Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 383845 Views
*

Alchemist21

  • 610
  • +0/-0
  • tfes.org
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #690 on: September 02, 2013, 09:19:42 AM »
Why don't you just google how a lightbulb works?
tfes.org

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #691 on: September 02, 2013, 09:25:14 AM »
Tell me what happens for that light to shine. How and why does it end up shining. Just a simple answer will suffice.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/light.htm
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #692 on: September 02, 2013, 09:43:50 AM »
Why don't you just google how a lightbulb works?
It appear no one wants to answer the question. I know why, obviously. Because you all know what makes light and you all know that light is the end product of friction. And what is friction?

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #693 on: September 02, 2013, 09:48:01 AM »
I just gave you a link scepti.
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #694 on: September 02, 2013, 09:50:24 AM »
I just gave you a link scepti.
Why are you scared to answer?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #695 on: September 02, 2013, 09:53:24 AM »
Why don't you just google how a lightbulb works?
It appear no one wants to answer the question. I know why, obviously. Because you all know what makes light and you all know that light is the end product of friction. And what is friction?

If you would read the article you will see there are many ways to produce light that have nothing to do with friction. It' just a method. It doesn't mean light production is dependent on it. Which means there is no connection.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #696 on: September 02, 2013, 09:55:10 AM »
Why don't you just google how a lightbulb works?
It appear no one wants to answer the question. I know why, obviously. Because you all know what makes light and you all know that light is the end product of friction. And what is friction?

If you would read the article you will see there are many ways to produce light that have nothing to do with friction. It' just a method. It doesn't mean light production is dependent on it. Which means there is no connection.
It's 100% dependent on it. I don't expect you lot to admit that, but you do not get light without friction, no matter how it's dressed up.

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #697 on: September 02, 2013, 09:57:16 AM »
I just gave you a link scepti.
Why are you scared to answer?

Scared of what? That link explains how light works as we know it perfectly.
I think, therefore I am

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #698 on: September 02, 2013, 09:59:11 AM »
Why don't you just google how a lightbulb works?
It appear no one wants to answer the question. I know why, obviously. Because you all know what makes light and you all know that light is the end product of friction. And what is friction?

If you would read the article you will see there are many ways to produce light that have nothing to do with friction. It' just a method. It doesn't mean light production is dependent on it. Which means there is no connection.
It's 100% dependent on it. I don't expect you lot to admit that, but you do not get light without friction, no matter how it's dressed up.

Read page 8 of the link I sent you. And there is no friction involved there.
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #699 on: September 02, 2013, 10:01:32 AM »
I just gave you a link scepti.
Why are you scared to answer?

Scared of what? That link explains how light works as we know it perfectly.
No, it doesn't explain how it really works.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #700 on: September 02, 2013, 10:05:15 AM »
I just gave you a link scepti.
Why are you scared to answer?

Scared of what? That link explains how light works as we know it perfectly.
No, it doesn't explain how it really works.

You obviously didn't read it. At least not yet. I just finished skimming it. To actually read it and digest it will take more than 5 minutes... There is 12 pages. Plus the explanations provided contradict what you are saying. We know the explanations are correct because the same methods are used to create all the different things man has made to produce light. How do you suppose your monitor can display all the colors it does? Your monitor was created by man. This was made possible by understanding how it works.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 10:07:10 AM by rottingroom »

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #701 on: September 02, 2013, 10:05:50 AM »
I just gave you a link scepti.
Why are you scared to answer?

Scared of what? That link explains how light works as we know it perfectly.
No, it doesn't explain how it really works.

You understand now why I didn't bother to explain myself
I think, therefore I am

*

Alchemist21

  • 610
  • +0/-0
  • tfes.org
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #702 on: September 02, 2013, 10:08:45 AM »
Here's an example and a question.

Example: Ever seen mythbusters?  One time they tested ways to avoid being detected by a sonic device.  The device would emit sound and measure the time it took to return.  If the time was different than the time before, it set off the alarm.  Know what one of the methods used to trick it was?  A white sheet over the person.  Now, if something is white, it reflects all wavelengths of light (what you are claiming to be sound).  So something that reflects light should also reflect sound, but that doesn't happen in this case.

Question: If light is sound, why are being blind and being deaf independent of each other?  A deaf person should be blind as a bat if light is sound.
tfes.org

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #703 on: September 02, 2013, 10:11:11 AM »
Ok. I'll put you all in a situation, let's see your answers.

I put you in a dark room. No light at all. I tell you all before you go in that you can take 2 items into the dark room.

1. An item that uses friction to light up that room.
2. An item that uses no friction at all, to light up that room.

Question: What items could you possibly take in that can light the room and explain why your both answers work in simple easy to understand(for kids) terms.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #704 on: September 02, 2013, 10:22:16 AM »
Here's an example and a question.

Example: Ever seen mythbusters?  One time they tested ways to avoid being detected by a sonic device.  The device would emit sound and measure the time it took to return.  If the time was different than the time before, it set off the alarm.  Know what one of the methods used to trick it was?  A white sheet over the person.  Now, if something is white, it reflects all wavelengths of light (what you are claiming to be sound).  So something that reflects light should also reflect sound, but that doesn't happen in this case.

