Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 254517 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #960 on: September 13, 2013, 06:12:54 PM »
Video+sokarul.
So basically you have nothing.
I have:
1. Photos.
2. Videos.
3. Many people who claim to have seen it.
4. Science.

Remind me again what you have for your ice dome? Oh right. NOTHING.
Correct, I have nothing to back up my claim, but then again neither does RE. Let's not get into a tit for tat over this bit though.
I just gave you four things. Also, if you don't accept it LOOK AT IT FOR YOURSELF!!!!
Why don't you have a look for it yourself and tell me what you see with 1: Your naked eye.  2: binoculars, 3: a small telescope and if possible, a large telescope.
I'm not going to waste my time looking for it since you will just dismiss it anyway.  Now please explain planets in your model.
There are no such things as planets in my model. Just a large (to us) cell. like a big hamburger bun.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #961 on: September 13, 2013, 06:13:59 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #962 on: September 13, 2013, 06:14:38 PM »
Video+sokarul.
So basically you have nothing.
I showed you where I saw it, that people still see it at the same place, and video of someone else looking at it
Give it up.

This isn't about the truth anymore. Its just about not being wrong. After 48 pages and an additional thread going through the same thing over and over again.... Showing experiments he can do, pointing out inconsistencies in the idea of a dome, photographic evidence or just using a damn telescope. Its clear, he believes what he wants. Its okay for him to be crazy. My grandpas crazy... And that is okay.
There are no inconsistencies in my dome.

Yeah I know. It has to be a dome. It just makes sense. We got it dude.
If you take your time to piece the jigsaw together you will be amazed what you come up with.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #963 on: September 13, 2013, 06:17:41 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #964 on: September 13, 2013, 06:19:00 PM »
Video+sokarul.
So basically you have nothing.
I showed you where I saw it, that people still see it at the same place, and video of someone else looking at it
Give it up.

This isn't about the truth anymore. Its just about not being wrong. After 48 pages and an additional thread going through the same thing over and over again.... Showing experiments he can do, pointing out inconsistencies in the idea of a dome, photographic evidence or just using a damn telescope. Its clear, he believes what he wants. Its okay for him to be crazy. My grandpas crazy... And that is okay.
There are no inconsistencies in my dome.

Yeah I know. It has to be a dome. It just makes sense. We got it dude.
If you take your time to piece the jigsaw together you will be amazed what you come up with.

Alright. I'll give it a shot. There are fairies everywhere. Pushing objects to make things seem like they are attracted to earth. At night they go into the sky and rest and take the appearance of these twinkling celestial bodies. That's why there is so much less stuff going on on earth at night time. The fairies are sleeping. Then during day humanity gets all active and our every action is guided by these wonderful mystical fairies.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #965 on: September 13, 2013, 06:19:31 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.

They are sleeping fairies.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #966 on: September 13, 2013, 06:20:27 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #967 on: September 13, 2013, 06:23:20 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #968 on: September 13, 2013, 06:24:28 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #969 on: September 13, 2013, 06:26:02 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Ok then, so how do the reflections make rings?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #970 on: September 13, 2013, 06:27:15 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.

My theory is consistent with Saturn's wings. That is just a bigger and more beautiful fairy. Her wings are so large that they sometimes flutter in the celestial winds of twilight.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #971 on: September 13, 2013, 06:28:39 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Ok then, so how do the reflections make rings?
Sorry. I meant correct. Habit. They don't, because the earth is round, there is no ice dome, planets are not reflections and you are wrong.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #972 on: September 13, 2013, 06:35:57 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Ok then, so how do the reflections make rings?
Sorry. I meant correct. Habit. They don't, because the earth is round, there is no ice dome, planets are not reflections and you are wrong.
I'm more correct than you think. You just refuse to even see it. Maybe one day in the future, you may not need me to tell you.
Earth may just show its hand to at least make you question your RE indoc.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #973 on: September 13, 2013, 06:37:42 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Ok then, so how do the reflections make rings?
Sorry. I meant correct. Habit. They don't, because the earth is round, there is no ice dome, planets are not reflections and you are wrong.
I'm more correct than you think. You just refuse to even see it. Maybe one day in the future, you may not need me to tell you.
Earth may just show its hand to at least make you question your RE indoc.
I just proved you wrong. Admit it or come up with an answer to the ring problem.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #974 on: September 13, 2013, 06:39:16 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Ok then, so how do the reflections make rings?
Sorry. I meant correct. Habit. They don't, because the earth is round, there is no ice dome, planets are not reflections and you are wrong.
I'm more correct than you think. You just refuse to even see it. Maybe one day in the future, you may not need me to tell you.
Earth may just show its hand to at least make you question your RE indoc.

