Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 383812 Views
*

Junker

  • 4167
  • +49/-10
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #240 on: August 20, 2013, 01:47:36 PM »
Deposition still needs something to deposit the vapor onto.  How does one deposit hydrogen or helium vapor onto a perfect vacuum?

I wasn't implying that it was actually happening, but that there is a process in which it could occur.
Then you weren't adding anything to the topic as I had been asking how it works in his hypothesis, not in general.

It is possible it is happening and the mechanism is currently unknown.  Is there really any idea that can be ruled out in the context of this discussion?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #241 on: August 20, 2013, 01:50:49 PM »
Deposition still needs something to deposit the vapor onto.  How does one deposit hydrogen or helium vapor onto a perfect vacuum?

I wasn't implying that it was actually happening, but that there is a process in which it could occur.
Then you weren't adding anything to the topic as I had been asking how it works in his hypothesis, not in general.

It is possible it is happening and the mechanism is currently unknown.  Is there really any idea that can be ruled out in the context of this discussion?
Well not really since thoughts are given equal weight as experimentation here.  I'd still like to hear it from scepti though since it is his thoughts were are debating.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #242 on: August 21, 2013, 08:12:05 AM »
I do stand corrected, helium becomes a liquid at the lowest temperature of all elements. So even though helium is heavier than hydrogen, it is the most likely to be what comprises the ice dome since it stays a gas the longest.  However there is still about 4 degrees difference in its melting and boiling points.  I'm still confused how it can skip becoming a liquid and then straight into a solid.
Pressure differences.
That still doesn't explain the phase gap. A lower pressure would just make it turn liquid at a higher temperature.
Which it periodically will do, which creates the icicles as it goes into that state due to reflected heat hitting the dome and in time, those icicles get too heavy after melting and freezing, then fall off due to their weight, which we see as shooting stars or meteors or whatever else whizzes about in the sky.
It would turn liquid before ever getting the chance to become solid.  Once a liquid it would be more dense than the gas and fall then vaporize again. You would have a gaseous barrier instead of a solid one.  If you want to say it would freeze at that barrier so be it, but then you run into pressure versus no pressure on the dome, and we all know that ends catastrophically.
We don't know how hot it is up there once the reflection of the sun hits it, so the temperatures and the movement of heat away from it to absolute zero and such like could change a lot with those gases at higher altitude.
The end result at the very top has to be ice, because that's when the element ceases to be active in anyway and becomes a solid.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #243 on: August 21, 2013, 08:23:59 AM »


Quote from: hewholikespie
If a perfect vacuum can have an ice/ glass covered mass of molecules resting inside it- namely, earth- then there should be no problem producing a vacuum inside ice or glass.
The vacuum has nothing resting inside of it. basically the earth isn't inside anything. Space outside of earth does not exist. Under or inside the dome, a perfect space vacuum cannot exist, only the ice becoming zero can sit at the outer dome against nothing.
Quote from: hewholikespie
Or course, this is all hypothetical, as your hypothesis would not stand up for an instant to experimental testing.
It probably won;t stand up to experimental testing, because to do that would mean going to the ice dome and gathering evidence of it all, which is impossible for us feeble human beings. We simply do not and probably never will possess the tools to do any testing.

Quote from: hewholikespie
Another important question- what happens to things that leak out the bottom of the earth?
Nothing leaks out of the bottom of the earth. It's a dense copy of the top. It's most likely a diamond like or maybe much denser type crystal that solidifies when it becomes the densest mineral there is. Again, we cannot physically check this out either.


?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #244 on: August 21, 2013, 11:00:08 AM »


Quote from: hewholikespie
If a perfect vacuum can have an ice/ glass covered mass of molecules resting inside it- namely, earth- then there should be no problem producing a vacuum inside ice or glass.
The vacuum has nothing resting inside of it. basically the earth isn't inside anything. Space outside of earth does not exist. Under or inside the dome, a perfect space vacuum cannot exist, only the ice becoming zero can sit at the outer dome against nothing.
Quote from: hewholikespie
Or course, this is all hypothetical, as your hypothesis would not stand up for an instant to experimental testing.
It probably won;t stand up to experimental testing, because to do that would mean going to the ice dome and gathering evidence of it all, which is impossible for us feeble human beings. We simply do not and probably never will possess the tools to do any testing.

