Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 383741 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #840 on: September 08, 2013, 05:25:16 PM »
My question is why do these top fabricators make it up? Why not just tell the truth?
Well, that's a good question that can only be answered in separate parts, depending on how a person perceives MAN.

Greed, is the obvious first reason for society of today and obviously as far back as the space program and many other things go.
When you take peoples money, you cannot be a bully and just decide to take it with force and keep coming back for more, because you create a massive revolt, so you do it by scare tactics and also amazing feats, all at the ever willing tax payers expense, as you now have willing participants.
But you can still take people's money and have a flat earth. This argument makes no sense.
To have a flat earth and take peoples money would mean, they would have had to alter much of the stuff they rigged up and the space program would be a much harder proposition, not to mention the many other problems that would arise.
Like I said, there's other reasons too, like occultism and the worship of the sun and making it the centre of our known universe and all the rest of the nonsense.

The lists will be long but the end results are greed, power, mind control, fear, etc.

Alter stuff they rigged up?
Harder proposition?
other stuff that would arise?
occultism?
worship of the sun?

This is why they told us the earth is round? Really?

Read what you wrote and think about how we think that sounds. You didn't even give a good reason.

There is no reason to fool people into thinking its any shape. You can take money from people by convincing them the rapture is coming or something, that'd be a lot easier than a perpetually expensive hoax.
They could have a number of reasons why they went with a round earth. I can only speculate on why or even when, as I don't believe our history is anything like what we are led to believe it was.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #841 on: September 08, 2013, 05:25:52 PM »
1. We have known that the earth was round before space travel so that argument is invalid.
2. Scientists don't think that the sun is the center of anything but our solar system. And the reason that they believe that is because it is for scientific reasons, not because they worship the sun.
3. What are your other reasons?
I've tried to reply to this, I keep getting error 404.

Did you reply using more than 3 links in the post you tried to submit? This causes an error.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #842 on: September 08, 2013, 05:27:39 PM »
1. We have known that the earth was round before space travel so that argument is invalid.
2. Scientists don't think that the sun is the center of anything but our solar system. And the reason that they believe that is because it is for scientific reasons, not because they worship the sun.
3. What are your other reasons?
I've tried to reply to this, I keep getting error 404.

Did you reply using more than 3 links in the post you tried to submit? This causes an error.
No, it was simply one quote and for some reason it keeps showing up error. I've saved the reply, so I'll try and put it under this post.

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • +0/-0
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #843 on: September 08, 2013, 05:36:19 PM »
Space flight is real
Get off this thread you pathetic troll. I am actually trying to see scepti's view and I don't want you derailing this thread with your ridiculous low content posts. This is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
You cant tell me what to flippin do. I dont derail threads with low content, nor am I a troll (once again this acusation since that I embarased you in debate). And I myself am trying to see sceptis view I think he might got some stuff right about the flat earth. I am very intrested and want to see his views
You keep bringing up this debate that you embaressed me in. Would you mind linking to it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59795.60.html
Get ready to see pure patheticness on your point ;)
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #844 on: September 08, 2013, 05:38:59 PM »
Space flight is real
Get off this thread you pathetic troll. I am actually trying to see scepti's view and I don't want you derailing this thread with your ridiculous low content posts. This is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
You cant tell me what to flippin do. I dont derail threads with low content, nor am I a troll (once again this acusation since that I embarased you in debate). And I myself am trying to see sceptis view I think he might got some stuff right about the flat earth. I am very intrested and want to see his views
You keep bringing up this debate that you embaressed me in. Would you mind linking to it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59795.60.html
Get ready to see pure patheticness on your point ;)

You won no debate there. You just made yourself look like a fool. The mods need to hurry up with that ban.

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • +0/-0
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #845 on: September 08, 2013, 05:43:05 PM »
Space flight is real
Get off this thread you pathetic troll. I am actually trying to see scepti's view and I don't want you derailing this thread with your ridiculous low content posts. This is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
You cant tell me what to flippin do. I dont derail threads with low content, nor am I a troll (once again this acusation since that I embarased you in debate). And I myself am trying to see sceptis view I think he might got some stuff right about the flat earth. I am very intrested and want to see his views
You keep bringing up this debate that you embaressed me in. Would you mind linking to it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59795.60.html
Get ready to see pure patheticness on your point ;)

