Sceptimatics theory

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 17, 2013, 08:28:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 02:29:54 AM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 16, 2013, 08:24:43 PM

Quote from: hewholikespie on October 16, 2013, 08:19:10 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 02:57:20 PM

"We could drive to the North Pole- entirely possible in deep winter- as the Top Gear crew did, verify its position, that it is Magnetic North and there is no crystal sun, and Scepti would just change the rules."

A tv show crew goes to the NP.  That doesn't mean they were anywhere near the inner sun.

Or, alternately, and bear me out on this one, THERE IS NO INNER SUN.

A bold proposal, I know, but given the utter lack of any evidence that the sun's radiation originates from the North Pole, the fact that Transpolar flights are a regular occurrence, that the travel distances in the Northern hemisphere do not allow to any sort of bizarre extra pocket of space this inner/ crystal/ nonsense sun would have to emit out of, I think it's more than safe to remind you that you and scepti suffer the burden of proof and evidence is neither of your strong suits.

I do not see how there can be any physical validity to this "inner Sun" idea. I would call this a FET dead-end. I think FE'ers will better spend their time attempting to explain the seasons. This is the obvious next hurdle.

I am trying to do so, by the way, I am not just giving lip-service to this. It is.....not easy to figure out.

No one's asking you to.
You can't get your head around it but are more than willing to hang on to special relativity, dark matter, gravity, Higgs Boson particle, big bang theory, nuclear sun in a vacuum, bent space time, worm holes, the list is endless and pathetic and is put together like square blocks simply trimmed to fit round holes as time goes on, so that they appear correct, when anyone willing to look more closely, can see it's shoehorned to fit.
Have a think about all this before you dismiss other musings.
One thing your mainstream science has, is full backing. One thing any other theory has, is ridicule and no backing.
Going with the flow does not make you correct.

Ha! You have me all wrong, man. I most definitely do NOT go with the flow. I question my beliefs, and I question what I am told. Then you know what I do?

I find out for myself. I LEARN IT FOR MYSELF -- THE HEART OF FLAT EARTHER IDEOLOGY!

The reason why I am able to discuss special relativity, dark matter, gravity, Higgs Boson particle, big bang theory, nuclear sun in a vacuum, bent space time, worm holes, etc., is because I actually took the time to learn it before I spoke out against it!

Imagine that.

So now I can discuss these things, and I have some kind of basis for arguing against them...because I actually know what I am arguing against. I understand the thing I am talking about. You think this means I agree with it all? You are wrong. I obviously do not.

You claim all of science is shoehorned to fit. Really? You seem entirely unwilling to learn and understand the things you believe are so contrived. You know a minute fraction of all of science, and are therefore not in a position to offer a  reliable evaluation of it.

The FE'er armed with a good knowledge of the opponent's science, will accomplish more for FET than anyone else can.

The operative word in all of what you wrote is LEARNED.
You LEARNED it by taking the time to absorb explanations for stuff that cannot be proved. That's not learning, that is memorising a script.
Actors do the same thing.

Your belief that understanding and learning science is the same as memorizing a script exposing just how little science you know. This is not what it is at all, and I fear you will never realize this. But that is your choice. I know what learning is, and I know how to learn. You do not distract me.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 17, 2013, 11:44:29 AM

Your belief that understanding and learning science is the same as memorizing a script exposing just how little science you know. This is not what it is at all, and I fear you will never realize this. But that is your choice. I know what learning is, and I know how to learn. You do not distract me.

We all know what learning is and we all know what things we can put into practice from that learning that physically work. This is fair enough, no problem there.

What we learn that we cannot physically verify by putting it into practice we can accept on face value or we can question it, yet either way we have to rely on nothing other than our own logic as to whether it's legitimate or misinformation.
In an ideal world of no lies, it would be accepted, naturally, but we don't live in an ideal world and we constantly get fed lies and misinformation.

I have no qualms about what you believe you are learning. To you it may be all 100% correct or close to that, even though you cannot prove it, you accept it, which is fair enough in my book. I accept a lot of stuff but I question a lot, as well.
Whether you think I'm wrong, is neither here nor there to me. It still does not make you right.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 17, 2013, 11:44:29 AM

Your belief that understanding and learning science is the same as memorizing a script exposing just how little science you know. This is not what it is at all, and I fear you will never realize this. But that is your choice. I know what learning is, and I know how to learn. You do not distract me.

