Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

Quote

You speak a good game scepti

Actually, he doesn't at all because anyone that is actually capable of thinking for themselves (something he claims to want everyone can do) can clearly see where and why he is so wrong about every topic he tries to talk about.

Even the most diehard anti-global, anti-nasa people could come in this forum and disagree with scepti.

He contradicts himself without knowing it because he is ignorant. And he blatantly denies any credible evidence even though it would be plainly obvious to an uneducated child that the evidence is proving him wrong.

One of two things must be true....

1. He's crazy. Has some sort of delusions or mental disorder of some type.

2. He knows he is wrong with everything he says on this forum and is just having fun in making stuff up.

I would vote on number 2 but number 1 is certainly possible.

The strange thing with you is, you keep telling me I'm wrong and discussing my mental state, yet you NEVER actually state why, do you?
Could it be that you merely follow the mass opinion and this is enough to make what you say credible?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:40:41 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 06:33:08 AM

The thing that confuses me about scepti is that this stuff he accuses science for is exactly what science says about a lot of aspects in religion. Science is the view where we question things with an open mind. It is the view where instead of being indoctrinated with baseless claims, we try to understand our world with empirical evidence and all that good stuff.

You speak a good game scepti, when you say how we ought to look at the world, but you don't practice it. The very things you criticize science for are the same exact things that science criticizes. It's always wacky wednesday with you. Some sort of opposite world.

Yeah well. If I can question it, I will. I don't just accept it for what is told, espcially when a lot of answers to questions are merely guesses that are passed off as scientific theory, which is basically sold to us as fact.

Great, question it. You don't have to accept what you are being told. Science doesn't ask you to do that. As a matter of fact science is set up in a way where you are meant to be able to demonstrate these things to yourself. It isn't about blindly accepting things. It's quite the opposite of that. How you've managed to convince yourself otherwise confuses me.

Weirdly, the stuff I question cannot be directly proved. Strange eh?
No matter what I attempt to do, I cannot prove physically that will ever be taken seriously. I can't go into space. I can't do anything other than observe lights in the sky at night.
I can't go and watch astronauts board a shuttle, physically.
I can't do anything. Neither can any of you.
So what we have left is quite simple. It's down to chit chat.
One side has all the answers given to them on a plate for the models made up and the rest have to challenge it by thought process alone in most cases.

There are some experiments that can prove the scientific world wrong but they are brushed aside.
It really is about using the mind to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 24, 2014, 06:57:06 AM

Quote

You speak a good game scepti

Actually, he doesn't at all because anyone that is actually capable of thinking for themselves (something he claims to want everyone can do) can clearly see where and why he is so wrong about every topic he tries to talk about.

Even the most diehard anti-global, anti-nasa people could come in this forum and disagree with scepti.

He contradicts himself without knowing it because he is ignorant. And he blatantly denies any credible evidence even though it would be plainly obvious to an uneducated child that the evidence is proving him wrong.

One of two things must be true....

1. He's crazy. Has some sort of delusions or mental disorder of some type.

2. He knows he is wrong with everything he says on this forum and is just having fun in making stuff up.

I would vote on number 2 but number 1 is certainly possible.

When I said that he speaks a good game I meant that I appreciate that he is against concept likes indoctrination and all that. The part that makes no sense is that the if this is how he feels then he should be with science, not against it.

I'm wholly with science. The major problem is trying to decipher the real science from the fantasy concepts that are passed off as science. That's the major problem and I am in the minority and well aware of that.

Almost everything you talk about can and has been proven.  It is part of your narcissism that you think otherwise. 

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 07:05:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:40:41 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 06:33:08 AM

The thing that confuses me about scepti is that this stuff he accuses science for is exactly what science says about a lot of aspects in religion. Science is the view where we question things with an open mind. It is the view where instead of being indoctrinated with baseless claims, we try to understand our world with empirical evidence and all that good stuff.

You speak a good game scepti, when you say how we ought to look at the world, but you don't practice it. The very things you criticize science for are the same exact things that science criticizes. It's always wacky wednesday with you. Some sort of opposite world.

Yeah well. If I can question it, I will. I don't just accept it for what is told, espcially when a lot of answers to questions are merely guesses that are passed off as scientific theory, which is basically sold to us as fact.

