Sceptimatics theory

Quote from: REphoenix 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?

I've yet to see a picture of them that actually looks legitimate. Have you personally seen them?

You can actually see them yourself though a telescope.

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.

Your opinion does not disprove all of science. I do not look at the sky to do my job. I use light in other ways.

Some people do deal with space and it's characteristics. Here is just a random new article that you will be afraid of.
http://scitechdaily.com/quantum-tunneling-allows-impossible-chemical-reactions-occur-space/

Why should we be worried about the occurrence of methanol in space? Is that going to produce hominids even worse than the ones we endure here?

Why should we be worried about the occurrence of methanol in space? Is that going to produce hominids even worse than the ones we endure here?

There is nothing to worry about.

Hi, first post in a long time.
Experiment to prove air pressure is not a significant force in pushing objects towards the ground:
1. Place an object on a scale in a sealed transparent box
2. Record the object's measured weight
3. Pump air from box until pressure drops at least 10x
4. Record the object's measured weight

Sceptimatic, what do you expect the result of this experiment would be according to your theory?
Based on my understanding of it, your theory would seem to predict that the object would be free to float around in the vacuum.

Thank you for replying scepti.
A few more questions.

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.

1. How do you expect to disprove current working sciences when you do not trust any current collection of scientific data or information presented to you?

2. Have you not thought about current emerging Electric Universe theories? How do you feel about the Hollow Earth Theory? What about the Concave or Inverted Earth Theories?
I see a common denominator in most of these theories: an opening at the center or middle of Earth.

3. Also how do you feel about FE'rs that are on YT?
I actually saw this conspiracy about 2 or 3 months ago, but it was presented by a guy named ConspiracyDude. He calls people Savages and Lazy and
just spouts out utter gibberish from the get go. I laughed out loud when I heard it and thought nothing more of it. The Young Turks video on the FES brought me here out of sheer curiosity. I just didn't know that anyone truly held the believe of a "FE".

I myself am a proponent of the Moon Hoax theory which I take breaks from every now and then. The break could be 3 months or years. Really just depends. It's not like they'll actually go anywhere  . There will be 40 + more years of general space fakery so I have the time to explore new ideas.

With that being said, how did you conclude the following:
- Stars are crystals and not actual small stars.

- Planets are only reflections? Are you sure? I read that in pre-Apollo missions, astronauts were unable to see or find the Moon so I'm open to the idea that the Moon might be a reflection albeit a very concrete one. However Jupiter? What is that a reflection of? [wild guessing] A type of gaseous or molten like rock not yet identified?[/wild guessing]

- Other Cells possibly next to us. 10 Ft? How did you postulate this?

This is fascinating by the way.

Omg.
I just watched ConspiracyDude's Flat Earth 3 video and I just can't help laughing. It's the way he presents it that makes it sound just plain funny.
Are you guys sure you're legit???

You guys should flag his videos because he does nothing for your cause. Just saying.

Please consider this:

http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 11, 2013, 09:29:19 AM

Quote from: REphoenix 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?

I've yet to see a picture of them that actually looks legitimate. Have you personally seen them?

You can actually see them yourself though a telescope.

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 11, 2013, 09:33:10 AM

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.

Your opinion does not disprove all of science. I do not look at the sky to do my job. I use light in other ways.

Some people do deal with space and it's characteristics. Here is just a random new article that you will be afraid of.
http://scitechdaily.com/quantum-tunneling-allows-impossible-chemical-reactions-occur-space/

How do you use light in other ways? Be specific.

Hi, first post in a long time.
Experiment to prove air pressure is not a significant force in pushing objects towards the ground:
1. Place an object on a scale in a sealed transparent box
2. Record the object's measured weight
3. Pump air from box until pressure drops at least 10x
4. Record the object's measured weight

Sceptimatic, what do you expect the result of this experiment would be according to your theory?
Based on my understanding of it, your theory would seem to predict that the object would be free to float around in the vacuum.

I don't know where you got this free to float around thing from, because nothing I've said would give anyone any idea of that.

I don't exactly know what would happen in that environment. The object could appear marginally heavier due to less air pressure.

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Thank you for replying scepti.
A few more questions.
1. How do you expect to disprove current working sciences when you do not trust any current collection of scientific data or information presented to you?

I probably won't disprove it myself. I think something will happen soon enough that will make people realise that the science of what earth is, is not what they are told. What that is, I don;t know but It could be something like seeing what people think are planets or another sun and moon which would scare people, until they realised they were reflections. I think the climate is changing so this stuff might happen. Or, N.A.S.A or some other similar space agency will got too far in yanking the publics chain that they will come out with something and totally overlook major discrepancies. Like I say, I don't actually know, I just have a feeling that something will show it's bogus science.

