Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 382909 Views
?

Umurweird

  • 796
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1860 on: November 01, 2013, 10:31:57 AM »
Quote
HAHAHA, funny....see more personal attacks.  Lowlife tactics.  You, like many REs here are the ignorant ones.  Unobservant.  I am a woman.  My profile and my avatar stated this before I recently changed it.

Your ignorance brings about the attacks. Cease to be ignorant.........I will cease to call you such.

I really don't care what your profile says or your avatar. Okay, dude?
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1861 on: November 01, 2013, 10:37:28 AM »
Quote
I've see Armageddon and deep impact. Good films for entertainment. Are they real?

No, they are movies.

I've seen videos of Earth and pictures of Earth taken from satelliite and spacecraft.

Just as I've seen video of war.........such as videos of World War 2. But that doesn't make Saving Private Ryan real, does it?


Terrible argument. Lacking any logical thought whatsoever.
Ok, so you saw videos of earth from satellite and space craft and you know this for certain and yet you call Armageddon merely a film. How do you know that they didn't use real shuttles in that film and that they didn't actually film it on an asteroid to make it all more real?

Too expensive?
Obviously the shuttles are real though, aren't they?

4 min 25 onwards. Surely N.A.S.A allowed this filming and the shuttles are real. Obviously the movie produces would have had to pay the fuel costs for this and what not, but this is real isn't it?

No way can this be CGI and all that stuff, because it looks so real, so the cast must have went into space as you can see the earth and all kinds and no way that can be faked , can it?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Most Epic Movie Scene Ever - Armageddon - The Launch

?

Umurweird

  • 796
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1862 on: November 01, 2013, 10:40:55 AM »
Quote
Ok, so you saw videos of earth from satellite and space craft and you know this for certain and yet you call Armageddon merely a film. How do you know that they didn't use real shuttles in that film and that they didn't actually film it on an asteroid to make it all more real?

Because on the Blu-ray DVD of the movie they also show the behind the scenes footage and you can see it being shot in a hollywood studio.

Is this really going to be your argument? Do you realize it lacks any logical thought?

Quote
Too expensive?
Obviously the shuttles are real though, aren't they?

4 min 25 onwards. Surely N.A.S.A allowed this filming and the shuttles are real. Obviously the movie produces would have had to pay the fuel costs for this and what not, but this is real isn't it?

No way can this be CGI and all that stuff, because it looks so real, so the cast must have went into space as you can see the earth and all kinds and no way that can be faked , can it?

Again, terrible argument.

By your logic any videos of war or bombs going off must also be fake because they can be replicated in a movie.

Explain to me how a movie about going into space translates into that ALL pictures of the Earth from space must be fake?
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1863 on: November 01, 2013, 10:42:49 AM »
Quote
Ok, so you saw videos of earth from satellite and space craft and you know this for certain and yet you call Armageddon merely a film. How do you know that they didn't use real shuttles in that film and that they didn't actually film it on an asteroid to make it all more real?

Because on the Blu-ray DVD of the movie they also show the behind the scenes footage and you can see it being shot in a hollywood studio.

Is this really going to be your argument? Do you realize it lacks any logical thought?

Quote
Too expensive?
Obviously the shuttles are real though, aren't they?

4 min 25 onwards. Surely N.A.S.A allowed this filming and the shuttles are real. Obviously the movie produces would have had to pay the fuel costs for this and what not, but this is real isn't it?

No way can this be CGI and all that stuff, because it looks so real, so the cast must have went into space as you can see the earth and all kinds and no way that can be faked , can it?

Again, terrible argument.

By your logic any videos of war or bombs going off must also be fake because they can be replicated in a movie.

Explain to me how a movie about going into space translates into that ALL pictures of the Earth from space must be fake?
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

?

Umurweird

  • 796
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1864 on: November 01, 2013, 10:49:04 AM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.

You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1865 on: November 01, 2013, 10:56:25 AM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1866 on: November 01, 2013, 11:38:00 AM »
It's truly remarkable how quickly the point brought up by 29silhouette got lost in a pissing contest.

Scepti, how do you account for rigid pressure containers which have no significant expansion when pressurized?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Umurweird

  • 796
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1867 on: November 01, 2013, 11:46:03 AM »
Quote
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

Seeing the earth from an airplane. Observing the sun and the horizon and observing the stars throughout the year. Observing that you can see farther the higher up you go.

