Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 383758 Views
?

Rabhimself

  • 188
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #780 on: September 08, 2013, 06:02:07 AM »
Shout and scream all you want, but the truth is, all you are doing is spouting off without any evidence yourself and are being arrogant, which cuts no ice with me.
I purposely had my stomach stapled, leaving me with only 10% capacity so I don't have to swallow too much main stream bull crap and if I do, I puke it back up, which is what I've done with all of your space science jargon and nonsense.

As I said, no evidence I can provide is good enough for you.  None of it is and it never will be.  At least we have evidence to provide that is not only globally accepted, but put into practice every day.

It's amazing you believe anything at all to be honest.  I don't see myself being arrogant here, but even if I were, like I said it's nowhere near on a level with you.

I think you're trolling anyway to be blunt. 

When I get presented with something that appears possible, I will keep that thought, I would not dismiss it.
Space science and earth's rotation do not make any sense at all, seriously. So I can discount that for myself.

'I don't like the sound of it so I can dismiss it on a whim along with any of the hard evidence that supports it'.
Give me just "one" piece of hard verifiable evidence that anyone can do to prove a rotating globe, that undeniably can prove it to anyone, no matter what their beliefs are.

I can't.

'no matter what their beliefs are'

That line is why.  It just means you can cop out on anything and everything you wish.  That line could be applied to anything.

So no - I'm not going to bother supplying you with anything.
Doesn't that also mean that you can cop out at any time as well?
I ask you for evidence and you come back with stuff like, " it's known science", "it's accepted as true by most",  " it's been peer reviewed, so the THEORY is fact" and "experiments have been done to PROVE it to be correct."
The truth is,  it's ALL hypotheses that got the nod from a select crew of people who then decided that this fits better so it's now a scientific theory, which equates to fact.

That's why all these unknown things like gravity and Higgs boson, black holes, worm holes, dark matter and a multitude of other stuff that cannot be proven, are simply accepted because it magically fits everything what people question.
It's just a big fictional story that has sequels.
They built a big telescope in the desert somewhere and a huge complex to house all these scientists, who's supposed job was to look into space and find a black hole.
That's how naive this human race is, when people hang on to this kind of utter garbage.
I try to put my thoughts together on what could be happening in reality, without using any magical terms or head busting calculations that are mostly pointless where supposed space is concerned and I'm the ignorant one. lol

None of you round earth crew can contemplate an ice dome,  because you see a big sky and wonder how one can stay up, thinking it's some kind of heavy structure that can just collapse but it can't collapse, because it's like a blown up inflatable hamburger with it's outer skin frozen like an ice glass.

Why are you spinning this on to me?

You asked me to give you evidence and I told you why can't.

I only believe what I believe because all of the evidence is there, not just because I was spoon-fed.  I don't doubt the countless videos and images, the ISS orbiting us or the satellite technology we rely on.

You believe what you believe and have nothing to show for it.  Show me a picture of this magical ice-dome that supposedly keeps us in our little snow-globe.

For fucks sake Scepti you think light is a form of sound.

Enough said.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #781 on: September 08, 2013, 06:11:31 AM »
Light is the result of sound from vibration/friction/frequency.
I can't show you the dome, it's too high and impossible to touch around the sides as it's instant death well before anyone could get anywhere near it.
The only way you know the dome is there is by looking up and seeing the reflections, like the sun, the moon and the tiny little spots of light at night and the little dots you see as planets.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #782 on: September 08, 2013, 06:37:27 AM »
Light is the result of sound from vibration/friction/frequency.
I can't show you the dome, it's too high and impossible to touch around the sides as it's instant death well before anyone could get anywhere near it.
The only way you know the dome is there is by looking up and seeing the reflections, like the sun, the moon and the tiny little spots of light at night and the little dots you see as planets.

So you can't provide a single shred of evidence?

Please refer to this thread to view a large list that shows just a portion of the evidence shown on this very forum. These threads are not people just saying its known science or that its accepted as true. There is directly and indirect observational evidence, photographic evidence and personal experiments with explanations on how you can do them yourself.

