Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 383818 Views
*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #750 on: September 05, 2013, 01:39:51 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #751 on: September 05, 2013, 01:59:39 AM »
Whether the light is produced by friction doesn't make the light responsible for the sound. The friction is but not the light.
The sound is responsible for the light.
Sound is pressure waves. Light is electromagnetic waves. Two different things.
What do you think electro magnetic is and what it does.
Electromagnetic radiation is energy. It propagates.

Friction transfers energy. Your car's brakes take the kinetic energy of motion and turn it into heat energy to slow you down through friction. The rotors can then dispel this heat through one of three types of heat transfer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer. One of which is light.
Friction is not light and not necessary for light.

You are confused, again.
Friction does transfer energy. And if that friction is at speed, it will cause heat that will glow. Your light does not just appear, it's the end product of the reflection from Vibration, sound and frequency.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #752 on: September 05, 2013, 02:01:10 AM »
Whether the light is produced by friction doesn't make the light responsible for the sound. The friction is but not the light.
The sound is responsible for the light.

the friction is responsible for the light and also the sound. The sound doesn't make the light.

For example your parents (friction) created you (light) and your sibling (sound). Your sibling (sound) did not create you (light).
This is the problem with your science. You cannot contemplate the simplicity and have to make up something that makes no sense.

This is just an example I made to show you the problem with your logic. The friction can produce light and sound but that light and sound are independent of each other.
They are only independent to each other because that's how we perceive it. Basically they are the same start to end product.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #753 on: September 05, 2013, 02:08:43 AM »
Where do meteors come from in this theory?

Edit: Fixed question mark. It was bothering me.
What you see in the sky (for simple explanation) is dropped icicles of helium/Hydrogen type mixture. It breaks off due to the earth sun reflecting it's light onto the dome and causes the gases to bubble or melt if you like...and over time as the sun moves away from that point, it leaves a heavier icicle, just like on a house roof, only much lighter frozen gases, obviously.
Once these fall, they drop through the gases below, slowly and start to evaporate back into the gas it was, which is why you see a tail.
Some larger pieces will stay in the sky for much longer before they evaporate.
Also we have the big glowing sun in the centre of earth which causes eruptions of rock over time. Luckily though it's too far away from us to actually cause harm to us. That's not to say it's not capable of it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #754 on: September 05, 2013, 02:09:43 AM »
Where do meteors come from in this theoryÉ

I don't want to give scepti any ideas so please note that this is pure fiction / sarcasm :

Maybe volcanic eruptions on middle earth shoots projectiles into the dome, these projectiles even fall to our observable earth or back in middle earth. The ones that appear to be coming from the sides and not middle earth has hit the dome and changed direction, without breaking the ice..
Nothing shoots projectiles into the dome.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #755 on: September 05, 2013, 02:11:18 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

?

Rabhimself

  • 188
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #756 on: September 05, 2013, 02:54:16 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

All hail Professor Sceptimatic.

Give him the Nobel Prize for he is right and the entirety of our understanding of light as we know it, including all observed findings from experiment (many of which I have personally done) and equations involving our understanding of light being composed of quantized photons (which I have also put to the test many, many times) , basically everything we understand about light - is wrong.

Lead us into a new 'scientific' era.

Best troll ever.
Most stupid, while simultaneously the most arrogant individual I've ever come across (and I truly mean that in particular with regards to the arrogance).

Which is he?

Can we abandon this thread now before we all develop tumors trying to have any rational debate with him?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #757 on: September 05, 2013, 03:00:16 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

All hail Professor Sceptimatic.

Give him the Nobel Prize for he is right and the entirety of our understanding of light as we know it, including all observed findings from experiment (many of which I have personally done) and equations involving our understanding of light being composed of quantized photons (which I have also put to the test many, many times) , basically everything we understand about light - is wrong.

Lead us into a new 'scientific' era.

Best troll ever.
Most stupid, while simultaneously the most arrogant individual I've ever come across (and I truly mean that in particular with regards to the arrogance).

Which is he?

Can we abandon this thread now before we all develop tumors trying to have any rational debate with him?

I'm trying my best.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #758 on: September 05, 2013, 03:07:42 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

All hail Professor Sceptimatic.

