Sceptimatics theory

Earthisaspaceship-You are being provided direct evidence of light propagating through a (near) vacuum in the feather video. In order for the feather to be visible, photons must reflect, or be generated from its surface, propagate through the (near) vacuum, through the glass, through the air, to your eye. I am not sure how good a vacuum that is, but it is likely good enough that the vast majority of photons would not be deflected by anything. Where is your problem with this exactly?

The speed of light can be measured in a vacuum chamber via non-visible radio waves as well.

Do you know the definition of "light"?  It means,  "electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight.

Now, I figured that "the speed of light" meant precisely that, LIGHT. Not radio waves or ANY OTHER electromagnetic radiation that is not visible to the human eye.

Earthisaspaceship-You are being provided direct evidence of light propagating through a (near) vacuum in the feather video. In order for the feather to be visible, photons must reflect, or be generated from its surface, propagate through the (near) vacuum, through the glass, through the air, to your eye. I am not sure how good a vacuum that is, but it is likely good enough that the vast majority of photons would not be deflected by anything. Where is your problem with this exactly?

I thought it was clear what I've been asking for.  The light is coming from outside the vacuum.  How hard would it be to turn on a flashlight and drop it into a vacuum?  This is what I figured was necessary in order to correctly measure the speed of light.  I need proof of the accepted figure.

I also want proof that the sun itself is visible in space....OUTSIDE of our atmosphere.  We already know objects reflect light as a result of the sun's radiation, not necessarily light.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 26, 2013, 03:39:09 PM

The speed of light can be measured in a vacuum chamber via non-visible radio waves as well.

Do you know the definition of "light"?  It means,  "electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight.

Now, I figured that "the speed of light" meant precisely that, LIGHT. Not radio waves or ANY OTHER electromagnetic radiation that is not visible to the human eye.

"The Speed of Light" has become shorthand for "The Speed of Electromagnetic Waves". When you really get down to it, it is "The Speed of any particle with no mass".

Quote from: Rama Set on August 26, 2013, 05:20:50 PM

Earthisaspaceship-You are being provided direct evidence of light propagating through a (near) vacuum in the feather video. In order for the feather to be visible, photons must reflect, or be generated from its surface, propagate through the (near) vacuum, through the glass, through the air, to your eye. I am not sure how good a vacuum that is, but it is likely good enough that the vast majority of photons would not be deflected by anything. Where is your problem with this exactly?

I thought it was clear what I've been asking for.  The light is coming from outside the vacuum.  How hard would it be to turn on a flashlight and drop it into a vacuum?  I want proof that the sun itself is visible in space....OUTSIDE of our atmosphere.  We already know objects reflect the sun's light.

Excuse me then. I hope you find an amateur experiment measuring the speed of light in the vacuum of space.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 26, 2013, 05:20:50 PM

Earthisaspaceship-You are being provided direct evidence of light propagating through a (near) vacuum in the feather video. In order for the feather to be visible, photons must reflect, or be generated from its surface, propagate through the (near) vacuum, through the glass, through the air, to your eye. I am not sure how good a vacuum that is, but it is likely good enough that the vast majority of photons would not be deflected by anything. Where is your problem with this exactly?

I thought it was clear what I've been asking for.  The light is coming from outside the vacuum.  How hard would it be to turn on a flashlight and drop it into a vacuum?  This is what I figured was necessary in order to correctly measure the speed of light.  I need proof of the accepted figure.

I also want proof that the sun itself is visible in space....OUTSIDE of our atmosphere.  We already know objects reflect light as a result of the sun's radiation, not necessarily light.

Firstly, for the record, light is radiation. The only difference between visible light and radio waves is that of frequency, and while different frequencies have slightly different refraction and reflection properties, they all move the same speed.