You won no debate there. You just made yourself look like a fool. The mods need to hurry up with that ban.
Looks to me like I won. Point out areas where I could have possibly looked remoteley like a fool. And you just want me banned so you dont end up getting destroyed by me in debate in the near future
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #846 on: September 08, 2013, 05:55:07 PM »
Space flight is real
Get off this thread you pathetic troll. I am actually trying to see scepti's view and I don't want you derailing this thread with your ridiculous low content posts. This is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
You cant tell me what to flippin do. I dont derail threads with low content, nor am I a troll (once again this acusation since that I embarased you in debate). And I myself am trying to see sceptis view I think he might got some stuff right about the flat earth. I am very intrested and want to see his views
You keep bringing up this debate that you embaressed me in. Would you mind linking to it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59795.60.html
Get ready to see pure patheticness on your point ;)

You won no debate there. You just made yourself look like a fool. The mods need to hurry up with that ban.
Looks to me like I won. Point out areas where I could have possibly looked remoteley like a fool. And you just want me banned so you dont end up getting destroyed by me in debate in the near future

You made comments that imply that you don't know:

1. What a continent is
2. What an island is
3. What a river is
4. What a definition is

You don't understand that while things can belong into classifications, those classifications are decided by humans, collectively. You can certainly make a push to change those classifications but such changes will not be made until the representatives who make those decisions approve them.

In this case REPhoenix told you that the America's are not islands and that you can cross them without crossing water. Then, you showed him that you can but I took over from there and provided you with definitions on a river, continent and an island and ridiculously, your response was essentially that the dictionary is wrong. REPhoenix wasn't even having a debate with you really, I was.

Furthermore, your admittance that your beliefs about the physical world are dictated by religion is ironic. I have seen on multiple accounts FE'ers make it clear that this is the case and then hear them accuse RE'ers of being indoctrinated. It just stinks of hypocrisy.

Also, you can't spell and your sentences are often incoherent.


Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #847 on: September 08, 2013, 05:59:14 PM »
Quote
Iron sinks because of more densely packed matter that contains more of the elements that are "inside" the crust.
Air is more dense at sea level because it contains more molecules squashed into much smaller states than those above them and above that and so on, until the molecules end up at the top in their singular state, for example, helium.
Yes, iron is "more densely packed" (I assume this just means denser, way to go using circular definitions). So what? And also, Iron is ONE element, so it doesn't contain "more of the elements that are "inside" the crust". Anyway, do elements have a magical property that attract them back once taken out? And (someone correct me if I'm wrong) isn't styrofoam made of some petrochemical substance, which is also found "inside the crust"?
About the air, I'm asking why there are more molecules in sea level than on high altitudes. And I don't understand about these states. If you take a sample of atmosphere on sea level and on top of the everest, you'll find pretty much the same elements in the same quantities.
What I basically understood from your answer is "it is because it is". Feel free to correct me and explain a little better

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • +0/-0
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #848 on: September 08, 2013, 06:04:35 PM »
Space flight is real
Get off this thread you pathetic troll. I am actually trying to see scepti's view and I don't want you derailing this thread with your ridiculous low content posts. This is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
You cant tell me what to flippin do. I dont derail threads with low content, nor am I a troll (once again this acusation since that I embarased you in debate). And I myself am trying to see sceptis view I think he might got some stuff right about the flat earth. I am very intrested and want to see his views
You keep bringing up this debate that you embaressed me in. Would you mind linking to it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59795.60.html
Get ready to see pure patheticness on your point ;)

You won no debate there. You just made yourself look like a fool. The mods need to hurry up with that ban.
Looks to me like I won. Point out areas where I could have possibly looked remoteley like a fool. And you just want me banned so you dont end up getting destroyed by me in debate in the near future

You made comments that imply that you don't know:

1. What a continent is
2. What an island is
3. What a river is
4. What a definition is
I agreed with these defanitions. I just said what im pointing out dont fit these defanitions
You don't understand that while things can belong into classifications, those classifications are decided by humans, collectively. You can certainly make a push to change those classifications but such changes will not be made until the representatives who make those decisions approve them.
Well these humans who decided these are simply morons and im correcting them of there backwerds teachings
In this case REPhoenix told you that the America's are not islands and that you can cross them without crossing water. Then, you showed him that you can but I took over from there and provided you with definitions on a river, continent and an island and ridiculously, your response was essentially that the dictionary is wrong. REPhoenix wasn't even having a debate with you really, I was.
What I meant is that they dont fit these defanitions and a huge mistake had been made
Furthermore, your admittance that your beliefs about the physical world are dictated by religion is ironic. I have seen on multiple accounts FE'ers make it clear that this is the case and then hear them accuse RE'ers of being indoctrinated. It just stinks of hypocrisy.
When did I ever, EVER flippin say that?! I am a Christian but I have made it extremeley clear that it is dictated by science
Also, you can't spell and your sentences are often incoherent.
I spell just fine. My sentences are coherant
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #849 on: September 08, 2013, 06:08:29 PM »
Space flight is real
Get off this thread you pathetic troll. I am actually trying to see scepti's view and I don't want you derailing this thread with your ridiculous low content posts. This is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
You cant tell me what to flippin do. I dont derail threads with low content, nor am I a troll (once again this acusation since that I embarased you in debate). And I myself am trying to see sceptis view I think he might got some stuff right about the flat earth. I am very intrested and want to see his views
You keep bringing up this debate that you embaressed me in. Would you mind linking to it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59795.60.html
Get ready to see pure patheticness on your point ;)