Great, question it. You don't have to accept what you are being told. Science doesn't ask you to do that. As a matter of fact science is set up in a way where you are meant to be able to demonstrate these things to yourself. It isn't about blindly accepting things. It's quite the opposite of that. How you've managed to convince yourself otherwise confuses me.

Weirdly, the stuff I question cannot be directly proved. Strange eh?
No matter what I attempt to do, I cannot prove physically that will ever be taken seriously. I can't go into space. I can't do anything other than observe lights in the sky at night.
I can't go and watch astronauts board a shuttle, physically.
I can't do anything. Neither can any of you.
So what we have left is quite simple. It's down to chit chat.
One side has all the answers given to them on a plate for the models made up and the rest have to challenge it by thought process alone in most cases.

There are some experiments that can prove the scientific world wrong but they are brushed aside.
It really is about using the mind to sort the wheat from the chaff.

You've come to the conclusion that nothing can be proven but I have not seen any indication that you've given much effort. You say it can't be proven, I say that it can but the claims you make that it cannot are baseless. They basically entail that what you do not understand must be false because you think it doesn't make sense, which leads you to the conclusion that it is false (quite circular). I for one have a hard time wrapping my mind around quantum mechanics, but I don't immediately discard it just because of that. I'm pretty much unqualified to make a judgement until I do. After all of this you then, strangely, make alternatives that are probably even more baseless than the claims you deny.

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 24, 2014, 06:57:06 AM

Quote

You speak a good game scepti

Actually, he doesn't at all because anyone that is actually capable of thinking for themselves (something he claims to want everyone can do) can clearly see where and why he is so wrong about every topic he tries to talk about.

Even the most diehard anti-global, anti-nasa people could come in this forum and disagree with scepti.

He contradicts himself without knowing it because he is ignorant. And he blatantly denies any credible evidence even though it would be plainly obvious to an uneducated child that the evidence is proving him wrong.

One of two things must be true....

1. He's crazy. Has some sort of delusions or mental disorder of some type.

2. He knows he is wrong with everything he says on this forum and is just having fun in making stuff up.

I would vote on number 2 but number 1 is certainly possible.

The strange thing with you is, you keep telling me I'm wrong and discussing my mental state, yet you NEVER actually state why, do you?
Could it be that you merely follow the mass opinion and this is enough to make what you say credible?

This is precisely why people think you're crazy and/or a troll. Have you seriously not noticed that in nearly every thread you get involved in, there are several people telling you exactly what it is you're wrong about. Then you scoff at them and just continue spouting the same mistakes all over again.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:13:29 AM

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 24, 2014, 06:57:06 AM

Quote

You speak a good game scepti

Actually, he doesn't at all because anyone that is actually capable of thinking for themselves (something he claims to want everyone can do) can clearly see where and why he is so wrong about every topic he tries to talk about.

Even the most diehard anti-global, anti-nasa people could come in this forum and disagree with scepti.

He contradicts himself without knowing it because he is ignorant. And he blatantly denies any credible evidence even though it would be plainly obvious to an uneducated child that the evidence is proving him wrong.

One of two things must be true....

1. He's crazy. Has some sort of delusions or mental disorder of some type.

2. He knows he is wrong with everything he says on this forum and is just having fun in making stuff up.

I would vote on number 2 but number 1 is certainly possible.

The strange thing with you is, you keep telling me I'm wrong and discussing my mental state, yet you NEVER actually state why, do you?
Could it be that you merely follow the mass opinion and this is enough to make what you say credible?

This is precisely why people think you're crazy and/or a troll. Have you seriously not noticed that in nearly every thread you get involved in, there are several people telling you exactly what it is you're wrong about. Then you scoff at them and just continue spouting the same mistakes all over again.

QED

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61857.msg1625071#msg1625071

Almost everything you talk about can and has been proven.  It is part of your narcissism that you think otherwise.

Ok. You name me one thing that you can physically show me to be proven that I'm arguing against. Not theoretically or peer reviewed. Physically.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 07:05:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:40:41 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 06:33:08 AM

The thing that confuses me about scepti is that this stuff he accuses science for is exactly what science says about a lot of aspects in religion. Science is the view where we question things with an open mind. It is the view where instead of being indoctrinated with baseless claims, we try to understand our world with empirical evidence and all that good stuff.

