Can anyone answer this question.

Again, you have no recipe to make your pudding, so how can you tell if it's going to be any better than the RET pudding recipes that have been tried and true for a very long time?

I can't, all I can do is keep telling people that my pudding will be better than the glossy magazine one that's given out, yet nobody has actually seen in real time, nor tasted but does look good, like packaged meals look good on the front but never look like that when opened up.

Do you mean direct evidence like going into space and observing the earth from a great distance?

Yeah, something like that.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:01:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:53:17 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:49:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:29:33 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:13:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:03:57 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 09:49:47 AM

I'm still confused.  Steam comes from water when it is boiling, it is the only thing that escapes and all the water will eventually boil at.  This means steam is water, but you're telling me it is hydrogen and oxygen separate but mixed and isn't flammable like it should be of that were the case.  Why don't the manufactures of pure oxygen and hydrogen gases just boil water to produce their product if that's all it takes?

It isn't all it takes. Read what I'm saying.

The atmosphere at sea level is much different higher up. If we could live up there, we would have hydrogen and helium in abundance, as an element on it's own, dependent on where you were at in the layered sandwich.
Simple boiling isn't going to separate at sea level, it has to be put in a false environment to achieve it, like a lot of other stuff.

You just told me a few posts ago that when water is heated that hydrogen and oxygen is released.  So you made the claim that it is that simple.

Let me tell you this, just once. Read what I'm typing and read it properly and you will see what I'm saying.
If a kettle boils dry, it means it's released it's water into the atmosphere, which means it's released what elements were there, Hydrogen doesn't just jump off at sea level and say, "oh look at me, I'm free"...it's still part of the molecule.

That's completely different than what you claimed earlier but okay.
Have you figured out what is expanding when a molecule expands?  Is it the atoms or the space between the atoms?

There is never any space.

There must be space in order to move through a material, seeing as two objects can't occupy the same location at the same time.

Can a cannonball roll through a mass over ping pong balls?

Irrelevant.
If there were no space between anything, everything would be a solid.  Can a brick move through a solid brick wall?  That is closer to what you are claiming.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:01:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:53:17 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:49:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:29:33 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:13:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:03:57 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 09:49:47 AM

I'm still confused.  Steam comes from water when it is boiling, it is the only thing that escapes and all the water will eventually boil at.  This means steam is water, but you're telling me it is hydrogen and oxygen separate but mixed and isn't flammable like it should be of that were the case.  Why don't the manufactures of pure oxygen and hydrogen gases just boil water to produce their product if that's all it takes?

It isn't all it takes. Read what I'm saying.

The atmosphere at sea level is much different higher up. If we could live up there, we would have hydrogen and helium in abundance, as an element on it's own, dependent on where you were at in the layered sandwich.
Simple boiling isn't going to separate at sea level, it has to be put in a false environment to achieve it, like a lot of other stuff.

You just told me a few posts ago that when water is heated that hydrogen and oxygen is released.  So you made the claim that it is that simple.

Let me tell you this, just once. Read what I'm typing and read it properly and you will see what I'm saying.
If a kettle boils dry, it means it's released it's water into the atmosphere, which means it's released what elements were there, Hydrogen doesn't just jump off at sea level and say, "oh look at me, I'm free"...it's still part of the molecule.

That's completely different than what you claimed earlier but okay.
Have you figured out what is expanding when a molecule expands?  Is it the atoms or the space between the atoms?

There is never any space.

There must be space in order to move through a material, seeing as two objects can't occupy the same location at the same time.

Can a cannonball roll through a mass over ping pong balls?

Irrelevant.
If there were no space between anything, everything would be a solid.  Can a brick move through a solid brick wall?  That is closer to what you are claiming.