You are not only copping out by not recognizing the onslaught of evidence provided but you set up an in-falsifiable theory yourself that you describe as "too high and impossible to touch around the sides as it's instant death well before anyone could get anywhere near it."

and then you say...

"I try to put my thoughts together on what could be happening in reality, without using any magical terms or head busting calculations that are mostly pointless where supposed space is concerned and I'm the ignorant one."

These magical terms are simply definitions for observable phenomena and the calculations, though difficult to some, are no secret. You are free to get an education so that you can enable yourself to understand them. Putting your thoughts together based on unprovable ideas that you admit is impossible to observe first hand is no way to learn anything about the world.

?

Rabhimself

  • 188
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #783 on: September 08, 2013, 06:40:26 AM »
Light is the result of sound from vibration/friction/frequency.
I can't show you the dome, it's too high and impossible to touch around the sides as it's instant death well before anyone could get anywhere near it.
The only way you know the dome is there is by looking up and seeing the reflections, like the sun, the moon and the tiny little spots of light at night and the little dots you see as planets.

Yes I've heard all about your knowledge of light.

Another thing which you cannot demonstrate in any way shape or form. 

Bravo.

Let me know when you get that Nobel Prize.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #784 on: September 08, 2013, 06:50:03 AM »


Quote from: rottingroom
These magical terms are simply definitions for observable phenomena and the calculations, though difficult to some, are no secret. You are free to get an education so that you can enable yourself to understand them. Putting your thoughts together based on unprovable ideas that you admit is impossible to observe first hand is no way to learn anything about the world.
You mean like your gravity?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #785 on: September 08, 2013, 06:51:20 AM »
Light is the result of sound from vibration/friction/frequency.
I can't show you the dome, it's too high and impossible to touch around the sides as it's instant death well before anyone could get anywhere near it.
The only way you know the dome is there is by looking up and seeing the reflections, like the sun, the moon and the tiny little spots of light at night and the little dots you see as planets.

Yes I've heard all about your knowledge of light.

Another thing which you cannot demonstrate in any way shape or form. 

Bravo.

Let me know when you get that Nobel Prize.
You don't get prizes for not following protocol, you only get those for adding to the bull crap that is already given out.

?

Rabhimself

  • 188
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #786 on: September 08, 2013, 07:01:22 AM »
Light is the result of sound from vibration/friction/frequency.
I can't show you the dome, it's too high and impossible to touch around the sides as it's instant death well before anyone could get anywhere near it.
The only way you know the dome is there is by looking up and seeing the reflections, like the sun, the moon and the tiny little spots of light at night and the little dots you see as planets.

Yes I've heard all about your knowledge of light.

Another thing which you cannot demonstrate in any way shape or form. 

Bravo.

Let me know when you get that Nobel Prize.
You don't get prizes for not following protocol, you only get those for adding to the bull crap that is already given out.

Because the 'fact' (know to only one individual on the planet, with fuck all evidence) we live in a giant snow-globe doesn't quite qualify as bull crap.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #787 on: September 08, 2013, 07:03:36 AM »


Quote from: rottingroom
These magical terms are simply definitions for observable phenomena and the calculations, though difficult to some, are no secret. You are free to get an education so that you can enable yourself to understand them. Putting your thoughts together based on unprovable ideas that you admit is impossible to observe first hand is no way to learn anything about the world.
You mean like your gravity?

It is defined as the apparent attraction of bodies toward each other. This is an observation and gravity is the name given to describe that. Science is pursuing more knowledge about it by asking, "How is this happening?" The suggestion about how it works is a theory. However, its a fact that things are attracted to each other, that part is a fact because we can observe it happening. How can you have a problem with that?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 07:17:42 AM by rottingroom »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #788 on: September 08, 2013, 07:43:29 AM »


Quote from: rottingroom
These magical terms are simply definitions for observable phenomena and the calculations, though difficult to some, are no secret. You are free to get an education so that you can enable yourself to understand them. Putting your thoughts together based on unprovable ideas that you admit is impossible to observe first hand is no way to learn anything about the world.
You mean like your gravity?