Quote from: hewholikespie
Another important question- what happens to things that leak out the bottom of the earth?
Nothing leaks out of the bottom of the earth. It's a dense copy of the top. It's most likely a diamond like or maybe much denser type crystal that solidifies when it becomes the densest mineral there is. Again, we cannot physically check this out either.

claims, claims everywhere and not a sense you make.

*

g el

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #245 on: August 21, 2013, 12:44:07 PM »
I have a small add-on to the speed of light discussion:

Let's say I'm building a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) and I'm investigating required sensors. One of the measurements I need is my current distance from certain objects, to do this I have to see the speed my aircraft will fly at. At low speed, something like a SONAR will be good, basically it will send out sound waves and wait for them to return, then calculat based on the speed of sound how long it took to return. Now if my airplane is supersonic, a sonar is obviously a bad choice as I would pass the objects before I get a reply, so RADAR or a LIDAR are my best bets. A radar is emitting Radio Waves and Lidar is using a laser, both technologies still rely on knowing the speed these waves are traveling, so if the Radio Waves do not in fact travel in the speed of light specified by the books you do not trust, the aircraft would crash. Same goes for the LIDAR, which you can't argue is slower than the speed of light as it's using Light..

Now if scepti's theory is correct, I think we should expand the list of people knowing about the conspiracy to include manufacturers of sensors as they are obviously modifying the data returned by their products to comply with what us sheep think the speed of light is..

?

hewholikespie

  • 249
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #246 on: August 21, 2013, 03:07:07 PM »


Quote from: hewholikespie
If a perfect vacuum can have an ice/ glass covered mass of molecules resting inside it- namely, earth- then there should be no problem producing a vacuum inside ice or glass.
The vacuum has nothing resting inside of it. basically the earth isn't inside anything. Space outside of earth does not exist. Under or inside the dome, a perfect space vacuum cannot exist, only the ice becoming zero can sit at the outer dome against nothing.

You're either contradicting yourself or changing your story. You previously said there was vacuum outside the dome.
Also, what IS the effective difference between vacuum and 'nothing?'

Quote
Quote from: hewholikespie
Or course, this is all hypothetical, as your hypothesis would not stand up for an instant to experimental testing.
It probably won;t stand up to experimental testing, because to do that would mean going to the ice dome and gathering evidence of it all, which is impossible for us feeble human beings. We simply do not and probably never will possess the tools to do any testing.

We have manned, unmanned, powered and unpowered flight. What keeps us from finding the edge or evidence thereof?
What prevents us from literally sending a rocket to the edge of the dome? ICBMs could easily make the flight.

Quote
Quote from: hewholikespie
Another important question- what happens to things that leak out the bottom of the earth?
Nothing leaks out of the bottom of the earth. It's a dense copy of the top. It's most likely a diamond like or maybe much denser type crystal that solidifies when it becomes the densest mineral there is. Again, we cannot physically check this out either.

What would cause the material to become dense? Is it not also exposed to the vacuum/ nothing?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #247 on: August 21, 2013, 03:43:02 PM »
Pie, I'm not sure if you are aware of some of scepti's older topics, but there is/was a thread with about 80 pages or more that talks about rockets and why they need outside air to work. I'm not sure if you really want to go down that path.

And scepti, the temperature at the dome is essentially irrelevant when speaking of helium freezing since its melting point is lower than its boiling point.  Therefore helium must liquify before solidifying.  Does this make any sense to you?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

hewholikespie

  • 249
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #248 on: August 22, 2013, 07:47:17 AM »
Pie, I'm not sure if you are aware of some of scepti's older topics, but there is/was a thread with about 80 pages or more that talks about rockets and why they need outside air to work. I'm not sure if you really want to go down that path.

