitate. What has really happened is the molecules are being expanded making the pressure less because more expanded molecules mean less molecules per area.
Sort of. What molecules, the air molecules? If you heat them up the air volume will get bigger yes. The pressure won't necessarily get less. Are you saying that if you light a fire in the room and it gets warmer, you will see the barometer go up? I don't think I've seen this happen
Quote
Those molecules are agitating around your skin. It's like a someone giving you a body friction burn. Your body immediately sweats to cool it.
Cooling it is simply stopping the agitation of molecules are making them more dense and more dormant, meaning less movement.
The sweat cools you because the most energetic molecules fly away from you taking their energy with them. I know this is true because when it's really humid out it feels hotter and the sweat just stays on you. If you put the dehumidifier on, even without changing the temperature of the air it feels cooler because the sweat is drying off you. So yes, your body's molecules get less agitated because their energy has been taken away with the fastest moving water molecules.
Quote
Higher up in the sky, the molecules are already much more expanded and because of this their agitation is not severe like it was at sea level dense pressure. The higher they go, the more expanded they go and even less agitation can occur, meaning it's cold to our perception.
No. It's cold because there's less pressure and less air to insulate your body heat. Those molecules up there are actually moving the fastest, because if they were moving slower they'd stay down on the ground
Quote
Venting isn't really anything like people think in the grand scheme of things. People just assume that venting is forcing heat away but that heat has tio go somewhere. It doesn't have to go anywhere because all heat is, is the expansion and contraction of matter.
No again. Heat is energy. Energy is what makes the molecules jiggle and push against each other causing expansion.
Quote
If you rub your hands together you feel them get hot. As soon as you stop rubbing them together, they cool down...to your perception. They cool down because you have stopped agitating matter so it reverts back to it's original form now that you took the energy away.
No. Some of the energy from your muscles gets transferred to the palms of your hands. When you stop rubbing, the heat gets lost to the environment. You can tell because putting things that absorb heat faster than air, like water or ice, will cause your hands to cool off faster.
Quote
The sun does the same. As soon as it moves away, the agitation slows down. It doesn't have to vent.

Can you understand what I'm trying to tell you?

No I can't understand it, because what you're saying has been demonstrated to be false. Why do you think coffee stays hot in an insulated thermos for longer than in a mug on the table? It's because you've put it somewhere where energy can't get out easily. Both volumes of coffee had the same amount of agitation to begin with, the same amount of energy. The coffee in the open mug however, lets water molecules escape and carry away energy. You can see this by the mist rising off the surface. The glass or clay of the mug itself gets hot, because energy has flowed into it and caused its molecules to jiggle faster. The thermos on the other hand leaves no opening for the water to evaporate the heat away. The construction leaves a gap or some foam between the coffee and the outside of the thermos that heat doesn't flow into easily, and you can feel that the outside of the thermos stays cool for a long time.

Your dome is just like the thermos. It's like you put water in the thermos and threw a red hot iron ball in with it, then closed the lid. If that ball is hot enough, like the Sun, there's no place for the heat to go, and inside will eventually be all steam (plus the cooled off iron ball). Only in your perfectly insulated dome, no heat will EVER escape, and eventually everything heats up to the same temperature as the Sun. That's why your model can never work, because the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is as proven a fact as there ever will be, is never violated.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:10:11 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 08:12:31 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:15:11 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: macrohard on July 18, 2014, 08:17:58 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

Radiation
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2014, 08:20:13 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

Here is a good starting place:

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3083/how-is-heat-dissipated-from-a-satellite-or-any-metal-in-space (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3083/how-is-heat-dissipated-from-a-satellite-or-any-metal-in-space)
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: macrohard on July 18, 2014, 08:25:36 PM
Not only do refrigerators dump heat into the environment, they dump more than they extract from within the refrigerator itself.

In other words, the heat energy removed from making ice cube is dumped elsewhere.  That energy would be enough to melt an ice cube and then some.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 08:41:38 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: inquisitive on July 18, 2014, 08:49:11 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.
Unclear why you ask here and not just look it up.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 08:52:50 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.
Unclear why you ask here and not just look it up.

I made a statement, not a question. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2014, 08:56:43 PM
Inquisitive was likely referring to your ongoing questioning of how a satellite might get rid of excess thermal energy.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 08:57:47 PM
Perhaps you can give a reasonable answer then? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2014, 09:03:32 PM
Perhaps you can give a reasonable answer then?

I already linked to one.  Please note you are evading the question.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 09:04:54 PM
I am the one asking the question.  How could I possibly ask it and evade it at the same time? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2014, 09:14:12 PM
I am the one asking the question.  How could I possibly ask it and evade it at the same time?

This is getting fun.  You are avoiding Inquisitive's question.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 09:22:04 PM
You mean inquisitive's question asking about my question? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 09:26:43 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 09:32:49 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:01:21 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

EDIT: I think I see what's happening here. I think you're asking how a satellite sheds heat in a vacuum, because you think that is analagous to Scepti's domed Earth floating in space. But you would be underestimating the insanity of Scepti's model. He claims that a "true" vacuum, which only exists oustide the dome, does not allow anything to move through it, including light. He says it's something like suspended animation. So he doesn't even leave the possibility of radiative cooling of the Earth.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:04:21 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction). I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:05:14 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:07:40 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction). I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Quote
Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed.
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:12:22 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed.

Please see my edit. And don't be silly, of course things lose heat. The energy isn't lost of course, that's not what I'm saying. When a cup of coffee gets cold we say it has lost heat. In reality, yes, the heat is not ever lost, but the coffee no longer has it.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:14:13 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:14:58 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction). I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Quote
Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement.
What false statement?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:17:29 PM
The one where you replied, "False!"
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:17:59 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?
While I don't need to show that energy is created to show that your statement is false: Nuclear fission creates energy.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:19:06 PM
The one where you replied, "False!"
You're confused. That reply of "False" came after your inquiry. Please pay attention.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:21:52 PM
The one where you replied, "False!"
You're confused. That reply of "False" came after your inquiry. Please pay attention.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed.
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

I must really be confused, because I see no inquiry that I made.  Perhaps you could elaborate, or admit that you were wrong?  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:23:51 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction). I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Quote
Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement.
What false statement?
Again, what false statement did I make?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:25:32 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?
While I don't need to show that energy is created to show that your statement is false: Nuclear fission creates energy.

No it doesn't. Where did you hear that?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:29:12 PM
Again, what false statement did I make?

The one where you said that a vacuum has something to do with thermal conduction, when you meant convection.  It is ok.  Everybody messes up once in a while.  Most people, however, are man enough to admit when they messed up. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:34:45 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:38:50 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:41:26 PM
Again, what false statement did I make?

The one where you said that a vacuum has something to do with thermal conduction, when you meant convection.  It is ok.  Everybody messes up once in a while.  Most people, however, are man enough to admit when they messed up.
I seem don't seem any false statement. I guess you're just demonstrating that you can mess up badly and try to blame the error on someone else. How sad for you.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:43:34 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

Care to admit you were wrong now? 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:45:49 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.
Heat can change to just matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation)
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 10:46:19 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.
Condensers change gases to liquids, not liquids to gases. Please note this.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:47:47 PM
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

Care to admit you were wrong now?
Again, what did I say that was wrong?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:47:56 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.

Well, if a coffee's heat is transferred to its environment such that its temperature drops to room temperature, I'd say it has lost heat. Note that I say "it" has lost heat. I'm not saying the heat is lost, or destroyed or something like that.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 10:54:43 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.
Heat can change to just matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation)

So, you are saying that energy can be converted from one form to another.  Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 10:57:50 PM
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.
Heat can change to just matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation)

So, you are saying that energy can be converted from one form to another.  Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
You also said a condenser changes a liquid to gas and since you are trying to lectures someone about admitting they are wrong, I fully expect you to admit you are wrong. So go ahead, say you are wrong and condensers condense a gas to a liquid.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 11:05:35 PM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.
They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.
It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?
I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.
Condensers change gases to liquids, not liquids to gases. Please note this.