Secondly, when next I go to OMSI I'll bring a flashlight and a camera so I can show you a flashlight in a vacuum chamber.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 26, 2013, 05:40:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 26, 2013, 05:20:50 PM

Earthisaspaceship-You are being provided direct evidence of light propagating through a (near) vacuum in the feather video. In order for the feather to be visible, photons must reflect, or be generated from its surface, propagate through the (near) vacuum, through the glass, through the air, to your eye. I am not sure how good a vacuum that is, but it is likely good enough that the vast majority of photons would not be deflected by anything. Where is your problem with this exactly?

I thought it was clear what I've been asking for.  The light is coming from outside the vacuum.  How hard would it be to turn on a flashlight and drop it into a vacuum?  This is what I figured was necessary in order to correctly measure the speed of light.  I need proof of the accepted figure.

I also want proof that the sun itself is visible in space....OUTSIDE of our atmosphere.  We already know objects reflect light as a result of the sun's radiation, not necessarily light.

Firstly, for the record, light is radiation. The only difference between visible light and radio waves is that of frequency, and while different frequencies have slightly different refraction and reflection properties, they all move the same speed.

Secondly, when next I go to OMSI I'll bring a flashlight and a camera so I can show you a flashlight in a vacuum chamber.

Earthisaspaceship wants evidence from outside our atmosphere.

Evidence of light inside a vacuum chamber or a camera attached to a helium balloon above our atmosphere would be excellent.

Evidence of light inside a vacuum chamber or a camera attached to a helium balloon above our atmosphere would be excellent.

How's this?  http://www.abbess.com/vacuum/vacuum-features-lights

Also, incandescent light bulbs often have the air evacuated in order to keep the filament from oxidizing.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on August 26, 2013, 07:53:01 AM

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 25, 2013, 01:42:52 PM

Light is a particle cast off by a chemical reaction or by reradiation of absorbed photons and energy. It is not an 'energy'

It carries energy though.  So essentially it transforms into an energy.
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/f/photon.htm

Wood also carries energy. All matter can transform into energy. But light is not a sound-wave.

As for light propagating through a vacuum, I can think of several videos which show vacuums both natural and artificial that light propagates through.

There's the moon landing videos, the ISS external videos, any video showing the effects of vacuum pressure inside a glass dome, etc. I think a few have been linked in this very thread.

What natural vacuum is this then?

1. I could go to an observatory and ask them if they would show me the shifting galaxies. Simple. Can you see your magical crystal that spews light?

I can't see crystals spewing light no more than you can see all the stuff you are claiming. I've already explained that I cannot directly prove by physical evidence of my claims. The fact is. Neither can you of your claims, except with the back up of mainstream so called scientific observations and calculations that mean squat.
Your telescope, no matter whether it's a cheap one or an expensive one, does one thing. It magnifies what you are focused on. That's all it does. It doesn't allow you to magnify millions of mile objects like you believe it does. It magnifies objects that are fairly close as in hundreds of miles, or at best, larger objects like reflected light (sun/moon,etc) that are a little further from your eye.

2. Show me where my logic fails:
*The vacuum has nothing in it.Correct.
*The earth is in this vacuum. Correct.
*The earth is something.correct.
*Something is in the vacuum.correct.
*Point 4 contradicts point 1.incorrect but nice twist.

Quote from: REphoenix

It doesn't matter if it is separated by the ice dome. On a plane I am separated from the air but the plane is in the air. Plane=earth. Air=vacuum. Earth is in the vacuum.
*This is apparently impossible.Incorrect.
*your theory destroys itself.incorrect.

In a plane you are separated from the outside air but you are breathing the very same air inside that plane.
You need to stop getting mixed up with the vacuum you think exists inside earth, as in evacuated air and thinking of this sucking motion kind of thing, because it will just twist your senses.