I'm not proposing any extra-atmospheric flight here, just a rocket flying through the atmosphere on a ballistic arc until it gets within sighting range of the dome above or to the side.
In short, I propose a test that assumes there will always be outside air.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #249 on: August 22, 2013, 08:00:12 AM »
I have a small add-on to the speed of light discussion:

Let's say I'm building a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) and I'm investigating required sensors. One of the measurements I need is my current distance from certain objects, to do this I have to see the speed my aircraft will fly at. At low speed, something like a SONAR will be good, basically it will send out sound waves and wait for them to return, then calculat based on the speed of sound how long it took to return. Now if my airplane is supersonic, a sonar is obviously a bad choice as I would pass the objects before I get a reply, so RADAR or a LIDAR are my best bets. A radar is emitting Radio Waves and Lidar is using a laser, both technologies still rely on knowing the speed these waves are traveling, so if the Radio Waves do not in fact travel in the speed of light specified by the books you do not trust, the aircraft would crash. Same goes for the LIDAR, which you can't argue is slower than the speed of light as it's using Light..

Now if scepti's theory is correct, I think we should expand the list of people knowing about the conspiracy to include manufacturers of sensors as they are obviously modifying the data returned by their products to comply with what us sheep think the speed of light is..
You don't need this fantasy speed of light speed to work air speed and distances out on aircraft. Just send out your signal, rebound it and there you go.
This speed of light 186,000 mps is absolute nonsense. Just my opinion, though.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #250 on: August 22, 2013, 08:09:19 AM »
Quote from: hewholikespie
You're either contradicting yourself or changing your story. You previously said there was vacuum outside the dome.
Also, what IS the effective difference between vacuum and 'nothing?'

A vacuum is nothing. There is no difference.

Quote from: hewholikespie
We have manned, unmanned, powered and unpowered flight. What keeps us from finding the edge or evidence thereof?
What prevents us from literally sending a rocket to the edge of the dome? ICBMs could easily make the flight.
Component failure for starters due to severe temperature change, both high and low. Plus, any fuel and air it carries, would render it useless due to the hull being torn apart by expansion of the molecules within it.
No ICBM or any other craft reaches anywhere near the dome, ever.


Quote from: hewholikespie
What would cause the material to become dense? Is it not also exposed to the vacuum/ nothing?
It solidifies and becomes a light but dense ice. Just like the opposite on the ground with snow becoming ice due to temperature change.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #251 on: August 22, 2013, 08:19:44 AM »
Pie, I'm not sure if you are aware of some of scepti's older topics, but there is/was a thread with about 80 pages or more that talks about rockets and why they need outside air to work. I'm not sure if you really want to go down that path.

And scepti, the temperature at the dome is essentially irrelevant when speaking of helium freezing since its melting point is lower than its boiling point.  Therefore helium must liquify before solidifying.  Does this make any sense to you?
Which it does at the top of the dome. It's a case of the reflected heat of earths sun separating the molecules and releasing them to rise into the atmosphere to go through stages of change.
This is why the changes will result in liquid and flash freeze of the molecules, depending on the heat or cold hitting the upper atmosphere.

Think of it like your water rising as a gas into clouds in which temperature plays it's part in separating the gases from them, leaving the water to fall and depending on that fall, is dependent on the temperature as to whether it falls as hail, snow or rain.

The same kind of thing is happening further up, only it's lighter gases at play.
I'm probably not explaining it as good as I should, so I'll just hope you can grasp it, which may be hard if you are staunchly stuck to the rotating globe and gravity kept gases floating about, all around a spinning ball.

Maybe some will grasp what I'm getting at. I don;t mean this in a bad way, I mean, I can't expect my thoughts to be immediately grasped and expect people to scratch their heads of think it's crazy. It fits for me and makes a lot of sense.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #252 on: August 22, 2013, 08:21:17 AM »
Pie, I'm not sure if you are aware of some of scepti's older topics, but there is/was a thread with about 80 pages or more that talks about rockets and why they need outside air to work. I'm not sure if you really want to go down that path.

I'm not proposing any extra-atmospheric flight here, just a rocket flying through the atmosphere on a ballistic arc until it gets within sighting range of the dome above or to the side.
In short, I propose a test that assumes there will always be outside air.
Once your rocket is on a ballistic arc, it's going back to land but that's another argument I suppose.

*

g el

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #253 on: August 22, 2013, 08:33:26 AM »
You don't need this fantasy speed of light speed to work air speed and distances out on aircraft. Just send out your signal, rebound it and there you go.
This speed of light 186,000 mps is absolute nonsense. Just my opinion, though.