Yes, but the condenser system also converts liquids to gases through the expansion valve.  Really, you are just arguing semantics anyway.  Nice try, though.  You don't seem to be as drunk tonight as you usually are. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 11:08:56 PM
So, you are saying that energy can be converted from one form to another.  Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
No. Again, please pay attention. An important part of physics is the matter-energy equivalence. I've linked to a good starting point. I suggest that until you understand this concept you refrain from posting. Your attempts are very poor. There are very interesting and important failures of FET that you're just not yet qualified to discuss.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 11:11:25 PM
So, you are saying that energy can be converted from one form to another.  Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 11:20:54 PM


Yes, but the condenser system also converts liquids to gases through the expansion valve.  Really, you are just arguing semantics anyway.  Nice try, though.  You don't seem to be as drunk tonight as you usually are.
A condenser system is not a condenser. For you see, a condenser condenses a gas to a liquid. An evaporator evaporates a liquid to a gas. Please note this. Are you going to admit you are wrong?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 11:24:49 PM


Yes, but the condenser system also converts liquids to gases through the expansion valve.  Really, you are just arguing semantics anyway.  Nice try, though.  You don't seem to be as drunk tonight as you usually are.
A condenser system is not a condenser. For you see, a condenser condenses a gas to a liquid. An evaporator evaporates a liquid to a gas. Please note this. Are you going to admit you are wrong?

I will admit that you are being pedantic and picking at words.  Yes, I will admit that I posted two words out of order and yes, I will admit that I then tried to worm my way out of it.  Perhaps you and I have reached a mile stone where we can actually start admitting when we make minor mistakes or typos? 

I am feeling better already.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 11:34:10 PM
Also, please note that this is FE Q&A.  If you don't have a flat Earth question or answer, then please refrain from posting here.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 11:36:20 PM


Yes, but the condenser system also converts liquids to gases through the expansion valve.  Really, you are just arguing semantics anyway.  Nice try, though.  You don't seem to be as drunk tonight as you usually are.
A condenser system is not a condenser. For you see, a condenser condenses a gas to a liquid. An evaporator evaporates a liquid to a gas. Please note this. Are you going to admit you are wrong?

I will admit that you are being pedantic and picking at words.  Yes, I will admit that I posted two words out of order and yes, I will admit that I then tried to worm my way out of it.  Perhaps you and I have reached a mile stone where we can actually start admitting when we make minor mistakes or typos? 

I am feeling better already.  Thanks.
You flat out don't know what you are talking about. It had nothing to do with "words out of order".  Don't claim to be getting a masters when you clearly know nothing. Understand? This is why you posted
Quote
Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.
Heat transfer is heat loss when talking about something transferring heat away. Something loses heat and something gains heat in heat transfer.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 18, 2014, 11:43:15 PM
Heat "loss" in one part is heat "gained" in another part.  Therefore, heat is not really lost.  It is only transferred.   If you disagree, please explain to me as to why you disagree. 

Also, please note that this is not a debate forum.  The purpose of this forum is for asking flat Earth questions and providing flat Earth answers. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 19, 2014, 12:07:30 AM
Lead by example.

Something losses heat aka heat loss. A bowl of soup will lose heat. Nothing says something else won't gain that heat, but if you transfer something way, you still lose it.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 19, 2014, 12:18:16 AM
sokarul, make a thread in the debate section if you don't like my answers.  This section is for flat Earth questions and answers.  We will be strictly enforcing this in the future.  Please don't force me to make an example out of you.  You know the rules. 

I will be happy to debate you in the proper forum, and I apologize for contributing to the debate in this forum.  Thank you for your cooperation. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: macrohard on July 19, 2014, 12:21:26 AM
Again, what false statement did I make?

The one where you said that a vacuum has something to do with thermal conduction, when you meant convection.  It is ok.  Everybody messes up once in a while.  Most people, however, are man enough to admit when they messed up.

I doubt he meant convection, as connection also requires a medium and cannot occur in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 19, 2014, 12:26:43 AM
Yes, convection can not occur in a vacuum.  However, he mentions a vacuum and then claims that I am talking about conduction.  Do you not see the error here?  He could man up and admit that he made a mistake.  However, the funny part is that he made his mistake while chastising me for not learning about thermodynamics.  Oh, the irony. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 19, 2014, 02:25:22 AM
Yes, convection can not occur in a vacuum.  However, he mentions a vacuum and then claims that I am talking about conduction.  Do you not see the error here?  He could man up and admit that he made a mistake.  However, the funny part is that he made his mistake while chastising me for not learning about thermodynamics.  Oh, the irony.
I did not make any such claim. If you think I made a mistake then please take your own advise and open a related thread in FED. Thanks.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 19, 2014, 03:25:05 AM
sokarul, make a thread in the debate section if you don't like my answers.  This section is for flat Earth questions and answers.  We will be strictly enforcing this in the future.
Wow, the hypocrisy.  I've just read through this thread and seen you shit all over it: either through intentional trolling or drunk posting - I can't decide which, and I suppose they aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote
Please don't force me to make an example out of you. 
::)

Make an example of yourself and stop behaving like a bitter, bored child.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 19, 2014, 03:36:43 AM
This is not a commentary or debate forum.  If you don't have a flat Earth answer or question, then please refrain from posting in the FE Q&A section.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 19, 2014, 03:41:04 AM
But, I am giving flat Earth answers.  It is allowed in the flat Earth Q&A section.  Also, are you ready to admit that you mistakenly said conduction when you meant convection? 

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 19, 2014, 06:35:24 AM

Scepti if you "slow down the agitation of matter" you are taking the energy out of that matter, which has to go somewhere. Heat naturally flows from a warmer place to a cooler place. To move heat the other way takes more energy and the end result is that the system as a whole gets warmer. Any system that could move heat from a cooler place to a warmer place without any expenditure of energy violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is not possible.

In a closed system entropy can only increase. Your Earth is a perfectly closed system. So you can never cool it.
Ok let me try and explain.

At sea level, we know that when the sun is over us we get hot. We get hot because the sun has caused the molecules to get excited or agitate. What has really happened is the molecules are being expanded making the pressure less because more expanded molecules mean less molecules per area.

Those molecules are agitating around your skin. It's like a someone giving you a body friction burn. Your body immediately sweats to cool it.
Cooling it is simply stopping the agitation of molecules are making them more dense and more dormant, meaning less movement.

Higher up in the sky, the molecules are already much more expanded and because of this their agitation is not severe like it was at sea level dense pressure. The higher they go, the more expanded they go and even less agitation can occur, meaning it's cold to our perception.

Venting isn't really anything like people think in the grand scheme of things. People just assume that venting is forcing heat away but that heat has tio go somewhere. It doesn't have to go anywhere because all heat is, is the expansion and contraction of matter.

If you rub your hands together you feel them get hot. As soon as you stop rubbing them together, they cool down...to your perception. They cool down because you have stopped agitating matter so it reverts back to it's original form now that you took the energy away.
The sun does the same. As soon as it moves away, the agitation slows down. It doesn't have to vent.

Can you understand what I'm trying to tell you?

None of those examples are closed systems.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: BJ1234 on July 19, 2014, 06:51:46 AM
Scepti, I don't think you understand how heat works.
That's your opinion. Simply saying I don't is not proof I don't, unless you state why I don't.
Let me put it into a simple nutshell for you, as easy as pie.

Heat is the direct result of friction/vibration of matter/molecules/elements. It's that simple.
Well, I would say that based on your "theory" of the Earth being a "cell" with absolutely nothing outside of it, and a large heat source such as the sun is inside of it, why would the Earth not heat up?  You say a cooling system, then proceed to give examples of systems that are not enclosed.  Such as the human body.  You know why the human body doesn't over heat?  Because we radiate our extra heat away from us.  We sweat and the water evaporates off of us.

