Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

Although we may not know the external world directly, we can draw conclusions from our experience as to what it might be like. This, in essence, has been the focus of our scientific endeavors. But to our surprise, the world "out there" has turned out to be quite unlike our experience of it.

Consider our experience of the color green. In the physical world there is light of a certain frequency, but the light itself is not green. Nor are the electrical impulses that are transmitted from the eye to the brain. No color exists there. The green we see is a quality appearing in the mind in response to this frequency of light. It exists only as a subjective experience in the mind.

The same is true of sound. I hear the music of a violin, but the sound I hear is a quality appearing in the mind. There is no sound as such in the external world, just vibrating air molecules. The smell of a rose does not exist without an experiencing mind, just molecules of a certain shape.

The same is also true of the solidness we experience in matter. Our experience of the world is certainly one of solidness, so we assume that the "thing in itself" must be equally solid. For two thousand years it was believed that atoms were tiny solid balls—a model clearly drawn from everyday experience. Then, as physicists discovered that atoms were composed of more elementary, subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, and suchlike) the model shifted to one of a central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons—again, a model based on experience.

An atom may be small, a mere billionth of an inch across, but subatomic particles are a hundred thousand times smaller still. Imagine the nucleus of an atom magnified to the size of a golf ball. The whole atom would then be the size of a football stadium, and the electrons would be like peas flying round the stands. As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, "Matter is mostly ghostly empty space." To be more precise, it is 99.9999999% empty space.

With the development of quantum theory, physicists have found that even subatomic particles are far from solid. In fact, they are nothing like matter as we know it. They cannot be pinned down and measured precisely. Much of the time they seem more like waves than particles. They are like fuzzy clouds of potential existence, with no definite location. Whatever matter is, it has little, if any, substance.

Our notion of matter as a solid substance is, like the color green, a quality appearing in consciousness. It is a model of what is "out there", but as with almost every other model, quite unlike what is actually out there.

So in the end like Sceptimatic quotes'  we live in a cocoon,,,

With pretty ordinary lab equipment it's possible to get a vacuum in the milli- or nano-pascal range. Vacuums as high as that have mean free paths of at least 10s of metres or more likely, several kilometres. This means that, on average, atoms will travel that far before encountering another atom. So for our purposes, it really is mostly empty space in there.

All manner of routine experiments are done in vacuums that high (and higher) and there haven't been any reports of light suddenly not working, or objects being unable to move or solid matter violently boiling off to fill the space, or any of the other claims that have been made here.

Light only works because of the gas inside the bulb.

Light only works because of the gas inside the bulb.

Who said anything about light bulbs?

Can we please stop talking philosophically and start a discussion based on reality?
Of course if you have a vacuum and put some solid object inside it the average will not be a vacuum anymore, but the volume not occupied by the object will remain a vacuum. Now, why shouldn't the object be able to move? It doesn't need to know which way is "up" or "down", any direction is fine.

Have a think on what you just said and you might understand  how it all works.

The Earth is exactly that....in a vacuum or for want of a better saying, it's in suspended animation, because a vacuum (at least to our perception) is devoid of all matter.
The Earth doesn't move because it's fixed in that vacuum.

You're saying an object doesn't need to know whether it's up/down or any direction...of course it does, because for anything to move, it HAS to have a reason to move, an energy applied. A force.
A vacuum provides none of it.

I don't care what you idiots think about Eric Dollard, HE KNOWS MORE THAN YOU DO:
Listen to what he says at 1:28:30   " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Have a think on what you just said and you might understand  how it all works.

The Earth is exactly that....in a vacuum or for want of a better saying, it's in suspended animation, because a vacuum (at least to our perception) is devoid of all matter.
The Earth doesn't move because it's fixed in that vacuum.

You're saying an object doesn't need to know whether it's up/down or any direction...of course it does, because for anything to move, it HAS to have a reason to move, an energy applied. A force.
A vacuum provides none of it.

Of course the vacuum itself doesn't move anything, but if you put a rocket in a vacuum it will propel itself just fine. Or if the vacuum is in a transparent box a photon going inside it will continue  its motion just fine, again. Any reason for why it shouldn't?

I hate to do this roundies, but scepti is right if it were a completely true vacuum. But even space, isn't a true vacuum, having a density of about 1 atom per cubic meter.