You make it sound so simple..
Once you rebound that signal, what data do you expect to get? I understand that this could be done by sensors that are slower than light, it's perfectly normal, but my argument is that for the LIDAR or RADAR to work, the calculations are done based on the fact that the waves propagated in the speed of light..

?

hewholikespie

  • 249
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #254 on: August 22, 2013, 08:36:11 AM »
Quote from: hewholikespie
You're either contradicting yourself or changing your story. You previously said there was vacuum outside the dome.
Also, what IS the effective difference between vacuum and 'nothing?'

A vacuum is nothing. There is no difference.

Then we are inside a vacuum, as you both keep saying and protesting.

Quote
Quote from: hewholikespie
We have manned, unmanned, powered and unpowered flight. What keeps us from finding the edge or evidence thereof?
What prevents us from literally sending a rocket to the edge of the dome? ICBMs could easily make the flight.
Component failure for starters due to severe temperature change, both high and low. Plus, any fuel and air it carries, would render it useless due to the hull being torn apart by expansion of the molecules within it.
No ICBM or any other craft reaches anywhere near the dome, ever.

You're going to have to explain how 'expansion of molecules' is occurring if a component is air-tight, given that internal pressure would remain consistent, and how it would 'tear the hull apart' if they aren't, given the molecules could escape through the nearest hole should it not be. And that's assuming your utter nonsense 'exponentially expanding molecules' claptrap is real.

Also, what keeps a vessel from travelling laterally to the dome?

Quote
Quote from: hewholikespie
What would cause the material to become dense? Is it not also exposed to the vacuum/ nothing?
It solidifies and becomes a light but dense ice. Just like the opposite on the ground with snow becoming ice due to temperature change.

Light but dense? You are now being oxymoronic. Next you will tell us it is cold but warm and liquid but solid.
What material do you think the 'underdome' is made of?

I'm not proposing any extra-atmospheric flight here, just a rocket flying through the atmosphere on a ballistic arc until it gets within sighting range of the dome above or to the side.
In short, I propose a test that assumes there will always be outside air.
Once your rocket is on a ballistic arc, it's going back to land but that's another argument I suppose.

Not necessarily. A ballistic arc is merely one that follows a certain path. While, yes, the idea would be that the ICBM would eventually come down, if it travels far enough in any direction, it will make it to the dome. For example, the side of the dome, where the 'pressure' and 'expanding molecules' nonsense should not be an issue.



Scepti, about how far up and out do you think this Ice Dome of yours rests? About what is its radius from the North Pole, for example?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #255 on: August 22, 2013, 08:40:55 AM »
Pie, I'm not sure if you are aware of some of scepti's older topics, but there is/was a thread with about 80 pages or more that talks about rockets and why they need outside air to work. I'm not sure if you really want to go down that path.

And scepti, the temperature at the dome is essentially irrelevant when speaking of helium freezing since its melting point is lower than its boiling point.  Therefore helium must liquify before solidifying.  Does this make any sense to you?
Which it does at the top of the dome. It's a case of the reflected heat of earths sun separating the molecules and releasing them to rise into the atmosphere to go through stages of change.
This is why the changes will result in liquid and flash freeze of the molecules, depending on the heat or cold hitting the upper atmosphere.

Think of it like your water rising as a gas into clouds in which temperature plays it's part in separating the gases from them, leaving the water to fall and depending on that fall, is dependent on the temperature as to whether it falls as hail, snow or rain.

The same kind of thing is happening further up, only it's lighter gases at play.
I'm probably not explaining it as good as I should, so I'll just hope you can grasp it, which may be hard if you are staunchly stuck to the rotating globe and gravity kept gases floating about, all around a spinning ball.

Maybe some will grasp what I'm getting at. I don;t mean this in a bad way, I mean, I can't expect my thoughts to be immediately grasped and expect people to scratch their heads of think it's crazy. It fits for me and makes a lot of sense.
Okay, let's ask some basic questions so you can understand what I'm trying to tell you.
Is liquid more dense than gas?
Is solid more dense than liquid (excluding the oddball water)?
Does density effect matter's ability to stay aloft?
That should be a decent start.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #256 on: August 22, 2013, 09:38:48 AM »
You don't need this fantasy speed of light speed to work air speed and distances out on aircraft. Just send out your signal, rebound it and there you go.
This speed of light 186,000 mps is absolute nonsense. Just my opinion, though.