However, the Earth (in your "theory") does not have the luxury of removing excess heat from its system.

Therefore, you do not exhibit knowledge of heating systems.
Therefore, Markjo does not think you understand how heat works.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 19, 2014, 07:52:23 AM
But, I am giving flat Earth answers.
Bullshit.

Read back through the thread.  The original question was:

"What are the explanation for meteors and comets?
Where do they come from?"

Which you never attempted to answer.  You have just done your usual collection of passive aggressive schtick with a bunch of strawmen chucked in whilst completely diverting the entire thread into a debate about how heat works.

If you really find this forum so boring that you need to constantly troll it, why don't you just leave?

Now, lets get back to the OP.  Meteors and comets should be the same as on a round earth.  The problem comes in if we have "universal acceleration".  In this model the earth is travelling at a hair's breadth from the speed of light, and would be vapourised by a collision with even the smallest particle.  Not to mention that we would have left the galaxy some time ago, but this is tangential to the OP.

Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 19, 2014, 01:13:30 PM
But, I am giving flat Earth answers.  It is allowed in the flat Earth Q&A section.  Also, are you ready to admit that you mistakenly said conduction when you meant convection? 

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?
Do tell us where I said conduction when I meant convection and how you determine that correcting my intentions is appropriate to this section.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: ausGeoff on July 20, 2014, 05:19:07 AM

I have a question for jroa, who stated earlier:

Quote
Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.


This is contrary to my understanding.  Changing a liquid to a gas is called vapourisation.  NO pressure necessary.  How do you propose your version of a condenser works jroa?



(http://www.drycooledcsp.eu/images/surface_condenser.jpg)



In systems involving heat transfer, a condenser is a device or unit used to condense
a substance from its gaseous to its liquid state, typically by cooling it. In so doing,
the latent heat is given up by the substance, and will transfer to the condenser coolant.



The bright "tail" we see behind meteors is an example of a solid sublimating directly to a gaseous state without passing through a liquid phase.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 06:56:51 AM

Scepti if you "slow down the agitation of matter" you are taking the energy out of that matter, which has to go somewhere. Heat naturally flows from a warmer place to a cooler place. To move heat the other way takes more energy and the end result is that the system as a whole gets warmer. Any system that could move heat from a cooler place to a warmer place without any expenditure of energy violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is not possible.

In a closed system entropy can only increase. Your Earth is a perfectly closed system. So you can never cool it.
Ok let me try and explain.

At sea level, we know that when the sun is over us we get hot. We get hot because the sun has caused the molecules to get excited or agitate. What has really happened is the molecules are being expanded making the pressure less because more expanded molecules mean less molecules per area.

Those molecules are agitating around your skin. It's like a someone giving you a body friction burn. Your body immediately sweats to cool it.
Cooling it is simply stopping the agitation of molecules are making them more dense and more dormant, meaning less movement.

Higher up in the sky, the molecules are already much more expanded and because of this their agitation is not severe like it was at sea level dense pressure. The higher they go, the more expanded they go and even less agitation can occur, meaning it's cold to our perception.

Venting isn't really anything like people think in the grand scheme of things. People just assume that venting is forcing heat away but that heat has tio go somewhere. It doesn't have to go anywhere because all heat is, is the expansion and contraction of matter.

If you rub your hands together you feel them get hot. As soon as you stop rubbing them together, they cool down...to your perception. They cool down because you have stopped agitating matter so it reverts back to it's original form now that you took the energy away.
The sun does the same. As soon as it moves away, the agitation slows down. It doesn't have to vent.

Can you understand what I'm trying to tell you?

None of those examples are closed systems.
Everything that happens inside Earth is done in a closed system. Because us humans interpret it as venting and what not, is irrelevant.
The basic reality is, everything is dependent on vibration and frequency which is energy. What determines that energy, is how dense and small to how dense and large those vibrations occur and their frequencies, which determines what we feel as heat.

I'll make it simple in this closed system of ours.
The more pressure, the more vibration = the more heat. The less pressure, the less vibration= less heat.
At sea level which is where we exist, we are under pressure, so anything we attempt to apply our own energy to to create those vibrations and frequencies, which is basically friction...creates slow to high expansion of molecules which determines the heat we feel/give out. The more expanded they become into the atmosphere, the more they lose their heat...to us, as in, what we feel as heat.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

As a simple explanation: if you are sanding a piece of wood, lightly, you are creating a vibration which is creating some heat, yet that heat due to expansion of matter is quickly pushed away from the source by the dense matter coming under it to fill the void or expansion. Basically it's a low pressure crwation that is immediately filled by the sea level pressure, smaller molecules.

Start using more energy and frequency on that wood and you can basically set fire to it, because you're creating a much higher expanasion of the molecules that are being constantly filled by the high pressure sea level molecules pushing into the space, forcing the expanded molecules up. If the vibration and frequency are upped a little, then so would the expansion of molecules, until you basically create a fire by the super speed of dense molecules filling the space.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 07:11:50 AM
Scepti, I don't think you understand how heat works.
That's your opinion. Simply saying I don't is not proof I don't, unless you state why I don't.
Let me put it into a simple nutshell for you, as easy as pie.

Heat is the direct result of friction/vibration of matter/molecules/elements. It's that simple.
Well, I would say that based on your "theory" of the Earth being a "cell" with absolutely nothing outside of it, and a large heat source such as the sun is inside of it, why would the Earth not heat up?  You say a cooling system, then proceed to give examples of systems that are not enclosed.  Such as the human body.  You know why the human body doesn't over heat?  Because we radiate our extra heat away from us.  We sweat and the water evaporates off of us.

However, the Earth (in your "theory") does not have the luxury of removing excess heat from its system.

Therefore, you do not exhibit knowledge of heating systems.
Therefore, Markjo does not think you understand how heat works.
It's not me that doesn't undertsand how heat works. It's people who have it in their heads that heat has to build up and build up and go somewhere inside a dome, meaning the dome should simply just go on heating, then state a thermos flask as proof.

Once people get it into their heads that heat is only the product of agitated matter, expanding and being pushed away by denser matter, they will understand that once the expanded matter is pushed up, it becomes more dormant, until it ceases to be pushed up...meaning that the denser matter that's continued to push it all up in a uniform way, will cease to do so once the energy is taken away from the point of the creation of it in the first place.

Your body is always warm. It keeps warm because it's constantly vibrating. You only feel it vibrating when it has less agitated molcules actring against your skin which makes your body shiver (vibrate). Your body does this to keep your operating temperature at optimum.
Once your body does this, it expands the molecules around it that are dormant and expands them, sort of making the body heat up. The molecules expand and are pushed away as the denser molecules fall into place and are expanded as they do...constantly, as long as the body vibrates.

The expanded molecues are soon compresseed back again because of the weak friction.
Earth perfectly ensures it heats and cools by this method in every form you can think of.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 07:12:43 AM

Scepti if you "slow down the agitation of matter" you are taking the energy out of that matter, which has to go somewhere. Heat naturally flows from a warmer place to a cooler place. To move heat the other way takes more energy and the end result is that the system as a whole gets warmer. Any system that could move heat from a cooler place to a warmer place without any expenditure of energy violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is not possible.

In a closed system entropy can only increase. Your Earth is a perfectly closed system. So you can never cool it.
Ok let me try and explain.

At sea level, we know that when the sun is over us we get hot. We get hot because the sun has caused the molecules to get excited or agitate. What has really happened is the molecules are being expanded making the pressure less because more expanded molecules mean less molecules per area.