On the other hand, is light really "something"? If it's not something, than why can't it go through an area that contains nothing? Light is just energy, we can't look at light and say it contains "this". We can look at it, and say it originated from THAT, but it doesn't actually contain that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 07:05:00 AM

Have a think on what you just said and you might understand  how it all works.

The Earth is exactly that....in a vacuum or for want of a better saying, it's in suspended animation, because a vacuum (at least to our perception) is devoid of all matter.
The Earth doesn't move because it's fixed in that vacuum.

You're saying an object doesn't need to know whether it's up/down or any direction...of course it does, because for anything to move, it HAS to have a reason to move, an energy applied. A force.
A vacuum provides none of it.

Of course the vacuum itself doesn't move anything, but if you put a rocket in a vacuum it will propel itself just fine. Or if the vacuum is in a transparent box a photon going inside it will continue  its motion just fine, again. Any reason for why it shouldn't?

Where does it get it's starting energy from to move?

Quote from: bravimone on May 20, 2014, 07:19:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 07:05:00 AM

Have a think on what you just said and you might understand  how it all works.

The Earth is exactly that....in a vacuum or for want of a better saying, it's in suspended animation, because a vacuum (at least to our perception) is devoid of all matter.
The Earth doesn't move because it's fixed in that vacuum.

You're saying an object doesn't need to know whether it's up/down or any direction...of course it does, because for anything to move, it HAS to have a reason to move, an energy applied. A force.
A vacuum provides none of it.

Of course the vacuum itself doesn't move anything, but if you put a rocket in a vacuum it will propel itself just fine. Or if the vacuum is in a transparent box a photon going inside it will continue  its motion just fine, again. Any reason for why it shouldn't?

Where does it get it's starting energy from to move?

from whatever more dense object it originated from?

On the other hand, is light really "something"? If it's not something, than why can't it go through an area that contains nothing? Light is just energy, we can't look at light and say it contains "this". We can look at it, and say it originated from THAT, but it doesn't actually contain that.

Light is your eyes ability to see heat.  Just as sound is your ears ability to hear friction.

I hate to do this roundies, but scepti is right if it were a completely true vacuum. But even space, isn't a true vacuum, having a density of about 1 atom per cubic meter.

On the other hand, is light really "something"? If it's not something, than why can't it go through an area that contains nothing? Light is just energy, we can't look at light and say it contains "this". We can look at it, and say it originated from THAT, but it doesn't actually contain that.

Light is a vibrating wave. It is something. It's the direct result of vibration/frequency/sound to what we see as light from longer and shorter wavelengths.

Everything is a wavelength, that's how it works.
Everything works by friction. You are simply heat and light. All you are is a dense hologram in the grand scheme of things. If you try and look at it that way.

Obviously we are skin/bone and all the rest but not looking deeper into why, is the reason why people can't grasp what's really happening to us and everything.

The scale goes way off the chart where molecules are concerned. It's either super condensed and under friction or super decompressed and under friction.

For people to grasp it all and see the simplicity of it all, it has to be viewed from a simplified angle, which means, people have to throw aside all the silly equations and what not to actually see the logic.

Calculations are fine for using what we use in quantity and for safety, etc but it tells no real story.

From a simplified point of view, I can say, "ok fill that bucket up to the mark and no more or it will spill when you walk." Simple enough, right? It doesn't tell us what makes water do what it does but we can calculate to a mark, just like we can by using a gauge to pressurise a cylinder or evacuate one.

It's about knowing how and why things happen, just like I explained with denpressure, even though people laugh at it...it's a real thing and does explain gravity and inertia.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 07:26:10 AM

Quote from: bravimone on May 20, 2014, 07:19:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 07:05:00 AM

Have a think on what you just said and you might understand  how it all works.

The Earth is exactly that....in a vacuum or for want of a better saying, it's in suspended animation, because a vacuum (at least to our perception) is devoid of all matter.
The Earth doesn't move because it's fixed in that vacuum.

You're saying an object doesn't need to know whether it's up/down or any direction...of course it does, because for anything to move, it HAS to have a reason to move, an energy applied. A force.
A vacuum provides none of it.

Of course the vacuum itself doesn't move anything, but if you put a rocket in a vacuum it will propel itself just fine. Or if the vacuum is in a transparent box a photon going inside it will continue  its motion just fine, again. Any reason for why it shouldn't?

Where does it get it's starting energy from to move?

from whatever more dense object it originated from?

Ok, Earth in a vacuum, how does it move?

