Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 382140 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #180 on: August 19, 2013, 11:22:38 AM »

Quote from: 29silhouette
I'm applying force in an upward direction.

Yes you are, you are resisting the force from above. And like I said earlier, it can be construed as a push but you are gaining no upward motion, just resistance to the pressure above.


Quote from: sceptimatic
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,
Quote from: 29silhouette
The pressure outside remains the same.  What would keep that high pressure from dissipating into the surrounding environment?
The pressure outside would not remain the same, as you now have evacuated pressure against the chamber you just evacuated it from.

Quote from: sceptimatic
We know it doesn't work in a vacuum,
Quote from: 29silhouette
Who is 'we'?
It's just a figure of speech, "we" all do it at times.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #181 on: August 19, 2013, 11:23:27 AM »
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.  ;D
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?
Too fast.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #182 on: August 19, 2013, 11:28:09 AM »
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
Quote
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.
Are you telling me that you are hinging this speed of light verification on someone with a mirror and cog.This is why people fall for this stuff, because it's always centuries old calculations that get brought to the fore.
These same people or people of that time, believed that travelling at 20 mph would wipe you out.
It proves nothing and what stop watch did he use. ;)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #183 on: August 19, 2013, 11:35:14 AM »
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?
What vehicles have you seen malfunction due to radiation?
Electronics could malfunction due to a strong magnetic force, so what's this radiation?
We are radiated most of our lives. It doesn't mean it's any special car killing human destroying weird radiation. We are just fobbed off with all of that.
It's just microwave energy or vibration of molecules, whichever way you want to look at it.
We only see the little precious stones in jewellers stores. Those that are remnants of what's in the centre, just as volcanoes spew out the molten rock from the effects of the centralised super microwaved energy/vibration that makes the glow we see as the reflected sun off of the dome.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #184 on: August 19, 2013, 11:44:57 AM »
Quote from: hewholikespie
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.
The force changes all the way to the top of the dome. It's  a dense compression at the bottom that becomes less dense as it rises due to molecules changing their state into their respective gases and so becoming less dense as they expand.

Quote from: hewholikespie
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
Because the earth is a cell. And within that cell, all the elements are kept in a rainbow shaped sandwich layer which all have pressure, except the very last molecules become zero pressure, creating a zero v zero = absolute zero outer dome against space. Everything else functions because everything else is under it's own pressure.
Quote from: hewholikespie
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.
Go and fill a tin can full of water and get a pump to suck the water out. Come back and tell me if the can stayed normal, or it became a crumpled mess.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #185 on: August 19, 2013, 11:59:16 AM »

Quote from: 29silhouette
I'm applying force in an upward direction.

Yes you are, you are resisting the force from above. And like I said earlier, it can be construed as a push but you are gaining no upward motion, just resistance to the pressure above.

Just like when we stand up from sitting on a chair, we PUSH ourselves upright.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-118
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #186 on: August 19, 2013, 12:43:24 PM »
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
Quote
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.
Are you telling me that you are hinging this speed of light verification on someone with a mirror and cog.This is why people fall for this stuff, because it's always centuries old calculations that get brought to the fore.
These same people or people of that time, believed that travelling at 20 mph would wipe you out.
It proves nothing and what stop watch did he use. ;)
This is also the same period where Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved, beyond any doubt, that the earth is flat.  Also, try riding your bicycle into a brick wall at 20 mph and tell me how it feels.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #187 on: August 19, 2013, 01:02:46 PM »
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
Quote
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.
Are you telling me that you are hinging this speed of light verification on someone with a mirror and cog.This is why people fall for this stuff, because it's always centuries old calculations that get brought to the fore.
These same people or people of that time, believed that travelling at 20 mph would wipe you out.
It proves nothing and what stop watch did he use. ;)

You must not have read the rest of that article. The speed of light has been verified by more modern means since the first experiment. So has the speed of radio waves. You can't discard them just because "I don't think so." ROFLOL

Once again. This may seem like some revelation to you, sceptimatic. Radar really does work depending on that speed of radio waves that has been verified. ( I know !  This has been mentioned before, but I repeat it for emphasis.)