You speak a good game scepti, when you say how we ought to look at the world, but you don't practice it. The very things you criticize science for are the same exact things that science criticizes. It's always wacky wednesday with you. Some sort of opposite world.

Yeah well. If I can question it, I will. I don't just accept it for what is told, espcially when a lot of answers to questions are merely guesses that are passed off as scientific theory, which is basically sold to us as fact.

Great, question it. You don't have to accept what you are being told. Science doesn't ask you to do that. As a matter of fact science is set up in a way where you are meant to be able to demonstrate these things to yourself. It isn't about blindly accepting things. It's quite the opposite of that. How you've managed to convince yourself otherwise confuses me.

Weirdly, the stuff I question cannot be directly proved. Strange eh?
No matter what I attempt to do, I cannot prove physically that will ever be taken seriously. I can't go into space. I can't do anything other than observe lights in the sky at night.
I can't go and watch astronauts board a shuttle, physically.
I can't do anything. Neither can any of you.
So what we have left is quite simple. It's down to chit chat.
One side has all the answers given to them on a plate for the models made up and the rest have to challenge it by thought process alone in most cases.

There are some experiments that can prove the scientific world wrong but they are brushed aside.
It really is about using the mind to sort the wheat from the chaff.

You've come to the conclusion that nothing can be proven but I have not seen any indication that you've given much effort. You say it can't be proven, I say that it can but the claims you make that it cannot are baseless. They basically entail that what you do not understand must be false because you think it doesn't make sense, which leads you to the conclusion that it is false (quite circular). I for one have a hard time wrapping my mind around quantum mechanics, but I don't immediately discard it just because of that. I'm pretty much unqualified to make a judgement until I do. After all of this you then, strangely, make alternatives that are probably even more baseless than the claims you deny.

The absolute truth is you are unqualified to back up all of what I'm arguing about. You can't get your head around quantum mechanics but accept them as real. You accept gravity as a real force yet the science world does not know what the hell it actually is as a force, yet everything they calculate to go to moons and stuff is always spot on. Weird that.

I could go on burt you get my drift.
Now I'm not qualified on any of this, either, except that if it can't be physically shown to work or is shrouded in such secrecy that we can never physically be shown, then it's getting questioned as not being what we are told.

I questioned gravity with denpressure. Of course I'm immediately cast off because that's simply not the gravity way and renders space null and void , so it can't be denpressure, it has to be a force that nobody knows.
Denpressure is too logical, it has no place in science, even though it can explain evrything on Earth. What it can't do is back up space. I wonder why?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:13:29 AM

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 24, 2014, 06:57:06 AM

Quote

You speak a good game scepti

Actually, he doesn't at all because anyone that is actually capable of thinking for themselves (something he claims to want everyone can do) can clearly see where and why he is so wrong about every topic he tries to talk about.

Even the most diehard anti-global, anti-nasa people could come in this forum and disagree with scepti.

He contradicts himself without knowing it because he is ignorant. And he blatantly denies any credible evidence even though it would be plainly obvious to an uneducated child that the evidence is proving him wrong.

One of two things must be true....

1. He's crazy. Has some sort of delusions or mental disorder of some type.

2. He knows he is wrong with everything he says on this forum and is just having fun in making stuff up.

I would vote on number 2 but number 1 is certainly possible.

The strange thing with you is, you keep telling me I'm wrong and discussing my mental state, yet you NEVER actually state why, do you?
Could it be that you merely follow the mass opinion and this is enough to make what you say credible?

This is precisely why people think you're crazy and/or a troll. Have you seriously not noticed that in nearly every thread you get involved in, there are several people telling you exactly what it is you're wrong about. Then you scoff at them and just continue spouting the same mistakes all over again.

I don't care who thinks I'm crazy. People can tell me I'm wrong all day long. It does not make them right by saying I'm wrong. My counter arguments are better than the arguments put forward. The only reason they don't garner interest is because of people like you. Your goal is to simply destroy it for whatever reasons...either ignorance, mass majority following or other reasons.