We all know what learning is and we all know what things we can put into practice from that learning that physically work. This is fair enough, no problem there.

What we learn that we cannot physically verify by putting it into practice we can accept on face value or we can question it, yet either way we have to rely on nothing other than our own logic as to whether it's legitimate or misinformation.
In an ideal world of no lies, it would be accepted, naturally, but we don't live in an ideal world and we constantly get fed lies and misinformation.

I have no qualms about what you believe you are learning. To you it may be all 100% correct or close to that, even though you cannot prove it, you accept it, which is fair enough in my book. I accept a lot of stuff but I question a lot, as well.
Whether you think I'm wrong, is neither here nor there to me. It still does not make you right.

Well of course not.  The whole POINT is that you should not believe I am right. The whole POINT is that you should not believe YOU are right. You question, and learn, and question some more. This is, in its essence, science. By doing this, you are more of a scientist than perhaps may think, sceptimatic. Even your NAME is scientific. By questioning we learn, and in learning we phrase better questions. In the end, man, that is all that matters. Not who is "right." But who is willing to question....whether they are wrong. We should all be sceptimatics, of our own beliefs as well as our opponents. It is only then, that we can be seekers of truth (see what I did there. Nice.).

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 17, 2013, 12:21:54 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 17, 2013, 11:44:29 AM

Your belief that understanding and learning science is the same as memorizing a script exposing just how little science you know. This is not what it is at all, and I fear you will never realize this. But that is your choice. I know what learning is, and I know how to learn. You do not distract me.

We all know what learning is and we all know what things we can put into practice from that learning that physically work. This is fair enough, no problem there.

What we learn that we cannot physically verify by putting it into practice we can accept on face value or we can question it, yet either way we have to rely on nothing other than our own logic as to whether it's legitimate or misinformation.
In an ideal world of no lies, it would be accepted, naturally, but we don't live in an ideal world and we constantly get fed lies and misinformation.

I have no qualms about what you believe you are learning. To you it may be all 100% correct or close to that, even though you cannot prove it, you accept it, which is fair enough in my book. I accept a lot of stuff but I question a lot, as well.
Whether you think I'm wrong, is neither here nor there to me. It still does not make you right.

Well of course not.  The whole POINT is that you should not believe I am right. The whole POINT is that you should not believe YOU are right. You question, and learn, and question some more. This is, in its essence, science. By doing this, you are more of a scientist than perhaps may think, sceptimatic. Even your NAME is scientific. By questioning we learn, and in learning we phrase better questions. In the end, man, that is all that matters. Not who is "right." But who is willing to question....whether they are wrong. We should all be sceptimatics, of our own beliefs as well as our opponents. It is only then, that we can be seekers of truth (see what I did there. Nice.).

I accept I'm potentially not correct. Everything I say is open to debate. What I'm not open to, is being told I'm wrong by people who believe they are right, so I'm going to fight my corner by using my own thoughts and anyone who can add to them, against people that simply tell me I'm wrong by using memorised unprovable science against that.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 17, 2013, 08:28:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 02:29:54 AM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 16, 2013, 08:24:43 PM

Quote from: hewholikespie on October 16, 2013, 08:19:10 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on October 16, 2013, 02:57:20 PM

"We could drive to the North Pole- entirely possible in deep winter- as the Top Gear crew did, verify its position, that it is Magnetic North and there is no crystal sun, and Scepti would just change the rules."

A tv show crew goes to the NP.  That doesn't mean they were anywhere near the inner sun.

Or, alternately, and bear me out on this one, THERE IS NO INNER SUN.

A bold proposal, I know, but given the utter lack of any evidence that the sun's radiation originates from the North Pole, the fact that Transpolar flights are a regular occurrence, that the travel distances in the Northern hemisphere do not allow to any sort of bizarre extra pocket of space this inner/ crystal/ nonsense sun would have to emit out of, I think it's more than safe to remind you that you and scepti suffer the burden of proof and evidence is neither of your strong suits.

I do not see how there can be any physical validity to this "inner Sun" idea. I would call this a FET dead-end. I think FE'ers will better spend their time attempting to explain the seasons. This is the obvious next hurdle.

I am trying to do so, by the way, I am not just giving lip-service to this. It is.....not easy to figure out.