All logical reasons to believe the earth is an oblate spheroid.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa


?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1869 on: November 01, 2013, 11:52:10 AM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

Very well. We have nothing logical to say the Earth is flat except for things we have read about FET. So where does this leave us? We must start from scratch, build observations, and then try to explain them.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1870 on: November 01, 2013, 11:57:23 AM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

Very well. We have nothing logical to say the Earth is flat except for things we have read about FET. So where does this leave us? We must start from scratch, build observations, and then try to explain them.
Basically, yes.

Once you realise that they dupe us in even a few things, then it all has to come into question. Those who trust are those who are classed as easy pickings for those that are willing to pick.

It's a shame that we have to start from the beginning if we want to find some semblance of the real truth.
Taking the salesman at his word does not always get you what you believed he proposed.

?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1871 on: November 01, 2013, 11:58:46 AM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

Very well. We have nothing logical to say the Earth is flat except for things we have read about FET. So where does this leave us? We must start from scratch, build observations, and then try to explain them.
Basically, yes.

Once you realise that they dupe us in even a few things, then it all has to come into question. Those who trust are those who are classed as easy pickings for those that are willing to pick.

It's a shame that we have to start from the beginning if we want to find some semblance of the real truth.
Taking the salesman at his word does not always get you what you believed he proposed.

But you are not starting at the beginning. You have just chosen a different salesman: the FET community.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1872 on: November 01, 2013, 12:02:38 PM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

Very well. We have nothing logical to say the Earth is flat except for things we have read about FET. So where does this leave us? We must start from scratch, build observations, and then try to explain them.
Basically, yes.

Once you realise that they dupe us in even a few things, then it all has to come into question. Those who trust are those who are classed as easy pickings for those that are willing to pick.

It's a shame that we have to start from the beginning if we want to find some semblance of the real truth.
Taking the salesman at his word does not always get you what you believed he proposed.

But you are not starting at the beginning. You have just chosen a different salesman: the FET community.
But I don't follow their train of thought. There is a difference. There are many flat earth theories which follow different paths.
The basic flat earth can be thought of in many different aspects to actually being a flat disc or half an orange type or infinite, etc.
I didn't blindly follow any particular one, I went through all of them to see which made more sense, which has led me to where I am now. No salesman needed.

?

Umurweird

  • 796
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1873 on: November 01, 2013, 12:05:05 PM »
Can you explain some of the logic behind your idea?

And I don't mean to talk about textbooks and doubting the things someone like me believes is true.

But the logic behind the things you believe? Like what logically tells you there is a dome over our earth or that space doesn't actually exist?
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1874 on: November 01, 2013, 12:15:35 PM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

Very well. We have nothing logical to say the Earth is flat except for things we have read about FET. So where does this leave us? We must start from scratch, build observations, and then try to explain them.
Basically, yes.

Once you realise that they dupe us in even a few things, then it all has to come into question. Those who trust are those who are classed as easy pickings for those that are willing to pick.

It's a shame that we have to start from the beginning if we want to find some semblance of the real truth.
Taking the salesman at his word does not always get you what you believed he proposed.

But you are not starting at the beginning. You have just chosen a different salesman: the FET community.
But I don't follow their train of thought. There is a difference. There are many flat earth theories which follow different paths.
The basic flat earth can be thought of in many different aspects to actually being a flat disc or half an orange type or infinite, etc.
I didn't blindly follow any particular one, I went through all of them to see which made more sense, which has led me to where I am now. No salesman needed.

You chose between several different salesmen, and picked one to follow. This is not starting from the beginning as you claim. If you want to do this, then throw away FET and go collect your own observations.

Otherwise, you are blindly following a theory without checking it with your observations, just as you criticize RE'ers for doing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1875 on: November 01, 2013, 12:38:22 PM »
Can you explain some of the logic behind your idea?

And I don't mean to talk about textbooks and doubting the things someone like me believes is true.

But the logic behind the things you believe? Like what logically tells you there is a dome over our earth or that space doesn't actually exist?
Because I see how the elements on earth act in densities. I see how a partially evacuated chamber acts with things on earth.
I see how ice forms and why lighter elements freeze in the right environment and why lighter elements make up higher layers in the elements sandwich we live under.

