Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 11:38:41 AM

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.

Whatever, you apparently are not understanding what I am saying or you care not to.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 11:38:41 AM

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

No, it's because thousands of engineers use these theories every day to build stuff such as bridges, aircraft, skyscrapers and artillery pieces.  They carry on using theories, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, as they work.  That's it.  If they didn't work they would be abandoned, as plenty of theories have been over the years.

This is what you ignore: we have 300 years of technological development based on the theories you wave away.  You wave them away, not because they don't work, as they clearly do, but because they don't fit some fantasy world you have invented to feed whatever deep seated pathology that has infected you mind.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 11:49:55 AM

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?

I've been able to make out details of the Moon's surface, craters, shadows etc. I've seen Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons. I've spotted the Andromeda galaxy, and the nebula in Orion's sword. Neither of those are dots, they're like clouds. At no point did I see any kind of shimmer or distortion that you'd expect to see on a piece of naturally formed ice. Obviously you won't see anything on the black parts. If the dome was just a few thousand miles away, stars should appear as discs under great magnification, like planets do because they are nearer. Instead, because they are so distant, they always appear as points.

Which raises a question very pertinent to this thread: If they stars and planets are all reflections, and they are all relatively close, why should we see some things, like planets, as disks under magnification, and some as points under the same magnification?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:50:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 11:38:41 AM

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

No, it's because thousands of engineers use these theories every day to build stuff such as bridges, aircraft, skyscrapers and artillery pieces.  They carry on using theories, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, as they work.  That's it.  If they didn't work they would be abandoned, as plenty of theories have been over the years.

This is what you ignore: we have 300 years of technological development based on the theories you wave away.  You wave them away, not because they don't work, as they clearly do, but because they don't fit some fantasy world you have invented to feed whatever deep seated pathology that has infected you mind.

Name me one engineering project that uses gravity and I'll counteract it with denpressure.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 24, 2014, 12:06:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:50:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 11:38:41 AM

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

No, it's because thousands of engineers use these theories every day to build stuff such as bridges, aircraft, skyscrapers and artillery pieces.  They carry on using theories, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, as they work.  That's it.  If they didn't work they would be abandoned, as plenty of theories have been over the years.

This is what you ignore: we have 300 years of technological development based on the theories you wave away.  You wave them away, not because they don't work, as they clearly do, but because they don't fit some fantasy world you have invented to feed whatever deep seated pathology that has infected you mind.

Name me one engineering project that uses gravity and I'll counteract it with denpressure.

You can't because you cannot provide anything useful to an engineer.  You have no mathematical description of how it works.  The linguistic description of an idea is basically useless.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:53:14 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 11:49:55 AM

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?

I've been able to make out details of the Moon's surface, craters, shadows etc. I've seen Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons. I've spotted the Andromeda galaxy, and the nebula in Orion's sword. Neither of those are dots, they're like clouds. At no point did I see any kind of shimmer or distortion that you'd expect to see on a piece of naturally formed ice. Obviously you won't see anything on the black parts. If the dome was just a few thousand miles away, stars should appear as discs under great magnification, like planets do because they are nearer. Instead, because they are so distant, they always appear as points.

Which raises a question very pertinent to this thread: If they stars and planets are all reflections, and they are all relatively close, why should we see some things, like planets, as disks under magnification, and some as points under the same magnification?

Because the dome itself reflects. It's like a shotting gallery of reflections with some stuff, like the sun is the moon and venus and other so called planets just reflecting and reflecting. Like a house of mirrors except it's a domed mirror reflecting from wherever to whatever points.

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm simply saying that what you see is not necessarily real bodies.
How many times do you see a dog run at a glass door when it reflects, or otehr animals?
They believe the reflections of what they see are real. Just like us humans think reflections of light are real.

There's a reason why everything moves in a predictive way. Think about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 12:23:27 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 24, 2014, 12:06:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:50:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 24, 2014, 11:38:41 AM

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

No, it's because thousands of engineers use these theories every day to build stuff such as bridges, aircraft, skyscrapers and artillery pieces.  They carry on using theories, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, as they work.  That's it.  If they didn't work they would be abandoned, as plenty of theories have been over the years.