I'll try and make this simple.
Hypothetical:
You have 10 blocks. Each block is a variation of the elements of the other block.
For instance: Your foundation block has all the elements and your second block has one less and your third has two less and so on, until you get to your very last block which compromises just "one" element.
This block is the last block in your perceived universe or your sky. Above that sky, there is "nothing" but darkness. You cannot see through it, because it contains no matter that your eyes can absorb and reflect. Basically, it becomes literally non existent.
Your last block is the last element that becomes zero pressure, meaning the very top skin of that block simply sits all relaxed, asleep/dormant next to this nothingness.
All the other blocks are under pressure, starting from the under skin of the top block which is super light pressure to the under skin of the first block which carries the weight and all the matter of all the others in its compressed state that we know as "atmospheric pressure."

The same sandwich starts from under that into the solid earth crust to the bottom in the opposite way.
I don't expect you to understand it or accept any of it. You carry on with what you believe. I will do the same with what I believe.

1. I wasn't talking about using a telescope for it. They see this all the time. I would just ask them to show me their evidence. Mine is easily provable.
2. Point 1: nothing is in the vacuum.
    Point 2: something is in the vacuum.
They say the complete opposite thing and yet they don't contradict each other? Basically what you are doing is saying you have a bag with a rock in it but claiming that there is nothing in the bag.

The only reason you don't believe in RE is because you don't understand how it is possible. Your entire thought process is "I don't understand it so it isn't true."

1. I wasn't talking about using a telescope for it. They see this all the time. I would just ask them to show me their evidence. Mine is easily provable.

In simple terms, just explain how you can prove a galaxy is moving away.

2. Point 1: nothing is in the vacuum.
    Point 2: something is in the vacuum.
They say the complete opposite thing and yet they don't contradict each other? Basically what you are doing is saying you have a bag with a rock in it but claiming that there is nothing in the bag.

That's because you are twisting it to suit your own thinking.
Space does not exist, so in reality there is nothing "in" a vacuum, it's the earth as a cell in suspended animation, kind of thing.

The only reason you don't believe in RE is because you don't understand how it is possible. Your entire thought process is "I don't understand it so it isn't true."

Of course I don't understand it. I don't understand it, because it's been concocted for that very reason, so it cannot be understood, in terms of actually verifiable proof.
The equations are all fabricated and the scientific names are all fabricated.
Take your pick of a few.
Dark matter.
Black holes.
Warped space time.
general relativity.
Special Relativity.
Big bang.
Gravity.
Rotating earth in a  vacuum.
The list is endless of the garbage created to account for all of this stuff and I've only hit on a tiny percentage of the rubbish that's spewed out that cannot be verified,"ever"...because it's rigged that way.

There are many complicated things that earth does that we cannot fully understand. Yet logically, using basic thought and pushing the indoctrinated stuff aside, things can become a little bit clearer if people are prepared to put the pieces together.
It's hard for many, because their heads have been battered into submission with mainstream education of stuff like this.

1. Doppler effect. Look it up.
2. The vacuum is nothing. But the earth is something. So you have something in your nothing. So it is not nothing. But whatever, let's drop this point since it is going nowhere.
3. Scepti, the problem is that you don't understand it. If you can do math or actually take the time to look at the explanations and evidence for those things it would make sense. The information is not specifically made to confuse you. It is just complicated.

1. Doppler effect. Look it up.

The Doppler effect is fine for earthly things. It cannot prove anything other than what's on earth.

2. The vacuum is nothing. But the earth is something. So you have something in your nothing. So it is not nothing. But whatever, let's drop this point since it is going nowhere.

Of course you have something in your nothing. It's a cell,(earth) suspended in that darkness, if you like. To our perception, we see stuff in space. It appears like they are in space, because we think we can see into the blackness of space and see illuminated things within it, when it's simply reflected light coming from earth itself.
Picture it like laying on a bed with a mirrored ceiling, (not that I have one mind lol) and imagine the lights all turned off, except your floor has very dimly lit Christmas tree lights all dotted around the floor. What does your eyes see?

3. Scepti, the problem is that you don't understand it. If you can do math or actually take the time to look at the explanations and evidence for those things it would make sense. The information is not specifically made to confuse you. It is just complicated.

