Sceptimatics theory

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

The simple answer is. You can't.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 04:31:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

The simple answer is. You can't.

I would be interested in your complex answer to the question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 04:31:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

The simple answer is. You can't.

I would be interested in your complex answer to the question.

That is as complex as it gets. It cannot happen.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 05:47:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 04:31:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

The simple answer is. You can't.

I would be interested in your complex answer to the question.

That is as complex as it gets. It cannot happen.

Do you have any sort of explanation at all?

Excuse me for butting in, but hoping sceptimatic can clear up a few questions."

1. Are the things that we say are "stars" are really glowing crystals somehow attached to the "Ice Dome" ?

2.I saw a statement somewhere that planets do not exist, but another that there are planets, but the earth is not a planet. How would you explain this  for those pictures of planets, such as Saturn with its rings, for example. ? I have seen Saturn through a telescope. (I expect the answer might be "they are fakes....just photoshopped." ?)

Also, my apologies if these have already been answered. Just need some clarification even if it is repetitious. 

Oh geeze   Of course the planets are real, not faked or photo-shopped (when seen through a telescope).  I wonder how many people have actually done that themselves.  My guess is too many sheeple blindly trust what they see on tv or a video on the internet.

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 05:53:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 05:47:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 04:31:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

The simple answer is. You can't.

I would be interested in your complex answer to the question.

That is as complex as it gets. It cannot happen.

Do you have any sort of explanation at all?

Space outside of the dome does not exist in terms of it being something. It's nothingness. Nothing travels through it and nothing from earth can be placed into it.

Oh geeze   Of course the planets are real, not faked or photo-shopped (when seen through a telescope).  I wonder how many people have actually done that themselves.  My guess is too many sheeple blindly trust what they see on tv or a video on the internet.

As I mentioned, I have done this myself on one of the "Start Parties" at Mc Donald Observatory near Fort Davis, in West Texas. There were several telescopes aimed at various points in the sky, including nebulae and planets such as Saturn. Many others have done the same thing of course with their own telescopes at their homes. At least hundreds, or maybe even thousands.

1. Are the things that we say are "stars" are really glowing crystals somehow attached to the "Ice Dome" ?

There will be many crystals at various times hanging from the ice dome, as we would know as icicles at sea level, yet these will be something like, helium or nitrogen or whatever.
They are not the reason for what you see as stars. They are reflections of crystals from earth. Think of it like a fibre optic Christmas tree spanned out and reflecting light through the optics onto the ceiling. it's a reflection of glowing microwave energy through crystals on earth up against the dome and back to our eyes.

2.I saw a statement somewhere that planets do not exist, but another that there are planets, but the earth is not a planet. How would you explain this  for those pictures of planets, such as Saturn with its rings, for example. ? I have seen Saturn through a telescope. (I expect the answer might be "they are fakes....just photoshopped." ?)

Also, my apologies if these have already been answered. Just need some clarification even if it is repetitious. 

It really depends on what planets you believe you see. We see what we think is a moon and the sun and what we see as venus and other little dots that we are told are such and such a planet.
All reflections from earth to the dome and reflected back due to the large vibrating moving microwave energy glow that we see as the sun, which basically reflects up to the dome and back to our eyes.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 05:57:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 05:53:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 05:47:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 04:31:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

The simple answer is. You can't.

I would be interested in your complex answer to the question.

That is as complex as it gets. It cannot happen.

Do you have any sort of explanation at all?

Space outside of the dome does not exist in terms of it being something. It's nothingness. Nothing travels through it and nothing from earth can be placed into it.

I would be interested in hearing your explanation for the proof and evidence of your statement ?
Sorry, I guess I have been brain washed by those mad astronomers at Mc Donald. 

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

What is being reflected off of the moon is actually just a reflection off of a reflection itself.
The speed of light is a lie too but I won't bother going into that.

Quote from: Googleotomy

1. Are the things that we say are "stars" are really glowing crystals somehow attached to the "Ice Dome" ?

There will be many crystals at various times hanging from the ice dome, as we would know as icicles at sea level, yet these will be something like, helium or nitrogen or whatever.
They are not the reason for what you see as stars. They are reflections of crystals from earth. Think of it like a fibre optic Christmas tree spanned out and reflecting light through the optics onto the ceiling. it's a reflection of glowing microwave energy through crystals on earth up against the dome and back to our eyes.