You won no debate there. You just made yourself look like a fool. The mods need to hurry up with that ban.
Looks to me like I won. Point out areas where I could have possibly looked remoteley like a fool. And you just want me banned so you dont end up getting destroyed by me in debate in the near future

You made comments that imply that you don't know:

1. What a continent is
2. What an island is
3. What a river is
4. What a definition is
I agreed with these defanitions. I just said what im pointing out dont fit these defanitions
You don't understand that while things can belong into classifications, those classifications are decided by humans, collectively. You can certainly make a push to change those classifications but such changes will not be made until the representatives who make those decisions approve them.
Well these humans who decided these are simply morons and im correcting them of there backwerds teachings
In this case REPhoenix told you that the America's are not islands and that you can cross them without crossing water. Then, you showed him that you can but I took over from there and provided you with definitions on a river, continent and an island and ridiculously, your response was essentially that the dictionary is wrong. REPhoenix wasn't even having a debate with you really, I was.
What I meant is that they dont fit these defanitions and a huge mistake had been made
Furthermore, your admittance that your beliefs about the physical world are dictated by religion is ironic. I have seen on multiple accounts FE'ers make it clear that this is the case and then hear them accuse RE'ers of being indoctrinated. It just stinks of hypocrisy.
When did I ever, EVER flippin say that?! I am a Christian but I have made it extremeley clear that it is dictated by science
Also, you can't spell and your sentences are often incoherent.
I spell just fine. My sentences are coherant

And then the denial, thanks for reminding me about that one.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 06:48:56 PM by rottingroom »

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • +0/-0
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #850 on: September 08, 2013, 06:44:48 PM »
Space flight is real
Get off this thread you pathetic troll. I am actually trying to see scepti's view and I don't want you derailing this thread with your ridiculous low content posts. This is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
You cant tell me what to flippin do. I dont derail threads with low content, nor am I a troll (once again this acusation since that I embarased you in debate). And I myself am trying to see sceptis view I think he might got some stuff right about the flat earth. I am very intrested and want to see his views
You keep bringing up this debate that you embaressed me in. Would you mind linking to it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59795.60.html
Get ready to see pure patheticness on your point ;)

You won no debate there. You just made yourself look like a fool. The mods need to hurry up with that ban.
Looks to me like I won. Point out areas where I could have possibly looked remoteley like a fool. And you just want me banned so you dont end up getting destroyed by me in debate in the near future

You made comments that imply that you don't know:

1. What a continent is
2. What an island is
3. What a river is
4. What a definition is
I agreed with these defanitions. I just said what im pointing out dont fit these defanitions
You don't understand that while things can belong into classifications, those classifications are decided by humans, collectively. You can certainly make a push to change those classifications but such changes will not be made until the representatives who make those decisions approve them.
Well these humans who decided these are simply morons and im correcting them of there backwerds teachings
In this case REPhoenix told you that the America's are not islands and that you can cross them without crossing water. Then, you showed him that you can but I took over from there and provided you with definitions on a river, continent and an island and ridiculously, your response was essentially that the dictionary is wrong. REPhoenix wasn't even having a debate with you really, I was.
What I meant is that they dont fit these defanitions and a huge mistake had been made
Furthermore, your admittance that your beliefs about the physical world are dictated by religion is ironic. I have seen on multiple accounts FE'ers make it clear that this is the case and then hear them accuse RE'ers of being indoctrinated. It just stinks of hypocrisy.
When did I ever, EVER flippin say that?! I am a Christian but I have made it extremeley clear that it is dictated by science
Also, you can't spell and your sentences are often incoherent.
I spell just fine. My sentences are coherant

And then the denial, thanks for remind me about that one.
What denial?
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

*

g el

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #851 on: September 08, 2013, 09:14:36 PM »
[side note]
And the troll succeeds in derailing the thread.. Ignoring trolls is better than replying, this is the last comment where I mention the troll or reply to him..
[/side note]