Give him the Nobel Prize for he is right and the entirety of our understanding of light as we know it, including all observed findings from experiment (many of which I have personally done) and equations involving our understanding of light being composed of quantized photons (which I have also put to the test many, many times) , basically everything we understand about light - is wrong.

Lead us into a new 'scientific' era.

Best troll ever.
Most stupid, while simultaneously the most arrogant individual I've ever come across (and I truly mean that in particular with regards to the arrogance).

Which is he?

Can we abandon this thread now before we all develop tumors trying to have any rational debate with him?
Basically I'm trying to educate people into the art of realising that earth is a living thing and everything that happens, happens for a reason and is all part of reaction and action with everything the earth has, which starts from the very bottom and finishes at the very top. This includes the vibration of friction of matter that causes sound and frequency that causes heat, which causes light that is reflected through the atmosphere to our primitive eyes and ears.
The frequencies are dependent on what our primitive eyes or ears perceive.
If you want to abandon the topic, you are free to do so, as is every other person. I didn't make the topic by the way, but that's irrelevant.
If I'm arrogant, what does that make you. You get frustrated because you cannot prove me wrong and you round earthers come here with a full on arrogant mode to ridicule the flat earth society, mostly.
I may not agree with a lot of it, but I don't ridicule it, as it was this site that made me get to the stage I'm at now, whether you think it's beyond crazy or not.
My stance is what I'm saying. If you can't directly prove me wrong, then don't beat yourself up over it. Just concentrate on a topic that is easier for you to saunter through. ;)

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #759 on: September 05, 2013, 03:09:19 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

All hail Professor Sceptimatic.

Give him the Nobel Prize for he is right and the entirety of our understanding of light as we know it, including all observed findings from experiment (many of which I have personally done) and equations involving our understanding of light being composed of quantized photons (which I have also put to the test many, many times) , basically everything we understand about light - is wrong.

Lead us into a new 'scientific' era.

Best troll ever.
Most stupid, while simultaneously the most arrogant individual I've ever come across (and I truly mean that in particular with regards to the arrogance).

Which is he?

Can we abandon this thread now before we all develop tumors trying to have any rational debate with him?
Basically I'm trying to educate people into the art of realising that earth is a living thing and everything that happens, happens for a reason and is all part of reaction and action with everything the earth has, which starts from the very bottom and finishes at the very top. This includes the vibration of friction of matter that causes sound and frequency that causes heat, which causes light that is reflected through the atmosphere to our primitive eyes and ears.
The frequencies are dependent on what our primitive eyes or ears perceive.
If you want to abandon the topic, you are free to do so, as is every other person. I didn't make the topic by the way, but that's irrelevant.
If I'm arrogant, what does that make you. You get frustrated because you cannot prove me wrong and you round earthers come here with a full on arrogant mode to ridicule the flat earth society, mostly.
I may not agree with a lot of it, but I don't ridicule it, as it was this site that made me get to the stage I'm at now, whether you think it's beyond crazy or not.
My stance is what I'm saying. If you can't directly prove me wrong, then don't beat yourself up over it. Just concentrate on a topic that is easier for you to saunter through. ;)

You have been proven wrong bucko. You just won't listen to reason.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #760 on: September 05, 2013, 03:10:57 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

All hail Professor Sceptimatic.

Give him the Nobel Prize for he is right and the entirety of our understanding of light as we know it, including all observed findings from experiment (many of which I have personally done) and equations involving our understanding of light being composed of quantized photons (which I have also put to the test many, many times) , basically everything we understand about light - is wrong.

Lead us into a new 'scientific' era.

Best troll ever.
Most stupid, while simultaneously the most arrogant individual I've ever come across (and I truly mean that in particular with regards to the arrogance).

Which is he?