Quote from: Googleotomy

2.I saw a statement somewhere that planets do not exist, but another that there are planets, but the earth is not a planet. How would you explain this  for those pictures of planets, such as Saturn with its rings, for example. ? I have seen Saturn through a telescope. (I expect the answer might be "they are fakes....just photoshopped." ?)

Also, my apologies if these have already been answered. Just need some clarification even if it is repetitious. 

It really depends on what planets you believe you see. We see what we think is a moon and the sun and what we see as venus and other little dots that we are told are such and such a planet.
All reflections from earth to the dome and reflected back due to the large vibrating moving microwave energy glow that we see as the sun, which basically reflects up to the dome and back to our eyes.

If I may quote and paraphrase a  line from the movie "Titanic":
"Thank you for your fine forensic analysis Mr. Bodine Mr. Sceptimatic."

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 06:44:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 05:57:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 05:53:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 05:47:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 18, 2013, 04:31:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 10:00:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 03:49:12 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

It cannot be achieved inside earth.

Because the vacuum chamber would collapse on itself, correct?

Absolutely right.

That's why they call it a near vacuum because they cannot conduct tests inside it without a small amount of air, right?  The result is that objects will fall at the same rate.  So, if it was a perfect vacuum, would objects be suspended and not fall?

Correct. Basically,a true, perfect vacuum like there is above the dome suspends anything within it.
In a nutshell, it does not exist as any form to us, except the blackness we see from within the dome at night.
Anything we do see, is simply illuminated on that dome.
You could say that there is no universe "to our vision". It's just us as organisms inside a large cell.

Potentially there could be another cell right beside earth, either similar size of so huge, it actually makes earth look like a molecule itself.
Just as a grain of sand looks to us, we could be a grain of sand sitting, unbeknown within the vacuum containing cells that would appear like a mountain compared to that grain of sand, type of thing.

We will never , ever get to find that out but it can be imagined as a possibility.

And what happens when you add a single atom to your hypothetical perfect vacuum?

The simple answer is. You can't.

I would be interested in your complex answer to the question.

That is as complex as it gets. It cannot happen.

Do you have any sort of explanation at all?

Space outside of the dome does not exist in terms of it being something. It's nothingness. Nothing travels through it and nothing from earth can be placed into it.

I would be interested in hearing your explanation for the proof and evidence of your statement ?
Sorry, I guess I have been brain washed by those mad astronomers at Mc Donald. 

I can't give you any more proof of what I'm saying, anymore than you can give me proof of what you're saying.
Just accept your version and be happy with it. I'm quite happy with my thoughts.

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

What is being reflected off of the moon is actually just a reflection off of a reflection itself.
The speed of light is a lie too but I won't bother going into that.

I guess my diploma in Electrical Engineering and all my Radio and Radar training is a lie, too since it was based on the speed of radio waves ? I surely hope you aren't calling me a liar....But never mind, I realize that if so, I am in the company of all those "astroliars", too. No offense taken. Let us agree to disagree, agreeably. 

Are those ham radio operators and astronomers, liars, too ?

I've got plenty of proof. Where is yours , Mr. sceptimatic ?

 Sorry for the intrusion. I'm going to back off for now and leave it to the others to continue with this learned discussion with Mr. Sceptimatic.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

What is being reflected off of the moon is actually just a reflection off of a reflection itself.
The speed of light is a lie too but I won't bother going into that.

I guess my diploma in Electrical Engineering and all my Radar training is a lie, too since it was based on the speed of radio waves ? I surely hope you aren't calling me a liar....But never mind, I realize that if so, I am in the company of all those "astroliars", too. No offense taken. Let us agree to disagree, agreeably. 

I've no need to doubt your electrical engineering diploma, I'm sure you do a good "earthly" job with that knowledge as well as your radar operations. The fact is, none of them calculate the speed of light, so you and everyone else, including myself can be told anything about what it is.

We know it doesn't work in a vacuum, so basically, we have a made up speed.
186,000 miles per second. I mean, how gullible do we really have to be.

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 07:05:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

What is being reflected off of the moon is actually just a reflection off of a reflection itself.
The speed of light is a lie too but I won't bother going into that.