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 19, 2014, 06:41:17 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 19, 2014, 10:22:50 AM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 09:44:11 AM

Ok there seem to be a few different things going on.

1. EM radiation of all kinds is just photons of different energies.
2. Human eyes are only sensitive to a certain range of those energies. We call photons in that range 'visible light'.

There seems to be an assertion in this thread that any photons outside that range shouldn't be called light. They already are, everywhere, by many people and it's not a contentious issue. But if it will help things move along here, then I'm happy to use 'light' only for EM with wavelengths roughly between 300 and 800nm, although different people can see very different ranges depending on age, health and other factors. Other animals can see an even wider variety of frequencies.

So, nomenclature we can agree on:
300-800nm is light or visible light
any other wavelengths are just EM, photons or some other term - anything but light.

Hopefully that's ok, so with that clear, what radiation travels through a vacuum? Everything except visible light?

Nothing travels through a vacuum. It's as simple as that.

Nonsense. We went through this months ago. If nothing travels through a vacuum, what are air molecules travelling through? What are photons traversing between air molecules?

This makes no sense. I don't get what you're trying to say.

Let me clarify what I am saying.

Nothing, as in, NOTHING, meaning no matter, molecules, light waves, radiation, whatever you can possibly think of CANNOT travel through a vacuum.

Why?

A vacuum...a true vacuum does not exist to us, except for what we see or don't see,d epending on how scientific you want to be.
We see it as black because our eyes rely on waves to see and a vacuum is devoid of anything of the sort that would allow that......UNLESS those waves are reflected through a medium and off a surface back to our eyes.

We see this at night with stars and stuff against an ice dome that is against a vacuum or black, which uses that medium to reflect the light waves back to our eyes.
If there was no dome then there is no light or heat or anything because it would be absorbed, which is the reason why a globe with somehow a floating atmosphere could not work and that's just one reason.

I don't expect you to understand it. I mean, how can you? You're hell bent on fully focusing on the next indoctination about your marble planet, so you're hardly going to be able to comprehend the simplicity of reality.

It's really simple sceptimatic. Imagine you could shrink down to the size of an air molecule. You're being bumped around by other air molecules which are bumping against each other. What is in the spaces between the molecules? It can't be air obviously. It's nothing, i.e. A vacuum.

It's really simple sceptimatic. Imagine you could shrink down to the size of an air molecule. You're being bumped around by other air molecules which are bumping against each other. What is in the spaces between the molecules? It can't be air obviously. It's nothing, i.e. A vacuum.

Except it doesn't work like that. If you paid attention you would have grasped it all.
There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles for want of a bigger scale to look at. No gaps, all connected. Get your head around this and you'll understand WAVES and also pressure, plus inertia and gravity being simply words based on nothing.

I watched a few minutes of that video, and it shows one unusual person making the same unsubstantiated claims that are being made here. So what? He hasn't been to space to see this phenomena, he doesn't have testimony of those who have, nor photographic evidence. He just says "you can't see some light in space" and we're supposed to take his word. Why is is that his word outweighs all others? It's not weight of evidence (he gives none), nor weight of reason (he gives none) so what is so convincing about this revolutionary claim?

As I said earlier, run of the mill lab equipment can create high vacuums that only contain a few atoms bouncing around in a load of empty space. Experiments in those conditions are nothing particularly exotic and yet there are no reports of light stopping working, objects being unable to move, nor any of these weird and wonderful effects being claimed here.

/edit:

There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles

Do you have any evidence of this? Or are we just taking your word for it?

I watched a few minutes of that video, and it shows one unusual person making the same unsubstantiated claims that are being made here. So what? He hasn't been to space to see this phenomena, he doesn't have testimony of those who have, nor photographic evidence. He just says "you can't see some light in space" and we're supposed to take his word. Why is is that his word outweighs all others? It's not weight of evidence (he gives none), nor weight of reason (he gives none) so what is so convincing about this revolutionary claim?

As I said earlier, run of the mill lab equipment can create high vacuums that only contain a few atoms bouncing around in a load of empty space. Experiments in those conditions are nothing particularly exotic and yet there are no reports of light stopping working, objects being unable to move, nor any of these weird and wonderful effects being claimed here.

/edit:

Quote

There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles

Do you have any evidence of this? Or are we just taking your word for it?

You don't have to take my word for it or anyones word for anything. If you choose not to look into it, that's your choice. I'm merely trying to help people understand or at least look at it seriously. If they choose not to, it's no skin off my nose.