Yeah seriously REPhoenix. Don't be indoctrinated. Make a theory. I feel better now and you could too.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #975 on: September 13, 2013, 06:40:24 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Ok then, so how do the reflections make rings?
Sorry. I meant correct. Habit. They don't, because the earth is round, there is no ice dome, planets are not reflections and you are wrong.
I'm more correct than you think. You just refuse to even see it. Maybe one day in the future, you may not need me to tell you.
Earth may just show its hand to at least make you question your RE indoc.
"Refuse to even see it"? We showed you how you are wrong and you "refuse to even see it".
I saw Saturn and it's rings. Are you ever going to bring evidence into your argument to discredit what I saw? Please note, your ignorance does not count as evidence.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #976 on: September 13, 2013, 06:42:28 PM »
Except that you can see the planets.
Whatever you see in the sky as your planets, are merely reflections.
And how do these reflections make rings?
They don't.
Incorrect.
Ok then, so how do the reflections make rings?
Sorry. I meant correct. Habit. They don't, because the earth is round, there is no ice dome, planets are not reflections and you are wrong.
I'm more correct than you think. You just refuse to even see it. Maybe one day in the future, you may not need me to tell you.
Earth may just show its hand to at least make you question your RE indoc.
"Refuse to even see it"? We showed you how you are wrong and you "refuse to even see it".
I saw Saturn and it's rings. Are you ever going to bring evidence into your argument to discredit what I saw? Please note, your ignorance does not count as evidence.

Says the indoctrinated. You just think its evidence cause you were trained to think that way.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #977 on: September 13, 2013, 06:47:16 PM »
Says the indoctrinated. You just think its evidence cause you were trained to think that way.
Possibly. Do you have a feeling deep down in your heart that your theory is correct over his? He does.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #978 on: September 13, 2013, 06:50:19 PM »
Here's my theory.
1. The earth is egg shaped.
2. It does not move.
3. Everything in space is all pushed around by invisible platypuses in the sky.
4. Everything was created by a platypus. It laid an egg and the universe hatched.
5. Platypuses are behind the NASA conspiracy. They also cover up the fact that only platypuses live in Australia. No one has ever been there.
6. The invisible platypuses in the ground pull everything to them, causing gravity.
7. When platypuses die they become invisible platypuses.
8. Platypus kings and queens and other important platypuses become planets and stars when they die.

I came up with this by thinking so hard that the answer just came to me.
Long live the Great Platypus! Worship him! Love him! Thank him!
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #979 on: September 13, 2013, 06:51:08 PM »
Says the indoctrinated. You just think its evidence cause you were trained to think that way.
Possibly. Do you have a feeling deep down in your heart that your theory is correct over his? He does.

Of course mine is correct. If you would just try to see it then you will see that it makes a lot more sense than magic gravity and all that speed of light nonsense.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #980 on: September 13, 2013, 06:52:29 PM »
Says the indoctrinated. You just think its evidence cause you were trained to think that way.
Possibly. Do you have a feeling deep down in your heart that your theory is correct over his? He does.

Of course mine is correct. If you would just try to see it then you will see that it makes a lot more sense than magic gravity and all that speed of light nonsense.
Incorrect. I thought about mine harder so mine is right.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #981 on: September 13, 2013, 06:56:20 PM »
Says the indoctrinated. You just think its evidence cause you were trained to think that way.
Possibly. Do you have a feeling deep down in your heart that your theory is correct over his? He does.

Of course mine is correct. If you would just try to see it then you will see that it makes a lot more sense than magic gravity and all that speed of light nonsense.
Incorrect. I thought about mine harder so mine is right.

Your theory may have more steps but it doesn't account for why things fall or celestial fairies. Try again.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #982 on: September 13, 2013, 06:59:54 PM »
Things fall because of the invisible platypuses in the ground pulling down on things. Duh. ::) And there are no fairies.

Anyway, we should probably stop before this ends up in CN.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #983 on: September 13, 2013, 07:34:26 PM »

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.
Great, so then it seems that if I remove all air from a container, and I have a small steel ball on a scale, the scale will read zero? If you agree with this, I will happily do this experiment. If not, please clarify your model. My understanding of your model is still that the air above us is pushing down on us, causing the appearance of weight. If I misunderstand, please provide more details.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #984 on: September 13, 2013, 09:39:12 PM »
There is also the fact that removing air pressure actually causes the objects to be heavier, so that the LACK of a downward force translates into an increased downward force.

I love it when Scepti contradicts himself. Which is all the time, really, but rarely so succinctly.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #985 on: September 13, 2013, 10:32:31 PM »
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 ?
The air inside isn't near static at all. It may start off as static, as taxiing but as soon as the plane accelerates, the air is compressed. It only evens back out when there is no further sharp acceleration.

It's like holding a saucer of water. If you walk with it, your water stays on the saucer, but if you were to suddenly try to throw the saucer at speed, the saucer would fly off and leave the water behind. It creates a compression and friction due to sudden movement.