I guess my diploma in Electrical Engineering and all my Radar training is a lie, too since it was based on the speed of radio waves ? I surely hope you aren't calling me a liar....But never mind, I realize that if so, I am in the company of all those "astroliars", too. No offense taken. Let us agree to disagree, agreeably. 

I've no need to doubt your electrical engineering diploma, I'm sure you do a good "earthly" job with that knowledge as well as your radar operations. The fact is, none of them calculate the speed of light, so you and everyone else, including myself can be told anything about what it is.

We know it doesn't work in a vacuum, so basically, we have a made up speed.
186,000 miles per second. I mean, how gullible do we really have to be.

The speed of light and the speed of radio waves is essentially the same. I'm one of those really gullible persons. But believe it or not, sceptimatic, you CAN get accurate bearings and ranges with radar, and it's based on the speed of radio waves for those measurements.

I'm outa here !!!!! I'm sorry if I got off topic. Wasn't really trying to get this thread de-railed. Maybe the others can get it back on track. Adios, Amigos !....For a little while anyway.  I've already had more than my share of fun on this topic.

P.S. Sorry about that. One more question.:
One more explanation that I have heard about the lights on the dome. One explanation was that they are reflections of lights from cities on the earth. Care to comment on that ?

Pushing back can be construed as pushing up but it's merely resistance. For instance. If I gave you a barbel that you couldn't lift but told you not to drop it, you would be pushing against that barbel so it didn't push down on your arms ...resistance. You are technically pushing against it but because you cannot lift it, you cannot push up.

I'm applying force in an upward direction.

In the container, I said when air is evacuated, it becomes part of the atmospheric pressure around the container, meaning, it's created more of a force against it.
An example: We will use a submarine and take that as the container and the sea bed is sea level atmosphere, ok?

Ok, you let the sub sink to the bottom. The sub is full of water and is equal with the pressure of the water at the sea bed, right?
We now decide to evacuate water from the sub. The water we evacuate cannot rise, so it creates more pressure around the sub,

The pressure outside remains the same.  What would keep that high pressure from dissipating into the surrounding environment?

We know it doesn't work in a vacuum,

Who is 'we'?

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 07:05:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2013, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

What is being reflected off of the moon is actually just a reflection off of a reflection itself.
The speed of light is a lie too but I won't bother going into that.

I guess my diploma in Electrical Engineering and all my Radar training is a lie, too since it was based on the speed of radio waves ? I surely hope you aren't calling me a liar....But never mind, I realize that if so, I am in the company of all those "astroliars", too. No offense taken. Let us agree to disagree, agreeably. 

I've no need to doubt your electrical engineering diploma, I'm sure you do a good "earthly" job with that knowledge as well as your radar operations. The fact is, none of them calculate the speed of light, so you and everyone else, including myself can be told anything about what it is.

We know it doesn't work in a vacuum, so basically, we have a made up speed.
186,000 miles per second. I mean, how gullible do we really have to be.

Do you think 186,000 mi/s is too fast or too slow?

We know it doesn't work in a vacuum, so basically, we have a made up speed.
186,000 miles per second. I mean, how gullible do we really have to be.

Not very, seeing as the speed of light can be directly measured.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

The first measurement of c that didn't make use of the heavens was by Armand Fizeau in 1849.  He used a beam of light reflected from a mirror 8 km away.  The beam was aimed at the teeth of a rapidly spinning wheel.  The speed of the wheel was increased until its motion was such that the light's two-way passage coincided with a movement of the wheel's circumference by one tooth.  This gave a value for c of 315,000 km/s.  Leon Foucault improved on this result a year later using rotating mirrors, which gave the much more accurate value of 298,000 km/s.  His technique was good enough to confirm that light travels slower in water than in air.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

No, they depend on the assumption that light and radio signals travel at the same speed in the heavens as they do here on Earth.

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

No, they depend on the assumption that light and radio signals travel at the same speed in the heavens as they do here on Earth.

And you have a reason that light would behave differently, and can prove such?  If not, there's no reason to believe it does so.

Quote from: jroa on August 18, 2013, 08:24:44 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 18, 2013, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 18, 2013, 12:35:00 PM

Rotting, the point is the entire mathematical calculation for the distance to the sun was made on the assumption the Earth is a sphere/curvature.

How would you answer this ?  :

The "entire mathematical calculation"  for the distance from the earth to the moon was not made on "the assumption the  Earth is even a sphere/curvature" or  even if it is flat.