Here is an experiment for you to perform. Let us say there is a highway with a speed limit of- say  70 Miles Per Hour. Spot a Highway Patrolman along the way  and then speed up to - say 85 Miles Per Hour. When he stops you for speeding, tell him, "You can't arrest me because you don't know how fast I was going because you don't know the speed of radio waves on your radar !" Let us know how you come out.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 01:38:56 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #188 on: August 19, 2013, 01:40:22 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.  ;D
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?
Too fast.
 

How much too fast ? Estimate ? In order for the moon to be only 3000 miles from the earth, the radio waves would have to travel at a speed of about 1/12 the speed ? Or the 186,000 mi/sec is 12 times too fast ?

Since the computation by radio waves is simply time multiplied by the speed of radio waves, the greater the speed, the greater the distance and the slower the speed the shorter the distance.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 06:54:39 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #189 on: August 19, 2013, 07:53:14 PM »
Fixed it, because quoting sure is complicated.

Quote from: 29silhouette
I'm applying force in an upward direction.

Yes you are, you are resisting the force from above. And like I said earlier, it can be construed as a push but you are gaining no upward motion, just resistance to the pressure above.

And since pressure increases the lower the elevation, there's more air pressure against the bottom of the ball than on top.

If the air is all pushing down, then what causes the air to push down?  The air above the air?  All the way up to the ice dome?  If there's no gravity, then what is pushing the top layer of air down?

Also, according to your theory, if I have a bowling ball and a beach ball of the same size filled with helium, they should both fall at the same rate.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: 29silhouette
The pressure outside remains the same.  What would keep that high pressure from dissipating into the surrounding environment?
The pressure outside would not remain the same, as you now have evacuated pressure against the chamber you just evacuated it from.

If I drain a full 30 psi tire into a 14.7 psi atmosphere, what should I get for a psi reading right next to the valve stem?

Quote from: sceptimatic
We know it doesn't work in a vacuum,
Quote from: 29silhouette
Who is 'we'?
It's just a figure of speech, "we" all do it at times.

I see, because we know it does work in a vacuum.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #190 on: August 20, 2013, 05:23:07 AM »
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
Quote
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.
Are you telling me that you are hinging this speed of light verification on someone with a mirror and cog.This is why people fall for this stuff, because it's always centuries old calculations that get brought to the fore.
These same people or people of that time, believed that travelling at 20 mph would wipe you out.
It proves nothing and what stop watch did he use. ;)
This is also the same period where Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved, beyond any doubt, that the earth is flat.  Also, try riding your bicycle into a brick wall at 20 mph and tell me how it feels.
Who's talking about riding into brick walls?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #191 on: August 20, 2013, 05:32:19 AM »
Quote from: Googleotomy
You must not have read the rest of that article. The speed of light has been verified by more modern means since the first experiment. So has the speed of radio waves. You can't discard them just because "I don't think so." ROFLOL
Nah, it hasn't been verified. All that's been verified is that they move fast and 10's of thousands of "miles per hour" is fast. 186,000 miles "per second" is just a load of made up rubbish as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Googleotomy
Once again. This may seem like some revelation to you, sceptimatic. Radar really does work depending on that speed of radio waves that has been verified. ( I know !  This has been mentioned before, but I repeat it for emphasis.)
I know that radar works. Bouncing balls off of walls and back to you also works. It doesn't mean it's going at 186,000 miles per second, speed.
Quote from: Googleotomy
Here is an experiment for you to perform. Let us say there is a highway with a speed limit of- say  70 Miles Per Hour. Spot a Highway Patrolman along the way  and then speed up to - say 85 Miles Per Hour. When he stops you for speeding, tell him, "You can't arrest me because you don't know how fast I was going because you don't know the speed of radio waves on your radar !" Let us know how you come out.
I don't need to argue with the policeman. His radar is set to capture a relatively tiny speed. Like I said..
Using this, does not prove anything.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #192 on: August 20, 2013, 05:44:14 AM »
Quote from: Googleotomy
How much too fast ? Estimate ? In order for the moon to be only 3000 miles from the earth, the radio waves would have to travel at a speed of about 1/12 the speed ? Or the 186,000 mi/sec is 12 times too fast ?
I don't accept that the moon is 3000 miles from earth. The moon is a reflection of earth...but that's not the issue here.
The radio signals can be bounced off of the atmosphere or dome and back and the impression of this speed of light garbage can be used to tell us all that the signal was bouced off of this big moon from a little reflective mirror on it.
Nobody could contemplate that the real mirror is the dome.
Quote from: Googleotomy
Since the computation by radio waves is simply time multiplied by the speed of radio waves, the greater the speed, the greater the distance and the slower the speed the shorter the distance.
This time multiplied by the speed of radio waves is pointless.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #193 on: August 20, 2013, 06:04:55 AM »
Quote from: 29silhouette
If I drain a full 30 psi tire into a 14.7 psi atmosphere, what should I get for a psi reading right next to the valve stem?
14.7 psi.