People are scared of the truth. They are scared that science is much simpler than they have been led to believe.
People are scared to apply simple logic to this stuff for fear of ridicule.
It's about having a strong mind. I have it. Much stronger than most.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 07:29:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 07:05:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:40:41 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 06:33:08 AM

The thing that confuses me about scepti is that this stuff he accuses science for is exactly what science says about a lot of aspects in religion. Science is the view where we question things with an open mind. It is the view where instead of being indoctrinated with baseless claims, we try to understand our world with empirical evidence and all that good stuff.

You speak a good game scepti, when you say how we ought to look at the world, but you don't practice it. The very things you criticize science for are the same exact things that science criticizes. It's always wacky wednesday with you. Some sort of opposite world.

Yeah well. If I can question it, I will. I don't just accept it for what is told, espcially when a lot of answers to questions are merely guesses that are passed off as scientific theory, which is basically sold to us as fact.

Great, question it. You don't have to accept what you are being told. Science doesn't ask you to do that. As a matter of fact science is set up in a way where you are meant to be able to demonstrate these things to yourself. It isn't about blindly accepting things. It's quite the opposite of that. How you've managed to convince yourself otherwise confuses me.

Weirdly, the stuff I question cannot be directly proved. Strange eh?
No matter what I attempt to do, I cannot prove physically that will ever be taken seriously. I can't go into space. I can't do anything other than observe lights in the sky at night.
I can't go and watch astronauts board a shuttle, physically.
I can't do anything. Neither can any of you.
So what we have left is quite simple. It's down to chit chat.
One side has all the answers given to them on a plate for the models made up and the rest have to challenge it by thought process alone in most cases.

There are some experiments that can prove the scientific world wrong but they are brushed aside.
It really is about using the mind to sort the wheat from the chaff.

You've come to the conclusion that nothing can be proven but I have not seen any indication that you've given much effort. You say it can't be proven, I say that it can but the claims you make that it cannot are baseless. They basically entail that what you do not understand must be false because you think it doesn't make sense, which leads you to the conclusion that it is false (quite circular). I for one have a hard time wrapping my mind around quantum mechanics, but I don't immediately discard it just because of that. I'm pretty much unqualified to make a judgement until I do. After all of this you then, strangely, make alternatives that are probably even more baseless than the claims you deny.

The absolute truth is you are unqualified to back up all of what I'm arguing about. You can't get your head around quantum mechanics but accept them as real. You accept gravity as a real force yet the science world does not know what the hell it actually is as a force, yet everything they calculate to go to moons and stuff is always spot on. Weird that.

I could go on burt you get my drift.
Now I'm not qualified on any of this, either, except that if it can't be physically shown to work or is shrouded in such secrecy that we can never physically be shown, then it's getting questioned as not being what we are told.

I questioned gravity with denpressure. Of course I'm immediately cast off because that's simply not the gravity way and renders space null and void , so it can't be denpressure, it has to be a force that nobody knows.
Denpressure is too logical, it has no place in science, even though it can explain evrything on Earth. What it can't do is back up space. I wonder why?

Say what? I didn't say that I simply accept quantum mechanics. I said I'm not qualified to have an opinion. The pragmatic side of me say that it seems to work because we use devices that are based on it so there is at least that. That is one reason to assume that it is real as opposed to the alternative which is to assume it is fake, which I have no basis for. This is pretty much how you treat all of science.

Please though, stop insisting that denpressure is logical. Page after page we showed that it is inconsistently false. If you want to propose another alternative to gravity then I'm all ears, but I'm afraid that denpressure is less likely than the idea that earth exists on the backs of turtle's.

Denpressure is as real as it gets. It totally wipes out gravity and shows it up for what it is, which is a made up force. Scientists cannot understand what the force is and yet here it is being grasped by people who simply accept it as fact. Weird as hell.

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Look it up and come back with a reference you disagree with.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Most famously, Newton's laws of gravitation were used to predict the existence of Neptune and was found almost exactly where it was predicted to be.

The prediction was based on Uranus' orbit having a slight unexplained wobble.  It was hypothesized that it could be caused by a heretofore unknown planet.  The calculations were done as to where this planet should be to cause such a perturbation and sure enough it was there.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:34:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Look it up and come back with a reference you disagree with.