You stick to what you've been told.
I honestly fail to see any reason why youa re here or anyone else if you're not prepared to even look into stuff. Are you just here to make sure the way you were taught, stays that way?

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If you were laid on the floor and one after the other, your friends started piling on top of you, what are you going to do?

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 08:42:10 AM

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If you were laid on the floor and one after the other, your friends started piling on top of you, what are you going to do?

Well, since most of my friends are female...

But thats not the act of heating something. That's confining the warmth of multiple bodies into a confined area.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 08:42:10 AM

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If you were laid on the floor and one after the other, your friends started piling on top of you, what are you going to do?

Well, since most of my friends are female...

But thats not the act of heating something. That's confining the warmth of multiple bodies into a confined area.

Look at my question ans answer it before just jumping in, head first.

You don't have to take my word for it or anyones word for anything. If you choose not to look into it, that's your choice. I'm merely trying to help people understand or at least look at it seriously. If they choose not to, it's no skin off my nose.

...

So by that you mean that you looked into it? Can I ask you how you reached that conclusion? What experiment have you made?

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 09:18:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 08:42:10 AM

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If you were laid on the floor and one after the other, your friends started piling on top of you, what are you going to do?

Well, since most of my friends are female...

But thats not the act of heating something. That's confining the warmth of multiple bodies into a confined area.

Look at my question ans answer it before just jumping in, head first.

I did. You didn't read or understand my question, or are being purposefully obtuse.

so, try this, if you boil a pot of water, is the resulting steam more or less dense than the water?

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 20, 2014, 08:12:12 AM

It's really simple sceptimatic. Imagine you could shrink down to the size of an air molecule. You're being bumped around by other air molecules which are bumping against each other. What is in the spaces between the molecules? It can't be air obviously. It's nothing, i.e. A vacuum.

Except it doesn't work like that. If you paid attention you would have grasped it all.
There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles for want of a bigger scale to look at. No gaps, all connected. Get your head around this and you'll understand WAVES and also pressure, plus inertia and gravity being simply words based on nothing.

The distance between molecules determines what phase they are in. If the molecules were stacked on top if each other they would either be a liquid or solid. If they can still move around, they would be a liquid. If they can't move around, they are in a solid.
In the gas phase you will not find molecules stacked together like you say.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:47:26 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 09:18:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 08:42:10 AM

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If you were laid on the floor and one after the other, your friends started piling on top of you, what are you going to do?

Well, since most of my friends are female...

But thats not the act of heating something. That's confining the warmth of multiple bodies into a confined area.

Look at my question ans answer it before just jumping in, head first.

I did. You didn't read or understand my question, or are being purposefully obtuse.

so, try this, if you boil a pot of water, is the resulting steam more or less dense than the water?

The steam when boiled releases the metallic ingots which hit the sky and cause reflections. It's the purest metal ore coating along with a lime upper mineral water that refracts onto each cloud of vapour in the orasphere.
The water left in the pan or kettle will naturally run back to the sea or fall into the ground if there is soil but never will it advance any further than up a mountain nearby due to it already being poured out.

If left in the pan or kettle  it will stay there for a while, on a cold day. If you boil it again, it will release less metallic ingots because most left earlier. This is when you use it to top up irons, because irons last longer when the water is like this, that's left in the jug after pouring it from the pan or kettle, that is.

Fillng a pond with this would take far too long, so ponds rely on rain fall mostly, unles they get dry andhave to be topped up. Those with the ducks in that the kids go to see, I mean.

So yea, I suppose water can be ferrous and non-ferrous of copper is not applied to iron ore and just left in a state of oxidisation for a while, then checked to release the browny colour of it after extraction by syringe or pump, depending on money available.

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 10:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:47:26 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 09:18:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 08:42:10 AM

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If you were laid on the floor and one after the other, your friends started piling on top of you, what are you going to do?

Well, since most of my friends are female...

But thats not the act of heating something. That's confining the warmth of multiple bodies into a confined area.

Look at my question ans answer it before just jumping in, head first.

I did. You didn't read or understand my question, or are being purposefully obtuse.

so, try this, if you boil a pot of water, is the resulting steam more or less dense than the water?

The steam when boiled releases the metallic ingots which hit the sky and cause reflections. It's the purest metal ore coating along with a lime upper mineral water that refracts onto each cloud of vapour in the orasphere.
The water left in the pan or kettle will naturally run back to the sea or fall into the ground if there is soil but never will it advance any further than up a mountain nearby due to it already being poured out.