You make it sound so simple..
Once you rebound that signal, what data do you expect to get? I understand that this could be done by sensors that are slower than light, it's perfectly normal, but my argument is that for the LIDAR or RADAR to work, the calculations are done based on the fact that the waves propagated in the speed of light..
Let's be totally honest here. We are talking about 186,000 miles per second.
A supersonic jet can fly at?...let's go mental and say 2,000 miles per HOUR. Waves or any description do not have to travel very fast do they. I mean, fast enough but not ridiculous speeds like they say light is.

There's no way that anyone could test this out, except to say, "oh it can be tested" then bring up something that cannot be tested to prove it. It's mental.

Of course. It's needed for the supposed planets and stars and what not..but that takes us back to square one, so we won;t go into those.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #257 on: August 22, 2013, 09:57:24 AM »
I have a small add-on to the speed of light discussion:

Let's say I'm building a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) and I'm investigating required sensors. One of the measurements I need is my current distance from certain objects, to do this I have to see the speed my aircraft will fly at. At low speed, something like a SONAR will be good, basically it will send out sound waves and wait for them to return, then calculat based on the speed of sound how long it took to return. Now if my airplane is supersonic, a sonar is obviously a bad choice as I would pass the objects before I get a reply, so RADAR or a LIDAR are my best bets. A radar is emitting Radio Waves and Lidar is using a laser, both technologies still rely on knowing the speed these waves are traveling, so if the Radio Waves do not in fact travel in the speed of light specified by the books you do not trust, the aircraft would crash. Same goes for the LIDAR, which you can't argue is slower than the speed of light as it's using Light..

Now if scepti's theory is correct, I think we should expand the list of people knowing about the conspiracy to include manufacturers of sensors as they are obviously modifying the data returned by their products to comply with what us sheep think the speed of light is..
You don't need this fantasy speed of light speed to work air speed and distances out on aircraft. Just send out your signal, rebound it and there you go.
This speed of light 186,000 mps is absolute nonsense. Just my opinion, though.

Well at least , sceptimatic is sticking to his opinion about the speed of light/radio waves.
Still waiting for his opinion as to just what the speed is in his opinion. Typical. Surely you can do better than that, sceptimatic ! That came up on other subject...long since relegated to the "hung threads" basket for the UCOS squad.  ;D
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 !

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #258 on: August 22, 2013, 10:22:17 AM »


Quote from: hewholikespie
Then we are inside a vacuum, as you both keep saying and protesting.

We are a cell that is in suspended animation, kind of thing. When a vacuum is mentioned...people immediately think of a vacuum made in atmospheric pressure...but as I've explained before, we cannot make a vacuum down here, we can just evacuate molecules in a chamber.
Outside of this cell of ours, space does not exist. it's nothing. It's a true vacuum. We cannot see through it but it does make a perfect barrier of a mirrored reflection of all of the things that are happening inside this cell, except our eyes cannot see the lesser light reflections, only the brighter ones.

Quote from: hewholikespie
You're going to have to explain how 'expansion of molecules' is occurring if a component is air-tight, given that internal pressure would remain consistent, and how it would 'tear the hull apart' if they aren't, given the molecules could escape through the nearest hole should it not be. And that's assuming your utter nonsense 'exponentially expanding molecules' claptrap is real.
We could argue this bit till the end of days but all I'll say is....Look at a helium balloon before lift off and how flimsy it is and how expanded it becomes, the higher it goes. Yes we know a rockets skin is thicker but that skin is not overly thick when compared to the fuel it carries, plus it's carrying pressurised air at higher than atmospheric pressure. It will be torn apart. Say it won't if you want...but we shall have to beg to differ on that.

Quote from: hewholikespie
Also, what keeps a vessel from travelling laterally to the dome?
The sides of the dome are no different. It's still the same molecules of gases, so the same situation arises. Plus a rocket is highly unlikely to hold a lateral path unless it was finding it's way to a target on earth, not above or towards the side of the dome.