All I ever see you do is say, look it up. Evidence please. Diagram please. You're wrong. You don't know science.
I never ever see you putting any effort in to explain anything, so let's see a bit more input from you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:34:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Most famously, Newton's laws of gravitation were used to predict the existence of Neptune and was found almost exactly where it was predicted to be.

The prediction was based on Uranus' orbit having a slight unexplained wobble.  It was hypothesized that it could be caused by a heretofore unknown planet.  The calculations were done as to where this planet should be to cause such a perturbation and sure enough it was there.

So Newton used his gravity thing to predict Neptune without seeing it? Was this after the apple fell on him?
So it was excactly where he predicted, which was where? Which map was he using to find this or did he simply pull out his telescope, looked up into an eare, then bang, looked at the apple and predicted Neptune.
He found this out because Uranus has this unexplained wobble that he saw through his telescope, which was a clear wobble, then he made a wild guess this wobble that Neptune was hiding and sure enough he was bang on.
He done all this with calculations, using what exactly?

If I told you all this, I'd fully expect you and everyone else to absolutely slate me and throw rotten tomatoes in my face, then I would scurry off. Weridly, when the masses are joined together, this stuff absolutely makes perfect sense, no matter how stupid it appears, because the faith is a man from the 1500's sorted it all out.

And you wonder why all this stuff is questioned?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, which were empirical laws, i.e. based solely on observations of the planet's movements in the sky, can be derived from Newtonian Gravitation:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonkepler.html

Therefore, we know we have a theory that we can test and measure directly here on Earth, and that works to explain and predict the orbits of any celestial objects we can see in the sky.

The anomalies found in very strong gravitational fields, like the precession of Mercury's orbit that was inexplicable with Newtonian Gravitation alone, were later explained by General Relativity. The same theory was used to predict that light rays from stars that passed close to the Sun would be bent slightly. This was confirmed to be true by observations made during the 1919 solar eclipse.

Note that denpressure would never have predicted this, and now that we have this observation, any theory of gravity or "why things fall" must include an explanation in order for it to be correct.

So Newton used his gravity thing to predict Neptune without seeing it?  Was this after the apple fell on him?

It was not Newton who predicted it, it was Urbain Le Verrier in 1846.

So it was excactly where he predicted, which was where? Which map was he using to find this or did he simply pull out his telescope, looked up into an eare, then bang, looked at the apple and predicted Neptune.

It's position was within one degree of arc in the sky. 

He found this out because Uranus has this unexplained wobble that he saw through his telescope, which was a clear wobble, then he made a wild guess this wobble that Neptune was hiding and sure enough he was bang on.

Yes although a wild guess is not an accurate description; I would call it an educated guess, since he was educated in all the principles that lead to the guess.

He done all this with calculations, using what exactly?

Probably logarithim reference books, maybe an abicus or one of the primitive calculators that had been invented in the 1800s.

If I told you all this, I'd fully expect you and everyone else to absolutely slate me and throw rotten tomatoes in my face, then I would scurry off. Weridly, when the masses are joined together, this stuff absolutely makes perfect sense, no matter how stupid it appears, because the faith is a man from the 1500's sorted it all out.

Like I said, it was not Newton who discovered but another man in 1846.

And you wonder why all this stuff is questioned?

You asked I answered.  You never give clear criteria for what constitutes good evidence, so to be honest I expected this kind of contemptuous, unreasoned response.  Anyway, there it is.  There is plenty more evidence, but it will just be more of the same from you. 

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 09:46:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:34:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Most famously, Newton's laws of gravitation were used to predict the existence of Neptune and was found almost exactly where it was predicted to be.

The prediction was based on Uranus' orbit having a slight unexplained wobble.  It was hypothesized that it could be caused by a heretofore unknown planet.  The calculations were done as to where this planet should be to cause such a perturbation and sure enough it was there.

So Newton used his gravity thing to predict Neptune without seeing it? Was this after the apple fell on him?
So it was excactly where he predicted, which was where? Which map was he using to find this or did he simply pull out his telescope, looked up into an eare, then bang, looked at the apple and predicted Neptune.
He found this out because Uranus has this unexplained wobble that he saw through his telescope, which was a clear wobble, then he made a wild guess this wobble that Neptune was hiding and sure enough he was bang on.
He done all this with calculations, using what exactly?