Those molecules are agitating around your skin. It's like a someone giving you a body friction burn. Your body immediately sweats to cool it.
Cooling it is simply stopping the agitation of molecules are making them more dense and more dormant, meaning less movement.

Higher up in the sky, the molecules are already much more expanded and because of this their agitation is not severe like it was at sea level dense pressure. The higher they go, the more expanded they go and even less agitation can occur, meaning it's cold to our perception.

Venting isn't really anything like people think in the grand scheme of things. People just assume that venting is forcing heat away but that heat has tio go somewhere. It doesn't have to go anywhere because all heat is, is the expansion and contraction of matter.

If you rub your hands together you feel them get hot. As soon as you stop rubbing them together, they cool down...to your perception. They cool down because you have stopped agitating matter so it reverts back to it's original form now that you took the energy away.
The sun does the same. As soon as it moves away, the agitation slows down. It doesn't have to vent.

Can you understand what I'm trying to tell you?

None of those examples are closed systems.
Everything that happens inside Earth is done in a closed system. Because us humans interpret it as venting and what not, is irrelevant.
The basic reality is, everything is dependent on vibration and frequency which is energy. What determines that energy, is how dense and small to how dense and large those vibrations occur and their frequencies, which determines what we feel as heat.

I'll make it simple in this closed system of ours.
The more pressure, the more vibration = the more heat. The less pressure, the less vibration= less heat.
At sea level which is where we exist, we are under pressure, so anything we attempt to apply our own energy to to create those vibrations and frequencies, which is basically friction...creates slow to high expansion of molecules which determines the heat we feel/give out. The more expanded they become into the atmosphere, the more they lose their heat...to us, as in, what we feel as heat.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

As a simple explanation: if you are sanding a piece of wood, lightly, you are creating a vibration which is creating some heat, yet that heat due to expansion of matter is quickly pushed away from the source by the dense matter coming under it to fill the void or expansion. Basically it's a low pressure crwation that is immediately filled by the sea level pressure, smaller molecules.

Start using more energy and frequency on that wood and you can basically set fire to it, because you're creating a much higher expanasion of the molecules that are being constantly filled by the high pressure sea level molecules pushing into the space, forcing the expanded molecules up. If the vibration and frequency are upped a little, then so would the expansion of molecules, until you basically create a fire by the super speed of dense molecules filling the space.

(http://)
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 07:16:32 AM
Heat inside a closed system, such as a dome, would need to go somewhere or the closed system will just continue to heat.

You have absolutely zero knowledge and you're just pulling this stuff out your ass.

Based on reading your other crap here I'm sure you are going to now tell me I am brainwashed and only know what "they" tell me. So go right ahead.

But.........your dome idea could easily be tested in a lab as far as the heating and cooling goes. I'd encourage you to give it a go because you might learn something. Then again, I'm guessing your the type that would never actually text one of your own ideas for fear of being wrong.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 07:44:39 AM
Heat inside a closed system, such as a dome, would need to go somewhere or the closed system will just continue to heat.

You have absolutely zero knowledge and you're just pulling this stuff out your ass.

Based on reading your other crap here I'm sure you are going to now tell me I am brainwashed and only know what "they" tell me. So go right ahead.

But.........your dome idea could easily be tested in a lab as far as the heating and cooling goes. I'd encourage you to give it a go because you might learn something. Then again, I'm guessing your the type that would never actually text one of your own ideas for fear of being wrong.
My dome idea cannot be tested in a lab without the use of all the elements to create the dome, plus the sun, etc, so it's pointless making out it can.

You don't understand how the system works by your answer. You're a bottom feeder of info and will not allow yourself to realise what is higher than your own head as in how the matter is stacked and how it works.

Try reading what I say and absorbing it , then you can see how the closed system you believe cannot work...works.
Stop thinking at sea level, because this is warping your thoughts.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 07:49:42 AM
You don't even understand how your system works, how can anyone else?

You're too ignorant to see where you contradict yourself and you lack fundamental understanding to see why you're wrong.

There's nothing to absorb here. You're simply pulling words out of your ass and then deciding to ridicule anyone that doesn't believe you........which you may notice happens to be anyone that reads what you write.

Nothing you're saying could possibly exist in reality. None of it. Fact.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Binder on July 20, 2014, 07:51:27 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 20, 2014, 07:56:09 AM
It's not me that doesn't undertsand how heat works.
Oh, it really is.

Quote
It's people who have it in their heads that heat has to build up and build up and go somewhere inside a dome, meaning the dome should simply just go on heating, then state a thermos flask as proof.

Once people get it into their heads that heat is only the product of agitated matter, expanding and being pushed away by denser matter, they will understand that once the expanded matter is pushed up, it becomes more dormant, until it ceases to be pushed up...meaning that the denser matter that's continued to push it all up in a uniform way, will cease to do so once the energy is taken away from the point of the creation of it in the first place.

Your body is always warm. It keeps warm because it's constantly vibrating. You only feel it vibrating when it has less agitated molcules actring against your skin which makes your body shiver (vibrate). Your body does this to keep your operating temperature at optimum.
Once your body does this, it expands the molecules around it that are dormant and expands them, sort of making the body heat up. The molecules expand and are pushed away as the denser molecules fall into place and are expanded as they do...constantly, as long as the body vibrates.

The expanded molecues are soon compresseed back again because of the weak friction.
Earth perfectly ensures it heats and cools by this method in every form you can think of.
I've never read such a load of shite in my life.  Not since your last post anyway.

As obviouslyround says: you just pull this stuff from your ass then call us brainwashed when we point this out.  That's all you ever do.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:07:50 AM
You don't even understand how your system works, how can anyone else?

You're too ignorant to see where you contradict yourself and you lack fundamental understanding to see why you're wrong.

There's nothing to absorb here. You're simply pulling words out of your ass and then deciding to ridicule anyone that doesn't believe you........which you may notice happens to be anyone that reads what you write.

Nothing you're saying could possibly exist in reality. None of it. Fact.
Who am I ridiculing. Show me a post where I'm ridiculing? What's the matter with you?
I'm telling you how it is. If you choose to think I'm talking nonsense, then do not partake in the conversation with me. It's quite simple.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:09:09 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 20, 2014, 08:12:05 AM
Why don't you just start with a diagram showing how day/night cycles work in your "model"?  Then you can move onto stuff like seasons, tides, lunar phases etc

Until you can explain the basics, how do you expect anyone to believe you?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 08:12:15 AM
You don't even understand how your system works, how can anyone else?

You're too ignorant to see where you contradict yourself and you lack fundamental understanding to see why you're wrong.

There's nothing to absorb here. You're simply pulling words out of your ass and then deciding to ridicule anyone that doesn't believe you........which you may notice happens to be anyone that reads what you write.

Nothing you're saying could possibly exist in reality. None of it. Fact.
Who am I ridiculing. Show me a post where I'm ridiculing? What's the matter with you?
I'm telling you how it is. If you choose to think I'm talking nonsense, then do not partake in the conversation with me. It's quite simple.

You are talking nonsense. It's quite evident.

You ridicule when you tell people they are brainwashed because they don't believe the incoherent crap you write.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Binder on July 20, 2014, 08:12:52 AM
Can't we make a dome out of some material? Glass, metal? I don't understand why this would present a problem when making a model to test your idea.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 08:13:10 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:16:05 AM
Why don't you just start with a diagram showing how day/night cycles work in your "model"?  Then you can move onto stuff like seasons, tides, lunar phases etc

Until you can explain the basics, how do you expect anyone to believe you?
Make your own choice what you want to believe or not. I'm not you. All I do is put my posts in. From that point on I'll deal with what I see fit.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Binder on July 20, 2014, 08:19:05 AM
Can you explain a little, why can't you make a model to test?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:20:47 AM
Can't we make a dome out of some material? Glass, metal? I don't understand why this would present a problem when making a model to test your idea.
Yes you can, if you can make one that accepts all of the elements pumped into it with an energy source on some scale.
If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum.
The massive ussue is, we cannot create a perfect vacuum on Earth, so trying to do that by making a dome inside of a glass dome, we are going to have an inevitable collapse due to the atmospheric pressure outside of it...something that is not present outside of the real Earth dome.