2. Have you not thought about current emerging Electric Universe theories? How do you feel about the Hollow Earth Theory? What about the Concave or Inverted Earth Theories?
I see a common denominator in most of these theories: an opening at the center or middle of Earth.

I won't rule any of those out in certain aspects.

3. Also how do you feel about FE'rs that are on YT?
I actually saw this conspiracy about 2 or 3 months ago, but it was presented by a guy named ConspiracyDude. He calls people Savages and Lazy and
just spouts out utter gibberish from the get go. I laughed out loud when I heard it and thought nothing more of it. The Young Turks video on the FES brought me here out of sheer curiosity. I just didn't know that anyone truly held the believe of a "FE".

I'll look it up. I haven't seen it.

I myself am a proponent of the Moon Hoax theory which I take breaks from every now and then. The break could be 3 months or years. Really just depends. It's not like they'll actually go anywhere  . There will be 40 + more years of general space fakery so I have the time to explore new ideas.

With that being said, how did you conclude the following:
- Stars are crystals and not actual small stars.

I don't see stars as crystals. I see them as reflections through crystals within earth, sort of like how fibre optics work, only crystals are doing it, sort of pointing dots of light onto the dome.

- Planets are only reflections? Are you sure? I read that in pre-Apollo missions, astronauts were unable to see or find the Moon so I'm open to the idea that the Moon might be a reflection albeit a very concrete one. However Jupiter? What is that a reflection of? [wild guessing] A type of gaseous or molten like rock not yet identified?[/wild guessing]

I think they are all just a reflection in different strengths. The atmosphere allows the strongest light to hit the dome but the reflection back to the other side of the dome will become weaker and that reflection back up, will become even weaker and so on.

- Other Cells possibly next to us. 10 Ft? How did you postulate this?

I was just putting it out as a possibility. A vacuum basically doesn't exist, except we call it a vacuum, but it's devoid of all matter and we see that as black, because it does not actually exist outside of that colour. We cannot see through it and nothing can be seen through it, even if there was another earth cell sitting just 10 feet away with us looking out of the dome. We wouldn't see the light from that other earth cell, because it cannot travel through nothing. It and we are in suspended animation.

This is fascinating by the way.
[/quote] Keep thinking outside of the box and you never know what it can bring up for you.

Is anyone else confused by this?

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=164

Please consider this:

http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/

That is a brilliant site and there's a hell of a lot that makes sense. I particularly like the light bulb analogy.

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Is anyone else confused by this?

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=164

I'm not confused by it, I just see it as the bull crap answer it is.This is the garbage people actually feed on and ask for seconds. Scary isn't it.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Once again weight is caused by gravity (or whatever force you believe in). You can't have weight without gravity.

Quote from: REphoenix on September 11, 2013, 12:56:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 11, 2013, 09:29:19 AM

Quote from: REphoenix 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?

I've yet to see a picture of them that actually looks legitimate. Have you personally seen them?

You can actually see them yourself though a telescope.

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

You can see the other planets. They look like planets. If you go to an observatory and ask nicely they might let you see them with their telescopes.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

So, removing air partially from a sealed container causes a reduction in upward resistant force, but no reduction in downward force.

Scepti, ladies and gentlemen. Always manages to find some new to to trip over himself.

And that's WITH entertaining your air pressure= gravity bollocks.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

Quote from: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 01:42:03 AM

Experiment to prove air pressure is not a significant force in pushing objects towards the ground:
...
Sceptimatic, what do you expect the result of this experiment would be according to your theory?
Based on my understanding of it, your theory would seem to predict that the object would be free to float around in the vacuum.

I don't know where you got this free to float around thing from, because nothing I've said would give anyone any idea of that.

I don't exactly know what would happen in that environment. The object could appear marginally heavier due to less air pressure.

How much is marginally? If the mechanism for apparent weight is related to air pressure, then removing the air should remove the weight. If the weight only changes marginally, then the air pressure is not the cause of the weight, only a slight effect. If that is the case, what is your model for the apparent weight of objects?

Once again weight is caused by gravity (or whatever force you believe in). You can't have weight without gravity.

We can have weight without gravity. We are having it now and there's no gravity involved.

You can actually see them yourself though a telescope.

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

You can see the other planets. They look like planets. If you go to an observatory and ask nicely they might let you see them with their telescopes.

So describe what you see then, through your telescope. What do you see, as in, is it a coloured ball or a ball with spinning rings...what?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

So, removing air partially from a sealed container causes a reduction in upward resistant force, but no reduction in downward force.

Scepti, ladies and gentlemen. Always manages to find some new to to trip over himself.

And that's WITH entertaining your air pressure= gravity bollocks.