I see that a lot of what is up in the sky can be replicated under certain conditions on earth and the only thing that cannot be replicated is the evacuation of all matter that people call a vacuum.
The reason why it cannot be replicated, is because it's the step too far as in, it becomes nothing, it does not exist. It becomes the dark/pitch blackness above the dome that we see as space and believe is space, because in our primitive little minds we think reflections are planets and stars and suns and moons, when all they are is hologram images of what's on earth, reflected off of the dome against the blackness.

From the very bottom of the centre of this half of a solid circle to the very top of the ice dome, is super dense to super light elements.
Antarctica, or what people think it is, is not a continent, it does not exist. What does exist, is a rim of snow and ice that man can venture so far into...merely a fraction of the way in where it would become so cold that humans would simply die and machinery would simply cold weld or crumble or seize.

Beyond that would be a liquid  type wall of light elements until the outer part of them, where no reflected sun hits at all, become froze solid and so dense in terms of the maximum density a light (to us) element like helium (for instance) becomes like glass.
It does this because it becomes the last element earth has and it becomes dormant against what we see as blackness, which is in fact a non existence, but we cannot perceive such a thing, we would rather hang onto the universe we see as black as being never ending, yet trying to picture something that's never ending, will fry your brain, obviously.

We always say, "well space cannot end, because what's at the end, there must be something." and blah blah.
What we should be asking is, how high is the dome, where does the dome end, because we know it has to end or it would not be a dome. (my theory)

So where does the universe end?
The answer is, it doesn't even start. It does not exist, except in our minds. We are a cell in suspended animation.
We are a large species, but are we?
We are only large to those smaller things. An ant will feel like an elephant to a green fly, a green fly will feel like an elephant to a bed bug and a bed bug will feel like a giant to another smaller organism and so on and so on.
They all feel big in their own world and we are no different, yet in the grand scheme of things, we may only be a tiny cell among other tiny cells among larger cells among humongous (to earth) cells and all are in suspended animation.
Sounds crazy doesn't it?

So why and how can this be?
I don't know the answer to that, nor am I ever likely to, because one thing will always baffle our primitive minds, no matter which way a person views their existence and it is: WHERE DID IT ALL START?

Am I correct in what I say? the answer is no, but I believe it makes the most sense to me, regardless of what others believe. It's just a case of picking and picking and making it all fit so that it fits by logic and not by made up words that describe fallacies , in my opinion.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1876 on: November 01, 2013, 12:47:53 PM »
So much I want to respond to but all I will ask is this:If stars and the sun are just reflections of cities, does that mean the sun didn't exist before electricity was found and the light bulb was invented?
Yeah you don't make any sense. This sums you up.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Am I correct in what I say? the answer is no
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1877 on: November 01, 2013, 12:51:16 PM »
So much I want to respond to but all I will ask is this:If stars and the sun are just reflections of cities, does that mean the sun didn't exist before electricity was found and the light bulb was invented?
Yeah you don't make any sense. This sums you up.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Am I correct in what I say? the answer is no
You should actually try to read the thread before posting.  He has stated that the Sun is a reflection of a crystal located at the north pole, not to be confused with what we believe to be the north pole currently.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1878 on: November 01, 2013, 12:52:04 PM »
Quote
It doesn't translate into ALL pictures, it just shows you how it can ALL  be faked. Deny it all you want but the possibilities are immense.

Well, anything can be faked. But don't you have to use a certain about of logic in this?

When you think everything that would need to go on in order for the space program and everything else to all be faked.............logical thought would have to put the odds strongly against such a feat being accomplished.

I don't deny things can be faked. I don't deny governments do some evil crap and the people in power in this world thirst for more money and more power.

But logically............I see zero possibility that the pictures I see of Earth from space are fake. Logically, I see no reason the Earth could possibly be flat. I see, logically, nothing that says it isn't an oblate spheroid.
You see nothing logical to say it is an oblate spheroid except the text books you have read.

Very well. We have nothing logical to say the Earth is flat except for things we have read about FET. So where does this leave us? We must start from scratch, build observations, and then try to explain them.
Basically, yes.

Once you realise that they dupe us in even a few things, then it all has to come into question. Those who trust are those who are classed as easy pickings for those that are willing to pick.