See how complicated that could be?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:21:40 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 08:23:39 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:26:08 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Binder on July 20, 2014, 08:32:09 AM
"If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum."

Could you rephrase this please? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Are you asking for a dome over a dome and in between the two domes is a perfect vacuum?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 08:34:56 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.

I don't need to know how it works.

It doesn't work because it isn't real.

It can't work because nothing you say adds up. You're wrong and you contradict yourself without knowing you do because you're ignorant.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:42:26 AM
"If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum."

Could you rephrase this please? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Are you asking for a dome over a dome and in between the two domes is a perfect vacuum?
No. In a nutshell I'm trying to say it's impossible to build a working dome that emulates Earth's under atmospheric conditions.

The closest you could do is to put a glass dome over a glass dome, then fill the inner dome with all the gases of Earth, plus elements and an energy source, etc.
The outer dome would have top be evacuated of pressure to a perfect vacuum which cannot be achieved on Earth.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 08:43:52 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.

I don't need to know how it works.

It doesn't work because it isn't real.

It can't work because nothing you say adds up. You're wrong and you contradict yourself without knowing you do because you're ignorant.
If you believe I'm wrong without actually reading up, then stick to it. I'll refrain from answering to you in this topic or any topic about the dome from this point on. It'll save me typing time.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 08:44:46 AM
No such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 08:46:17 AM
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.

I don't need to know how it works.

It doesn't work because it isn't real.

It can't work because nothing you say adds up. You're wrong and you contradict yourself without knowing you do because you're ignorant.
If you believe I'm wrong without actually reading up, then stick to it. I'll refrain from answering to you in this topic or any topic about the dome from this point on. It'll save me typing time.

I've read the things you have typed.

You're wrong. It's as obvious as can possibly be.

You can't answer me with anything of actual substance because you too know you're full of shit.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Binder on July 20, 2014, 09:00:42 AM
"If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum."

Could you rephrase this please? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Are you asking for a dome over a dome and in between the two domes is a perfect vacuum?
No. In a nutshell I'm trying to say it's impossible to build a working dome that emulates Earth's under atmospheric conditions.

The closest you could do is to put a glass dome over a glass dome, then fill the inner dome with all the gases of Earth, plus elements and an energy source, etc.
The outer dome would have top be evacuated of pressure to a perfect vacuum which cannot be achieved on Earth.

Why do you need a perfect vacuum or any vacuum in the outer dome?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 20, 2014, 09:30:43 AM
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.

Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: ausGeoff on July 20, 2014, 10:33:40 AM
I've never read such a load of shite in my life.  Not since your last post anyway.

As obviouslyround says: you just pull this stuff from your ass then call us brainwashed when we point this out.  That's all you ever do.

I too have to agree with these sentiments.  At the very least, sceptimatic's rambling, incoherent, nonsensical comments usually give me a good laugh to brighten up an often very dull day.  And I have to take my hat off (and turn my brain off) in thanks to sceptimatic for giving me that glimmer of joy.

     ;D
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Shmeggley on July 20, 2014, 11:50:45 AM
As a simple explanation: if you are sanding a piece of wood, lightly, you are creating a vibration which is creating some heat, yet that heat due to expansion of matter is quickly pushed away from the source by the dense matter coming under it to fill the void or expansion. Basically it's a low pressure crwation that is immediately filled by the sea level pressure, smaller molecules.

Start using more energy and frequency on that wood and you can basically set fire to it, because you're creating a much higher expanasion of the molecules that are being constantly filled by the high pressure sea level molecules pushing into the space, forcing the expanded molecules up. If the vibration and frequency are upped a little, then so would the expansion of molecules, until you basically create a fire by the super speed of dense molecules filling the space.

You're totally missing the point about why wood burns. Yes, using friction you can heat it up, and when you stop sanding it will cool off, i.e. the heat will dissipate into the cooler environment. But the fire is not going to stop because you stop sanding. At that point a chemical reaction has started that releases a lot of heat and will keep the fire going until all the available fuel and/or oxygen have been used up.

For a much better plain language description of how a fire works, please watch:
Feynman: FUN TO IMAGINE 2: Fire (http://#)

And to your other point that the world is not like a thermos flask, in your model, it's exactly like that. Everything, including the ice dome itself, is wrapped in the most perfect insulator imaginable - your hypothetical perfect vacuum through which nothing can travel, not even light.

Also, if you want to say that things can cool off without having to transfer their heat energy (or their vibration, which is still energy) somewhere else, then you misunderstand what heat is and how thermodynamics works. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from a warmer place to a cooler place. This law is never violated. If it was, crazy things could happen. My coffee could get cold without warming the cup. I could leave an ice cube tray full of water out on the counter on a summer day and make ice cubes. I could put a pot of water on a block of ice and it could boil. These are such common sense absurdities that it should be obvious to you how the First Law of Thermodynamics can't be violated.

So in your ice dome model, with the perfect insulator of the vacuum that contains it, energy can only move around in different places. Heat from the Sun, and heat produced here on Earth all goes into the environment. The only thing I don't know for sure, but can definitely be calculated, is how long it takes for everything to reach the same temperature.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 12:08:00 PM
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.
Which as I said: we know it as venting but it's how it termed, which is the key. You are saying it needs venting and it can't vent in a closed dome. I've explained why venting is not what people think when it comes to expanded molecules being pushed away to rise to a point where it cannot rise anymore from that energy release, so it becomes condensed again.

Rainfall should explain exactly what I'm talking about as one example.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 12:19:11 PM
As a simple explanation: if you are sanding a piece of wood, lightly, you are creating a vibration which is creating some heat, yet that heat due to expansion of matter is quickly pushed away from the source by the dense matter coming under it to fill the void or expansion. Basically it's a low pressure crwation that is immediately filled by the sea level pressure, smaller molecules.

Start using more energy and frequency on that wood and you can basically set fire to it, because you're creating a much higher expanasion of the molecules that are being constantly filled by the high pressure sea level molecules pushing into the space, forcing the expanded molecules up. If the vibration and frequency are upped a little, then so would the expansion of molecules, until you basically create a fire by the super speed of dense molecules filling the space.

You're totally missing the point about why wood burns. Yes, using friction you can heat it up, and when you stop sanding it will cool off, i.e. the heat will dissipate into the cooler environment. But the fire is not going to stop because you stop sanding. At that point a chemical reaction has started that releases a lot of heat and will keep the fire going until all the available fuel and/or oxygen have been used up.

For a much better plain language description of how a fire works, please watch:
Feynman: FUN TO IMAGINE 2: Fire (http://#)

And to your other point that the world is not like a thermos flask, in your model, it's exactly like that. Everything, including the ice dome itself, is wrapped in the most perfect insulator imaginable - your hypothetical perfect vacuum through which nothing can travel, not even light.

Also, if you want to say that things can cool off without having to transfer their heat energy (or their vibration, which is still energy) somewhere else, then you misunderstand what heat is and how thermodynamics works. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from a warmer place to a cooler place. This law is never violated. If it was, crazy things could happen. My coffee could get cold without warming the cup. I could leave an ice cube tray full of water out on the counter on a summer day and make ice cubes. I could put a pot of water on a block of ice and it could boil. These are such common sense absurdities that it should be obvious to you how the First Law of Thermodynamics can't be violated.

So in your ice dome model, with the perfect insulator of the vacuum that contains it, energy can only move around in different places. Heat from the Sun, and heat produced here on Earth all goes into the environment. The only thing I don't know for sure, but can definitely be calculated, is how long it takes for everything to reach the same temperature.
It's not me who's missing the point. I'm telling you exactly what happens. Heat does move to another place, you're right, except you're missing the whole point of what's happening.