If I told you all this, I'd fully expect you and everyone else to absolutely slate me and throw rotten tomatoes in my face, then I would scurry off. Weridly, when the masses are joined together, this stuff absolutely makes perfect sense, no matter how stupid it appears, because the faith is a man from the 1500's sorted it all out.

And you wonder why all this stuff is questioned?

It's true that the ignorant and uneducated like yourself are quick to dismiss anything technical and beyond their knowledge as ridiculous, even heretical. I can see you right at the front of the line to throw tomatoes at people like Newton and Kepler, not that anyone did that I recall. I imagine the Catholic church would have had your full support when trying Galileo for the heresy of suggesting that the Earth moves and that celestial bodies can orbit around objects other than the Earth, because that's all just crazy talk, right? You're no different from the cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Literally, because you refuse to make any observations that might disprove your preconceived notion of how the world works. You've got a nice, safe plan worked out that if you never show or look at any evidence, you can keep believing you're right.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:34:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, which were empirical laws, i.e. based solely on observations of the planet's movements in the sky, can be derived from Newtonian Gravitation:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonkepler.html

Therefore, we know we have a theory that we can test and measure directly here on Earth, and that works to explain and predict the orbits of any celestial objects we can see in the sky.

The anomalies found in very strong gravitational fields, like the precession of Mercury's orbit that was inexplicable with Newtonian Gravitation alone, were later explained by General Relativity. The same theory was used to predict that light rays from stars that passed close to the Sun would be bent slightly. This was confirmed to be true by observations made during the 1919 solar eclipse.

Note that denpressure would never have predicted this, and now that we have this observation, any theory of gravity or "why things fall" must include an explanation in order for it to be correct.

So, let me get this straight. Gravity is proved by observation of points of light in the sky at night, in space?
There you go for all you folks looking in. You can't prove gravity wrong because it's proved by what happens in space with lights and such. Stuff that you are told are stars and suns and what not.
Gravity is the explanation for what they do and denpressure cannot explain them because...well it's obvious - denpressure cannot apply to space, it can only apply to the place where we actually exist...which is our Earth cocoon.

I'll tell you what. Let's see you explain gravity in a proper way inside our Earth that denpressure cannot stump easily.
You see, I'm having none of your space reading stories of old as proof of anything.
Show me how they use gravity for all happenings on Earth.

I don't want to hear any rubbish like...well things fall and there's an up and down...because that explains absolutely nothing.

Over to you.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 10:01:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:34:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 08:34:52 AM

Science is not particularly concerned with "what" gravity is.  All theories are approximations of how something works.  In the case of gravity their approximation is extremely accurate.  Denpressure on the other hand is extremely vague.

Ok, if gravity is extremely accurate, give me the proof of what these accuracies are and how it relates to this unknown force?

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, which were empirical laws, i.e. based solely on observations of the planet's movements in the sky, can be derived from Newtonian Gravitation:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonkepler.html

Therefore, we know we have a theory that we can test and measure directly here on Earth, and that works to explain and predict the orbits of any celestial objects we can see in the sky.

The anomalies found in very strong gravitational fields, like the precession of Mercury's orbit that was inexplicable with Newtonian Gravitation alone, were later explained by General Relativity. The same theory was used to predict that light rays from stars that passed close to the Sun would be bent slightly. This was confirmed to be true by observations made during the 1919 solar eclipse.

Note that denpressure would never have predicted this, and now that we have this observation, any theory of gravity or "why things fall" must include an explanation in order for it to be correct.

So, let me get this straight. Gravity is proved by observation of points of light in the sky at night, in space?
There you go for all you folks looking in. You can't prove gravity wrong because it's proved by what happens in space with lights and such. Stuff that you are told are stars and suns and what not.
Gravity is the explanation for what they do and denpressure cannot explain them because...well it's obvious - denpressure cannot apply to space, it can only apply to the place where we actually exist...which is our Earth cocoon.