It's a shame that we have to start from the beginning if we want to find some semblance of the real truth.
Taking the salesman at his word does not always get you what you believed he proposed.

But you are not starting at the beginning. You have just chosen a different salesman: the FET community.
But I don't follow their train of thought. There is a difference. There are many flat earth theories which follow different paths.
The basic flat earth can be thought of in many different aspects to actually being a flat disc or half an orange type or infinite, etc.
I didn't blindly follow any particular one, I went through all of them to see which made more sense, which has led me to where I am now. No salesman needed.

You chose between several different salesmen, and picked one to follow. This is not starting from the beginning as you claim. If you want to do this, then throw away FET and go collect your own observations.

Otherwise, you are blindly following a theory without checking it with your observations, just as you criticize RE'ers for doing.
Nobody pushed me into following. I came here as a geocentric round earther and that was after viewing the forum for a while.
Something simply struck me about why I believed in a ball in space and I came to realise how easily duped I was by rejecting a rotating globe and accepting a stationary globe in it's place.

When I had the time to really look around me and look at the sky and the sun and what not, I gave myself a real good slap and decided to look into the possibilities of the earth being sort of flat, not flat in a pancake theory, though.

I toyed with an infinite flat earth.
I've been through a lot of thoughts, so I didn't set rigid with any one.
That's why I've started from the basics. The very bottom. Because, to me, it's the only way I can start to actually make sense out of all the different stuff that's been put out there.

I'm still open minded to a lot of things but I'm serious when I say this. I am totally and utterly closed off to any thought of the earth being a globe, rotating or not in what we are told is the vacuum of space. That has became absolute utter nonsense to me, 100%.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1879 on: November 01, 2013, 12:53:42 PM »
So much I want to respond to but all I will ask is this:If stars and the sun are just reflections of cities, does that mean the sun didn't exist before electricity was found and the light bulb was invented?
Yeah you don't make any sense. This sums you up.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Am I correct in what I say? the answer is no
You should actually try to read the thread before posting.  He has stated that the Sun is a reflection of a crystal located at the north pole, not to be confused with what we believe to be the north pole currently.
I haven't read it lately. He must have changed his theory since I last read this thread.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1880 on: November 01, 2013, 12:59:04 PM »
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#]55 Gallon Drum Crush

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#]This happens when you don't properly vent a storage tank
About all that... so how does that work then scepti?  Last I understood from you, all the molecules inside expand as the air is sucked out and they act like bubbles, contorting to fill all that volume, allowing no void between molecules and equalizing inside and out .

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1881 on: November 01, 2013, 01:04:57 PM »
Also, regarding the tire....

An uninflated tire on a wheel with no vehicle weight on it looks almost the same as a tire inflated to 35psi, meaning it expands very little.  Outside is still 15psi.  There is only slightly more outside surface area exposed to 15psi vs the inside surface area exposed to 35psi. 

How is that equalized?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1882 on: November 01, 2013, 01:07:01 PM »
So much I want to respond to but all I will ask is this:If stars and the sun are just reflections of cities, does that mean the sun didn't exist before electricity was found and the light bulb was invented?
Yeah you don't make any sense. This sums you up.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Am I correct in what I say? the answer is no
Here;s something for you to ponder doing. Try not to make stuff up, because all it will do is confuse you.
If you can find anywhere in what I've said where I mention reflection of cities, I'll follow a rotating globe.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1883 on: November 01, 2013, 01:08:26 PM »
So much I want to respond to but all I will ask is this:If stars and the sun are just reflections of cities, does that mean the sun didn't exist before electricity was found and the light bulb was invented?
Yeah you don't make any sense. This sums you up.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Am I correct in what I say? the answer is no
You should actually try to read the thread before posting.  He has stated that the Sun is a reflection of a crystal located at the north pole, not to be confused with what we believe to be the north pole currently.
You might think I'm nuts and not agree with a word I say, but at least you grasp what I'm saying, which is fair play.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1884 on: November 01, 2013, 01:10:08 PM »
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#]55 Gallon Drum Crush

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#]This happens when you don't properly vent a storage tank
About all that... so how does that work then scepti?  Last I understood from you, all the molecules inside expand as the air is sucked out and they act like bubbles, contorting to fill all that volume, allowing no void between molecules and equalizing inside and out .
They compress. They shrink and instead of making the vacuum people think they make, they are immediately crushed as they shrink by the outside force.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1885 on: November 01, 2013, 01:12:44 PM »
Also, regarding the tire....