Can we abandon this thread now before we all develop tumors trying to have any rational debate with him?
Basically I'm trying to educate people into the art of realising that earth is a living thing and everything that happens, happens for a reason and is all part of reaction and action with everything the earth has, which starts from the very bottom and finishes at the very top. This includes the vibration of friction of matter that causes sound and frequency that causes heat, which causes light that is reflected through the atmosphere to our primitive eyes and ears.
The frequencies are dependent on what our primitive eyes or ears perceive.
If you want to abandon the topic, you are free to do so, as is every other person. I didn't make the topic by the way, but that's irrelevant.
If I'm arrogant, what does that make you. You get frustrated because you cannot prove me wrong and you round earthers come here with a full on arrogant mode to ridicule the flat earth society, mostly.
I may not agree with a lot of it, but I don't ridicule it, as it was this site that made me get to the stage I'm at now, whether you think it's beyond crazy or not.
My stance is what I'm saying. If you can't directly prove me wrong, then don't beat yourself up over it. Just concentrate on a topic that is easier for you to saunter through. ;)

You have been proven wrong bucko. You just won't listen to reason.
I don't see anywhere where I've been proven wrong, at all, except in the minds of a few of you which to be fair are fighting a lost cause with your round earth nonsense.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #761 on: September 05, 2013, 03:11:49 AM »
Okay scepti. Enjoy never learning anything about anything.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #762 on: September 05, 2013, 03:15:00 AM »
Okay scepti. Enjoy never learning anything about anything.
The best thing I ever done was wipe the nonsense that is a spinning globe out of my mind. I can now focus on what is actually real in life and leave behind the brainwashing I had as a young man.
You enjoy your continued indoctrination.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #763 on: September 05, 2013, 05:14:49 AM »
Okay scepti. Enjoy never learning anything about anything.
The best thing I ever done was wipe the nonsense that is a spinning globe out of my mind. I can now focus on what is actually real in life and leave behind the brainwashing I had as a young man.
You enjoy your continued indoctrination.

Scepti,

Please observe this thread where I proposed a hypothesis. You might notice what I did there. I had an idea and presented it. I was unsure about if it was true and was in fact, expecting it to be a bunch of bologna. Now, when questions were asked by some who didn't quite understand what I meant I explained it to them to help them. Then, when Alchemist addressed a point that showed my hypothesis to be incorrect, I immediately took the time to understand how he arrived at that and then I conceded that my hypothesis was incorrect. This would mean that I would have to either; retool or throw it out all together. I chose the latter.

The scientific way to go about explaining the world requires falsifiability. If I were to present a hypothesis and intentionally cover what could be holes in it by making conditions that make it impossible to prove wrong then that hypothesis cannot be taken seriously.

For instance, a modern hypothesis about the world is this. In that link, it is suggested that the world is a computer simulation like in the Matrix. It is a "long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, pointing out that any civilization of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible and since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial."

While this may be statistically true it cannot be taken seriously until scientists (meaning anybody willing to experiment) have the means to detect something like this. Essentially they cannot provide any evidence of this, so this idea can therefore not gain any scientific traction. Science is honest in this way.

So, when you propose an idea such as yours and claim that we are indoctrinated there is something wrong with your line of logic. You propose a thoughtful idea about an ice dome on a flat earth and I applaud you but you must provide evidence if you expect anybody to take it seriously.

Like all flat earthers, you dismiss presented evidence. In the wiki, a short explanation about the burden of proof is provided as a reasonable explanation about why the FES does not accept the RE view. However, the RE evidence has been provided. Everything from models, testimonies, mathematical consistencies and photographic evidence are indeed available to the public and in functional use. Now, you and the FES cite these things as trivial because of an alleged conspiracy theory but I will have to point out that such an objection would now shift the burden of proof on to you. Admittedly, attempts by conspiracy theorists have been made to take on that burden with a small percentage of the evidence that scientists have provided but in response to that small percentage of objections, scientists then fulfill the shifted burden and send it right back without hearing much from them after that on those specific issues. Usually this is done by actually demonstrating why the conspiracy theorists objection is incorrect (if the accusation is falsifiable) but even then, there is a plethora of information supporting a round earth and for the FES society to be taken seriously they would have to either provide evidence that ALL the evidence supporting a round earth is incorrect or provide conclusive evidence of their alternate hypothesis. This has never been done. The only attempt at conclusive evidence supporting flatness that we have seen is the Bedford Level Experiment and in that case the objectors met the BOP and shifted it back by showing how that experiment produces inconclusive results due to refraction, a demonstrable phenomena.