Scepti, would you say the conspiracy is maintained so that the space people would not  have to tell the others that they stole the their money for nothing? As in if it wasn't  due to the space program, the truth would be out? In this case I would like to remind you that people are really forgiving, an easy example is given in politics where an extremely high budget was spent on wars with fake reasons and is about to be done again and yet people just forgave everyone.. enough politics i just thought of it as a proof that admitting you're wrong doesn't really hurt, governments do it all the time, getting the truth out there will work..
Now to your reply 2 pages back with the electrical engineer building a board, I'll ignore the fact that all the work is gone to garbage, would you mind giving me this same example for an astrophysicist?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #852 on: September 08, 2013, 11:56:50 PM »
Quote
Iron sinks because of more densely packed matter that contains more of the elements that are "inside" the crust.
Air is more dense at sea level because it contains more molecules squashed into much smaller states than those above them and above that and so on, until the molecules end up at the top in their singular state, for example, helium.
Yes, iron is "more densely packed" (I assume this just means denser, way to go using circular definitions). So what? And also, Iron is ONE element, so it doesn't contain "more of the elements that are "inside" the crust". Anyway, do elements have a magical property that attract them back once taken out? And (someone correct me if I'm wrong) isn't styrofoam made of some petrochemical substance, which is also found "inside the crust"?
About the air, I'm asking why there are more molecules in sea level than on high altitudes. And I don't understand about these states. If you take a sample of atmosphere on sea level and on top of the everest, you'll find pretty much the same elements in the same quantities.
What I basically understood from your answer is "it is because it is". Feel free to correct me and explain a little better
Most things are made from below the crust but in their ordinary states, IE, not much of any other elements, they become lighter or less dense than the water, as in styrofoam. It's also packed with air as well don't forget.
Also, iron isn't just one element as in something man made. It's a mixture of molecules also but we cannot see them just by looking at the iron.

So you ask why there are more molecules at sea level than up a mountain. I did explain this by the stacking method.
What is under more pressure. The top of a haystack or the bottom? Obviously the answer is easy, so it should also be easy as to why this applies at sea level as opposed to a mountain top.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #853 on: September 09, 2013, 12:11:16 AM »


Quote from: g el
Scepti, would you say the conspiracy is maintained so that the space people would not  have to tell the others that they stole the their money for nothing? As in if it wasn't  due to the space program, the truth would be out? In this case I would like to remind you that people are really forgiving, an easy example is given in politics where an extremely high budget was spent on wars with fake reasons and is about to be done again and yet people just forgave everyone.. enough politics i just thought of it as a proof that admitting you're wrong doesn't really hurt, governments do it all the time, getting the truth out there will work..
People are not forgiving, they just accept things for what they are and many are brainwashed into accepting that a wrong conflict had the right reasons at the time, sort of thing, so they can be sold any excuse. it's easy to dupe those that are asleep.
As for keeping up a space program for money. It's a number of things they keep it up for and money is the main factor but also to keep a patriotic public. You know, the space race. The arms race, And all the rest of it. It makes mere humans go all territorial against a common enemy or so they think. The same game is being played by the supposed common enemy.
It's just a complicated web of dis-info and brainwashing that marries into all kinds of different shenanigans.
Quote from: g el
Now to your reply 2 pages back with the electrical engineer building a board, I'll ignore the fact that all the work is gone to garbage, would you mind giving me this same example for an astrophysicist?
I don't know what an astro physicist is. Is it an astronomer studying stars and planets and the sky, or someone that studies moon rock, venus rock, mars rock, jupiter juice, uranus klingons or pluto pebbles.
what is an astro physicist?
To me, they do not exist.
A skyologist would be more fitting or an atmophysicist would be fine, or something along those lines.
Any person with a name that purports to space is merely a conologist or an bullcrapologist.


*

g el

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #854 on: September 09, 2013, 01:28:25 AM »
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/en/

Quote
Astrophysics
Field Of Study
Astrophysics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of the universe, including the physical properties of celestial objects, as well as their interactions and behavior

If someone works at these centers or studies there, is that just a "conologist"? I guess I should really ask my friend in the major to let me in on the secrets of the universe..

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #855 on: September 09, 2013, 02:08:17 AM »
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/en/

Quote
Astrophysics
Field Of Study
Astrophysics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of the universe, including the physical properties of celestial objects, as well as their interactions and behavior

If someone works at these centers or studies there, is that just a "conologist"? I guess I should really ask my friend in the major to let me in on the secrets of the universe..
It would help you much better if you actually read what I type, instead of picking snippets out, because I've already said that most scientists, I do not have an issue with and they are just as drilled as anyone else in whatever field they are in.
Ok here's a for instance so you understand what I'm saying.
A school teacher can mark childrens exam papers on past history. The history teacher will be regarded as an expert in their field, yet has had to rely on the teachings that they were taught and books that they read that gives them the right to be regarded as that expert. It doesn't mean that, that teacher has been back in time to physically verify any of it and so, they teach their pupils what they were taught.