If left in the pan or kettle  it will stay there for a while, on a cold day. If you boil it again, it will release less metallic ingots because most left earlier. This is when you use it to top up irons, because irons last longer when the water is like this, that's left in the jug after pouring it from the pan or kettle, that is.

Fillng a pond with this would take far too long, so ponds rely on rain fall mostly, unles they get dry andhave to be topped up. Those with the ducks in that the kids go to see, I mean.

So yea, I suppose water can be ferrous and non-ferrous of copper is not applied to iron ore and just left in a state of oxidisation for a while, then checked to release the browny colour of it after extraction by syringe or pump, depending on money available.

quoted to save the post.

What are you talking about? I don't even know where to start.
When water boils impurities tend to stay in whatever container holds the boiling water. This is why distilled water is cleaner.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 08:29:31 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 20, 2014, 08:12:12 AM

It's really simple sceptimatic. Imagine you could shrink down to the size of an air molecule. You're being bumped around by other air molecules which are bumping against each other. What is in the spaces between the molecules? It can't be air obviously. It's nothing, i.e. A vacuum.

Except it doesn't work like that. If you paid attention you would have grasped it all.
There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles for want of a bigger scale to look at. No gaps, all connected. Get your head around this and you'll understand WAVES and also pressure, plus inertia and gravity being simply words based on nothing.

The distance between molecules determines what phase they are in. If the molecules were stacked on top if each other they would either be a liquid or solid. If they can still move around, they would be a liquid. If they can't move around, they are in a solid.
In the gas phase you will not find molecules stacked together like you say.

All molecules are stacked. All molecules are attached, there is no space from bottom to top. All space it took up by all element forms.
Even in gas phase, they are stacked together, except they are stacked in a more expanded state.

For instance. You see water. It looks condensed, as in molecules. You see no gaps because to your eyes, it's a liquid.
If it starts to evaporate, you see it as steam. What you are seeing is the molecules expanding at the very top of the water as what you think are just bubbles or a cloud of fog or whatever you want to call it.
That cloud of water is being forced up by atmospheric pressure that's trying to squeeze it back to size but manages to push it up as it's doing so.
It's like your hand holding a slippy bar of soap and trying to grip it. What happenes? It flies up, right?
Same thing, because it's all friction.
Now imagine that as in a mass of it happening, only on a tiny scale to our eyes.
Agitation/friction/expansion/steam till it reaches it's similar sized molecules, then it stops as in a cloud builds, etc, etc.
Your clouds are now lighter elements of molecules.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 10:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:47:26 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 09:18:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 20, 2014, 08:42:10 AM

If everything is compressed together? than what does heat do? By definition, heat is the agitation of molecules. You can't have everything packed together, with no gap between them, and have agitation.

If you were laid on the floor and one after the other, your friends started piling on top of you, what are you going to do?

Well, since most of my friends are female...

But thats not the act of heating something. That's confining the warmth of multiple bodies into a confined area.

Look at my question ans answer it before just jumping in, head first.

I did. You didn't read or understand my question, or are being purposefully obtuse.

so, try this, if you boil a pot of water, is the resulting steam more or less dense than the water?

The steam when boiled releases the metallic ingots which hit the sky and cause reflections. It's the purest metal ore coating along with a lime upper mineral water that refracts onto each cloud of vapour in the orasphere.
The water left in the pan or kettle will naturally run back to the sea or fall into the ground if there is soil but never will it advance any further than up a mountain nearby due to it already being poured out.

If left in the pan or kettle  it will stay there for a while, on a cold day. If you boil it again, it will release less metallic ingots because most left earlier. This is when you use it to top up irons, because irons last longer when the water is like this, that's left in the jug after pouring it from the pan or kettle, that is.

Fillng a pond with this would take far too long, so ponds rely on rain fall mostly, unles they get dry andhave to be topped up. Those with the ducks in that the kids go to see, I mean.

So yea, I suppose water can be ferrous and non-ferrous of copper is not applied to iron ore and just left in a state of oxidisation for a while, then checked to release the browny colour of it after extraction by syringe or pump, depending on money available.

quoted to save the post.

What are you talking about? I don't even know where to start.
When water boils impurities tend to stay in whatever container holds the boiling water. This is why distilled water is cleaner.