At the core of the energy relating to friction, you get your hottest part that we perceive, as in the brightest glow or the most intense fire or heat. From that point on, it's super expanding matter being massively pushed into a higher atmosphere due to the intensity of the energy applied. It's a stackign effect of a push on push of tehse molecules as this energy is applied from the core point to the end point where the molecules cannot be pushed up anymore, so they level out and build up and up...or condence if you want, then they fall as they become more and more compressed through the now less dense molecules below.
No heat rises forever unless there is a constant heat source in a constant spot that builds all the time.

It's not the same as a thermos flask at all.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 20, 2014, 12:26:17 PM

I have a question for jroa, who stated earlier:

Quote
Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.


This is contrary to my understanding.  Changing a liquid to a gas is called vapourisation.  NO pressure necessary.  How do you propose your version of a condenser works jroa?

Yes, we have already discussed this.  I admitted that I messed up the order of two words.  Maybe if you would have read the entire thread, you would see where I have already admitted that and apologized. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 20, 2014, 01:15:39 PM
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.
Which as I said: we know it as venting but it's how it termed, which is the key. You are saying it needs venting and it can't vent in a closed dome. I've explained why venting is not what people think when it comes to expanded molecules being pushed away to rise to a point where it cannot rise anymore from that energy release, so it becomes condensed again.

Rainfall should explain exactly what I'm talking about as one example.

I just don't see how you've explained away what happens to the heat. Right here, you've explained that it rises, but as you might suspect us to understand, it's still inside of the system.

Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 01:43:46 PM
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.
Which as I said: we know it as venting but it's how it termed, which is the key. You are saying it needs venting and it can't vent in a closed dome. I've explained why venting is not what people think when it comes to expanded molecules being pushed away to rise to a point where it cannot rise anymore from that energy release, so it becomes condensed again.

Rainfall should explain exactly what I'm talking about as one example.

I just don't see how you've explained away what happens to the heat. Right here, you've explained that it rises, but as you might suspect us to understand, it's still inside of the system.
It doesn't matter that it's an enclosed system. The system is self sufficient. Nothing needs to be vented outisde of it. It can't be vented. It's a stacked system.

At sea level, we are under the pressure of the stacked system and we feel the effects of the stacking of that system every time energy is applied in anything we do or any time the sun is reflected onto us from the dome directly facing us.

I'm trying to go from a simplistic model to explain compressed matter to expanded matter relating to sea level gases that are condensed, to expanded gases that are expanded due to being PUSHED up due to the molecules above them being forced out of the way by those below, then those molecuels above taking the place of the expanded molecules and pushing them up further.

I might draw a crude picture of what I'm saying if you don't grasp this.
Basically it's a chain reaction of pushing through expansion. Think of it like drawing a tiny circle at the bottom of a paper...we will call this cold. Now we imagine this cold being pushed up the page by the even tinier circles under it, so now we draw another slightly larger circle on top of the other, then another one a little bit larger and so on and so on as if it was a big worm with a fat head and skinny tail pushing through a mass of tiny balls, which drop down to fill the area where the worm came from which fills the gap the worm leaves.
Imagine that on a scale, from say, striking a match or the mass of a fire.

The thing is, as that far headed worm is forcing it's way up, it's entirely reliant on the energy which started it motion upwards which is the point of ignition or point of friction.
If that energy is constant, then the fat headed worm will stop being pushed up because it's now at a height where it's head now matches the molecules it's in as far as size goes, so now it's head is resting above the less expanded molecules below.
As soon as the next molecule of the worms head gets pushed into the first, it's now being squashed...and the next molecules is pushed up and so on and so on until it's head is squashed even more, which condenses it and allows it all to start to fall back through the smaller molecules below.

I'm not sure you will grasp this. If not, I'll draw a picture tomorrow maybe to see if I can explain it better.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: obviouslyround on July 20, 2014, 01:48:21 PM
Pure nonsense.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 20, 2014, 02:44:11 PM
I grasp it. It is you that fails to grasp that it makes zero sense.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 03:05:55 PM
I grasp it. It is you that fails to grasp that it makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't to you because you follow a different model where my logic does not fit that model.
You go with Earth venting heat into space. You should seriously question this. I tried to make it simple for you but I do under stand your stance being ultra defensive as I am myself over mine, regardless of you having mass opinion on your side.
I am equal to mass opinion, so I class the argument as equal.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 20, 2014, 03:07:54 PM
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 03:28:19 PM
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)
What do you think allows a person to actually look at stuff under a microscope?
It's doesn't matter how small, matter is, if you can view it under a microscope it has to be viewing it through other matter, as in, what you see through, as in, molecules, which is what is in between any matter seen. All matter, no matter what density, is attached. No gaps. There cannot be any gaps as this constitutes a perfect vacuum, which cannot be created inside Earth.

Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 20, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)
What do you think allows a person to actually look at stuff under a microscope?
It's doesn't matter how small, matter is, if you can view it under a microscope it has to be viewing it through other matter, as in, what you see through, as in, molecules, which is what is in between any matter seen. All matter, no matter what density, is attached. No gaps. There cannot be any gaps as this constitutes a perfect vacuum, which cannot be created inside Earth.
The pictures are from electron scanning microscopes. As you can see, the molecules are not expanded at all. Please note this.

Edit:Probably not an electron scanning microscope.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Umurweird on July 20, 2014, 03:35:09 PM
There isn't a such thing as a perfect vacuum.

It's a misnomer.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 03:57:24 PM
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)
What do you think allows a person to actually look at stuff under a microscope?
It's doesn't matter how small, matter is, if you can view it under a microscope it has to be viewing it through other matter, as in, what you see through, as in, molecules, which is what is in between any matter seen. All matter, no matter what density, is attached. No gaps. There cannot be any gaps as this constitutes a perfect vacuum, which cannot be created inside Earth.
The pictures are from electron scanning microscopes. As you can see, the molecules are not expanded at all. Please note this.
It doesn't matter what it's from. It still has to see through molecules to see the matter within. It's all connected. Life would not exist otherwise.

The easiest way i can explain it all is to go to the very basic of what we see. just observe soap bubbles and see how there are no gaps between them. They are all attached, whether they are huge, to smaller to extremely tiny that look like lather. All matter is exactly like this from solid to gas all the way up in super compressed state to super expanded.

Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 04:00:16 PM
There isn't a such thing as a perfect vacuum.

It's a misnomer.
Correct in one sense, as a perfect vacuum means the absence of all matter which means no existence. Outside of Earth's dome is exactly that. We are in a cocoon which is in suspended animation, as we imagine it to be.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Binder on July 20, 2014, 04:28:00 PM
Every place we can detect in the universe has something. Energy, particles, temperature... Something.

Why is it you need a "perfect vacuum" for your model?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 20, 2014, 04:41:08 PM
Not only is there no such thing as a perfect vacuum, there is also no such thing as the opposite. There is space between everything. If you try to touch an object, say, having your finger meeting a wall... Well between your finger and the wall there are an infinite number of midpoints. In other words if your finger is 3 ft from a wall, there is a point halfway between your finger and the wall at 1.5 ft. Between there and the wall again there is another and so on. This can be done infinitely and in reality your finger never can actually touch the wall. So, while you are obsessed that everything must be touching inside the cell, the reality is that nothing is.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 20, 2014, 04:44:41 PM
With that in mind I do declare... Condoms are useless.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sokarul on July 20, 2014, 05:48:38 PM
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)
What do you think allows a person to actually look at stuff under a microscope?
It's doesn't matter how small, matter is, if you can view it under a microscope it has to be viewing it through other matter, as in, what you see through, as in, molecules, which is what is in between any matter seen. All matter, no matter what density, is attached. No gaps. There cannot be any gaps as this constitutes a perfect vacuum, which cannot be created inside Earth.
The pictures are from electron scanning microscopes. As you can see, the molecules are not expanded at all. Please note this.
It doesn't matter what it's from. It still has to see through molecules to see the matter within. It's all connected. Life would not exist otherwise.