It is defined as the apparent attraction of bodies toward each other. This is an observation and gravity is the name given to describe that. Science is pursuing more knowledge about it by asking, "How is this happening?" The suggestion about how it works is a theory. However, its a fact that things are attracted to each other, that part is a fact because we can observe it happening. How can you have a problem with that?
The only thing that I observe being attracted to each other are magnets, what do you observe?

?

odes

  • 293
  • +0/-0
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #789 on: September 08, 2013, 08:12:52 AM »
The earth is attracted to me everywhere I go. I can't think why. Nobody else is! lol

"Keep it out of the upper fora."

Sorry. What I mean is, I realize that "gravity" theory argues that I attract the earth, only infinitesimally. But in fact, isn't that just plain silly? What role does the gravity theory play, and what happens when you abandon it outright?
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #790 on: September 08, 2013, 08:30:42 AM »


Quote from: rottingroom
These magical terms are simply definitions for observable phenomena and the calculations, though difficult to some, are no secret. You are free to get an education so that you can enable yourself to understand them. Putting your thoughts together based on unprovable ideas that you admit is impossible to observe first hand is no way to learn anything about the world.
You mean like your gravity?

It is defined as the apparent attraction of bodies toward each other. This is an observation and gravity is the name given to describe that. Science is pursuing more knowledge about it by asking, "How is this happening?" The suggestion about how it works is a theory. However, its a fact that things are attracted to each other, that part is a fact because we can observe it happening. How can you have a problem with that?
The only thing that I observe being attracted to each other are magnets, what do you observe?

For myself it was like this...

Things fall down and as a child not much thought is given to that but nevertheless... They fall.
Then other observations support the observation of things falling down when I notice the behavior of objects rolling down hills as opposed to up hills and so on. Then, I notice that I can give objects inertia by pushing them, throwing them, etc... But no matter what I do they still go down.
These observations about how I can manipulate objects are explained to me by newton. It seems that objects don't do anything unless I (or something else) act upon them, but there seems to be another unaccounted force that makes them do something else (go down).
I hear about gravity and that seems like a good explanation but I wonder why it seems that 2 objects that I can hold are not affected by each other. The explanation in gravity is that the effect is relative to the mass of the objects. Then Einstein proposes that the theory of gravity is equivalent to an acceleration scenario as outlined in the equivalence principle. Those both seem like good explanations. One is dependent on the surface of earth being a sphere and the dependent on it being a plane.
Then I notice simple things like the sinking ship effect and the routes taken by aircraft and ships to their destinations. They all seem to go in a pattern that on the flat maps we are used to, don’t make sense. These routes are explained by using a route appropriate for a sphere. Hmmm.
Then I see satellite dishes and wonder what those are. I notice that they all point up and that the ones that don’t have a different shape that are not actually pointing in a different direction. The reflective signals are still, in effect, pointing upward.
Then I hear about orbits and how in effect satellites and the moon around the Earth and the earth around the sun is actually falling toward the object with the larger mass but never do because of their velocity perpendicular to the surface of the object they are orbiting. Later, I become a meteorologist and actually work with these satellites and the behavior of these are compatible with this orbit idea. I actually verify that the apparent paths of these satellites are correct.
As a meteorologist I learn about the system of the Earth layers of atmosphere. I depend on this mental model to do my job correctly. I also learn about the coriolis and how such an observation is only possible on a sphere. The storms of the world are doing this.
I sail around the world countless times and we again take strange circular routes that contradict that flat maps we use on our maps. To get from Japan to Southern California as quickly as possible we have to arc our way up nearly to Alaska? We took a much straighter route from California to Japan because we stopped in Hawaii but this circular route on the way back was nearly a week and a half less travel time. Hmmm.
Every single day, every observation and everything I do is completely compatible with a round earth. It happens over and over again with a 100% success rate. Nothing is ever contradictory to this. There is no hole to be filled by some missing piece a puzzle when considering the shape of this planet.
The things I have mentioned are only the surface of the observations that can be made and they never fail to be correct.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #791 on: September 08, 2013, 12:00:30 PM »
Rottingroom:
What you observe is dependent on the tools you were given to do a certain job. You become used to that training and follow what you're told.
If a person is shown a route to a destination without signposts but follows what they believe are the only co-ordinations given to them, that's the route they would follow, even if there was another route.