Quote from: 29silhouette
I see, because we know it does work in a vacuum.
You've never seen anything work in a vacuum. You have observed happenings inside a partially evacuated chamber.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-118
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #194 on: August 20, 2013, 06:18:19 AM »
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
Quote
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.
Are you telling me that you are hinging this speed of light verification on someone with a mirror and cog.This is why people fall for this stuff, because it's always centuries old calculations that get brought to the fore.
These same people or people of that time, believed that travelling at 20 mph would wipe you out.
It proves nothing and what stop watch did he use. ;)
This is also the same period where Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved, beyond any doubt, that the earth is flat.  Also, try riding your bicycle into a brick wall at 20 mph and tell me how it feels.
Who's talking about riding into brick walls?
You suggested that 20 mph was not a speed that could inflict serious injury.  I just provided an example where it could. 

You also seem to suggest that old experiments to measure the speed of light are invalid because they are old.  I also mentioned that the experiments that conclusively proved that the earth is flat were conducted about that same time.  So, if the experiments that measure the speed of light are suspect because they are old, then why shouldn't experiments that prove the world flat be suspect for the same reason?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #195 on: August 20, 2013, 06:24:54 AM »
People should stop trying to pin Scepti down with orthodox FE beliefs.  He has stated his opinions numerous times, and he does not believe most of what is in the wiki or FAQ.

That being said, the speed of light has been confirmed many many times.  Many many many.  Scepti has just gone in to his irrational shut down mode, and you should stop talking to him about it as he will just say any evidence you provide is made up or science bull crap of whatever drivel he decides he believes today.  Unless poking scepti to see how he will react is your thing.  Its kind of like a zoo.

Welcome back Scepti ;)
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #196 on: August 20, 2013, 06:40:36 AM »

Quote from: markjo
You suggested that 20 mph was not a speed that could inflict serious injury.  I just provided an example where it could. 
I didn't mention anything about inflicting serious injury by crashing. I said that people thought 20 mph would kill them by simply going at that speed in a car, not crashing in that car.
Quote from: markjo
You also seem to suggest that old experiments to measure the speed of light are invalid because they are old.  I also mentioned that the experiments that conclusively proved that the earth is flat were conducted about that same time.  So, if the experiments that measure the speed of light are suspect because they are old, then why shouldn't experiments that prove the world flat be suspect for the same reason?
I have no problem with the opposite being suspect. It could well be. It's what a person deem is more plausible to them.
To me, a lot of our history is fabricated and we are only told half truths on other stuff. That's just my opinion and my opinion, only.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #197 on: August 20, 2013, 06:45:28 AM »
People should stop trying to pin Scepti down with orthodox FE beliefs.  He has stated his opinions numerous times, and he does not believe most of what is in the wiki or FAQ.

That being said, the speed of light has been confirmed many many times.  Many many many.  Scepti has just gone in to his irrational shut down mode, and you should stop talking to him about it as he will just say any evidence you provide is made up or science bull crap of whatever drivel he decides he believes today.  Unless poking scepti to see how he will react is your thing.  Its kind of like a zoo.