Let's say we are stopped at the runway. The planes accelerates. You are saying that the air pressure in the back of the cabin is greater than the air pressure in the front ?

You've not answered to my other question.
The best way I can answer this so you can get a clue on it, is to imagine the cockpit filled with water with the pilot in his seat taxiing onto the runway.
The water will be fairly static, just like the air would in his cabin.
Now he accelerates...and as he does so, that water gets pushed back against him and as long as he keeps speeding up...that water will continue to be pushed against the back of the cabin/cockpit but also, it will be pushing against his face, too, until he stops accelerating, in which case the water will return to it's normal pressure, just like the air would.
Sorry for the delay.
As the water is not compressible, if it is pushed backwards, there would be some gap of *something* in the front of the plane. It's not a good analogy. May we continue with air ?

This raises more questions:
If the air is pushed backwards during the plane's acceleration, there is more pressure in the back of the cabin than in the front It seems logical as air molecules are pushed backwards but can't allow empty space in the front. You said that they expand there, so the pressure lowers. Is it correct ?

If the air is pushed backwards, why the pilot's body isn't pushed too ? I can ask in another manner. What pushes the air back and why this *force* (or call it the name you want)  doesn't push on the pilot ?

Some planes do have open cockpits. There is no glass around the pilot, just outside air at atmospheric pressure. How can the air around him can be pushed backwards, as it will immediately equalize with the surrounding air? You still experience some accelerations in these planes.

When I'm in a plane accelerating before take-off, I cleary feel the seat pushing on my back, not the air around me pushing on my body. How do you explain that ?

Quote
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 ?
I note that you don't have a clue for this. Fair enough. But I still don't understand your process. It would be quite easy to get some relationship between air pressure and weight, wouldnt' it?

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #986 on: September 13, 2013, 11:27:49 PM »
There is also the fact that removing air pressure actually causes the objects to be heavier, so that the LACK of a downward force translates into an increased downward force.

I love it when Scepti contradicts himself. Which is all the time, really, but rarely so succinctly.
I know your on my side, but just to clarify, removing air pressure will not change the weight, unless the object is so tall that there is a gradient of air pressure along the length. The air pressure pushes normal to all surfaces of the object, so it will cancel out. That is of course, assuming that weight comes from gravity.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #987 on: September 14, 2013, 02:41:53 AM »
Quote from: ERTW
Great, so then it seems that if I remove all air from a container, and I have a small steel ball on a scale, the scale will read zero? If you agree with this, I will happily do this experiment. If not, please clarify your model. My understanding of your model is still that the air above us is pushing down on us, causing the appearance of weight. If I misunderstand, please provide more details.
Good luck with removing "ALL" matter from a container.

You can evacuate as much air as you want but it's still not enough to create a perfect vacuum, so any experiment you conduct, will be conducted with an atmosphere. The big difference is atmospheric pressure being much much lower, so any experiment done in that, will differ from one done outside of it.

You will never test anything out in a perfect vacuum, because a perfect vacuum becomes a non existence.
No matter. No life. No movement. No nothing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #988 on: September 14, 2013, 02:43:01 AM »
There is also the fact that removing air pressure actually causes the objects to be heavier, so that the LACK of a downward force translates into an increased downward force.

I love it when Scepti contradicts himself. Which is all the time, really, but rarely so succinctly.
How am I contradicting myself. Read and absorb what I'm saying.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #989 on: September 14, 2013, 02:49:56 AM »
Quote from: ERTW
Great, so then it seems that if I remove all air from a container, and I have a small steel ball on a scale, the scale will read zero? If you agree with this, I will happily do this experiment. If not, please clarify your model. My understanding of your model is still that the air above us is pushing down on us, causing the appearance of weight. If I misunderstand, please provide more details.
Good luck with removing "ALL" matter from a container.

You can evacuate as much air as you want but it's still not enough to create a perfect vacuum, so any experiment you conduct, will be conducted with an atmosphere. The big difference is atmospheric pressure being much much lower, so any experiment done in that, will differ from one done outside of it.

You will never test anything out in a perfect vacuum, because a perfect vacuum becomes a non existence.
No matter. No life. No movement. No nothing.
Who said anything about a perfect vacuum? All matter? All I am looking for is a noticeable effect. If the weight even decreases 1% I could easily measure that. My question to you is very simple, is the weight caused by air pressure? If the answer is yes, then changing the air pressure should change the weight. If I change the air pressure by 10X, is the weight going to change 10X? What does your theory predict? Honestly, if I can change the air pressure in a container by 10X and the measured weight doesn't change at all, I would call that conclusive proof that air pressure is an insignificant factor in the weight of objects. Do you agree? If not, please explain. If you agree, I will be happy to conduct this test.
Don't diss physics until you try it!