No one's asking you to.
You can't get your head around it but are more than willing to hang on to special relativity, dark matter, gravity, Higgs Boson particle, big bang theory, nuclear sun in a vacuum, bent space time, worm holes, the list is endless and pathetic and is put together like square blocks simply trimmed to fit round holes as time goes on, so that they appear correct, when anyone willing to look more closely, can see it's shoehorned to fit.
Have a think about all this before you dismiss other musings.
One thing your mainstream science has, is full backing. One thing any other theory has, is ridicule and no backing.
Going with the flow does not make you correct.

Ha! You have me all wrong, man. I most definitely do NOT go with the flow. I question my beliefs, and I question what I am told. Then you know what I do?

I find out for myself. I LEARN IT FOR MYSELF -- THE HEART OF FLAT EARTHER IDEOLOGY!

The reason why I am able to discuss special relativity, dark matter, gravity, Higgs Boson particle, big bang theory, nuclear sun in a vacuum, bent space time, worm holes, etc., is because I actually took the time to learn it before I spoke out against it!

Imagine that.

So now I can discuss these things, and I have some kind of basis for arguing against them...because I actually know what I am arguing against. I understand the thing I am talking about. You think this means I agree with it all? You are wrong. I obviously do not.

You claim all of science is shoehorned to fit. Really? You seem entirely unwilling to learn and understand the things you believe are so contrived. You know a minute fraction of all of science, and are therefore not in a position to offer a  reliable evaluation of it.

The FE'er armed with a good knowledge of the opponent's science, will accomplish more for FET than anyone else can.

The operative word in all of what you wrote is LEARNED.
You LEARNED it by taking the time to absorb explanations for stuff that cannot be proved. That's not learning, that is memorising a script.
Actors do the same thing.

Bln,
Wow. You put a LOT of faith in what others have told you, without actually seeing it for yourself from space.  I liken that to religion.  Not very smart, in my opinion.

Bln,
Wow. You put a LOT of faith in what others have told you, without actually seeing it for yourself from space.  I liken that to religion. Not very smart, in my opinion.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 17, 2013, 11:44:29 AM

Your belief that understanding and learning science is the same as memorizing a script exposing just how little science you know. This is not what it is at all, and I fear you will never realize this. But that is your choice. I know what learning is, and I know how to learn. You do not distract me.

We all know what learning is and we all know what things we can put into practice from that learning that physically work. This is fair enough, no problem there.

What we learn that we cannot physically verify by putting it into practice we can accept on face value or we can question it, yet either way we have to rely on nothing other than our own logic as to whether it's legitimate or misinformation.
In an ideal world of no lies, it would be accepted, naturally, but we don't live in an ideal world and we constantly get fed lies and misinformation.

I have no qualms about what you believe you are learning. To you it may be all 100% correct or close to that, even though you cannot prove it, you accept it, which is fair enough in my book. I accept a lot of stuff but I question a lot, as well.
Whether you think I'm wrong, is neither here nor there to me. It still does not make you right.

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 08:49:03 PM

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

Sceptimatic,
Your grasp of physics is clearly very limited.

You claim that the force that us "round-earthers" like to call gravity is in fact an illusion caused by air pressure.
In that case, may I ask, what prevents us from floating into the air when we jump up?
Your explanation of how air pressure functions as a gravity replacement is sorely lacking in several areas:

1. Air pressure acts in all directions equally. (think about blowing a balloon up). If air pressure acted in mainly the downwards direction, a balloon would change shape if you turned it. If this is true, then why do we fall back down if we jump, exposing the soles of our feet to the air pressure and equalising the forces?
Air pressure is strongest on us from above and we counteract that with our bodies and feet against a SOLID ground. It is equal all around us.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 12:00:41 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 08:49:03 PM

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

2. If pressure is the only force acting on an object at rest, then in an environment free of air (i.e. a vacuum) then an object released in a vacuum should surely stay suspended in the air, or at least fall at a greatly diminished speed as there are fewer particles colliding with it to push it. (check your year 11 chemistry for more details of the kinetic gas model).
Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.
3. If gravity does not exist, then how can phenomena such as the Eötvös effect (see dedicated thread), gravitational bending of light by the sun The ice dome..
http://phys.org/news162820004.html and the G measuring apparatus http://tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=big_G function?

Quote from: Isidor on October 18, 2013, 02:00:55 AM

Sceptimatic,
Your grasp of physics is clearly very limited.