I see gravity as atmospheric pressure inside a dome. Things fall because they are under pressure from above.
Things arc when you throw them, because you are throwing them up against that pressure and the weight and mass against that pressure, will glide it through as it's weight is pushing down, aided by the fact that the weight is denser than the air below which cannot resist the motion.

Balls roll down hills because of the same reason. They are heavier than the atmosphere below, so can roll through it aided by the atmosphere behind it.
It's always push on push, or push against resistance.
As soon as weight gets mentioned, that's when the old gravity comes out, because it's always, "so what causes the weight and why should it fall down and not up."

All that is there for, is to confuse people to abandon rational thinking. They make you accept that things fall because gravity makes them do it, when you only have to walk about on a windy day to see the effects of atmospheric pressure due to low v high pressure acting against you as you "push your way through it, which in turn is you pushing against the push of the wind but also your body resisting that push.

Wind can pin you to a wall if it's fierce enough, because it's pushing your weight against a barrier and the size of your body finds it hard to come unstuck from that wall.
The atmospheric pressure above you, works in the same way, only, instead of a high v low pressure wind, it's simply the weight of the atmosphere at 14.7 psi acting on your  head and shoulders, which your body can easily overcome, as long as you walk horizontally, because your body is only resisting the pressure that can hit your head and shoulders and your head is round, so deflects that weight down onto your shoulders and in turn down your sides.
We are strong enough to cope, because we equalise that pressure with our muscles and bones and our feet.

You don't feel wind from above as a rule but you do from the sides, due to the effects of what starts as a centralised super heating sun moving around in a wave pattern, up and down, up  and down and around, slowly which causes super high v low pressure around that area, which spirals around the circle of earth, aided by the reflection of that sun off of the dome that causes fluctuations in that pressure as it shines on another part of the circle.
The moon is just another reflection of the same thing. It's reflections of reflections of the highest frequency of vibration and sound.
The stars are just the reflections of the crystals that are all part of all that, like a fibre optic motion.

Gravity is nothing more than atmospheric pressure.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #792 on: September 08, 2013, 12:10:33 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #793 on: September 08, 2013, 12:17:44 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #794 on: September 08, 2013, 12:22:09 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #795 on: September 08, 2013, 02:31:56 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #796 on: September 08, 2013, 02:33:21 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #797 on: September 08, 2013, 02:41:57 PM »
I don't want to give any attention to this baseless and not really thought-through theory, but some questions:
Suppose you have two identical disks, one is made of foam one is iron. Why do the iron one sinks on water and the other not if the surface area (and therefore the force due to air pressure) is the same on both? On the same subject, shouldn't we see an increase on the falling speed of an object when it goes underwater (this can be somehow explained, since the upwards force on water is greater than on air, but then again it would provide more pushing-down force...who knows)?  A more or less related question, why is air denser at lower altitudes? There's absolutely no reason for this to happen in the absence of gravity/UA or any similar mechanism. Apologies if this has been answered before, haven't read the whole thing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #798 on: September 08, 2013, 02:42:23 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #799 on: September 08, 2013, 02:47:38 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