Yes it can if it's velocity is fast enough...but this  isn't what I'm saying. You are using one mass against a larger mass of itself.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:10:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:01:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:53:17 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:49:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:29:33 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:13:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:03:57 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 09:49:47 AM

I'm still confused.  Steam comes from water when it is boiling, it is the only thing that escapes and all the water will eventually boil at.  This means steam is water, but you're telling me it is hydrogen and oxygen separate but mixed and isn't flammable like it should be of that were the case.  Why don't the manufactures of pure oxygen and hydrogen gases just boil water to produce their product if that's all it takes?

It isn't all it takes. Read what I'm saying.

The atmosphere at sea level is much different higher up. If we could live up there, we would have hydrogen and helium in abundance, as an element on it's own, dependent on where you were at in the layered sandwich.
Simple boiling isn't going to separate at sea level, it has to be put in a false environment to achieve it, like a lot of other stuff.

You just told me a few posts ago that when water is heated that hydrogen and oxygen is released.  So you made the claim that it is that simple.

Let me tell you this, just once. Read what I'm typing and read it properly and you will see what I'm saying.
If a kettle boils dry, it means it's released it's water into the atmosphere, which means it's released what elements were there, Hydrogen doesn't just jump off at sea level and say, "oh look at me, I'm free"...it's still part of the molecule.

That's completely different than what you claimed earlier but okay.
Have you figured out what is expanding when a molecule expands?  Is it the atoms or the space between the atoms?

There is never any space.

There must be space in order to move through a material, seeing as two objects can't occupy the same location at the same time.

Can a cannonball roll through a mass over ping pong balls?

Irrelevant.
If there were no space between anything, everything would be a solid.  Can a brick move through a solid brick wall?  That is closer to what you are claiming.

Yes it can if it's velocity is fast enough...but this  isn't what I'm saying. You are using one mass against a larger mass of itself.

Okay, then can you pass through a solid brick wall?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:16:13 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:10:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:01:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:53:17 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:49:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:29:33 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:13:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:03:57 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 09:49:47 AM

I'm still confused.  Steam comes from water when it is boiling, it is the only thing that escapes and all the water will eventually boil at.  This means steam is water, but you're telling me it is hydrogen and oxygen separate but mixed and isn't flammable like it should be of that were the case.  Why don't the manufactures of pure oxygen and hydrogen gases just boil water to produce their product if that's all it takes?

It isn't all it takes. Read what I'm saying.

The atmosphere at sea level is much different higher up. If we could live up there, we would have hydrogen and helium in abundance, as an element on it's own, dependent on where you were at in the layered sandwich.
Simple boiling isn't going to separate at sea level, it has to be put in a false environment to achieve it, like a lot of other stuff.

You just told me a few posts ago that when water is heated that hydrogen and oxygen is released.  So you made the claim that it is that simple.

Let me tell you this, just once. Read what I'm typing and read it properly and you will see what I'm saying.
If a kettle boils dry, it means it's released it's water into the atmosphere, which means it's released what elements were there, Hydrogen doesn't just jump off at sea level and say, "oh look at me, I'm free"...it's still part of the molecule.

That's completely different than what you claimed earlier but okay.
Have you figured out what is expanding when a molecule expands?  Is it the atoms or the space between the atoms?

There is never any space.

There must be space in order to move through a material, seeing as two objects can't occupy the same location at the same time.

Can a cannonball roll through a mass over ping pong balls?

Irrelevant.
If there were no space between anything, everything would be a solid.  Can a brick move through a solid brick wall?  That is closer to what you are claiming.

Yes it can if it's velocity is fast enough...but this  isn't what I'm saying. You are using one mass against a larger mass of itself.

Okay, then can you pass through a solid brick wall?

Nope, I'd splat against it due to my mass being different, like sound would being different in mass and the light from sound would.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:20:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:16:13 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:10:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:01:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:53:17 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:49:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:29:33 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 10:13:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 10:03:57 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 09:49:47 AM

I'm still confused.  Steam comes from water when it is boiling, it is the only thing that escapes and all the water will eventually boil at.  This means steam is water, but you're telling me it is hydrogen and oxygen separate but mixed and isn't flammable like it should be of that were the case.  Why don't the manufactures of pure oxygen and hydrogen gases just boil water to produce their product if that's all it takes?