In science the burden of proof is more appropriately called the burden of evidence. If you look up this term on Wikipedia you will be redirected to the entry about the Scientific Method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

This is because that scientific method is the burden of proof. It is clearly shown to you how this process works and as a zetetic you should agree that this method is fair and reasonable for we must have a set of rules to determine what is true. We can't just state things and insist they are true. We need a system where we can provide the evidence and also object to the evidence and this is what the scientific method allows. You can object to a RE all you want but your rebuttal has to be held to the same standard as the evidence proving it's "roundundity" as well.

This brings us to the "extra" hypotheses that you have been stacking in this thread. On top of the already unproven flat earth ideas, you've added several of your own. None with evidence and none with a single model to demonstrate how or why any of this could be true.

One, doesn't have to look far on either the internet or even the first page of a one of the sections of the upper fora to see many well presented proofs of a round earth or the RES demonstrating a fallacy in the FE models. It must be falsifiable, that is that it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. So, the models on the FES forum debate section have a few threads like these such as:

End of Monopole model
End of Bipolar model
Anelemma's

All of these threads show compelling evidence to you which are falsifiable. They all show how the results conclude spherocity and how you can experimentally confirm the findings. These are examples of level of scrutiny that is expected when you present something and you don't hold your own statements and ideas to that regard.


?

Rabhimself

  • 188
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #764 on: September 05, 2013, 05:37:23 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

All hail Professor Sceptimatic.

Give him the Nobel Prize for he is right and the entirety of our understanding of light as we know it, including all observed findings from experiment (many of which I have personally done) and equations involving our understanding of light being composed of quantized photons (which I have also put to the test many, many times) , basically everything we understand about light - is wrong.

Lead us into a new 'scientific' era.

Best troll ever.
Most stupid, while simultaneously the most arrogant individual I've ever come across (and I truly mean that in particular with regards to the arrogance).

Which is he?

Can we abandon this thread now before we all develop tumors trying to have any rational debate with him?
Basically I'm trying to educate people into the art of realising that earth is a living thing and everything that happens, happens for a reason and is all part of reaction and action with everything the earth has, which starts from the very bottom and finishes at the very top. This includes the vibration of friction of matter that causes sound and frequency that causes heat, which causes light that is reflected through the atmosphere to our primitive eyes and ears.
The frequencies are dependent on what our primitive eyes or ears perceive.
If you want to abandon the topic, you are free to do so, as is every other person. I didn't make the topic by the way, but that's irrelevant.
If I'm arrogant, what does that make you. You get frustrated because you cannot prove me wrong and you round earthers come here with a full on arrogant mode to ridicule the flat earth society, mostly.
I may not agree with a lot of it, but I don't ridicule it, as it was this site that made me get to the stage I'm at now, whether you think it's beyond crazy or not.
My stance is what I'm saying. If you can't directly prove me wrong, then don't beat yourself up over it. Just concentrate on a topic that is easier for you to saunter through. ;)

It's impossible to prove you wrong when absolutely nothing is good enough to qualify as proof.

Whatever my level of arrogance is, it's not even comparable to that of a person that without any evidence whatsoever, believes their outrageous, irrational theories are correct and that the established facts are all a hoax.  A person that disagrees with the greatest minds to ever enter humanity.  A person that disregards all hard evidence contrary to his theories as hoax or conspiracy.