Quote from: hewholikespie
Light but dense? You are now being oxymoronic. Next you will tell us it is cold but warm and liquid but solid.
What material do you think the 'underdome' is made of?
Yeah, ok, let's forget dense, let's just say it's a light dormant solid.
I don't know what the under dome is made of, I can only assume it is made of something like diamond. If it were possible to view the earth from outside, which it isn't...but let's pretend it is....what you would actually see, is a glass looking ball or cell and within that cell, it would resemble a kind of unshaken snow globe..
All hypothetical of course, so it's basically down to the imagination.
The diamond under dome is most probably the purest diamond there is or maybe a more purer crystal. We see the remnants of that as super dense rocks are spewed out in volcanoes, etc or under sea volcanoes, which we see the small crystals of various densities that we call jewels.


Quote from: hewholikespie
Not necessarily. A ballistic arc is merely one that follows a certain path. While, yes, the idea would be that the ICBM would eventually come down, if it travels far enough in any direction, it will make it to the dome. For example, the side of the dome, where the 'pressure' and 'expanding molecules' nonsense should not be an issue.
It won't make it to the dome. It won't even make it into the ultra thin air before it's ejected rocket fuel becomes pointless against the atmosphere below it. Yes I'm well aware that you all say rockets don't need atmosphere to work. I know different, but let's just beg to differ on this, as I've been through it and diagrammed it, time and time again.


Quote from: hewholikespie
Scepti, about how far up and out do you think this Ice Dome of yours rests? About what is its radius from the North Pole, for example?
Hard to say. I can only guess, so here's my guess.
I'd say that the full earth is about 4 times bigger than we are told it is.
The part that we live on and can reach, alive  maybe something like 48,000 miles around. The full size to the actual dome barrier, (which we will never reach), maybe, could be approximately 100,000 miles around.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #259 on: August 22, 2013, 10:31:03 AM »
I have a small add-on to the speed of light discussion:

Let's say I'm building a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) and I'm investigating required sensors. One of the measurements I need is my current distance from certain objects, to do this I have to see the speed my aircraft will fly at. At low speed, something like a SONAR will be good, basically it will send out sound waves and wait for them to return, then calculat based on the speed of sound how long it took to return. Now if my airplane is supersonic, a sonar is obviously a bad choice as I would pass the objects before I get a reply, so RADAR or a LIDAR are my best bets. A radar is emitting Radio Waves and Lidar is using a laser, both technologies still rely on knowing the speed these waves are traveling, so if the Radio Waves do not in fact travel in the speed of light specified by the books you do not trust, the aircraft would crash. Same goes for the LIDAR, which you can't argue is slower than the speed of light as it's using Light..

Now if scepti's theory is correct, I think we should expand the list of people knowing about the conspiracy to include manufacturers of sensors as they are obviously modifying the data returned by their products to comply with what us sheep think the speed of light is..
You don't need this fantasy speed of light speed to work air speed and distances out on aircraft. Just send out your signal, rebound it and there you go.
This speed of light 186,000 mps is absolute nonsense. Just my opinion, though.

Well at least , sceptimatic is sticking to his opinion about the speed of light/radio waves.
Still waiting for his opinion as to just what the speed is in his opinion. Typical. Surely you can do better than that, sceptimatic ! That came up on other subject...long since relegated to the "hung threads" basket for the UCOS squad.  ;D
I don't think there is a speed of light to be honest. I mean a constant speed of light. i think it varies, depended on sound/vibration and frequency.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #260 on: August 22, 2013, 10:34:04 AM »
Light makes a sound?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #261 on: August 22, 2013, 10:39:22 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #262 on: August 22, 2013, 10:40:41 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.
How do you know light is a particle?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #263 on: August 22, 2013, 10:41:24 AM »
I have a small add-on to the speed of light discussion:

Let's say I'm building a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) and I'm investigating required sensors. One of the measurements I need is my current distance from certain objects, to do this I have to see the speed my aircraft will fly at. At low speed, something like a SONAR will be good, basically it will send out sound waves and wait for them to return, then calculat based on the speed of sound how long it took to return. Now if my airplane is supersonic, a sonar is obviously a bad choice as I would pass the objects before I get a reply, so RADAR or a LIDAR are my best bets. A radar is emitting Radio Waves and Lidar is using a laser, both technologies still rely on knowing the speed these waves are traveling, so if the Radio Waves do not in fact travel in the speed of light specified by the books you do not trust, the aircraft would crash. Same goes for the LIDAR, which you can't argue is slower than the speed of light as it's using Light..