The easiest way i can explain it all is to go to the very basic of what we see. just observe soap bubbles and see how there are no gaps between them. They are all attached, whether they are huge, to smaller to extremely tiny that look like lather. All matter is exactly like this from solid to gas all the way up in super compressed state to super expanded.
Then why can a child blow a single soap bubble?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Umurweird on July 20, 2014, 05:51:24 PM
There isn't a such thing as a perfect vacuum.

It's a misnomer.
Correct in one sense, as a perfect vacuum means the absence of all matter which means no existence. Outside of Earth's dome is exactly that. We are in a cocoon which is in suspended animation, as we imagine it to be.

As usual you aren't only wrong but also kinda dumb and certainly crazy.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Moosedrool on July 20, 2014, 09:28:47 PM
wait wait wait. hold on! is sceptimatic actually saying empty space cannot exist?

Cause if that is the case I would seriously not recommend him studying quantum mechanics. At all! As in all subatomic particles being of indeterminate size, closing down to a Planck width before it's energy causes it to escape.

Yet again a whole crazy universe awaits you dude! Inside the subatomic level. it's so much empty fscken space you'll vomit out flat earth nonsense like a buffoon before being completely overwhelmed at how much nothingness around you actually exist.

Geez stuff is so far apart that if it wasn't for electromagnetism you'll pass seamlessly through meters of solid steel without one nuclei touching another.

But fscket it's like speaking to a rock anyways so who the hell cares.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Gulliver on July 20, 2014, 09:38:54 PM
wait wait wait. hold on! is sceptimatic actually saying empty space cannot exist?
I think that he's just babbling. I've read his post several times and have found several internal inconsistencies. Surely he knows TD requires the Ice Dome to radiate energy in all directions.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Moosedrool on July 20, 2014, 09:45:26 PM
It doesn't matter what it's from. It still has to see through molecules to see the matter within. It's all connected. Life would not exist otherwise.

It actually does matter what it's from. These microscopes doesn't detect light... at all... so nothing is passing through matter. The scope gets effected by magnetism which could be a static time particle such as the higgs. Welcome to the realm of you don't know WTF you're talking about! And some quantum physics.


I think that he's just babbling.

He babbles too much.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 12:38:55 AM
Every place we can detect in the universe has something. Energy, particles, temperature... Something.

Why is it you need a "perfect vacuum" for your model?
You are answering the question and you actually don't know why. The clue is your universe. Once you stop thinking like you've been told to think and actually look at it as in, "Every place inside the dome has something. Energy, particles, temperature....something."

Now you know why there is a perfect vacuum out side of that. You have to remember that a perfect vacuum is a non-existence of matter, meaning absolutely no matter exists, meaning space does not exist to our perception...just blackness because our eyes recieve no reflected light through it.
What they do recieve, is the reflected light off the ice dome against that backness of the vacuum because light cannot pass through it, it just refletcs off a perfect mirror which the ice dome provides.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 12:50:12 AM
Not only is there no such thing as a perfect vacuum, there is also no such thing as the opposite. There is space between everything. If you try to touch an object, say, having your finger meeting a wall... Well between your finger and the wall there are an infinite number of midpoints. In other words if your finger is 3 ft from a wall, there is a point halfway between your finger and the wall at 1.5 ft. Between there and the wall again there is another and so on. This can be done infinitely and in reality your finger never can actually touch the wall. So, while you are obsessed that everything must be touching inside the cell, the reality is that nothing is.
There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum inside Earth. As for the rest of it, everything is touching. No gaps at all, just forced separation by vibration and frequency which is energy.

I've already mentioned the Russian doll scenario, which is what matter is..and the amount of elements in each molecule of matter is dependent on the density.
Think of it like balloons inside balloons. The outer balloon is expanded...the next balloon is less expanded and so on until one balloon is so dense due to being compressed.
To release or expand these balloons, you apply energy to force out the less expanded. The more energy applied, the more layers you expand, until you release the last element inside which are pushed to the top and have no pressure on them, so they go dormant...they simply freeze because they have nothing to expand into, as the true vacuum is devoid of matter from that point on.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 12:52:43 AM
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/2-firsteverhig.jpg)
What do you think allows a person to actually look at stuff under a microscope?
It's doesn't matter how small, matter is, if you can view it under a microscope it has to be viewing it through other matter, as in, what you see through, as in, molecules, which is what is in between any matter seen. All matter, no matter what density, is attached. No gaps. There cannot be any gaps as this constitutes a perfect vacuum, which cannot be created inside Earth.
The pictures are from electron scanning microscopes. As you can see, the molecules are not expanded at all. Please note this.
It doesn't matter what it's from. It still has to see through molecules to see the matter within. It's all connected. Life would not exist otherwise.

The easiest way i can explain it all is to go to the very basic of what we see. just observe soap bubbles and see how there are no gaps between them. They are all attached, whether they are huge, to smaller to extremely tiny that look like lather. All matter is exactly like this from solid to gas all the way up in super compressed state to super expanded.
Then why can a child blow a single soap bubble?
What do you think that child blew into that soap to make a bubble? What do you think surrounds that bubble?
Everything is connected. There is no free space. Free space means a non- existance. It simply cannot happen inside Earth.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 12:53:54 AM
There isn't a such thing as a perfect vacuum.

It's a misnomer.
Correct in one sense, as a perfect vacuum means the absence of all matter which means no existence. Outside of Earth's dome is exactly that. We are in a cocoon which is in suspended animation, as we imagine it to be.

As usual you aren't only wrong but also kinda dumb and certainly crazy.
As usual you go on the attack without any purpose. Put some effort in.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 21, 2014, 12:59:24 AM
Why do you keep writing novels explaining what you think the universe is like? Everyone has heard about what your dome theory is. Your explanations are just stories explaining how you think things work. You haven't fended off any evidence that's been shown to you to the contrary nor shown any evidence in your favor. You just make a ton of claims and they all seem to be reasonless.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 01:05:30 AM
wait wait wait. hold on! is sceptimatic actually saying empty space cannot exist?

Cause if that is the case I would seriously not recommend him studying quantum mechanics. At all! As in all subatomic particles being of indeterminate size, closing down to a Planck width before it's energy causes it to escape.

Yet again a whole crazy universe awaits you dude! Inside the subatomic level. it's so much empty fscken space you'll vomit out flat earth nonsense like a buffoon before being completely overwhelmed at how much nothingness around you actually exist.

Geez stuff is so far apart that if it wasn't for electromagnetism you'll pass seamlessly through meters of solid steel without one nuclei touching another.

But fscket it's like speaking to a rock anyways so who the hell cares.
Your own logic should tell you that nothing can move without a wave form. A wave form happens because it's a ripple effect caused by vibration and frequency which determines how anything moves in whatever pattern, whether it's concentrated or spanned out.

Go to a pond and take certain implements with you to test on that pond. Things like various sized stones, sticks and wider items. Start tapping the water slowly, you see a wave pattern.
Throw in a stone, you see a wave pattern. Fire a machine gun into the pond and see the frequency of the wave.
All what you see in the pond is what is happening in your world.
Everything no matter what you want to call it, is attached.
You call call the attached molecules, atoms, sub atomic particles - quantumised super sub atomic nucleus - Higg bosonised triple sub thermo atomic collider nuno particles...you can call them what the hell you like. the end result is always the same....no particles, elements, matter, molecules, atoms or whatever are occupying free space. Everything is attached in some way.