Welcome back Scepti ;)
If you are brutally honest. You cannot verify the speed of light yourself can you? Seriously, there is no way that you can confirm it, other than to cite that things like radar and bouncing lasers off of the so called moon and whatever else accounts for it, yet if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that you simply go along with it, because this is the accepted theory, right?
If not. Can you give me a personal verification of light speed that cannot be disputed.
Oh and cheers for the welcome back.  ;)

?

Fizzy Logic

  • 93
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #198 on: August 20, 2013, 07:05:33 AM »
That's very lame ( and very lazy from you). Why don't yoy do some reading about the experiments performed in order to measure the speed of light?

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #199 on: August 20, 2013, 07:06:57 AM »
People should stop trying to pin Scepti down with orthodox FE beliefs.  He has stated his opinions numerous times, and he does not believe most of what is in the wiki or FAQ.

That being said, the speed of light has been confirmed many many times.  Many many many.  Scepti has just gone in to his irrational shut down mode, and you should stop talking to him about it as he will just say any evidence you provide is made up or science bull crap of whatever drivel he decides he believes today.  Unless poking scepti to see how he will react is your thing.  Its kind of like a zoo.

Welcome back Scepti ;)
If you are brutally honest. You cannot verify the speed of light yourself can you? Seriously, there is no way that you can confirm it, other than to cite that things like radar and bouncing lasers off of the so called moon and whatever else accounts for it, yet if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that you simply go along with it, because this is the accepted theory, right?
If not. Can you give me a personal verification of light speed that cannot be disputed.
Oh and cheers for the welcome back.  ;)

You have shown time and again that you can dispute anything you choose to, so if you are brutally honest, there is not much point in showing you anything is there?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #200 on: August 20, 2013, 07:21:28 AM »
That's very lame ( and very lazy from you). Why don't yoy do some reading about the experiments performed in order to measure the speed of light?
That's very lame of you, asking me to read up from mainstream books that I do not trust. We are just organisms living with many others in this cell of earth. Our eyes enable us to do the basics of viewing our environment.
The brain of man, has become ultra arrogant and took on a fantasy story telling stance to gain the upper hand against those of us who chose to sit and listen. Those story telling speeches have been put into print, so, no..I don't think I'll be looking it up.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #201 on: August 20, 2013, 07:24:41 AM »
People should stop trying to pin Scepti down with orthodox FE beliefs.  He has stated his opinions numerous times, and he does not believe most of what is in the wiki or FAQ.

That being said, the speed of light has been confirmed many many times.  Many many many.  Scepti has just gone in to his irrational shut down mode, and you should stop talking to him about it as he will just say any evidence you provide is made up or science bull crap of whatever drivel he decides he believes today.  Unless poking scepti to see how he will react is your thing.  Its kind of like a zoo.

Welcome back Scepti ;)
If you are brutally honest. You cannot verify the speed of light yourself can you? Seriously, there is no way that you can confirm it, other than to cite that things like radar and bouncing lasers off of the so called moon and whatever else accounts for it, yet if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that you simply go along with it, because this is the accepted theory, right?
If not. Can you give me a personal verification of light speed that cannot be disputed.
Oh and cheers for the welcome back.  ;)

You have shown time and again that you can dispute anything you choose to, so if you are brutally honest, there is not much point in showing you anything is there?
Not unless it can completely shut me up, no. For that to happen, it has to be something that utterly proves You lot are right and I am wrong.


*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #202 on: August 20, 2013, 07:41:31 AM »
People should stop trying to pin Scepti down with orthodox FE beliefs.  He has stated his opinions numerous times, and he does not believe most of what is in the wiki or FAQ.

That being said, the speed of light has been confirmed many many times.  Many many many.  Scepti has just gone in to his irrational shut down mode, and you should stop talking to him about it as he will just say any evidence you provide is made up or science bull crap of whatever drivel he decides he believes today.  Unless poking scepti to see how he will react is your thing.  Its kind of like a zoo.