It isn't all it takes. Read what I'm saying.

The atmosphere at sea level is much different higher up. If we could live up there, we would have hydrogen and helium in abundance, as an element on it's own, dependent on where you were at in the layered sandwich.
Simple boiling isn't going to separate at sea level, it has to be put in a false environment to achieve it, like a lot of other stuff.

You just told me a few posts ago that when water is heated that hydrogen and oxygen is released.  So you made the claim that it is that simple.

Let me tell you this, just once. Read what I'm typing and read it properly and you will see what I'm saying.
If a kettle boils dry, it means it's released it's water into the atmosphere, which means it's released what elements were there, Hydrogen doesn't just jump off at sea level and say, "oh look at me, I'm free"...it's still part of the molecule.

That's completely different than what you claimed earlier but okay.
Have you figured out what is expanding when a molecule expands?  Is it the atoms or the space between the atoms?

There is never any space.

There must be space in order to move through a material, seeing as two objects can't occupy the same location at the same time.

Can a cannonball roll through a mass over ping pong balls?

Irrelevant.
If there were no space between anything, everything would be a solid.  Can a brick move through a solid brick wall?  That is closer to what you are claiming.

Yes it can if it's velocity is fast enough...but this  isn't what I'm saying. You are using one mass against a larger mass of itself.

Okay, then can you pass through a solid brick wall?

Nope, I'd splat against it due to my mass being different, like sound would being different in mass and the light from sound would.

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2013, 11:05:05 AM

Again, you have no recipe to make your pudding, so how can you tell if it's going to be any better than the RET pudding recipes that have been tried and true for a very long time?

I can't, all I can do is keep telling people that my pudding will be better than the glossy magazine one that's given out, yet nobody has actually seen in real time, nor tasted but does look good, like packaged meals look good on the front but never look like that when opened up.

So why should anyone trust your empty promises of tasty pudding when you have no recipes?

Oh, in case you haven't been keeping up, the "pudding" is your theory and the "recipes" are experiments to support your theory.  RET has lots of real world, hands on experiments that can be performed in an entry level college physics course.  You have no experiments other than poorly constructed thought experiments. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

He can't see what I'm typing Duck but please don't open this perfect vacuum vs nothing can of worms. It will go nowhere. If everyone just stopped replying to this nonsense we could move on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:09:49 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2013, 11:05:05 AM

Again, you have no recipe to make your pudding, so how can you tell if it's going to be any better than the RET pudding recipes that have been tried and true for a very long time?

I can't, all I can do is keep telling people that my pudding will be better than the glossy magazine one that's given out, yet nobody has actually seen in real time, nor tasted but does look good, like packaged meals look good on the front but never look like that when opened up.

So why should anyone trust your empty promises of tasty pudding when you have no recipes?

Oh, in case you haven't been keeping up, the "pudding" is your theory and the "recipes" are experiments to support your theory.  RET has lots of real world, hands on experiments that can be performed in an entry level college physics course.  You have no experiments other than poorly constructed thought experiments.

Really?
Explain to me about these entry level physics courses that show physical experiments that confirm a rotating globe and also what is in space and al the rest of this stuff.
I'm not interested in the experiments that prove a mint can make coke froth up, I accept these.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

I already know your views on vacuums so I'm not taking the bait.  I'm saying there must be some place for air molecules to move to since air is not solid.  Also, since two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same time, there must be some place which does not have air molecules for them to move to, thus empty.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

I already know your views on vacuums so I'm not taking the bait.  I'm saying there must be some place for air molecules to move to since air is not solid.  Also, since two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same time, there must be some place which does not have air molecules for them to move to, thus empty.