Go and look in your sink full of washing up water and see the bubbles or varying sizes. This is what you're dealing with on Earth. Everthing is attached whether it's solid, liquid or gas.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 01:09:32 AM
Why do you keep writing novels explaining what you think the universe is like? Everyone has heard about what your dome theory is. Your explanations are just stories explaining how you think things work. You haven't fended off any evidence that's been shown to you to the contrary nor shown any evidence in your favor. You just make a ton of claims and they all seem to be reasonless.
There's no evidence in your favour either. Your reliance is solely on what you're fed as regards what I'm talking about. Sure, you can argue that you can see this and that in the sky or atoms are this and that and all the rest of it. All you're doing is spouting the stuff that was given to you. You can't deny this.
I'm giving you my take on it . I'm not asking you to even look at it. I'm telling how it is, because I believe I am closer to the truth. It doesn't matter how many times people call it lunacy. It just makes me stronger and more focused.
If you don't accept it and can't be botehred to debate it, then feel free to deck out. I'm not forcing anyone to view what I type, as I've said before.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: rottingroom on July 21, 2014, 01:20:14 AM
Why do you keep writing novels explaining what you think the universe is like? Everyone has heard about what your dome theory is. Your explanations are just stories explaining how you think things work. You haven't fended off any evidence that's been shown to you to the contrary nor shown any evidence in your favor. You just make a ton of claims and they all seem to be reasonless.
There's no evidence in your favour either. Your reliance is solely on what you're fed as regards what I'm talking about. Sure, you can argue that you can see this and that in the sky or atoms are this and that and all the rest of it. All you're doing is spouting the stuff that was given to you. You can't deny this.
I'm giving you my take on it . I'm not asking you to even look at it. I'm telling how it is, because I believe I am closer to the truth. It doesn't matter how many times people call it lunacy. It just makes me stronger and more focused.
If you don't accept it and can't be botehred to debate it, then feel free to deck out. I'm not forcing anyone to view what I type, as I've said before.


You're right. I cannot deny evidence when it is right in front of my face. That makes me sane. It's bad enough that your theory doesn't work in actual reality but it is much worse that it isn't even internally consistent. These are facts scepti. You can't deny this.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 01:43:20 AM
Why do you keep writing novels explaining what you think the universe is like? Everyone has heard about what your dome theory is. Your explanations are just stories explaining how you think things work. You haven't fended off any evidence that's been shown to you to the contrary nor shown any evidence in your favor. You just make a ton of claims and they all seem to be reasonless.
There's no evidence in your favour either. Your reliance is solely on what you're fed as regards what I'm talking about. Sure, you can argue that you can see this and that in the sky or atoms are this and that and all the rest of it. All you're doing is spouting the stuff that was given to you. You can't deny this.
I'm giving you my take on it . I'm not asking you to even look at it. I'm telling how it is, because I believe I am closer to the truth. It doesn't matter how many times people call it lunacy. It just makes me stronger and more focused.
If you don't accept it and can't be botehred to debate it, then feel free to deck out. I'm not forcing anyone to view what I type, as I've said before.


You're right. I cannot deny evidence when it is right in front of my face. That makes me sane. It's bad enough that your theory doesn't work in actual reality but it is much worse that it isn't even internally consistent. These are facts scepti. You can't deny this.
No, they aren't facts at all. They are your facts and those who follow a model given out. You have not proved my theory wrong and you can't prove it wrong.
When someone stumps me and makes me seriously doubt what I'm saying, I'll gladly re-think my theory.
I understand that the science world does not recognise my theory as anything like a theory or even a hypothesis. I don't care. My theory is my theory and I do not follow what people decide I should.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 21, 2014, 04:47:47 AM
When someone stumps me and makes me seriously doubt what I'm saying, I'll gladly re-think my theory.
Bullshit.  You are stumped even drawing a diagram of how day/night cycles work in your ice dome "model".  That hasn't stopped you bibbling on about it endlessly.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 21, 2014, 05:01:56 AM
When someone stumps me and makes me seriously doubt what I'm saying, I'll gladly re-think my theory.
Bullshit.  You are stumped even drawing a diagram of how day/night cycles work in your ice dome "model".  That hasn't stopped you bibbling on about it endlessly.

CrabbyJim, this is the FE Q&A.  You know by now where to make post for the thoughts that pop into your head.  Please use the correct forum.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Umurweird on July 21, 2014, 05:41:49 AM
There isn't a such thing as a perfect vacuum.

It's a misnomer.
Correct in one sense, as a perfect vacuum means the absence of all matter which means no existence. Outside of Earth's dome is exactly that. We are in a cocoon which is in suspended animation, as we imagine it to be.

As usual you aren't only wrong but also kinda dumb and certainly crazy.
As usual you go on the attack without any purpose. Put some effort in.

No reason to put an effort in because you wouldn't understand what is being said.

You don't understand that when you sit down in a chair......you're really not touching the chair. There is a gap between your body and the chair.

Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Umurweird on July 21, 2014, 05:44:36 AM
Why do you keep writing novels explaining what you think the universe is like? Everyone has heard about what your dome theory is. Your explanations are just stories explaining how you think things work. You haven't fended off any evidence that's been shown to you to the contrary nor shown any evidence in your favor. You just make a ton of claims and they all seem to be reasonless.
There's no evidence in your favour either. Your reliance is solely on what you're fed as regards what I'm talking about. Sure, you can argue that you can see this and that in the sky or atoms are this and that and all the rest of it. All you're doing is spouting the stuff that was given to you. You can't deny this.
I'm giving you my take on it . I'm not asking you to even look at it. I'm telling how it is, because I believe I am closer to the truth. It doesn't matter how many times people call it lunacy. It just makes me stronger and more focused.
If you don't accept it and can't be botehred to debate it, then feel free to deck out. I'm not forcing anyone to view what I type, as I've said before.


You're right. I cannot deny evidence when it is right in front of my face. That makes me sane. It's bad enough that your theory doesn't work in actual reality but it is much worse that it isn't even internally consistent. These are facts scepti. You can't deny this.
No, they aren't facts at all. They are your facts and those who follow a model given out. You have not proved my theory wrong and you can't prove it wrong.
When someone stumps me and makes me seriously doubt what I'm saying, I'll gladly re-think my theory.
I understand that the science world does not recognise my theory as anything like a theory or even a hypothesis. I don't care. My theory is my theory and I do not follow what people decide I should.

One, you can't prove your idea to be correct.

Two, we can all prove it wrong. There is no dome. Your thoughts on quantum mechanics are far off base. Even someone with a basic understanding knows this.

Three, you don't have a theory. You have an idea. Calling it a theory is an insult to science. You have a science fiction idea that is lacking in the science side.
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 21, 2014, 08:02:55 AM
When someone stumps me and makes me seriously doubt what I'm saying, I'll gladly re-think my theory.
Bullshit.  You are stumped even drawing a diagram of how day/night cycles work in your ice dome "model".  That hasn't stopped you bibbling on about it endlessly.

CrabbyJim, this is the FE Q&A.  You know by now where to make post for the thoughts that pop into your head.  Please use the correct forum.  Thanks.
Literally nobody, including yourself, has taken any notice of the new rules.  So why pull me up?
Title: Re: Meteors and Comets
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 21, 2014, 09:27:43 AM
When someone stumps me and makes me seriously doubt what I'm saying, I'll gladly re-think my theory.
Bullshit.  You are stumped even drawing a diagram of how day/night cycles work in your ice dome "model".  That hasn't stopped you bibbling on about it endlessly.

CrabbyJim, this is the FE Q&A.  You know by now where to make post for the thoughts that pop into your head.  Please use the correct forum.  Thanks.
Literally nobody, including yourself, has taken any notice of the new rules.  So why pull me up?

Go ahead and take the rest of the day off.  You know better than to argue with moderators in the forum in which the concern happened, as well making the offenses that lead to me issuing a warning.  Come back when you can have a civilized conversation.