It's the same in all walks of life and no different for so called astro physicists. It doesn't mean they are lying, it just means they are studying what they are taught and are reliant on their taught work being examined by someone that knows more than them or at least has the answers.
They don't physically go into space to verify any of the stuff they learn.

*

g el

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #856 on: September 09, 2013, 02:54:24 AM »
I actually read your reply very well, I would blame me misunderstanding your reply to english being my third language but I understood the first part of your reply as mockery, please correct me if I'm wrong
Quote
I don't know what an astro physicist is. Is it an astronomer studying stars and planets and the sky, or someone that studies moon rock, venus rock, mars rock, jupiter juice, uranus klingons or pluto pebbles.
Second part was you not bothering to search for a definition online
Quote
what is an astro physicist?

Last part I felt was an accusation that all people in this field are liars
Quote
Any person with a name that purports to space is merely a conologist or an bullcrapologist.

Now I asked about astronomers and astrophysics on purpose because their field cannot be considered secondary and useless, as in they are not simply building something that can be thrown away, they are making observations, they have studied these observations and analyzed them, it's not that easy to fake a whole field of sciences, especially that people will have new observations.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #857 on: September 09, 2013, 03:09:06 AM »
I actually read your reply very well, I would blame me misunderstanding your reply to english being my third language but I understood the first part of your reply as mockery, please correct me if I'm wrong
Quote
I don't know what an astro physicist is. Is it an astronomer studying stars and planets and the sky, or someone that studies moon rock, venus rock, mars rock, jupiter juice, uranus klingons or pluto pebbles.
Second part was you not bothering to search for a definition online
Quote
what is an astro physicist?

Last part I felt was an accusation that all people in this field are liars
Quote
Any person with a name that purports to space is merely a conologist or an bullcrapologist.

Now I asked about astronomers and astrophysics on purpose because their field cannot be considered secondary and useless, as in they are not simply building something that can be thrown away, they are making observations, they have studied these observations and analyzed them, it's not that easy to fake a whole field of sciences, especially that people will have new observations.
Exactly. They are making "observations" and nothing other than that.
The results of these observations constantly change over time, yet each time, a generation of people are told that this is correct and it's been proved to be absolutely correct.
Take a look at the pluto shenanigans. One minute it's a planet and the next it's de-classified as a planet and is now just a small piece of rock. How can they get this wrong?
The easy answer is, they didn't get it wrong. It was all made up in the first place. This measuring planets stuff is the stuff of absolute fantasy and garbage.
The viewing of light year stars through a vacuum, is equally garbage and also spotting a new earth that can support life, some 600 light years away is laughable in the extreme, yet it's hung onto by wide eyed scientific wannabe's, because they are in awe of the people that's feeding them this stuff.

Go with their flow by all means, but I can see it all for what it is. Nonsense.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #858 on: September 09, 2013, 03:53:19 AM »
Science isn't nonsense just because you don't understand it.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #859 on: September 09, 2013, 04:16:39 AM »
I actually read your reply very well, I would blame me misunderstanding your reply to english being my third language but I understood the first part of your reply as mockery, please correct me if I'm wrong
Quote
I don't know what an astro physicist is. Is it an astronomer studying stars and planets and the sky, or someone that studies moon rock, venus rock, mars rock, jupiter juice, uranus klingons or pluto pebbles.
Second part was you not bothering to search for a definition online
Quote
what is an astro physicist?

Last part I felt was an accusation that all people in this field are liars
Quote
Any person with a name that purports to space is merely a conologist or an bullcrapologist.

Now I asked about astronomers and astrophysics on purpose because their field cannot be considered secondary and useless, as in they are not simply building something that can be thrown away, they are making observations, they have studied these observations and analyzed them, it's not that easy to fake a whole field of sciences, especially that people will have new observations.
Exactly. They are making "observations" and nothing other than that.
The results of these observations constantly change over time, yet each time, a generation of people are told that this is correct and it's been proved to be absolutely correct.
Take a look at the pluto shenanigans. One minute it's a planet and the next it's de-classified as a planet and is now just a small piece of rock. How can they get this wrong?
The easy answer is, they didn't get it wrong. It was all made up in the first place. This measuring planets stuff is the stuff of absolute fantasy and garbage.
The viewing of light year stars through a vacuum, is equally garbage and also spotting a new earth that can support life, some 600 light years away is laughable in the extreme, yet it's hung onto by wide eyed scientific wannabe's, because they are in awe of the people that's feeding them this stuff.