This is what you ignore: we have 300 years of technological development based on the theories you wave away.  You wave them away, not because they don't work, as they clearly do, but because they don't fit some fantasy world you have invented to feed whatever deep seated pathology that has infected you mind.

Name me one engineering project that uses gravity and I'll counteract it with denpressure.

You can't because you cannot provide anything useful to an engineer.  You have no mathematical description of how it works.  The linguistic description of an idea is basically useless.

Name me a project that engineers use that relies on gravity? Explain how it does so.

Scepti, one of the most famous - for its innovativeness and precision, given the time when it was conducted - experiments related to gravitation is what is known as the Cavendish experiment. It was conducted right at the end of 1700's, and was able to provide the value of gravitational constant with a high precision given it all happened before even year 1800. It involved measuring the force twisting a wire upon which a set of lead orbs of known dimensions and mass was hanged, when a set of much heavier orbs was placed in their vicinity.

Have a read a bit about it if you have time to do this. How would you explain your "denpressure" causing the described behavior?

And, to keep it all on topic: if the Moon and the Sun are both reflections of the same light source(where the Moon is like a "second" bounce, if I remember correctly what you have said about it a while ago), how comes the Moon can even exist? If the dome is a perfect mirror, as in it reflects the light without scattering in other directions, and at any point of time the Sun is visible on any given point of the "dome" from some place on Earth(meaning that for any elevation and heading of your choosing relative to the surface, there is a place on Earth from which the Sun will be seen exactly at these coordinates), where on the dome is the "last" source for the light which's next "bounce" ends up as what we see as the Moon?

If all of the Earth's Sun is some reflection of the same single original light source, and the reflection from any point of dome ends up shining somewhere on Earth, where on the dome does the Moon's "previous" light actually come from? Or do you claim that light can "perfectly" bounce to several directions at once from a single point and direction?

Oh, and the last one about this: how does this match with the fact that relative positions of the Sun and the Moon change all the time?

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.

Ok, you throw a ball up in the air at 25 m/s straight up. Tell me using denpressure how high it goes and how long before it lands on the ground. Let's say your hand is 1.5 m above the ground when it releases the ball. Calculate this for both standard air pressure at sea level and at something like the top of Mount Everest.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 12:09:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:53:14 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 11:49:55 AM

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?

I've been able to make out details of the Moon's surface, craters, shadows etc. I've seen Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons. I've spotted the Andromeda galaxy, and the nebula in Orion's sword. Neither of those are dots, they're like clouds. At no point did I see any kind of shimmer or distortion that you'd expect to see on a piece of naturally formed ice. Obviously you won't see anything on the black parts. If the dome was just a few thousand miles away, stars should appear as discs under great magnification, like planets do because they are nearer. Instead, because they are so distant, they always appear as points.

Which raises a question very pertinent to this thread: If they stars and planets are all reflections, and they are all relatively close, why should we see some things, like planets, as disks under magnification, and some as points under the same magnification?

Because the dome itself reflects. It's like a shotting gallery of reflections with some stuff, like the sun is the moon and venus and other so called planets just reflecting and reflecting. Like a house of mirrors except it's a domed mirror reflecting from wherever to whatever points.

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm simply saying that what you see is not necessarily real bodies.
How many times do you see a dog run at a glass door when it reflects, or otehr animals?
They believe the reflections of what they see are real. Just like us humans think reflections of light are real.

There's a reason why everything moves in a predictive way. Think about it.

Holy crap Scepti, everything is just a reflection of the Sun inside a dome? There is no way that can possibly work. Take a brand new stainless steel salad bole as your dome and shine a light under it. There, did you see a recreation of the night sky? No? OK, I think we can move on from the ice dome/reflections idea now.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 12:30:52 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 12:09:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:53:14 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 11:49:55 AM

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?

I've been able to make out details of the Moon's surface, craters, shadows etc. I've seen Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons. I've spotted the Andromeda galaxy, and the nebula in Orion's sword. Neither of those are dots, they're like clouds. At no point did I see any kind of shimmer or distortion that you'd expect to see on a piece of naturally formed ice. Obviously you won't see anything on the black parts. If the dome was just a few thousand miles away, stars should appear as discs under great magnification, like planets do because they are nearer. Instead, because they are so distant, they always appear as points.