Question: If light is sound, why are being blind and being deaf independent of each other?  A deaf person should be blind as a bat if light is sound.
First of all, the myth busters experiment was heat detecting, which is what a living body gives off as vibration or friction/sound. Just because you cannot hear it, doesn't mean it's not giving it out. A dog whistle should give you a clue as to our hearing against just that of a dog..
Also, being blind and deaf are only independent because our senses are primitive and we can only see and hear the frequencies of what the body is primed for.
A blind person has much better sense for sound than a person of perfect hearing, because the concentration is geared to one less sense in use.
Bats are blind but manage easily by using frequencies of sound.
Light is just the result of super agitation of matter.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #705 on: September 02, 2013, 10:30:30 AM »
It's very simple to understand your flawed thinking. You insist that light itself produces sound. Although friction is a way to produce light it is not the light itself producing sound. The friction is creating two different products, light and sound.

 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #706 on: September 02, 2013, 10:49:15 AM »
It's very simple to understand your flawed thinking. You insist that light itself produces sound. Although friction is a way to produce light it is not the light itself producing sound. The friction is creating two different products, light and sound.
You clearly know I didn't say that light produces sound.
I said that light is the result of sound/vibration and frequency.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #707 on: September 02, 2013, 10:55:10 AM »
It's very simple to understand your flawed thinking. You insist that light itself produces sound. Although friction is a way to produce light it is not the light itself producing sound. The friction is creating two different products, light and sound.
You clearly know I didn't say that light produces sound.
I said that light is the result of sound/vibration and frequency.

Okay and you were proposing that light is sound. If it is sound then we would hear light. Not the reaction that caused light.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #708 on: September 02, 2013, 11:01:49 AM »
It's very simple to understand your flawed thinking. You insist that light itself produces sound. Although friction is a way to produce light it is not the light itself producing sound. The friction is creating two different products, light and sound.
You clearly know I didn't say that light produces sound.
I said that light is the result of sound/vibration and frequency.

Okay and you were proposing that light is sound. If it is sound then we would hear light. Not the reaction that caused light.
We are not astute enough to hear light as we see it. We see the reflection of the light from that sound, wherever it comes from.
We hear sound and see the light from that sound.
Lightning is a classic example of that.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #709 on: September 02, 2013, 11:06:58 AM »
It's very simple to understand your flawed thinking. You insist that light itself produces sound. Although friction is a way to produce light it is not the light itself producing sound. The friction is creating two different products, light and sound.
You clearly know I didn't say that light produces sound.
I said that light is the result of sound/vibration and frequency.


Okay and you were proposing that light is sound. If it is sound then we would hear light. Not the reaction that caused light.
We are not astute enough to hear light as we see it. We see the reflection of the light from that sound, wherever it comes from.
We hear sound and see the light from that sound.
Lightning is a classic example of that.
Just stopping by to let you know you still have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you just delete your posts again.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Alchemist21

  • 610
  • +0/-0
  • tfes.org
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #710 on: September 02, 2013, 11:24:56 AM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
tfes.org

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #711 on: September 02, 2013, 11:44:03 AM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
So in simple terms, tell me how light happens without the need for friction.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #712 on: September 02, 2013, 11:51:38 AM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
So in simple terms, tell me how light happens without the need for friction.
Chemical reaction, A glow stick.

Delete your posts.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #713 on: September 02, 2013, 11:53:20 AM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
So in simple terms, tell me how light happens without the need for friction.
Chemical reaction, A glow stick.

Delete your posts.
And what do you think a chemical reaction is?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #714 on: September 02, 2013, 11:57:47 AM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
So in simple terms, tell me how light happens without the need for friction.
Chemical reaction, A glow stick.

Delete your posts.
And what do you think a chemical reaction is?
Change of energy and bonds.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #715 on: September 02, 2013, 11:58:41 AM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
So in simple terms, tell me how light happens without the need for friction.
Chemical reaction, A glow stick.

Delete your posts.
And what do you think a chemical reaction is?
Change of energy and bonds.
And what is energy?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #716 on: September 02, 2013, 12:00:14 PM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
So in simple terms, tell me how light happens without the need for friction.
Chemical reaction, A glow stick.

Delete your posts.
And what do you think a chemical reaction is?
Change of energy and bonds.
And what is energy?
Umm, something like the ability to do work.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #717 on: September 02, 2013, 12:02:06 PM »
Obviously he doesn't know which episode of MB I was referring too either.  It's the same one where they tried to beat a fingerprint ID machine with ink prints.
So in simple terms, tell me how light happens without the need for friction.
Chemical reaction, A glow stick.

Delete your posts.
And what do you think a chemical reaction is?
Change of energy and bonds.
And what is energy?
Umm, something like the ability to do work.
Now what kind of work could that glow stick be under to achieve it's glow?

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #718 on: September 02, 2013, 12:03:08 PM »
scepti, how do you define friction?
I think, therefore I am

*

g el

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #719 on: September 02, 2013, 12:05:33 PM »
If light is behaving as sound, and is really just vibrations, at what frequency do you suggest it's vibrating? Are you familiar with the physics concept called Resonance? Also what do you suggest as a device that can show these vibrations? I was going to suggest to point a laser pointer to a microphone and see what wavelength it gives out but it will have a low cutoff frequency..