I'm not putting any bait out for you to take. I'm asking you a serious question.
You will not mention a perfect vacuum, which you know would mean the ABSENCE of ALL matter, meaning you believe this will give you some kind of GAP between molecules, yet you also know that for this to be the case, you know that the GAP has to be filled, it cannot be a GAP or EMPTY space.

The absence of matter means the absence of a GAP/SPACE, it cannot exist.
It's not a trick, it's what would be the case, unless you have a different take on what you mean by absence of matter.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 24, 2013, 09:13:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 09:01:48 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 24, 2013, 08:53:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 08:40:47 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 24, 2013, 08:34:28 AM

Sceptimatic, do you have ANY evidence for your ideas whatsoever?

Do you have any evidence for yours, apart from what you've been told?

I asked first.

Ok, I don't have any physical evidence that can support my claims. Do you have any that can support your claims that can prove me wrong.
I mean, your own evidence...physical evidence?

Wait, so your 100% sure your correct, even though you can't show any evidence for any of your claims? That's arrogance to the extreme. How can you be so sure, why are you do sure.

Let's see if I can ingrain this into your mind so it saves you from referencing this in the future.

I am not correct by any stretch of the imagination. I cannot directly prove what I'm saying, no more than you can directly prove I'm wrong. You can say I'm wrong and I can say you are wrong. It's just words.
The proof is in the pudding and the eating of it and both of us are clean out and both rely on being told about it. You off of me and me off of you from the text books that you read and the pictures that you see.
A picture of the pudding does not make that pudding real and the words of a wise man does not make that wise man, wise, only perceived to be wise.
This goes for anything told that cannot be physically backed up for all to see and we are all blinded, intentionally, in my opinion.

I am correct in my own mind, like you are in yours and others are in theirs. This is why we are arguing the point, because nobody is going to back down, unless they have no option but to take off their cap and humbly roll it between their fingers saying, " I believed I was right and you have proved me wrong and make no mistake."

This isn't happening, no matter how much kicking and screaming is going on and you can do no other than admit that what you are learning, regardless of it making sense to you, COULD be total misinformation and a case of physics/science (not all) being manipulated to shoehorn what's needed to paint the picture.

If you don't admit this, then you are not being true to yourself and will always accept anything told and then ask for seconds.
If you have an inquiring mind to the alternatives, then you may see that everything in that painted picture is not a true reflection of what actually IS.

I'm fighting my corner, because I believe in what I'm saying, just like you are...except, I'm not doing it by the book. I've decided to start from scratch, because trying to sift through fact and fiction is not an easy task, especially if the authors are clever story writers.

I'm not here to be uncivil or put people down, but I will furiously fight my corner and attempted intimidation techniques used by whoever, will be gorged on like a prime lunch of fillet steak and the trimmings.

You said you were 100% sure of yourself before. Are you now saying you're not, are you open to the possibility of you being wrong, and modern science being right?

I'm still confused.  Steam comes from water when it is boiling, it is the only thing that escapes and all the water will eventually boil at.  This means steam is water, but you're telling me it is hydrogen and oxygen separate but mixed and isn't flammable like it should be of that were the case.  Why don't the manufactures of pure oxygen and hydrogen gases just boil water to produce their product if that's all it takes?

Also hydrogen and oxygen give off a lot of energy when they react, far more then it takes to boilvwater

  You said you were 100% sure of yourself before. Are you now saying you're not, are you open to the possibility of you being wrong, and modern science being right?

I'm open to a lot of possibilities. What I'm not open to is a rotating globe and planets in space or space itself. I know in my own mind it cannot work.
Many other things I'm open to, but I'll have to be dragged screaming to embrace it and it won't be by people pretending to be science boffins on a forum simply telling me it's so whilst telling me I'm wrong because they think they know my background of education. lol

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 12:10:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

I already know your views on vacuums so I'm not taking the bait.  I'm saying there must be some place for air molecules to move to since air is not solid.  Also, since two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same time, there must be some place which does not have air molecules for them to move to, thus empty.