Which raises a question very pertinent to this thread: If they stars and planets are all reflections, and they are all relatively close, why should we see some things, like planets, as disks under magnification, and some as points under the same magnification?

Because the dome itself reflects. It's like a shotting gallery of reflections with some stuff, like the sun is the moon and venus and other so called planets just reflecting and reflecting. Like a house of mirrors except it's a domed mirror reflecting from wherever to whatever points.

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm simply saying that what you see is not necessarily real bodies.
How many times do you see a dog run at a glass door when it reflects, or otehr animals?
They believe the reflections of what they see are real. Just like us humans think reflections of light are real.

There's a reason why everything moves in a predictive way. Think about it.

Holy crap Scepti, everything is just a reflection of the Sun inside a dome? There is no way that can possibly work. Take a brand new stainless steel salad bole as your dome and shine a light under it. There, did you see a recreation of the night sky? No? OK, I think we can move on from the ice dome/reflections idea now.

Nah, the Sun is a reflection of the main, central light source, while stars etc. are either reflection of other various little sources, or the main source scattered on some imperfections in the dome itself, if I remember correctly.

Scepti, one of the most famous - for its innovativeness and precision, given the time when it was conducted - experiments related to gravitation is what is known as the Cavendish experiment. It was conducted right at the end of 1700's, and was able to provide the value of gravitational constant with a high precision given it all happened before even year 1800. It involved measuring the force twisting a wire upon which a set of lead orbs of known dimensions and mass was hanged, when a set of much heavier orbs was placed in their vicinity.

Have a read a bit about it if you have time to do this. How would you explain your "denpressure" causing the described behavior?

And, to keep it all on topic: if the Moon and the Sun are both reflections of the same light source(where the Moon is like a "second" bounce, if I remember correctly what you have said about it a while ago), how comes the Moon can even exist? If the dome is a perfect mirror, as in it reflects the light without scattering in other directions, and at any point of time the Sun is visible on any given point of the "dome" from some place on Earth(meaning that for any elevation and heading of your choosing relative to the surface, there is a place on Earth from which the Sun will be seen exactly at these coordinates), where on the dome is the "last" source for the light which's next "bounce" ends up as what we see as the Moon?

If all of the Earth's Sun is some reflection of the same single original light source, and the reflection from any point of dome ends up shining somewhere on Earth, where on the dome does the Moon's "previous" light actually come from? Or do you claim that light can "perfectly" bounce to several directions at once from a single point and direction?

Oh, and the last one about this: how does this match with the fact that relative positions of the Sun and the Moon change all the time?

The sun is on one side, high up and the moon is on the other side down low and vice versa.
At varying times you will see more reflections, known as sun dogs and such like. That's dependent on pressures and atmospheric changes, stuff like that.

Quote from: Macpie on July 24, 2014, 12:34:32 PM

Scepti, one of the most famous - for its innovativeness and precision, given the time when it was conducted - experiments related to gravitation is what is known as the Cavendish experiment. It was conducted right at the end of 1700's, and was able to provide the value of gravitational constant with a high precision given it all happened before even year 1800. It involved measuring the force twisting a wire upon which a set of lead orbs of known dimensions and mass was hanged, when a set of much heavier orbs was placed in their vicinity.

Have a read a bit about it if you have time to do this. How would you explain your "denpressure" causing the described behavior?

And, to keep it all on topic: if the Moon and the Sun are both reflections of the same light source(where the Moon is like a "second" bounce, if I remember correctly what you have said about it a while ago), how comes the Moon can even exist? If the dome is a perfect mirror, as in it reflects the light without scattering in other directions, and at any point of time the Sun is visible on any given point of the "dome" from some place on Earth(meaning that for any elevation and heading of your choosing relative to the surface, there is a place on Earth from which the Sun will be seen exactly at these coordinates), where on the dome is the "last" source for the light which's next "bounce" ends up as what we see as the Moon?

If all of the Earth's Sun is some reflection of the same single original light source, and the reflection from any point of dome ends up shining somewhere on Earth, where on the dome does the Moon's "previous" light actually come from? Or do you claim that light can "perfectly" bounce to several directions at once from a single point and direction?