Now if scepti's theory is correct, I think we should expand the list of people knowing about the conspiracy to include manufacturers of sensors as they are obviously modifying the data returned by their products to comply with what us sheep think the speed of light is..
You don't need this fantasy speed of light speed to work air speed and distances out on aircraft. Just send out your signal, rebound it and there you go.
This speed of light 186,000 mps is absolute nonsense. Just my opinion, though.

Well at least , sceptimatic is sticking to his opinion about the speed of light/radio waves.
Still waiting for his opinion as to just what the speed is in his opinion. Typical. Surely you can do better than that, sceptimatic ! That came up on other subject...long since relegated to the "hung threads" basket for the UCOS squad.  ;D
I don't think there is a speed of light to be honest. I mean a constant speed of light. i think it varies, depended on sound/vibration and frequency.

OK. I understand. The speed of light and radio waves is just another one of those numbers those old scientists thought up to go along with their theory of a so-called "Round Earth."

EDITED: P.S. Maybe you consider the speed of light and radio waves is instantaneous ? That was thought until someone - another one of those mad scientists - determined the speed by experimentation at first and later proven by more scientific means since then.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for those poor Radarmen (RD ratings) on those ships that I was on in the Navy. They were truly fooled into believing the speed of radio waves was constant. I hate to think that they would have been on Captain's Mast or even Court Marshalled  for lieing about the distances they measured on the radar.

Another question for sceptimatic on another "constant."
What's your theory about "Pi" being equal to 3.14159....... ?

As to the sound of light, don't you hear that "click" when you turn the switch to turn on a light ?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 11:00:12 AM 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 !

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #264 on: August 22, 2013, 10:48:08 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.
How do you know light is a particle?
The earth is made up of particles , all in various stages of density. We can call it matter or anything. How do I actually know they are there,  do you mean? If so, I see the effects of those particles and also feel them.
Can I physically describe them? Nope.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #265 on: August 22, 2013, 10:53:28 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.
How do you know light is a particle?
The earth is made up of particles , all in various stages of density. We can call it matter or anything. How do I actually know they are there,  do you mean? If so, I see the effects of those particles and also feel them.
Can I physically describe them? Nope.
How much does light weigh?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #266 on: August 22, 2013, 10:56:07 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.
How do you know light is a particle?
The earth is made up of particles , all in various stages of density. We can call it matter or anything. How do I actually know they are there,  do you mean? If so, I see the effects of those particles and also feel them.
Can I physically describe them? Nope.
How much does light weigh?
How am I supposed to know that?

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #267 on: August 22, 2013, 11:01:58 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.
How do you know light is a particle?
The earth is made up of particles , all in various stages of density. We can call it matter or anything. How do I actually know they are there,  do you mean? If so, I see the effects of those particles and also feel them.
Can I physically describe them? Nope.
How much does light weigh?
How am I supposed to know that?

I should think that would be part of your theory ?
I know the speed of light and the value of PI.
 Surely you should have some referenced as to the weight of light ?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 11:05:21 AM 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 !

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #268 on: August 22, 2013, 11:07:51 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.
How do you know light is a particle?
The earth is made up of particles , all in various stages of density. We can call it matter or anything. How do I actually know they are there,  do you mean? If so, I see the effects of those particles and also feel them.
Can I physically describe them? Nope.
How much does light weigh?
How am I supposed to know that?

I should think that would be part of your theory ?
I know the speed of light and the value of PI.
 Surely you should have some referenced as to the weight of light ?
I don't know what the speed of light is. Can you bring up a quote on me saying that?
I said it's not 186,000 mps.
I also said it's not a constant.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #269 on: August 22, 2013, 11:17:02 AM »
Light makes a sound?
Do you know that light is simply agitated particles. You may not hear the sound but it all marries into one.
How do you know light is a particle?
The earth is made up of particles , all in various stages of density. We can call it matter or anything. How do I actually know they are there,  do you mean? If so, I see the effects of those particles and also feel them.
Can I physically describe them? Nope.
How much does light weigh?
How am I supposed to know that?
If light is a particle, it should have mass right? If it has mass it should have a weight.  Weigh an object with the lights on and then with them of.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.