An uninflated tire on a wheel with no vehicle weight on it looks almost the same as a tire inflated to 35psi, meaning it expands very little.  Outside is still 15psi.  There is only slightly more outside surface area exposed to 15psi vs the inside surface area exposed to 35psi. 

How is that equalized?
A flat tyre on a rim has the strength of the tyre plus an equalisation of pressure. It's part of the environment it's in. Touch it and it will squash very easily because you are upsetting the balance.

?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1886 on: November 01, 2013, 01:25:57 PM »
Also, regarding the tire....

An uninflated tire on a wheel with no vehicle weight on it looks almost the same as a tire inflated to 35psi, meaning it expands very little.  Outside is still 15psi.  There is only slightly more outside surface area exposed to 15psi vs the inside surface area exposed to 35psi. 

How is that equalized?
A flat tyre on a rim has the strength of the tyre plus an equalisation of pressure. It's part of the environment it's in. Touch it and it will squash very easily because you are upsetting the balance.

No that is not how tyres work. A flat tire does not let air when it's valve is closed. The pressures are not equal, hence there is no balance to begin with.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1887 on: November 01, 2013, 01:31:30 PM »
Also, regarding the tire....

An uninflated tire on a wheel with no vehicle weight on it looks almost the same as a tire inflated to 35psi, meaning it expands very little.  Outside is still 15psi.  There is only slightly more outside surface area exposed to 15psi vs the inside surface area exposed to 35psi. 

How is that equalized?
A flat tyre on a rim has the strength of the tyre plus an equalisation of pressure. It's part of the environment it's in. Touch it and it will squash very easily because you are upsetting the balance.

No that is not how tyres work. A flat tire does not let air when its valve is closed. The pressures are not equal, hence there is no balance to begin with.
It doesn't have to let air in when it's valve is closed. The sea level atmospheric pressure is already inside it.

Go and open a tyre valve and let all the air out of it. now replace the valve. Now stand on the tyre and you will see that the tyre has air in it, because it's equalised with the outer atmospheric pressure, it's balanced .

?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1888 on: November 01, 2013, 01:34:23 PM »
Also, regarding the tire....

An uninflated tire on a wheel with no vehicle weight on it looks almost the same as a tire inflated to 35psi, meaning it expands very little.  Outside is still 15psi.  There is only slightly more outside surface area exposed to 15psi vs the inside surface area exposed to 35psi. 

How is that equalized?
A flat tyre on a rim has the strength of the tyre plus an equalisation of pressure. It's part of the environment it's in. Touch it and it will squash very easily because you are upsetting the balance.

No that is not how tyres work. A flat tire does not let air when its valve is closed. The pressures are not equal, hence there is no balance to begin with.
It doesn't have to let air in when it's valve is closed. The sea level atmospheric pressure is already inside it.

Go and open a tyre valve and let all the air out of it. now replace the valve. Now stand on the tyre and you will see that the tyre has air in it, because it's equalised with the outer atmospheric pressure, it's balanced .

If you let all the air out, there will be no air inside to balance. You see not making sense.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1889 on: November 01, 2013, 01:38:27 PM »
Also, regarding the tire....

An uninflated tire on a wheel with no vehicle weight on it looks almost the same as a tire inflated to 35psi, meaning it expands very little.  Outside is still 15psi.  There is only slightly more outside surface area exposed to 15psi vs the inside surface area exposed to 35psi. 

How is that equalized?
A flat tyre on a rim has the strength of the tyre plus an equalisation of pressure. It's part of the environment it's in. Touch it and it will squash very easily because you are upsetting the balance.

No that is not how tyres work. A flat tire does not let air when its valve is closed. The pressures are not equal, hence there is no balance to begin with.
It doesn't have to let air in when it's valve is closed. The sea level atmospheric pressure is already inside it.

Go and open a tyre valve and let all the air out of it. now replace the valve. Now stand on the tyre and you will see that the tyre has air in it, because it's equalised with the outer atmospheric pressure, it's balanced .

If you let all the air out, there will be no air inside to balance. You see not making sense.
You are either taking the urine or you have no clue what you are talking about