Oh, and the last one about this: how does this match with the fact that relative positions of the Sun and the Moon change all the time?

The sun is on one side, high up and the moon is on the other side down low and vice versa.
At varying times you will see more reflections, known as sun dogs and such like. That's dependent on pressures and atmospheric changes, stuff like that.

I'm not sure I follow you here... Do you want to say that the Sun and the Moon are two different sources, kind of on the opposite sides of something, or that it is the same source reflected in a way that the Sun and the Moon appear on the sky on the opposite sides(like the Sun at day, and the Moon at night)? Or do I get you wrong?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:53:14 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 11:49:55 AM

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?

I've been able to make out details of the Moon's surface, craters, shadows etc. I've seen Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons. I've spotted the Andromeda galaxy, and the nebula in Orion's sword. Neither of those are dots, they're like clouds. At no point did I see any kind of shimmer or distortion that you'd expect to see on a piece of naturally formed ice. Obviously you won't see anything on the black parts. If the dome was just a few thousand miles away, stars should appear as discs under great magnification, like planets do because they are nearer. Instead, because they are so distant, they always appear as points.

Which raises a question very pertinent to this thread: If they stars and planets are all reflections, and they are all relatively close, why should we see some things, like planets, as disks under magnification, and some as points under the same magnification?

The moon details you make out are the craters in the carbon of the suns reflection. You can't see them at the source of the amin reflective light (the sun)...it's too bright.
Youc an see all it's spin off reflections as they get lighter and dimmer and more distant from your vantage point.

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

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.

Ok, you throw a ball up in the air at 25 m/s straight up. Tell me using denpressure how high it goes and how long before it lands on the ground. Let's say your hand is 1.5 m above the ground when it releases the ball. Calculate this for both standard air pressure at sea level and at something like the top of Mount Everest.

I have no need for calculations to explain reality as far as this stuff goes. Every calculation made has to be for the environment at hand and the onjects used. It isn't a constant with all like pretend gravity supposedly is.

This 9.8m/s/s makes no sense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 12:54:00 PM

Quote from: Macpie on July 24, 2014, 12:34:32 PM

Scepti, one of the most famous - for its innovativeness and precision, given the time when it was conducted - experiments related to gravitation is what is known as the Cavendish experiment. It was conducted right at the end of 1700's, and was able to provide the value of gravitational constant with a high precision given it all happened before even year 1800. It involved measuring the force twisting a wire upon which a set of lead orbs of known dimensions and mass was hanged, when a set of much heavier orbs was placed in their vicinity.

Have a read a bit about it if you have time to do this. How would you explain your "denpressure" causing the described behavior?

And, to keep it all on topic: if the Moon and the Sun are both reflections of the same light source(where the Moon is like a "second" bounce, if I remember correctly what you have said about it a while ago), how comes the Moon can even exist? If the dome is a perfect mirror, as in it reflects the light without scattering in other directions, and at any point of time the Sun is visible on any given point of the "dome" from some place on Earth(meaning that for any elevation and heading of your choosing relative to the surface, there is a place on Earth from which the Sun will be seen exactly at these coordinates), where on the dome is the "last" source for the light which's next "bounce" ends up as what we see as the Moon?

If all of the Earth's Sun is some reflection of the same single original light source, and the reflection from any point of dome ends up shining somewhere on Earth, where on the dome does the Moon's "previous" light actually come from? Or do you claim that light can "perfectly" bounce to several directions at once from a single point and direction?

Oh, and the last one about this: how does this match with the fact that relative positions of the Sun and the Moon change all the time?

The sun is on one side, high up and the moon is on the other side down low and vice versa.
At varying times you will see more reflections, known as sun dogs and such like. That's dependent on pressures and atmospheric changes, stuff like that.

I'm not sure I follow you here... Do you want to say that the Sun and the Moon are two different sources, kind of on the opposite sides of something, or that it is the same source reflected in a way that the Sun and the Moon appear on the sky on the opposite sides(like the Sun at day, and the Moon at night)? Or do I get you wrong?

No, you basically got it right.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 12:37:12 PM

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

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.