I cannot do the maths on something that cannot be calculated, pertaining to what you call space or what you believe is in this space, which doesn't actually exist to calculate anything.

1. Why not?
3. So you don't think it is possible so you don't even try to understand it. Good to know.

1. Why not?

Well, you have to use a bit of common sense and ask yourself how anything can move through something that contains no matter. You won't, obviously but you really should think about it.

3. So you don't think it is possible so you don't even try to understand it. Good to know.

I tried to understand it all years ago and it made no sense then but it actually made me look at the geocentric model, then I saw this society which made me evaluate it all and this is where I'm at.
It's a case of trying to push aside other theories whilst also taking small snippets from them to start piecing the jigsaw together.

Why would something need matter to move?

Why would something need matter to move?

I think that should be obvious.

Quote from: REphoenix on August 27, 2013, 06:46:39 AM

Why would something need matter to move?

I think that should be obvious.

It's not.

scepti, it isn't very zetetic of you to think you know how things behave through matter or without it.

"To our perception, we see stuff in space."

It's also not very zetetic of you to say that it looks like there is stuff in space but to make a claim that it's not stuff in space. Why is it okay to take a zetetic approach about the shape of the Earth (which I zetetically find to be a sphere) but not with anything else?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2013, 06:58:28 AM

Quote from: REphoenix on August 27, 2013, 06:46:39 AM

Why would something need matter to move?

I think that should be obvious.

It's not.

Ok then, I'll make it obvious to you.
I am going to take all your matter from your body, what are you?

scepti, it isn't very zetetic of you to think you know how things behave through matter or without it.

Quote from: sceptimatic

"To our perception, we see stuff in space."

It's also not very zetetic of you to say that it looks like there is stuff in space but to make a claim that it's not stuff in space. Why is it okay to take a zetetic approach about the shape of the Earth (which I zetetically find to be a sphere) but not with anything else?

What's this zetetic?

I simply do not accept the earth as we are told for the reasons I have stated. Therefore, I have to figure out what it is, if it isn't what we are told and I'm figuring it out in my own way by piecing together stuff that I believe fits much better than what I have been told to accept.

Do I believe I am correct about it all? No, I don't and I have a lot to fine tune but I believe I'm on the right track.

Why do things need matter to move?

Quote from: rottingroom on August 27, 2013, 07:17:10 AM

scepti, it isn't very zetetic of you to think you know how things behave through matter or without it.

Quote from: sceptimatic

"To our perception, we see stuff in space."

It's also not very zetetic of you to say that it looks like there is stuff in space but to make a claim that it's not stuff in space. Why is it okay to take a zetetic approach about the shape of the Earth (which I zetetically find to be a sphere) but not with anything else?

What's this zetetic?

I simply do not accept the earth as we are told for the reasons I have stated. Therefore, I have to figure out what it is, if it isn't what we are told and I'm figuring it out in my own way by piecing together stuff that I believe fits much better than what I have been told to accept.

Do I believe I am correct about it all? No, I don't and I have a lot to fine tune but I believe I'm on the right track.

It's a bit fuzzy to me [your reasons], so what were they again?

Why do things need matter to move?

I think it should be obvious. You're a smart person.

Quote from: REphoenix on August 27, 2013, 07:43:56 AM

Why do things need matter to move?

I think it should be obvious. You're a smart person.

I get the feeling you are dodging my question because you have no answer.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2013, 07:52:32 AM

Quote from: REphoenix on August 27, 2013, 07:43:56 AM

Why do things need matter to move?

I think it should be obvious. You're a smart person.

I get the feeling you are dodging my question because you have no answer.

I can't answer because it should be blatantly obvious that nothing can move if there is no matter.

Explain to me why this is. Don't tell me it is obvious, just explain it.

"The Speed of Light" has become shorthand for "The Speed of Electromagnetic Waves". When you really get down to it, it is "The Speed of any particle with no mass".

Ok, so why don't they call it that then? Stop calling it light if it cannot be seen as light!