I'll tell you what. Let's see you explain gravity in a proper way inside our Earth that denpressure cannot stump easily.
You see, I'm having none of your space reading stories of old as proof of anything.
Show me how they use gravity for all happenings on Earth.

I don't want to hear any rubbish like...well things fall and there's an up and down...because that explains absolutely nothing.

Over to you.

Lets take it from your point of view:  If the planets are reflections on the dome, then the laws of gravitation still describe and predict the behavior of these points of light.  This is my point: whatever gravity truly is, we can describe its behavior and make predictions based on that.  That is all a scientific theory is meant to do.

So even if you're world view end up being accurate it will never change the fact that the laws of gravitation accurately describe the universe.

I don't want to hear any rubbish like...well things fall and there's an up and down...because that explains absolutely nothing.

You obviously missed the post wherein I explained in some detail—specifically for you sceptimatic—that there is NO "up" and there is NO "down".

Unrestrained bodies are attracted to each other by a phenomenon known as "gravitational attraction".  The cue ball and any red ball are attracted to each other in this way on a pool table.  A mosquito and the ISS are attracted to each other.  Your body and mine are attracted to each other... but please note that I didn't say "attractive"  .

This means that like Newton's apple "falling" to the ground, the cue ball is trying to "fall" towards the red ball; the mosquito is trying to "fall" towards the ISS; and your body is trying to "fall" towards mine.  Ouch!

Notice that I said "towards" in each case.  No "up" and no "down".  They simply don't exist.

Lets take it from your point of view:  If the planets are reflections on the dome, then the laws of gravitation still describe and predict the behavior of these points of light.  This is my point: whatever gravity truly is, we can describe its behavior and make predictions based on that.  That is all a scientific theory is meant to do.

So even if you're world view end up being accurate it will never change the fact that the laws of gravitation accurately describe the universe.

Seeing as you're taking it from a different avenue, is it not possible that considering we don't know the exact workings of the inner circle of Earth that it's merely reflections as in how I explained before that rely solely on atmospheric happenings that produce the energy for the reflections, that are responsible for what is seen in the sky, bearing in mind that amateur astronomers are only seeing basic dots or movements and very possibly are simply just believing what the higher ranks tell them is seen through the huge telescopes that they will never get  near.

You don't need to answer this if you immediately refute the possibility. Just leave it at that and maybe use it later in life as a thought experiment when you start to question this stuff.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 10:12:17 AM

I don't want to hear any rubbish like...well things fall and there's an up and down...because that explains absolutely nothing.

You obviously missed the post wherein I explained in some detail—specifically for you sceptimatic—that there is NO "up" and there is NO "down".

Unrestrained bodies are attracted to each other by a phenomenon known as "gravitational attraction".  The cue ball and any red ball are attracted to each other in this way on a pool table.  A mosquito and the ISS are attracted to each other.  Your body and mine are attracted to each other... but please note that I didn't say "attractive"  .

This means that like Newton's apple "falling" to the ground, the cue ball is trying to "fall" towards the red ball; the mosquito is trying to "fall" towards the ISS; and your body is trying to "fall" towards mine.  Ouch!

Notice that I said "towards" in each case.  No "up" and no "down".  They simply don't exist.

So, if I put a pebble on flat ground and then put a 20 ton boulder about 5 feet away from it, that pebble will stick to the boulder after so long. Say 1 year or something. I'm giving you a chance here, rather than me saying the pebble will simpy jump at the boulder and start humping its leg, if boulders had legs of course.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 10:25:40 AM

Lets take it from your point of view:  If the planets are reflections on the dome, then the laws of gravitation still describe and predict the behavior of these points of light.  This is my point: whatever gravity truly is, we can describe its behavior and make predictions based on that.  That is all a scientific theory is meant to do.

So even if you're world view end up being accurate it will never change the fact that the laws of gravitation accurately describe the universe.

Seeing as you're taking it from a different avenue, is it not possible that considering we don't know the exact workings of the inner circle of Earth that it's merely reflections as in how I explained before that rely solely on atmospheric happenings that produce the energy for the reflections, that are responsible for what is seen in the sky, bearing in mind that amateur astronomers are only seeing basic dots or movements and very possibly are simply just believing what the higher ranks tell them is seen through the huge telescopes that they will never get  near.