Go with their flow by all means, but I can see it all for what it is. Nonsense.

Pluto is a horrible analogy and doesn't help anyone's argument but RE.

1. Our telescopes have improved allowing us to get a better interpretation of Pluto's size and whether its orbit is more like that of the other planets.
2. The discovery of other planet-like objects in our solar system similar in size to pluto was made.
3. These discoveries led to a warranted discussion about planet classification. Essentially we either determined that a pluto-sized planet is one and then also promote rocks like it, or we just simply demote it.

This isn't some sort of shenanigans meant to fool you. It is highly conceivable that telescope technology is improving. It would seem actually, that technology is improving in every field. You've noticed haven't you? This is a prime example of what's great about science. It can change as we learn more and acquire better and more powerful tools.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #860 on: September 09, 2013, 04:27:46 AM »
Science isn't nonsense just because you don't understand it.
Space science is.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #861 on: September 09, 2013, 04:36:54 AM »


Quote from: rottingroom
Pluto is a horrible analogy and doesn't help anyone's argument but RE.
Pluto helps no one, because it does not exist, except as a reflection.
Quote from: rottingroom
1. Our telescopes have improved allowing us to get a better interpretation of Pluto's size and whether its orbit is more like that of the other planets.
Telescopes may have improved but at the end of the day, they are simply magnifying glasses that can only allow you to see short distances, not thousands and thousands of miles.
Quote from: rottingroom
2. The discovery of other planet-like objects in our solar system similar in size to pluto was made.
That's because they are all reflections. Anything seen as an object not man made, in the sky, that are purported to be planets, are simply the result of reflections.
Quote from: rottingroom
3. These discoveries led to a warranted discussion about planet classification. Essentially we either determined that a pluto-sized planet is one and then also promote rocks like it, or we just simply demote it.
Demoting a reflection. Fair enough. They can still play the observation game, because it's all there to see, it just isn't in space. It's all reflections from the effects of earth's sun.
Quote from: rottingroom
This isn't some sort of shenanigans meant to fool you. It is highly conceivable that telescope technology is improving. It would seem actually, that technology is improving in every field. You've noticed haven't you? This is a prime example of what's great about science. It can change as we learn more and acquire better and more powerful tools.
There's lots that's great about science. Space and planets and stars are not part of them.
Sky science is what it should be called.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #862 on: September 09, 2013, 05:18:07 AM »


Quote from: rottingroom
Pluto is a horrible analogy and doesn't help anyone's argument but RE.
Pluto helps no one, because it does not exist, except as a reflection.
Quote from: rottingroom
1. Our telescopes have improved allowing us to get a better interpretation of Pluto's size and whether its orbit is more like that of the other planets.
Telescopes may have improved but at the end of the day, they are simply magnifying glasses that can only allow you to see short distances, not thousands and thousands of miles.
Quote from: rottingroom
2. The discovery of other planet-like objects in our solar system similar in size to pluto was made.
That's because they are all reflections. Anything seen as an object not man made, in the sky, that are purported to be planets, are simply the result of reflections.
Quote from: rottingroom
3. These discoveries led to a warranted discussion about planet classification. Essentially we either determined that a pluto-sized planet is one and then also promote rocks like it, or we just simply demote it.
Demoting a reflection. Fair enough. They can still play the observation game, because it's all there to see, it just isn't in space. It's all reflections from the effects of earth's sun.
Quote from: rottingroom
This isn't some sort of shenanigans meant to fool you. It is highly conceivable that telescope technology is improving. It would seem actually, that technology is improving in every field. You've noticed haven't you? This is a prime example of what's great about science. It can change as we learn more and acquire better and more powerful tools.
There's lots that's great about science. Space and planets and stars are not part of them.
Sky science is what it should be called.

A whole lot of nothing was said there scepti. Good job.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #863 on: September 09, 2013, 05:28:58 AM »
It probably is to you and others that promote a rotating globe and all it's made up theories to make it feasible.
I can't decide how you grasp what I say, but what I say, I believe I'm more closer to the truth.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #864 on: September 09, 2013, 01:12:35 PM »
How do you explain Saturn's (and Jupiter and Neptune and Uranus's) rings if the planets are just reflections?
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #865 on: September 09, 2013, 02:03:41 PM »
1. I am talking about any scientists that you think are lying.
2. You are throwing away how air pressure works, how light works, etc.
...
As for air pressure and light. I'm throwing nothing away, I'm telling you what it really is and how it works in the main.
Naturally there is a lot more to it, but I'm giving out the basics.
What I do for a living shows you to be incorrect. Spectroscopy goes against what you claim.