Ok, you throw a ball up in the air at 25 m/s straight up. Tell me using denpressure how high it goes and how long before it lands on the ground. Let's say your hand is 1.5 m above the ground when it releases the ball. Calculate this for both standard air pressure at sea level and at something like the top of Mount Everest.

I have no need for calculations to explain reality as far as this stuff goes. Every calculation made has to be for the environment at hand and the onjects used. It isn't a constant with all like pretend gravity supposedly is.

This 9.8m/s/s makes no sense.

Actually gravity varies depending on your location but that is still governed by the same physical laws.

This 9.8m/s/s makes no sense.

What sense is there to make about it? Objects literally fall 9.8 meters every second for every second. It's like saying that I have 5 fingers on my right hand. I say that cause my right hand quite literally has 5 fingers on it. I was able to measure exactly 5 fingers units. Similarly, one can quite literally measure that during, say a minute, an object will increase it speed by 9.8 meters during each second of that minute.

Quote from: Macpie on July 24, 2014, 12:57:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 12:54:00 PM

Quote from: Macpie on July 24, 2014, 12:34:32 PM

Scepti, one of the most famous - for its innovativeness and precision, given the time when it was conducted - experiments related to gravitation is what is known as the Cavendish experiment. It was conducted right at the end of 1700's, and was able to provide the value of gravitational constant with a high precision given it all happened before even year 1800. It involved measuring the force twisting a wire upon which a set of lead orbs of known dimensions and mass was hanged, when a set of much heavier orbs was placed in their vicinity.

Have a read a bit about it if you have time to do this. How would you explain your "denpressure" causing the described behavior?

And, to keep it all on topic: if the Moon and the Sun are both reflections of the same light source(where the Moon is like a "second" bounce, if I remember correctly what you have said about it a while ago), how comes the Moon can even exist? If the dome is a perfect mirror, as in it reflects the light without scattering in other directions, and at any point of time the Sun is visible on any given point of the "dome" from some place on Earth(meaning that for any elevation and heading of your choosing relative to the surface, there is a place on Earth from which the Sun will be seen exactly at these coordinates), where on the dome is the "last" source for the light which's next "bounce" ends up as what we see as the Moon?

If all of the Earth's Sun is some reflection of the same single original light source, and the reflection from any point of dome ends up shining somewhere on Earth, where on the dome does the Moon's "previous" light actually come from? Or do you claim that light can "perfectly" bounce to several directions at once from a single point and direction?

Oh, and the last one about this: how does this match with the fact that relative positions of the Sun and the Moon change all the time?

The sun is on one side, high up and the moon is on the other side down low and vice versa.
At varying times you will see more reflections, known as sun dogs and such like. That's dependent on pressures and atmospheric changes, stuff like that.

I'm not sure I follow you here... Do you want to say that the Sun and the Moon are two different sources, kind of on the opposite sides of something, or that it is the same source reflected in a way that the Sun and the Moon appear on the sky on the opposite sides(like the Sun at day, and the Moon at night)? Or do I get you wrong?

No, you basically got it right.

Actually it was kind of an "either or" question - a) these are two separate sources, or b) one source, but two separate reflections. So it seems that it is one single source and sequential reflections perceived as the Sun and the Moon. You say that they appear on the opposite sides of the sky. Then why do we see the Moon at day half of each month?... Even right now, the Moon should be right next to the Sun for the next few days - till 2nd August, more or less. This is by no means "opposite".

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.

Denpressure is a made up force. Made up by you.

Weird as hell.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 12:09:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 11:53:14 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 11:49:55 AM

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?

I've been able to make out details of the Moon's surface, craters, shadows etc. I've seen Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons. I've spotted the Andromeda galaxy, and the nebula in Orion's sword. Neither of those are dots, they're like clouds. At no point did I see any kind of shimmer or distortion that you'd expect to see on a piece of naturally formed ice. Obviously you won't see anything on the black parts. If the dome was just a few thousand miles away, stars should appear as discs under great magnification, like planets do because they are nearer. Instead, because they are so distant, they always appear as points.

Which raises a question very pertinent to this thread: If they stars and planets are all reflections, and they are all relatively close, why should we see some things, like planets, as disks under magnification, and some as points under the same magnification?