It causes a reduction in all forces.
You believe that for something to have weight it has to be due to fictional gravity, when weight is just measure of mass, which is a case of putting denser matter above it's comfort zone and it wants to be back, so it falls or disintegrates until it gets back into it's place in the sandwich of earth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 12:43:46 PM

Quote from: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 01:42:03 AM

Experiment to prove air pressure is not a significant force in pushing objects towards the ground:
...
Sceptimatic, what do you expect the result of this experiment would be according to your theory?
Based on my understanding of it, your theory would seem to predict that the object would be free to float around in the vacuum.

I don't know where you got this free to float around thing from, because nothing I've said would give anyone any idea of that.

I don't exactly know what would happen in that environment. The object could appear marginally heavier due to less air pressure.

How much is marginally? If the mechanism for apparent weight is related to air pressure, then removing the air should remove the weight. If the weight only changes marginally, then the air pressure is not the cause of the weight, only a slight effect. If that is the case, what is your model for the apparent weight of objects?

If you remove all matter, (vacuum), you will remove the weight. Let me know how you get on with proving otherwise.

Quote from: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 01:55:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 12:43:46 PM

Quote from: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 01:42:03 AM

Experiment to prove air pressure is not a significant force in pushing objects towards the ground:
...
Sceptimatic, what do you expect the result of this experiment would be according to your theory?
Based on my understanding of it, your theory would seem to predict that the object would be free to float around in the vacuum.

I don't know where you got this free to float around thing from, because nothing I've said would give anyone any idea of that.

I don't exactly know what would happen in that environment. The object could appear marginally heavier due to less air pressure.

How much is marginally? If the mechanism for apparent weight is related to air pressure, then removing the air should remove the weight. If the weight only changes marginally, then the air pressure is not the cause of the weight, only a slight effect. If that is the case, what is your model for the apparent weight of objects?

If you remove all matter, (vacuum), you will remove the weight. Let me know how you get on with proving otherwise.

You can experience big differences of weight aboard a plane. As the air pressure is identical, what causes this ?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Funny G-Force Faces

You say that 0 psi equals 0 weight. what pressure causes half weight ?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 12, 2013, 12:57:24 PM

How is something heavier because of less air pressure?

Less resistance against the mass/weight.

Resistance against what?  Objects aren't moving when you weigh them on a scale.

What are you talking about?

You said less resistance, I presume you're referring to resistance against motion since that is generally the definition unless you're talking electronics.  There is no motion of an object on a scale, or at least not always, thus nothing to resist.  Logically, resistance from surrounding air plays no part in weighing an object.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 13, 2013, 11:21:05 AM

Quote from: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 01:55:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2013, 12:43:46 PM

Quote from: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 01:42:03 AM

Experiment to prove air pressure is not a significant force in pushing objects towards the ground:
...
Sceptimatic, what do you expect the result of this experiment would be according to your theory?
Based on my understanding of it, your theory would seem to predict that the object would be free to float around in the vacuum.

I don't know where you got this free to float around thing from, because nothing I've said would give anyone any idea of that.

I don't exactly know what would happen in that environment. The object could appear marginally heavier due to less air pressure.

How much is marginally? If the mechanism for apparent weight is related to air pressure, then removing the air should remove the weight. If the weight only changes marginally, then the air pressure is not the cause of the weight, only a slight effect. If that is the case, what is your model for the apparent weight of objects?

If you remove all matter, (vacuum), you will remove the weight. Let me know how you get on with proving otherwise.

You can experience big differences of weight aboard a plane. As the air pressure is identical, what causes this ?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Funny G-Force Faces

You say that 0 psi equal 0 weight. what pressure causes half weight ?

The plane is going faster than the air inside of it and that air gets forced back and pulls the pilot with it, only he's strapped in, so it tried to pull his face off.

On your other question. What do you mean by half weight.

The air inside is nearly static relative to the plane and at the same pressure than outside...Another clue ?

Let's imagine an object weighting 1 kg at 14.7 psi
You say it's weight at 0 psi is 0 kg
What pressure corresponds to 1/2 kg ?

Quote from: REphoenix

Once again weight is caused by gravity (or whatever force you believe in). You can't have weight without gravity.

We can have weight without gravity. We are having it now and there's no gravity involved.

Quote from: REphoenix

You can actually see them yourself though a telescope.

So what exactly do you see through your telescope. Describe it for me.

Quote from: REphoenix

You can see the other planets. They look like planets. If you go to an observatory and ask nicely they might let you see them with their telescopes.

So describe what you see then, through your telescope. What do you see, as in, is it a coloured ball or a ball with spinning rings...what?

1. What causes weight if there is no gravity? Gravity is actually in the definition of weight.
2. I have not personally looked (unfortunaltely I don't currently have a telescope) but you could check for yourself or ask someone else to look.