I know full well what its like to question what I've been taught. I was a born again christian in my youth and am now an atheist. I am completely capable of questioning my beliefs and until you can provide evidence, I mean like anything.... Just keep your ridiculous ideas in your empty little brain.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #800 on: September 08, 2013, 02:51:36 PM »
I don't want to give any attention to this baseless and not really thought-through theory, but some questions:
Suppose you have two identical disks, one is made of foam one is iron. Why do the iron one sinks on water and the other not if the surface area (and therefore the force due to air pressure) is the same on both? On the same subject, shouldn't we see an increase on the falling speed of an object when it goes underwater (this can be somehow explained, since the upwards force on water is greater than on air, but then again it would provide more pushing-down force...who knows)?  A more or less related question, why is air denser at lower altitudes? There's absolutely no reason for this to happen in the absence of gravity/UA or any similar mechanism. Apologies if this has been answered before, haven't read the whole thing.
Iron sinks because of more densely packed matter that contains more of the elements that are "inside" the crust.
Air is more dense at sea level because it contains more molecules squashed into much smaller states than those above them and above that and so on, until the molecules end up at the top in their singular state, for example, helium.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #801 on: September 08, 2013, 02:54:16 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

I know full well what its like to question what I've been taught. I was a born again christian in my youth and am now an atheist. I am completely capable of questioning my beliefs and until you can provide evidence, I mean like anything.... Just keep your ridiculous ideas in your empty little brain.
Ermmm, no. I'll put my ideas forward and you or your little cronies won't ever change that. You are free to ignore me though and carry on with whatever else you feel like doing, because this is a battle you cannot win with me.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #802 on: September 08, 2013, 02:56:50 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

I know full well what its like to question what I've been taught. I was a born again christian in my youth and am now an atheist. I am completely capable of questioning my beliefs and until you can provide evidence, I mean like anything.... Just keep your ridiculous ideas in your empty little brain.
Ermmm, no. I'll put my ideas forward and you or your little cronies won't ever change that. You are free to ignore me though and carry on with whatever else you feel like doing, because this is a battle you cannot win with me.

I've already won the battle. The world is carrying on with their exploration of space. That's a win.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #803 on: September 08, 2013, 03:02:07 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

I know full well what its like to question what I've been taught. I was a born again christian in my youth and am now an atheist. I am completely capable of questioning my beliefs and until you can provide evidence, I mean like anything.... Just keep your ridiculous ideas in your empty little brain.
Ermmm, no. I'll put my ideas forward and you or your little cronies won't ever change that. You are free to ignore me though and carry on with whatever else you feel like doing, because this is a battle you cannot win with me.

I've already won the battle. The world is carrying on with their exploration of space. That's a win.
I can't knock you for your dream fantasies, I'll give you that. Everyone needs a dream. I prefer to look more at reality though, but each to their own.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #804 on: September 08, 2013, 03:05:30 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

I know full well what its like to question what I've been taught. I was a born again christian in my youth and am now an atheist. I am completely capable of questioning my beliefs and until you can provide evidence, I mean like anything.... Just keep your ridiculous ideas in your empty little brain.
Ermmm, no. I'll put my ideas forward and you or your little cronies won't ever change that. You are free to ignore me though and carry on with whatever else you feel like doing, because this is a battle you cannot win with me.

I've already won the battle. The world is carrying on with their exploration of space. That's a win.
I can't knock you for your dream fantasies, I'll give you that. Everyone needs a dream. I prefer to look more at reality though, but each to their own.

Again, the things you believe in have no evidence where as everything I believe in is supported by mountains of it. That's all that really needs to be said.

*

g el

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #805 on: September 08, 2013, 03:07:29 PM »
Scepti, serious question here, do you really think that given the required tools you can fool a person who studied 3 to 5 years at least to get a university degree into believing what he is doing, although faked by some government or whatever, is actually correct? Do you really think this person who would be extremely well trained in his domain would not notice something wrong? Do you have any sort of work experience in technical fields yourself?

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #806 on: September 08, 2013, 03:09:23 PM »
What do space scientists have to gain from making up facts? Why don't they do actual research like all other scientists?

Throwing away a theory because it doesn't make sense to you is (sorry if this comes across as rude) completely idiotic. Some people might not understand how elements react with each other, or how a computer works. This doesn't mean that chemistry is all made up or computers don't actually work. Most people are actually smart enough to realise that just because something doesn't make sense to them doesn't mean that they should completely discard it as real. I don't fully understand how people predict the weather but I don't say that weather people are just making it all up.