I'm not putting any bait out for you to take. I'm asking you a serious question.
You will not mention a perfect vacuum, which you know would mean the ABSENCE of ALL matter, meaning you believe this will give you some kind of GAP between molecules, yet you also know that for this to be the case, you know that the GAP has to be filled, it cannot be a GAP or EMPTY space.

The absence of matter means the absence of a GAP/SPACE, it cannot exist.
It's not a trick, it's what would be the case, unless you have a different take on what you mean by absence of matter.

Let's just say there is a subatomic goo that is in that empty space because I'm trying to avoid you sticking your fingers in your ears because of the word vacuum. I know your take on vacuums, I know it to be wrong but that has been beaten to death, I'm not going to discuss vacuums with you.  Now back to the point of why do you assume atoms expand? What causes them to?  And if they expand, wouldn't that create empty space inside the atom?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

He can't see what I'm typing Duck but please don't open this perfect vacuum vs nothing can of worms. It will go nowhere. If everyone just stopped replying to this nonsense we could move on.

I've went there before with him.

Indeed it is a waste of time (just like every other attempt at debate with him).

His reaction when I told him that the vast majority of atoms is actually composed of empty space was what you would expect.

I mean, what does he think everything is made of?  Particles would need to be non-spherical for a start, because if  they weren't then obviously it would be mathematically impossible to avoid these empty spaces that he so dreads for whatever reason.  Everything would need to be physically touching somehow, and then we have the problem of how exactly molecules move over one another.

He doesn't see the problem with suggesting that pressure compresses molecules and makes them smaller, while reducing pressure expands them.  If there is no space between particles then how can they expand?  As one, particle expands another would have to contract.

Likewise, if they were to all contract under pressure, then would this not leave the dreaded gaps between the particles?

He makes himself out to be some sort of great thinker, with his common 'sense'.

The fact is you can't beat him because he never concedes, no matter how badly you smash his arguments in.  So I agree - let's ignore and ignore.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 09:49:47 AM

I'm still confused.  Steam comes from water when it is boiling, it is the only thing that escapes and all the water will eventually boil at.  This means steam is water, but you're telling me it is hydrogen and oxygen separate but mixed and isn't flammable like it should be of that were the case.  Why don't the manufactures of pure oxygen and hydrogen gases just boil water to produce their product if that's all it takes?

Also hydrogen and oxygen give off a lot of energy when they react, far more then it takes to boilvwater

Have you been reading the thread?

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2013, 11:57:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:09:49 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2013, 11:05:05 AM

Again, you have no recipe to make your pudding, so how can you tell if it's going to be any better than the RET pudding recipes that have been tried and true for a very long time?

I can't, all I can do is keep telling people that my pudding will be better than the glossy magazine one that's given out, yet nobody has actually seen in real time, nor tasted but does look good, like packaged meals look good on the front but never look like that when opened up.

So why should anyone trust your empty promises of tasty pudding when you have no recipes?

Oh, in case you haven't been keeping up, the "pudding" is your theory and the "recipes" are experiments to support your theory.  RET has lots of real world, hands on experiments that can be performed in an entry level college physics course.  You have no experiments other than poorly constructed thought experiments.

Really?
Explain to me about these entry level physics courses that show physical experiments that confirm a rotating globe and also what is in space and al the rest of this stuff.

Well, I could tell you that something as simple as Foucault's pendulum proves that the earth is rotating, but you don't want to accept that, so I'm not really sure what other experiments I could tell you about that you would accept.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 24, 2013, 12:20:03 PM

  You said you were 100% sure of yourself before. Are you now saying you're not, are you open to the possibility of you being wrong, and modern science being right?