You claim that the force that us "round-earthers" like to call gravity is in fact an illusion caused by air pressure.
In that case, may I ask, what prevents us from floating into the air when we jump up?
Your explanation of how air pressure functions as a gravity replacement is sorely lacking in several areas:

1. Air pressure acts in all directions equally. (think about blowing a balloon up). If air pressure acted in mainly the downwards direction, a balloon would change shape if you turned it. If this is true, then why do we fall back down if we jump, exposing the soles of our feet to the air pressure and equalising the forces?
Air pressure is strongest on us from above and we counteract that with our bodies and feet against a SOLID ground. It is equal all around us.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 12:00:41 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 08:49:03 PM

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

2. If pressure is the only force acting on an object at rest, then in an environment free of air (i.e. a vacuum) then an object released in a vacuum should surely stay suspended in the air, or at least fall at a greatly diminished speed as there are fewer particles colliding with it to push it. (check your year 11 chemistry for more details of the kinetic gas model).
Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.
3. If gravity does not exist, then how can phenomena such as the Eötvös effect (see dedicated thread), gravitational bending of light by the sun The ice dome..
http://phys.org/news162820004.html and the G measuring apparatus http://tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=big_G function?

Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

did you even watch the video of the hammer and feather in a vacuum? god.

No. "Air pressure is strongest on us from above and we counteract that with our bodies and feet against a SOLID ground. It is equal all around us." Not only does that make no sense whatsoever, it doesn't answer the question. If this were true:
Any walkways with holes in them (such as a grille on scaffolding) would allow more pressure to contact the bottom of our feet, making us feel lighter. But that doesn't happen.

Why is air pressure strongest above us? does pressure not affect the soles of our feet? please try to think through the behaviour of gasses more logically.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 02:22:38 AM

Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

So does vacuum exist then?

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 03:06:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 02:22:38 AM

Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

So does vacuum exist then?

The simple answer is no...BUT, to us, it's blackness, because that's all we can see. What our imaginations think beyond that, is entirely down to the individual.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 03:32:31 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 03:06:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 02:22:38 AM

Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

So does vacuum exist then?

The simple answer is no...BUT, to us, it's blackness, because that's all we can see. What our imaginations think beyond that, is entirely down to the individual.

So how is Earth suspended then?

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 08:49:03 PM

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 04:26:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 03:32:31 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 03:06:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 02:22:38 AM

Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

So does vacuum exist then?

The simple answer is no...BUT, to us, it's blackness, because that's all we can see. What our imaginations think beyond that, is entirely down to the individual.

So how is Earth suspended then?

It's a cell on its own. Nothing outside of it, exists to our sight, we are in suspended animation, a cell within darkness, a blackness that we perceive as we look up at the dome when the suns reflection does not interfere with our eyes much.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 12:00:41 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 08:49:03 PM

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

Because according to you objects accelerate towards the earth because of air pressure, so if the air pressure was reduced, things would accelerate at a slower rate.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 04:36:12 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 04:26:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 03:32:31 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 03:06:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 02:22:38 AM

Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

So does vacuum exist then?

The simple answer is no...BUT, to us, it's blackness, because that's all we can see. What our imaginations think beyond that, is entirely down to the individual.

So how is Earth suspended then?

It's a cell on its own. Nothing outside of it, exists to our sight, we are in suspended animation, a cell within darkness, a blackness that we perceive as we look up at the dome when the suns reflection does not interfere with our eyes much.

See how you conveniently change your mind from one post to another?

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 04:38:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 04:36:12 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 04:26:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 03:32:31 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 03:06:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 02:22:38 AM

Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

So does vacuum exist then?

The simple answer is no...BUT, to us, it's blackness, because that's all we can see. What our imaginations think beyond that, is entirely down to the individual.

So how is Earth suspended then?

It's a cell on its own. Nothing outside of it, exists to our sight, we are in suspended animation, a cell within darkness, a blackness that we perceive as we look up at the dome when the suns reflection does not interfere with our eyes much.

See how you conveniently change your mind from one post to another?

How have I changed my mind?

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 18, 2013, 04:36:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 12:00:41 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 08:49:03 PM

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

Because according to you objects accelerate towards the earth because of air pressure, so if the air pressure was reduced, things would accelerate at a slower rate.

You have it all wrong. It's the opposite. If the air pressure is reduced, there is less friction acting against you as you fall.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 18, 2013, 04:36:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 18, 2013, 12:00:41 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 17, 2013, 08:49:03 PM

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?

Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

Because according to you objects accelerate towards the earth because of air pressure, so if the air pressure was reduced, things would accelerate at a slower rate.

You have it all wrong. It's the opposite. If the air pressure is reduced, there is less friction acting against you as you fall.