Welcome back Scepti ;)
If you are brutally honest. You cannot verify the speed of light yourself can you? Seriously, there is no way that you can confirm it, other than to cite that things like radar and bouncing lasers off of the so called moon and whatever else accounts for it, yet if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that you simply go along with it, because this is the accepted theory, right?
If not. Can you give me a personal verification of light speed that cannot be disputed.
Oh and cheers for the welcome back.  ;)

You have shown time and again that you can dispute anything you choose to, so if you are brutally honest, there is not much point in showing you anything is there?
Not unless it can completely shut me up, no. For that to happen, it has to be something that utterly proves You lot are right and I am wrong.

That's very lame ( and very lazy from you). Why don't yoy do some reading about the experiments performed in order to measure the speed of light?
That's very lame of you, asking me to read up from mainstream books that I do not trust. We are just organisms living with many others in this cell of earth. Our eyes enable us to do the basics of viewing our environment.
The brain of man, has become ultra arrogant and took on a fantasy story telling stance to gain the upper hand against those of us who chose to sit and listen. Those story telling speeches have been put into print, so, no..I don't think I'll be looking it up.

As shown here, what you will accept as evidence is extremely narrow.  I would need you to give me some specific criteria, and I mean specific now, of what could be construed as evidence you would actually accept.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #203 on: August 20, 2013, 07:54:59 AM »
I'll leave it up to you to think of a fool proof way to make me disbelieve my thoughts. You already know that I don't follow the writings of mainstream books and such, so it's down to you or others to prove you are correct and I am totally wrong.
If you can't do that, then my ideas could be closer to correct. Just because people can't grasp what I say and believe I'm a lunatic, is not really proof of anything.

It takes a total out of the box thought process to understand what I am talking about and few people will contemplate thinking it, because mainstream science has battered their heads with so much fantasy about what earth and space is.
I'd be quite happy to be shown what the real earth is, as I would rather know the truth. I think I'm a small part of the way into knowing what it is but I have a long way to go before I understand it all, because I still have to keep shaking the saturation of mainstream science theories off as I do that.

?

hewholikespie

  • 249
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #204 on: August 20, 2013, 08:38:48 AM »
Quote from: hewholikespie
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.
The force changes all the way to the top of the dome. It's  a dense compression at the bottom that becomes less dense as it rises due to molecules changing their state into their respective gases and so becoming less dense as they expand.


Which does nothing to change that the force of upward resistance must eventually overcome the downward force of "Gravity in all but name" air pressure, given that only the downward push of air pressure and no other force counteracts the upward push.

Quote
Quote from: hewholikespie
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
Because the earth is a cell. And within that cell, all the elements are kept in a rainbow shaped sandwich layer which all have pressure, except the very last molecules become zero pressure, creating a zero v zero = absolute zero outer dome against space. Everything else functions because everything else is under it's own pressure.

You have contradicted yourself. You have stated that Molecules both cannot and must exist inside a perfect vacuum. as you say we, the earth, are molecules existing inside this perfect vacuum, while you also say elsewhere that no molecules can even be put into a perfect vacuum.

Quote
Quote from: hewholikespie
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.
Go and fill a tin can full of water and get a pump to suck the water out. Come back and tell me if the can stayed normal, or it became a crumpled mess.

Right after I make the can out of steel, add in structural supports, and design it to withstand several atmospheres of pressure from the outside, sure. A Submarine and a tin can are alike pretty much only in that they are cylindrical and made of metal, and even those two likenesses are barely alike.



Another thought, not that I expect a coherent or logical answer. Take an airtight container full of water and air, with a vacuum hose covered with a watertight but not airtight seal. Begin vacuuming out air out of the container. What happens to the water?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #205 on: August 20, 2013, 08:52:40 AM »
Quote from: hewholikespie
You have contradicted yourself. You have stated that Molecules both cannot and must exist inside a perfect vacuum. as you say we, the earth, are molecules existing inside this perfect vacuum, while you also say elsewhere that no molecules can even be put into a perfect vacuum.
No molecules are put in a perfect vacuum. They end at the vacuum by becoming ice/glass against the vacuum because they are fully expanded and become frozen.They do not move in the vacuum, they basically stop moving and become absolute zero against that vacuum, which is nothing.