I'm open to a lot of possibilities. What I'm not open to is a rotating globe and planets in space or space itself. I know in my own mind it cannot work.
Many other things I'm open to, but I'll have to be dragged screaming to embrace it and it won't be by people pretending to be science boffins on a forum simply telling me it's so whilst telling me I'm wrong because they think they know my background of education. lol

Huh? I though tend I remembered reading some posts earlier where you said you were 100% sure you were correct. Why have you yet to carry out any experiments? They could help you determine whether you're ideas are correct. Also do you think sound and light are the same type of vibrations

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 12:15:35 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 12:10:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

I already know your views on vacuums so I'm not taking the bait.  I'm saying there must be some place for air molecules to move to since air is not solid.  Also, since two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same time, there must be some place which does not have air molecules for them to move to, thus empty.

I'm not putting any bait out for you to take. I'm asking you a serious question.
You will not mention a perfect vacuum, which you know would mean the ABSENCE of ALL matter, meaning you believe this will give you some kind of GAP between molecules, yet you also know that for this to be the case, you know that the GAP has to be filled, it cannot be a GAP or EMPTY space.

The absence of matter means the absence of a GAP/SPACE, it cannot exist.
It's not a trick, it's what would be the case, unless you have a different take on what you mean by absence of matter.

Let's just say there is a subatomic goo that is in that empty space because I'm trying to avoid you sticking your fingers in your ears because of the word vacuum. I know your take on vacuums, I know it to be wrong but that has been beaten to death, I'm not going to discuss vacuums with you.  Now back to the point of why do you assume atoms expand? What causes them to?  And if they expand, wouldn't that create empty space inside the atom?

Oh right, I see where your going. You think I mean they simply expand like a big balloon and are empty inside, so like they inflate and deflate kind of thing.
If this is what you think, then you're on the wrong lines. It's about agitation and cells within cells within cells, like bubbles sticking to bubbles.

I can explain more but I have something to do, so on that note, I'd like you to go and have a look at the bubbles in your sink and see how they are attached.
This isn't the whole story because these are just what you can see and inside them is like the Russian doll type thing, to keep it basic.
It's like different densities of molecules/matter, atoms if you want to call them atoms.

Just have a real good think about what I'm saying.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 24, 2013, 12:01:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

He can't see what I'm typing Duck but please don't open this perfect vacuum vs nothing can of worms. It will go nowhere. If everyone just stopped replying to this nonsense we could move on.

I've went there before with him.

Indeed it is a waste of time (just like every other attempt at debate with him).

His reaction when I told him that the vast majority of atoms is actually composed of empty space was what you would expect.

I mean, what does he think everything is made of?  Particles would need to be non-spherical for a start, because if  they weren't then obviously it would be mathematically impossible to avoid these empty spaces that he so dreads for whatever reason.  Everything would need to be physically touching somehow, and then we have the problem of how exactly molecules move over one another.

He doesn't see the problem with suggesting that pressure compresses molecules and makes them smaller, while reducing pressure expands them.  If there is no space between particles then how can they expand?  As one, particle expands another would have to contract.

Likewise, if they were to all contract under pressure, then would this not leave the dreaded gaps between the particles?

He makes himself out to be some sort of great thinker, with his common 'sense'.

The fact is you can't beat him because he never concedes, no matter how badly you smash his arguments in.  So I agree - let's ignore and ignore.

Duly noted, this will be my last correspondence to you. I'm happy enough with this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 12:02:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2013, 11:57:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:09:49 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2013, 11:05:05 AM

Again, you have no recipe to make your pudding, so how can you tell if it's going to be any better than the RET pudding recipes that have been tried and true for a very long time?

I can't, all I can do is keep telling people that my pudding will be better than the glossy magazine one that's given out, yet nobody has actually seen in real time, nor tasted but does look good, like packaged meals look good on the front but never look like that when opened up.

So why should anyone trust your empty promises of tasty pudding when you have no recipes?