They were based on bouncing radio waves ( from ham radio transmitters or radars...  or laser beams off reflectors on the moon ), based on measuring  the time it took to receive a signal back from the moon and based on the assumption that the speed of light and the speed of radio waves  is a constant value and the same for the speed of radio waves and light.

They did not depend on any assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I will have to concede to the FE's that they will say that those reflectors on the moon are fakes since man has never been to the moon to place them there in the first place . But the ham radio operators have done their measurements without the aid of any reflectors, other than the moon's surface it self.

No, they depend on the assumption that light and radio signals travel at the same speed in the heavens as they do here on Earth.

And you have a reason that light would behave differently, and can prove such?  If not, there's no reason to believe it does so.

Is it a great mystery that all those measurements - no matter in what method they were made -
are all in agreement.

FE answer. : "Of course, coming fom RE, they are all in agreement. It's just another case of the RE conspiracy. They (RE) have just faked them all to be in agreement with each other RE . "

Quote from: Googleotomy

1. Are the things that we say are "stars" are really glowing crystals somehow attached to the "Ice Dome" ?

There will be many crystals at various times hanging from the ice dome, as we would know as icicles at sea level, yet these will be something like, helium or nitrogen or whatever.
They are not the reason for what you see as stars. They are reflections of crystals from earth. Think of it like a fibre optic Christmas tree spanned out and reflecting light through the optics onto the ceiling. it's a reflection of glowing microwave energy through crystals on earth up against the dome and back to our eyes.

Quote from: Googleotomy

2.I saw a statement somewhere that planets do not exist, but another that there are planets, but the earth is not a planet. How would you explain this  for those pictures of planets, such as Saturn with its rings, for example. ? I have seen Saturn through a telescope. (I expect the answer might be "they are fakes....just photoshopped." ?)

Also, my apologies if these have already been answered. Just need some clarification even if it is repetitious. 

It really depends on what planets you believe you see. We see what we think is a moon and the sun and what we see as venus and other little dots that we are told are such and such a planet.
All reflections from earth to the dome and reflected back due to the large vibrating moving microwave energy glow that we see as the sun, which basically reflects up to the dome and back to our eyes.

Quote without comment :WOW !

What amazes me is that you believe in a giant crystal in the middle of the earth that sends out light that reflects off of an ice dome surrounding the earth. Also this crystal sends out radiation that causes vehicles to malfunction and people to die but you can't believe in a force that you experience every day.

Also, what about the sun and moon? How high are they?

So, Scepti, two thoughts, since you agree Molecules 'resist' downward pushes, in other words, push upwards, that means that at some point, the amount of pressure put down by air can't withstand the upward pressure air exerts, that must mean the force of the net push must change at some point in the atmostphere.

Additionally, if no molecules can exist in a perfect vacuum, at all, whatsoever, then how can the earth be inside it? We are nothing if not molecules, as is the supposed Ice Dome

Oh, if you sink a Submarine just underneath the surface, flood it, and then pump all the water out, it won't flatten out, as the water pressure isn't sufficient to properly compress the metal of the sub.

P.S. Sorry about that. One more question.:
One more explanation that I have heard about the lights on the dome. One explanation was that they are reflections of lights from cities on the earth. Care to comment on that ?

The fact that you have to ask that question says it all.  The stars have looked the same for centuries....long before cities with electrical lines were built.

The speed of light and the speed of radio waves is essentially the same. I'm one of those really gullible persons. But believe it or not, sceptimatic, you CAN get accurate bearings and ranges with radar, and it's based on the speed of radio waves for those measurements.

They tell you that the speed of light and radio waves are essentially the same. The truth of the matter is, you cannot verify if it's true of fabrication.
Sure you can get accurate readings of things on earth but earth, as in the parts we dwell on are only measured in 10's of thousands of miles and radar on earth is usually gaining bearing of relatively short range objects.
The same is true by bouncing signals off of the atmosphere. It's simply a short distance, measured in 10's of miles.
The truth is, it cannot be verified, it's just another fabricated number to explain all the fantastical stuff they come out with.

One more question.:
One more explanation that I have heard about the lights on the dome. One explanation was that they are reflections of lights from cities on the earth. Care to comment on that ?

No, I won't comment on that, except to say, I don't subscribe to any of that.