Quote from: hewholikespie
Right after I make the can out of steel, add in structural supports, and design it to withstand several atmospheres of pressure from the outside, sure. A Submarine and a tin can are alike pretty much only in that they are cylindrical and made of metal, and even those two likenesses are barely alike.
It will still collapse if you take all matter out of it, it doesn't matter how many struts and what not that you put into it.


Quote from: hewholikespie
Another thought, not that I expect a coherent or logical answer. Take an airtight container full of water and air, with a vacuum hose covered with a watertight but not airtight seal. Begin vacuuming out air out of the container. What happens to the water?
This does not make any sense.

?

hewholikespie

  • 249
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #206 on: August 20, 2013, 09:42:22 AM »
Quote from: hewholikespie
You have contradicted yourself. You have stated that Molecules both cannot and must exist inside a perfect vacuum. as you say we, the earth, are molecules existing inside this perfect vacuum, while you also say elsewhere that no molecules can even be put into a perfect vacuum.
No molecules are put in a perfect vacuum. They end at the vacuum by becoming ice/glass against the vacuum because they are fully expanded and become frozen.They do not move in the vacuum, they basically stop moving and become absolute zero against that vacuum, which is nothing.

So you agree that a perfect vacuum could exist on earth, surrounded by Ice/ Glass. Thank you.

Quote
Quote from: hewholikespie
Right after I make the can out of steel, add in structural supports, and design it to withstand several atmospheres of pressure from the outside, sure. A Submarine and a tin can are alike pretty much only in that they are cylindrical and made of metal, and even those two likenesses are barely alike.
It will still collapse if you take all matter out of it, it doesn't matter how many struts and what not that you put into it.

On what math and physical principle do you base this statement? A SCUBA Tank does not rupture when placed into a vacuum/ near vacuum, why would it collapse if the pressure differential was on the inside? Same thing applies to Submarines, vacuum tubes, and thermoses.


Quote from: hewholikespie
Another thought, not that I expect a coherent or logical answer. Take an airtight container full of water and air, with a vacuum hose covered with a watertight but not airtight seal. Begin vacuuming out air out of the container. What happens to the water?
This does not make any sense.
[/quote]

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-118
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #207 on: August 20, 2013, 10:23:11 AM »
No molecules are put in a perfect vacuum. They end at the vacuum by becoming ice/glass against the vacuum because they are fully expanded and become frozen.They do not move in the vacuum, they basically stop moving and become absolute zero against that vacuum, which is nothing.

First of all, how does something (gasses) freeze up against nothing (vacuum)?

Secondly, I was always under the impression that as gasses cool down they get more dense (condense), not less (expand). 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #208 on: August 20, 2013, 10:32:42 AM »
No molecules are put in a perfect vacuum. They end at the vacuum by becoming ice/glass against the vacuum because they are fully expanded and become frozen.They do not move in the vacuum, they basically stop moving and become absolute zero against that vacuum, which is nothing.

First of all, how does something (gasses) freeze up against nothing (vacuum)?

Secondly, I was always under the impression that as gasses cool down they get more dense (condense), not less (expand).
If I'm remembering the Space Travel thread correctly, he's saying the molecules themselves expand. Kinda like marshmallows in a vacuum chamber, I guess.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #209 on: August 20, 2013, 10:45:48 AM »
Quote from: hewholikespie
So you agree that a perfect vacuum could exist on earth, surrounded by Ice/ Glass. Thank you.

What part about what I said, can't you grasp?

Quote from: hewholikespie
On what math and physical principle do you base this statement? A SCUBA Tank does not rupture when placed into a vacuum/ near vacuum, why would it collapse if the pressure differential was on the inside? Same thing applies to Submarines, vacuum tubes, and thermoses.

A scuba tank has and never will be placed into a perfect vacuum, or anything else for that matter.