This is why it becomes pointless debating with you people. Naivety is rife. Humour is non-existent.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 20, 2014, 08:12:12 AM

It's really simple sceptimatic. Imagine you could shrink down to the size of an air molecule. You're being bumped around by other air molecules which are bumping against each other. What is in the spaces between the molecules? It can't be air obviously. It's nothing, i.e. A vacuum.

Except it doesn't work like that. If you paid attention you would have grasped it all.
There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles for want of a bigger scale to look at. No gaps, all connected. Get your head around this and you'll understand WAVES and also pressure, plus inertia and gravity being simply words based on nothing.

Apparently you've forgotten about, or have never hear of, Brownian motion. This is what you see if you look at small particles like pollen grains in water under a microscope. It's a constant jiggling motion. It was described by Einstein mathematically in the early 1900's. It was one of the ways that we discovered that atoms and molecules are real physical objects. In your idea, there should be no reason for Brownian motion.

If you ever get tired of constantly making up stupid, incorrect nonsense, I suggest you talk to a scientist that can give you a better explanation than I can.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 08:29:31 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 20, 2014, 08:12:12 AM

It's really simple sceptimatic. Imagine you could shrink down to the size of an air molecule. You're being bumped around by other air molecules which are bumping against each other. What is in the spaces between the molecules? It can't be air obviously. It's nothing, i.e. A vacuum.

Except it doesn't work like that. If you paid attention you would have grasped it all.
There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles for want of a bigger scale to look at. No gaps, all connected. Get your head around this and you'll understand WAVES and also pressure, plus inertia and gravity being simply words based on nothing.

Apparently you've forgotten about, or have never hear of, Brownian motion. This is what you see if you look at small particles like pollen grains in water under a microscope. It's a constant jiggling motion. It was described by Einstein mathematically in the early 1900's. It was one of the ways that we discovered that atoms and molecules are real physical objects. In your idea, there should be no reason for Brownian motion.

If you ever get tired of constantly making up stupid, incorrect nonsense, I suggest you talk to a scientist that can give you a better explanation than I can.

If you actually knew the make up of matter then you would be wiser. You don't so you assume I don't. I'm a scientist and a genius. Accept that. I don't deal in ridiculous formulas and I don't subscribe to the so called Einsteins' of this world. They are all puppets...a face to make people like you believe whatever they want.
I'm a simplistic genius. I deal in the simplicity of our life on Earth.

Now I'm not bothered how you take that. I'm only bothered (as I've said before) about the people who want to undertstand the reality and the potential reality...not the ridiculous made up nonsense that you unfortunate people chew up and swallow with gusto.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 20, 2014, 11:10:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 08:29:31 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 20, 2014, 08:12:12 AM

It's really simple sceptimatic. Imagine you could shrink down to the size of an air molecule. You're being bumped around by other air molecules which are bumping against each other. What is in the spaces between the molecules? It can't be air obviously. It's nothing, i.e. A vacuum.

Except it doesn't work like that. If you paid attention you would have grasped it all.
There is no space between them. They are all compressed together, like washing up bubbles for want of a bigger scale to look at. No gaps, all connected. Get your head around this and you'll understand WAVES and also pressure, plus inertia and gravity being simply words based on nothing.

Apparently you've forgotten about, or have never hear of, Brownian motion. This is what you see if you look at small particles like pollen grains in water under a microscope. It's a constant jiggling motion. It was described by Einstein mathematically in the early 1900's. It was one of the ways that we discovered that atoms and molecules are real physical objects. In your idea, there should be no reason for Brownian motion.

If you ever get tired of constantly making up stupid, incorrect nonsense, I suggest you talk to a scientist that can give you a better explanation than I can.

If you actually knew the make up of matter then you would be wiser. You don't so you assume I don't. I'm a scientist and a genius. Accept that. I don't deal in ridiculous formulas and I don't subscribe to the so called Einsteins' of this world. They are all puppets...a face to make people like you believe whatever they want.
I'm a simplistic genius. I deal in the simplicity of our life on Earth.

Now I'm not bothered how you take that. I'm only bothered (as I've said before) about the people who want to undertstand the reality and the potential reality...not the ridiculous made up nonsense that you unfortunate people chew up and swallow with gusto.

So why do tiny objects suspended in liquid or gas move the way they do? Shouldn't they be trapped in place by your "soap bubbles"? How do you explain diffusion? Your inability to understand or even see the use of mathematical models confounds me, since they are the basis for much of our modern technology, which, last time I checked, happens to actually work as planned on the basis of those models.