Oh, in case you haven't been keeping up, the "pudding" is your theory and the "recipes" are experiments to support your theory.  RET has lots of real world, hands on experiments that can be performed in an entry level college physics course.  You have no experiments other than poorly constructed thought experiments.

Really?
Explain to me about these entry level physics courses that show physical experiments that confirm a rotating globe and also what is in space and al the rest of this stuff.

Well, I could tell you that something as simple as Foucault's pendulum proves that the earth is rotating, but you don't want to accept that, so I'm not really sure what other experiments I could tell you about that you would accept.

The best argument (in your opinion) is Foucault's pendulum, amid all the so called technology. You have to admit, it's a sorry state of affairs.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 12:28:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 12:15:35 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 12:10:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:56:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

I already know your views on vacuums so I'm not taking the bait.  I'm saying there must be some place for air molecules to move to since air is not solid.  Also, since two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same time, there must be some place which does not have air molecules for them to move to, thus empty.

I'm not putting any bait out for you to take. I'm asking you a serious question.
You will not mention a perfect vacuum, which you know would mean the ABSENCE of ALL matter, meaning you believe this will give you some kind of GAP between molecules, yet you also know that for this to be the case, you know that the GAP has to be filled, it cannot be a GAP or EMPTY space.

The absence of matter means the absence of a GAP/SPACE, it cannot exist.
It's not a trick, it's what would be the case, unless you have a different take on what you mean by absence of matter.

Let's just say there is a subatomic goo that is in that empty space because I'm trying to avoid you sticking your fingers in your ears because of the word vacuum. I know your take on vacuums, I know it to be wrong but that has been beaten to death, I'm not going to discuss vacuums with you.  Now back to the point of why do you assume atoms expand? What causes them to?  And if they expand, wouldn't that create empty space inside the atom?

Oh right, I see where your going. You think I mean they simply expand like a big balloon and are empty inside, so like they inflate and deflate kind of thing.
If this is what you think, then you're on the wrong lines. It's about agitation and cells within cells within cells, like bubbles sticking to bubbles.

I can explain more but I have something to do, so on that note, I'd like you to go and have a look at the bubbles in your sink and see how they are attached.
This isn't the whole story because these are just what you can see and inside them is like the Russian doll type thing, to keep it basic.
It's like different densities of molecules/matter, atoms if you want to call them atoms.

Just have a real good think about what I'm saying.

So you go from questioning what an atom is and its existence to believing in atoms, atomic particles, and subatomic particles.  Gotcha.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 12:28:28 PM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 24, 2013, 12:20:03 PM

  You said you were 100% sure of yourself before. Are you now saying you're not, are you open to the possibility of you being wrong, and modern science being right?

I'm open to a lot of possibilities. What I'm not open to is a rotating globe and planets in space or space itself. I know in my own mind it cannot work.
Many other things I'm open to, but I'll have to be dragged screaming to embrace it and it won't be by people pretending to be science boffins on a forum simply telling me it's so whilst telling me I'm wrong because they think they know my background of education. lol

Huh? I though tend I remembered reading some posts earlier where you said you were 100% sure you were correct. Why have you yet to carry out any experiments? They could help you determine whether you're ideas are correct. Also do you think sound and light are the same type of vibrations

Of course they are at the very start, it's just a case of differences in the intensity of the vibrations for any light given out.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 24, 2013, 12:38:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 12:28:28 PM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 24, 2013, 12:20:03 PM

  You said you were 100% sure of yourself before. Are you now saying you're not, are you open to the possibility of you being wrong, and modern science being right?

I'm open to a lot of possibilities. What I'm not open to is a rotating globe and planets in space or space itself. I know in my own mind it cannot work.
Many other things I'm open to, but I'll have to be dragged screaming to embrace it and it won't be by people pretending to be science boffins on a forum simply telling me it's so whilst telling me I'm wrong because they think they know my background of education. lol

Huh? I though tend I remembered reading some posts earlier where you said you were 100% sure you were correct. Why have you yet to carry out any experiments? They could help you determine whether you're ideas are correct. Also do you think sound and light are the same type of vibrations

Of course they are at the very start, it's just a case of differences in the intensity of the vibrations for any light given out.