I sincerely hope you don't have any influence over children.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #765 on: September 05, 2013, 06:18:02 AM »
Fair enough, Rottingroom, but I have no direct physical evidence to back up my Hypothesis, which I already stated in this topic.
I'm not "telling" anyone to believe I'm right and I'm not saying I am right. I am saying, that to "me" it makes more logical sense to channel my thoughts into the way they are going. Not by peer pressure and not by reading any books, but by sifting through the various hypotheses of every earth shape that has been proposed.
I decided to start at the very bottom and the very basics, which means I discount the equations and the hypotheses of mainstream science when it's equated to the earth and the supposed known part of the universe, which means, I discount relativity, light year stars and gravity, to name but a few of much of what we are told to embrace.
Starting from the bottom might appear pre-historic to many and it is, I suppose, but I wouldn't need to do that if those who pulled the rabbits out of the hat had been honest from the start and actually gave us the known facts about our lives and what our lives are on this earth.
Maybe they don't know it all, but I believe they know enough and buried it among a world of disinformation.
I'm still working on my thoughts and I'm still piecing it all together, with the help of a few other people and hopefully it will all come together that can explain most, if not all of what we are and what we are part of.
I work on very simple logical thought and that can be dressed up in any way a person wants to think it is. Whether they say it's crazy, retarded or any other set of words that they arrive at. It doesn't matter to me, because I follow my own thoughts and will only follow another persons, "if" I believe they are logical to me. So far, only a few people get the grasp and actually add to the probabilities of my thinking, because their thinking is on the same type of lines, so it's a case of bouncing off of each other.
You do the same and bounce off of a wider array of people of all descriptions in the main and you believe you have scientific fact to back up what you say, but the real truth is, you don't.
What you do have is a bigger field of people who nod their heads and say, "yep, that's correct, because we all agree."
You might believe that your equations match up with certain things, like a sun distance, but you only arrive a specific number, because you have been given the bullets to fire, in terms of theoretical sizes of this earth and moon and such like.
I know you will argue that you "know", I'm under no illusions about it, but all I'm saying is...you do not "know"...you merely accept the easier option, because it's easier and less problematic to go with well rehearsed scientific story of what earth is and what space is and all it contains, even right down to the big bang and black holes, etc, etc, etc.

I'm doing my thought experiments for myself, mainly, but also, it would be nice for people to see my thoughts in type, so the neutrals can say, "hmmm, maybe there's something in this, I'll try and add to it and see where this goes."
For me, gravity can be explained as merely atmospheric pressure and the earth must have a barrier to that, which it does, in an ice dome.
Outside this dome, space does not exist, but that doesn't mean that other earth type cells can't exist, except we will never know by sight, because we cannot see into space, we simply see what's reflected off of and inside of the dome as reflected light.
The very same species of us, could be doing similar things, like we are now, inside their own cell of their own earth and this could be infinite, as in the number of cells there are.
Do I know any of this for certain? No, I don't but it makes more logical sense to believe that this is closer to the truth than the nonsense we have been spun about the rotating globe and a vacuum filled with rotating planets spinning about at angles and a sun that sits there burning hydrogen and helium forever in a vacuum and stars that our primitive eyes can see as dots but we are seeing some of them as what they were like 1000 years ago, because that's how long it's took their light to reach out eyes, through a vacuum that contains "NOTHING."

Blinded by science is correct, because space scientists who make up this stuff, are merely fictional story tellers, who tell other wannabe space scientists the same story with all the made up pieces to fit that are accepted, because they cannot be directly tested or proven.
I never get daunted by the arrogance of mainstream scientists, because I simply brush aside their figures and ask them to explain in a child like manner.
They hate this, because their explanations show the space garbage up for what it is. Plus they don't like to talk in any other language than gibberish, whilst chalking up a set of equations that they think will impress and baffle the average person, yet not realising that it does not explain any direct physical proof.

When you watch how them clowns act who supposedly sent up the Mars rover, you will see what a sham all this stuff is, but that's another topic.
The sleight of hand of a magician, does not make that person magic.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #766 on: September 05, 2013, 06:21:48 AM »
He's still studying the nature of light
The nature of light is easy to understand if you stop filling your head full of mind numbing rubbish.

All hail Professor Sceptimatic.

Give him the Nobel Prize for he is right and the entirety of our understanding of light as we know it, including all observed findings from experiment (many of which I have personally done) and equations involving our understanding of light being composed of quantized photons (which I have also put to the test many, many times) , basically everything we understand about light - is wrong.

Lead us into a new 'scientific' era.

Best troll ever.
Most stupid, while simultaneously the most arrogant individual I've ever come across (and I truly mean that in particular with regards to the arrogance).

Which is he?