You don't need to answer this if you immediately refute the possibility. Just leave it at that and maybe use it later in life as a thought experiment when you start to question this stuff.

I cannot refute that this is possible, I can however say that based on how you currently describe it, it seems exceedingly unlikely.  Whereas, there is no possibility that the laws of gravitation are incorrect in the way that they describe the behavior they pertain to.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 10:25:40 AM

Lets take it from your point of view:  If the planets are reflections on the dome, then the laws of gravitation still describe and predict the behavior of these points of light.  This is my point: whatever gravity truly is, we can describe its behavior and make predictions based on that.  That is all a scientific theory is meant to do.

So even if you're world view end up being accurate it will never change the fact that the laws of gravitation accurately describe the universe.

Seeing as you're taking it from a different avenue, is it not possible that considering we don't know the exact workings of the inner circle of Earth that it's merely reflections as in how I explained before that rely solely on atmospheric happenings that produce the energy for the reflections, that are responsible for what is seen in the sky, bearing in mind that amateur astronomers are only seeing basic dots or movements and very possibly are simply just believing what the higher ranks tell them is seen through the huge telescopes that they will never get  near.

You don't need to answer this if you immediately refute the possibility. Just leave it at that and maybe use it later in life as a thought experiment when you start to question this stuff.

What would you know about what amateur astronomers see? What are these "basic dots" you are talking about? You can see all kinds of details even with just a decent pair of binoculars. If you have a good telescope you can see even more detail. Where are all the cracks and imperfections in the ice dome that we should be seeing?

I cannot refute that this is possible, I can however say that based on how you currently describe it, it seems exceedingly unlikely.  Whereas, there is no possibility that the laws of gravitation are incorrect in the way that they describe the behavior they pertain to.

Of course to you there may be no possibility that the laws of gravitation are not correct, because you have been schooled to believe that and read books that describe it all...not to mention being around your peers discussing it and fine tuning each otehrs thoughts on it.
Why should you believe anything to the contrary, right? I agree. I mean, surely some random dipshit like myself coming along and simply putting stuff down like I do, is for one...not scientific in the way it's put forward and two, who in the hell am I?

Having said that. If a film maker or an author wants to make a film or pen a book about time travel to incorporate various aspects, he/she must do their full homework.
The film or book can have the story written, then looked over by a select amount of people to see if any flaws can be picked up in the story. If it is deemed feasible, it can go out for showing.

We read the book or watch the film and think, "wow" what a great story, it's just how it would be if time travel happened.
In all seriousness, it's no different to the on going story of what we are reading today, it's just that it's a good story and few people attempt to pick out potential flaws because the way it's written leaves no real scope to argue it and produce evidence to back that up anymore than there is full evidence for the writers to physically back up their own story.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:30:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 10:25:40 AM

Lets take it from your point of view:  If the planets are reflections on the dome, then the laws of gravitation still describe and predict the behavior of these points of light.  This is my point: whatever gravity truly is, we can describe its behavior and make predictions based on that.  That is all a scientific theory is meant to do.

So even if you're world view end up being accurate it will never change the fact that the laws of gravitation accurately describe the universe.

Seeing as you're taking it from a different avenue, is it not possible that considering we don't know the exact workings of the inner circle of Earth that it's merely reflections as in how I explained before that rely solely on atmospheric happenings that produce the energy for the reflections, that are responsible for what is seen in the sky, bearing in mind that amateur astronomers are only seeing basic dots or movements and very possibly are simply just believing what the higher ranks tell them is seen through the huge telescopes that they will never get  near.

You don't need to answer this if you immediately refute the possibility. Just leave it at that and maybe use it later in life as a thought experiment when you start to question this stuff.

What would you know about what amateur astronomers see? What are these "basic dots" you are talking about? You can see all kinds of details even with just a decent pair of binoculars. If you have a good telescope you can see even more detail. Where are all the cracks and imperfections in the ice dome that we should be seeing?

What are you seeing?
As for the ice dome, I think it would be hard seeing a clear dome against blackness, except for what is reflecting.
So what do you actually see with your binoculars and telescope?

What stands out clearly that you can make out stuff?