Light is a transverse wave and can be polarized. Sound is a longitudinal wave and can't.

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 24, 2013, 09:57:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2013, 04:08:38 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 23, 2013, 10:05:54 AM

If light is merely vibrations of air molecules like sound, explain why light reflects better off a white surface than a black surface.

Not as easy to answer as it appears. Of course, we can say, "oh, because black absorbs and white reflects", but that's not the whole process.
Black is black to our eyes due to what our eyes see of reflected colours, an artists paint mix, if you like.
Basically. black is the final, so called colour, to us, as we see black as being a colour when in fact it's the end product of all colours, which is why it absorbs all the light, because it absorbs all the colours of that light.
White is the opposite and can reflect all colours.
There's a lot more to it. I'm just giving you a basic explanation, so take it that way. Anything you see around you is a molecule mix to your eyes, so whatever colour you see is just natures mixing palette.

Anything you see, gives off light. But not everything can be seen by you to give off light as you expect light to be, because it's simply far too dull for your eyes to pick up on, yet infra red and such like can pick up that light.
Sound that you hear is still giving off light. It just depends on the vibration of it, which determines what you hear and what you see.

That's a nice explanation of light, but I'm asking about the vibrations, since you say light and sound transmit by vibrations of air.

A white surface reflects more light than a black surface, but makes no difference with sound.  Why would the vibrations echoing off be affected by the color?  I'll even put a sheet of glass over the colored surfaces.  Now the vibrations are reflecting off the glass, yet we can still see a vast difference in the light.  How does a smooth surface absorb some vibrations, but let's other reflect?

The light is the REFLECTION of the sound.

Think of molecules as tiny little mirrors...reflectors, picture them like a long reflective telescope and you are looking through the large end of that telescope so you see a dot of light at the other.
You are seeing the light unmagnified, yet if you went to the other end, the point of that source and looked...you would see the area lit up, because you are now looking from that point into a magnified spread out area, like a hall of mirrors.
This is the best explanation I can come up with at the minute.
Ok, so think of sound amplified in the same way, following the light. If your telescope turned into an ear trumpet and you put your ear to the large end, you would hear nothing, yet if you went to put it near the small end, you would hear the point of the creation of vibration, (sound) and yet that sound would dissipate into a wide area through the other end.

Note: You have to picture this from a light point only and not come back with something like, "well why do megaphones work then, as we are dealing with another aspect."

So in a nutshell, you will see the light through a window whilst spread out sound will hit all around it and dissipate.
There's a million scenarios to all this, I'm well aware of that, but the basics are there and from that, it can be channelled exactly the same and it's all about build up of friction and how it's released.

Sound propagates by vibration, and light... propagates by vibration off tiny 'mirrors'?  Seems like we'd all be experiencing some funhouse hall of mirror/hallucinogenic/blurry vision.

I still don't really see an answer to the question though.

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 23, 2013, 10:48:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 23, 2013, 09:29:55 AM

There are no individual particles. Everything is attached to everything.

Interesting.  You have just contradicted most of your theories I think.

The helium vs oxygen balloons... individual particles.

All your pissed of hulk, agitated particles, people crammed in rooms, etc, analogies.... are they now one solid blob of meat and flesh?

You see, this is where I get to the stage with people like you, where I say, should I carry it on or just blank them.
Let's see what your next come backs are and I'll decide.

So what individual particles do you not believe in?

You said you don't believe in atoms, therefore I guess everything that an atom is comprised of is off the list.

Do you believe in molecules? 

I guess you do, because you describe water heating and the molecules breaking down into the elements (hydrogen and oxygen atoms) that make it up, but then that would mean you believe in atoms.