Can we abandon this thread now before we all develop tumors trying to have any rational debate with him?
Basically I'm trying to educate people into the art of realising that earth is a living thing and everything that happens, happens for a reason and is all part of reaction and action with everything the earth has, which starts from the very bottom and finishes at the very top. This includes the vibration of friction of matter that causes sound and frequency that causes heat, which causes light that is reflected through the atmosphere to our primitive eyes and ears.
The frequencies are dependent on what our primitive eyes or ears perceive.
If you want to abandon the topic, you are free to do so, as is every other person. I didn't make the topic by the way, but that's irrelevant.
If I'm arrogant, what does that make you. You get frustrated because you cannot prove me wrong and you round earthers come here with a full on arrogant mode to ridicule the flat earth society, mostly.
I may not agree with a lot of it, but I don't ridicule it, as it was this site that made me get to the stage I'm at now, whether you think it's beyond crazy or not.
My stance is what I'm saying. If you can't directly prove me wrong, then don't beat yourself up over it. Just concentrate on a topic that is easier for you to saunter through. ;)

It's impossible to prove you wrong when absolutely nothing is good enough to qualify as proof.

Whatever my level of arrogance is, it's not even comparable to that of a person that without any evidence whatsoever, believes their outrageous, irrational theories are correct and that the established facts are all a hoax.  A person that disagrees with the greatest minds to ever enter humanity.  A person that disregards all hard evidence contrary to his theories as hoax or conspiracy.

I sincerely hope you don't have any influence over children.
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.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #767 on: September 05, 2013, 06:47:52 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Fair enough, Rottingroom, but I have no direct physical evidence to back up my Hypothesis, which I already stated in this topic.
I'm not "telling" anyone to believe I'm right and I'm not saying I am right. I am saying, that to "me" it makes more logical sense to channel my thoughts into the way they are going. Not by peer pressure and not by reading any books, but by sifting through the various hypotheses of every earth shape that has been proposed.
I decided to start at the very bottom and the very basics, which means I discount the equations and the hypotheses of mainstream science when it's equated to the earth and the supposed known part of the universe, which means, I discount relativity, light year stars and gravity, to name but a few of much of what we are told to embrace.
Starting from the bottom might appear pre-historic to many and it is, I suppose, but I wouldn't need to do that if those who pulled the rabbits out of the hat had been honest from the start and actually gave us the known facts about our lives and what our lives are on this earth.
Maybe they don't know it all, but I believe they know enough and buried it among a world of disinformation.
I'm still working on my thoughts and I'm still piecing it all together, with the help of a few other people and hopefully it will all come together that can explain most, if not all of what we are and what we are part of.
I work on very simple logical thought and that can be dressed up in any way a person wants to think it is. Whether they say it's crazy, retarded or any other set of words that they arrive at. It doesn't matter to me, because I follow my own thoughts and will only follow another persons, "if" I believe they are logical to me. So far, only a few people get the grasp and actually add to the probabilities of my thinking, because their thinking is on the same type of lines, so it's a case of bouncing off of each other.
You do the same and bounce off of a wider array of people of all descriptions in the main and you believe you have scientific fact to back up what you say, but the real truth is, you don't.
What you do have is a bigger field of people who nod their heads and say, "yep, that's correct, because we all agree."
You might believe that your equations match up with certain things, like a sun distance, but you only arrive a specific number, because you have been given the bullets to fire, in terms of theoretical sizes of this earth and moon and such like.
I know you will argue that you "know", I'm under no illusions about it, but all I'm saying is...you do not "know"...you merely accept the easier option, because it's easier and less problematic to go with well rehearsed scientific story of what earth is and what space is and all it contains, even right down to the big bang and black holes, etc, etc, etc.

Scepti, the easier option is denial. If you think that understanding concepts like the ones used to arrive at the numbers brought forth or the concepts of topics like special relativity are a cop out, then please demonstrate that you have a firm grasp on those things. Your sound and light comments earlier in the thread don't leave me with much faith in your ability to fulfill this.


Quote from: sceptimatic
I'm doing my thought experiments for myself, mainly, but also, it would be nice for people to see my thoughts in type, so the neutrals can say, "hmmm, maybe there's something in this, I'll try and add to it and see where this goes."
For me, gravity can be explained as merely atmospheric pressure and the earth must have a barrier to that, which it does, in an ice dome.
Outside this dome, space does not exist, but that doesn't mean that other earth type cells can't exist, except we will never know by sight, because we cannot see into space, we simply see what's reflected off of and inside of the dome as reflected light.
The very same species of us, could be doing similar things, like we are now, inside their own cell of their own earth and this could be infinite, as in the number of cells there are.
Do I know any of this for certain? No, I don't but it makes more logical sense to believe that this is closer to the truth than the nonsense we have been spun about the rotating globe and a vacuum filled with rotating planets spinning about at angles and a sun that sits there burning hydrogen and helium forever in a vacuum and stars that our primitive eyes can see as dots but we are seeing some of them as what they were like 1000 years ago, because that's how long it's took their light to reach out eyes, through a vacuum that contains "NOTHING."