Your ignorance does not constitute evidence for your arguments.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #866 on: September 10, 2013, 09:24:05 PM »
Hi Scepti. I don't fancy myself a FE believer and my kneejerk reaction is that of revulsion, but I have some questions.

1. You mentioned the Earth might be 100,000 miles across instead of 48,000. The side that we do not live on, or that surrounds us--Is it all ice rim? No warm or desert like Earth pocket phenomena? Just an impenetrable ice plane?

2. Is this find of a plasma layer above the Earth similar to your mixed state ice dome?
http://www.livescience.com/31090-cold-plasma-layer-detected-high-earth.html

3. Is the Sun on the inside of the dome or on the outside?

The sun is reflected onto the ice dome from the central part of earth's circle and back to earth and reflected again, only with much less strength, IE the moon. All this is achieved , along with what we see as stars, through vibrating crystals on a scale that would make women drool at the mouth for eternity. ;D

4.  This is terribly confusing. I'm trying to visualize why and how this could be true, but I can't. Can you please (in your free time) illustrate the Moon being a reflection of the Sun? If so why does it look as though it was a dead planet or a piece of this our own? Is that how the sun looks?
Supposing FE theory is true, could that be a 2nd Sun(or battery) that died? You say the Moon and Sun are the same size. Could that be the reason that there is so much ice? Perhaps one sun burned out leaving  52%  of the old world in complete coldness i.e. a slight ice age?

5. In some posts you seem as though you subscribe to the inverted Earth theory more than just a plain flat Earth. Is that the case? I think this might be better to understand if it did not appear that you were talking about a literal thin 2 dimensional Earth. This still doesn't make any sense at all.
Firmament as a ice sky, with a ice rim...You guys are serious though. I will not be like others, and pretend that I'm not interested in this theory for multiple reasons(some things don't add up) so I will continue in my questioning.

6. What is your background if you can say. If not just skip over this. I'm curious as to why pilots would not be saying anything about this especially private Jet pilots for celebrities. When I was younger, I remember Concord being touted as the airline of the stars and that they were flying close to or near space. I understand they canceled the line, but why wouldn't any of those pilots say anything about FE or write any books to the effect?

7. You say outside of the dome is a perfect vacuum? Absolute nothingness? What explains our being here in this absolute nothingness? I don't want to insult you, but your theory takes sort of a religious way of thinking without any creativity in the least bit.
Have you explored the idea of Earth forming in a Black Hole? A complete perfect black void that sucks in and compresses anything within, but some matter remains in tact?

8. Is there any way to explore your theory?
You said that flying aircraft laterally through Antarctica would end in a crash. So if there is no way to prove FE why wouldn't you just go with RE theory?

I have more questions, but I don't want to weigh you down
:/
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 09:34:08 PM by justlurkingnothingmore »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #867 on: September 11, 2013, 09:29:19 AM »
How do you explain Saturn's (and Jupiter and Neptune and Uranus's) rings if the planets are just reflections?
I've yet to see a picture of them that actually looks legitimate. Have you personally seen them?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #868 on: September 11, 2013, 09:33:10 AM »
1. I am talking about any scientists that you think are lying.
2. You are throwing away how air pressure works, how light works, etc.
...
As for air pressure and light. I'm throwing nothing away, I'm telling you what it really is and how it works in the main.
Naturally there is a lot more to it, but I'm giving out the basics.
What I do for a living shows you to be incorrect. Spectroscopy goes against what you claim.

Your ignorance does not constitute evidence for your arguments.
No it doesn't. You don't have a clue what you are looking at in that sky. You may believe you do, which is fair enough, but if you are honest, you will accept that you are simply going by guidance from your peers or by books or whatever that says you are looking at stars and what not, so you accept it, seemingly without question.
You're entitled to do that of course, but don;t use it as an example to say it proves me wrong, because it proves nothing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #869 on: September 11, 2013, 10:30:39 AM »
Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
Hi Scepti. I don't fancy myself a FE believer and my kneejerk reaction is that of revulsion, but I have some questions.

1. You mentioned the Earth might be 100,000 miles across instead of 48,000. The side that we do not live on, or that surrounds us--Is it all ice rim? No warm or desert like Earth pocket phenomena? Just an impenetrable ice plane?
Not 100,000 across, maybe 100,000 around. Anyway.the liveable part up to the inner ice rim, known as Antarctica is "maybe" about 48,000 miles around.
There would be no desert, just colder and colder temperature the further outward you get to the outer rim. Basically the Atmosphere starts to become dormant and creates an immediate barrier from that point to become basically a glacier as it becomes denser. This would be known as the foundation of the ice dome.
Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
2. Is this find of a plasma layer above the Earth similar to your mixed state ice dome?
http://www.livescience.com/31090-cold-plasma-layer-detected-high-earth.html
No. To be honest, I don't believe a word of what they come out with. It's just a continuation of the world they want us to believe we live on.

Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
3. Is the Sun on the inside of the dome or on the outside?
Inside. It's in the centre of earth, as in, the centre of the circle. Nothing exists outside of the dome. Space does not exist.

Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
4.  This is terribly confusing. I'm trying to visualize why and how this could be true, but I can't. Can you please (in your free time) illustrate the Moon being a reflection of the Sun? If so why does it look as though it was a dead planet or a piece of this our own? Is that how the sun looks?
I've been meaning to get to work on some drawings to show what I mean, but basically you have to try and visualise the blackness of what you think is space as the furthest we can see and it stops at that blackness which creates a perfect mirror. The sun is causing a shooting gallery of reflections against this, meaning it hits a part of the dome and reflects back, which then reflects the reflection and so on. But in doing so, it becomes weaker, giving the effects of the lesser bright moon and other hot spots you see in the sky.
Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
Supposing FE theory is true, could that be a 2nd Sun(or battery) that died? You say the Moon and Sun are the same size. Could that be the reason that there is so much ice? Perhaps one sun burned out leaving  52%  of the old world in complete coldness i.e. a slight ice age?
To your vision, you basically only see the main sun, but if you are in the right area and on a given day, you may see the end results of reflections that people will simply put down to the atmosphere creating this effect, as you will have probably seen.
The sun won't burn out but it will lose energy, eventually, which will kill whoever is on the earth when it happens, but it replenishes itself over time. A long time as we would know it.
Just keep thinking, reflections. This should also tell you why you see the moon as one side. Ok, we know what they tell us, but try and think outside of that box, even if you just do it as a time out from your beliefs.
Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
5. In some posts you seem as though you subscribe to the inverted Earth theory more than just a plain flat Earth. Is that the case? I think this might be better to understand if it did not appear that you were talking about a literal thin 2 dimensional Earth. This still doesn't make any sense at all.
Think of the earth like a saucer with a dome. The oceans are held in the saucer where the cup sits and we live outside of that, then we have the rim. There's more to it than that but I'm giving you a basic idea.
Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
Firmament as a ice sky, with a ice rim...You guys are serious though. I will not be like others, and pretend that I'm not interested in this theory for multiple reasons(some things don't add up) so I will continue in my questioning.
Don't think of the ice sky as the ice you see around you when it's snowing or freezing. The ice sky is hydrogen and helium and other mixes. all the way down the dome.

Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
6. What is your background if you can say. If not just skip over this. I'm curious as to why pilots would not be saying anything about this especially private Jet pilots for celebrities. When I was younger, I remember Concord being touted as the airline of the stars and that they were flying close to or near space. I understand they canceled the line, but why wouldn't any of those pilots say anything about FE or write any books to the effect?
Because it's likely they won't have a clue. To them, it's blue or black sky, depending on flight times and they won't see anything that resembles a flat or round earth as they fly, because the horizon is just the limit of vision.

Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
7. You say outside of the dome is a perfect vacuum? Absolute nothingness? What explains our being here in this absolute nothingness? I don't want to insult you, but your theory takes sort of a religious way of thinking without any creativity in the least bit.
Have you explored the idea of Earth forming in a Black Hole? A complete perfect black void that sucks in and compresses anything within, but some matter remains in tact?

Nothing religious about it. The earth is a cell in suspended animation. there could be an infinite amount of cells like ours in suspended animation.
I cannot answer how it all came about from the start point, only that we live as cells inside a cell, (earth).
We "could" be sat right next to another earth cell that is, say, 10 feet away from us but we will never know, unless that cell grows and becomes attached to ours. If it stays detached, then the gap or blackness of the vacuum, renders it impossible for us to even know if there is anything other than "us", which I don;t subscribe to, as I believe there are an infinite amount, but I'm never going to be able to prove that. It's all down to our minds.

Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
8. Is there any way to explore your theory?
You said that flying aircraft laterally through Antarctica would end in a crash. So if there is no way to prove FE why wouldn't you just go with RE theory?

Just because I cannot directly prove my theory, I cannot just accept the round earth, because I'm 100% sure that what I'm saying is closer to the truth and a rotating globe really pushes the boundaries in nonsense, to me. It's just my opinion though.

Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore
I have more questions, but I don't want to weigh you down
:/
Ask away.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 10:33:37 AM by sceptimatic »