Sometimes science and other things are complicated and cannot be explained to people who have the mental capacity of a child. In school the more complicated stuff is taught as you get older. This is because not everything can be explained simply and you need to have the ability to understand it. Scientists don't explain things in complicated ways with hard to understand equations just for the specific purpose of confusing people. Things are complicated. Sometimes things (like the distance to the sun, etc.) are found using mathimatical equations. If you take those away you are left with nothing. Imagine trying to find the hypotenuse of a triangle without pythagorian theorem.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #807 on: September 08, 2013, 03:12:34 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

I know full well what its like to question what I've been taught. I was a born again christian in my youth and am now an atheist. I am completely capable of questioning my beliefs and until you can provide evidence, I mean like anything.... Just keep your ridiculous ideas in your empty little brain.
Ermmm, no. I'll put my ideas forward and you or your little cronies won't ever change that. You are free to ignore me though and carry on with whatever else you feel like doing, because this is a battle you cannot win with me.

I've already won the battle. The world is carrying on with their exploration of space. That's a win.
I can't knock you for your dream fantasies, I'll give you that. Everyone needs a dream. I prefer to look more at reality though, but each to their own.

Again, the things you believe in have no evidence where as everything I believe in is supported by mountains of it. That's all that really needs to be said.
You do not have one scrap of genuine verifiable evidence to back up why you believe what you do, no more than I have to back up what I say, The difference is. You got schooled with yours. I'm logically thinking mine through without the aid of indoctrination.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #808 on: September 08, 2013, 03:15:29 PM »
Here's something ironically hilarious. With some flat earthers you can make compelling arguments by simply posting definitions of words. Keeping in mind some of the things scepti has been saying - observe:

fan·ta·sy
ˈfantəsē/Submit
noun
1.
the faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable.

de·lu·sion
diˈlo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1.
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

mis·con·cep·tion
ˌmiskənˈsepSHən/Submit
noun
1.
a view or opinion that is incorrect because it is based on faulty thinking or understanding.

make-be·lieve
noun
1.
the action of pretending or imagining, typically that things are better than they really are.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #809 on: September 08, 2013, 03:18:37 PM »
Why did you waste your time writing that horseshit? BTW, please stop using the word weight if you don't believe in gravity. It makes you look like a moron.
What's this fixation with gravity and weight. Weight is a word to describe how heavy things are. Stop being so naive.

Weight is a bodies relative mass. Its what the word means. Its relative because it depends on where the measurement is taken. Your atmospheric pushing crack pot theory would require a new word. Weight is a word based on gravity.
Look. I'm not changing the word "weight" just because you and others marry it to gravity.
Gravity does not exist.

The FES.

The only place in the world where its necessary to define definition.
One day, maybe in your life time, something will happen that will make you question much of what's crammed into your head. What exactly that is and how it comes about I don't honestly know but something will show itself as not what you thought it was.

I know full well what its like to question what I've been taught. I was a born again christian in my youth and am now an atheist. I am completely capable of questioning my beliefs and until you can provide evidence, I mean like anything.... Just keep your ridiculous ideas in your empty little brain.
Ermmm, no. I'll put my ideas forward and you or your little cronies won't ever change that. You are free to ignore me though and carry on with whatever else you feel like doing, because this is a battle you cannot win with me.

I've already won the battle. The world is carrying on with their exploration of space. That's a win.
I can't knock you for your dream fantasies, I'll give you that. Everyone needs a dream. I prefer to look more at reality though, but each to their own.

Again, the things you believe in have no evidence where as everything I believe in is supported by mountains of it. That's all that really needs to be said.
You do not have one scrap of genuine verifiable evidence to back up why you believe what you do, no more than I have to back up what I say, The difference is. You got schooled with yours. I'm logically thinking mine through without the aid of indoctrination.

Go to the following thread and attempt some of the experiments in the experiments section then come back at me. Until you do, stop refusing to accept that I've presented verifiable evidence.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59811.0.html
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 03:21:02 PM by rottingroom »