"Criticism as Inspiration" - David Bazaan

To be judged and scrutinized is the best way to develop a workable theory. If you present ideas and apparent problems are found then you are better serving yourself by being honest and going back to the drawing board. If every scientific thought ever proposed was just accepted in the way you imagine, then we'd have a very different view than we do today. Science does change, all the time. That's how it works. I promise you, if you can prove that the Earth is flat, science will immediately change it's view.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Blinded by science is correct, because space scientists who make up this stuff, are merely fictional story tellers, who tell other wannabe space scientists the same story with all the made up pieces to fit that are accepted, because they cannot be directly tested or proven.
I never get daunted by the arrogance of mainstream scientists, because I simply brush aside their figures and ask them to explain in a child like manner.
They hate this, because their explanations show the space garbage up for what it is. Plus they don't like to talk in any other language than gibberish, whilst chalking up a set of equations that they think will impress and baffle the average person, yet not realising that it does not explain any direct physical proof.

When you watch how them clowns act who supposedly sent up the Mars rover, you will see what a sham all this stuff is, but that's another topic.
The sleight of hand of a magician, does not make that person magic.

It is your burden because your claim shifts the burden. People are indoctrinated, sure. People are indoctrinated with the belief that candy gives you cavities, does that mean there is a candy conspiracy? The general public has the freedom to decide that they want to become scientists and its not like that is out of the ordinary. You can do it too, even with your self proclaimed "non-indoctrinated" views. Get out there and prove it!

By the way, your comment about sleight of hand and magic. For that I want to quote Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Who are you to judge what magic is? Who are you to judge possibility? We are merely humans, attempting to understand our world and I've yet to see a more selfless, honest and true way to do that than Science.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 06:51:48 AM by rottingroom »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #768 on: September 05, 2013, 07:12:09 AM »
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.

?

Rabhimself

  • 188
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #769 on: September 05, 2013, 07:16:21 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'.






*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #770 on: September 05, 2013, 07:20:24 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.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #771 on: September 05, 2013, 01:37:45 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.

*

Salviati

  • 147
  • +0/-0
  • What is my Personal Text?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #772 on: September 05, 2013, 02:51:57 PM »
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.
The rotation of the sky around both North and South celestial poles.
No explanation possible except we are on a spinning globe.
Q: Why do you think the Earth is round?
A: Look out the window!

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #773 on: September 05, 2013, 03:49:15 PM »
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.
The rotation of the sky around both North and South celestial poles.
No explanation possible except we are on a spinning globe.
No, we might be on a stationary globe with the stars spinning around us. Either way, though, it's a globe.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #774 on: September 05, 2013, 04:14:41 PM »
The better argument as far as star positions go is the angular difference observed from different positions on earth.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #775 on: September 05, 2013, 04:38:03 PM »
Scepti, You seem to think that space scientists do this:

Scientist 1: What should we make up today?
Scientist 2: How about the sun is 93 million miles away.
S1: That isn't complicated enough.
S2: Well we could make a very complicated equation to go with it.
S1: Brilliant!
S2: What do we gain from this again?
S1: SHH!! Don't question my genius.

Even you can see that this is ridiculous.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #777 on: September 05, 2013, 10:45:43 PM »
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.
The rotation of the sky around both North and South celestial poles.
No explanation possible except we are on a spinning globe.
No, we might be on a stationary globe with the stars spinning around us. Either way, though, it's a globe.

But if the globe was stationary then we would not be able to explain the cause of Coriolis effect and many other things which have been observed.
I think, therefore I am

?

Rabhimself

  • 188
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #778 on: September 08, 2013, 04:42:18 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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #779 on: September 08, 2013, 05:07:32 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.