The moon details you make out are the craters in the carbon of the suns reflection. You can't see them at the source of the amin reflective light (the sun)...it's too bright.
Youc an see all it's spin off reflections as they get lighter and dimmer and more distant from your vantage point.

But if you look at the Sun through a filter or make a projection you can see details, like sunspots, that look nothing like the Moon's surface, and furthermore these change over time while the Moon doesn't. I thought you were all about using your eyes and your brain Scepti; even a little kid can see the Moon and Sun are two different things!

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 12:37:12 PM

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

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.

Ok, you throw a ball up in the air at 25 m/s straight up. Tell me using denpressure how high it goes and how long before it lands on the ground. Let's say your hand is 1.5 m above the ground when it releases the ball. Calculate this for both standard air pressure at sea level and at something like the top of Mount Everest.

I have no need for calculations to explain reality as far as this stuff goes. Every calculation made has to be for the environment at hand and the onjects used. It isn't a constant with all like pretend gravity supposedly is.

This 9.8m/s/s makes no sense.

It may not make sense to you, but I can do the math and calculate the answer to within a decimal place or two, while you can't even get started using denpressure. That tells me all I need to know. If you don't think calculations are important in the real world, then you don't understand the real world in many respects. I suppose when you get your paycheck, you don't care if the accountant adds up your hours and calculates your pay properly?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 01:00:22 PM

This 9.8m/s/s makes no sense.

What sense is there to make about it? Objects literally fall 9.8 meters every second for every second. It's like saying that I have 5 fingers on my right hand. I say that cause my right hand quite literally has 5 fingers on it. I was able to measure exactly 5 fingers units. Similarly, one can quite literally measure that during, say a minute, an object will increase it speed by 9.8 meters during each second of that minute.

So what you mean is, an object falling will fall 588 metres in one minute or am I getting this wrong?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 01:02:10 PM

Quote from: Macpie on July 24, 2014, 12:57:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 12:54:00 PM

Quote from: Macpie on July 24, 2014, 12:34:32 PM

Scepti, one of the most famous - for its innovativeness and precision, given the time when it was conducted - experiments related to gravitation is what is known as the Cavendish experiment. It was conducted right at the end of 1700's, and was able to provide the value of gravitational constant with a high precision given it all happened before even year 1800. It involved measuring the force twisting a wire upon which a set of lead orbs of known dimensions and mass was hanged, when a set of much heavier orbs was placed in their vicinity.

Have a read a bit about it if you have time to do this. How would you explain your "denpressure" causing the described behavior?

And, to keep it all on topic: if the Moon and the Sun are both reflections of the same light source(where the Moon is like a "second" bounce, if I remember correctly what you have said about it a while ago), how comes the Moon can even exist? If the dome is a perfect mirror, as in it reflects the light without scattering in other directions, and at any point of time the Sun is visible on any given point of the "dome" from some place on Earth(meaning that for any elevation and heading of your choosing relative to the surface, there is a place on Earth from which the Sun will be seen exactly at these coordinates), where on the dome is the "last" source for the light which's next "bounce" ends up as what we see as the Moon?

If all of the Earth's Sun is some reflection of the same single original light source, and the reflection from any point of dome ends up shining somewhere on Earth, where on the dome does the Moon's "previous" light actually come from? Or do you claim that light can "perfectly" bounce to several directions at once from a single point and direction?

Oh, and the last one about this: how does this match with the fact that relative positions of the Sun and the Moon change all the time?

The sun is on one side, high up and the moon is on the other side down low and vice versa.
At varying times you will see more reflections, known as sun dogs and such like. That's dependent on pressures and atmospheric changes, stuff like that.

I'm not sure I follow you here... Do you want to say that the Sun and the Moon are two different sources, kind of on the opposite sides of something, or that it is the same source reflected in a way that the Sun and the Moon appear on the sky on the opposite sides(like the Sun at day, and the Moon at night)? Or do I get you wrong?

No, you basically got it right.

Actually it was kind of an "either or" question - a) these are two separate sources, or b) one source, but two separate reflections. So it seems that it is one single source and sequential reflections perceived as the Sun and the Moon. You say that they appear on the opposite sides of the sky. Then why do we see the Moon at day half of each month?... Even right now, the Moon should be right next to the Sun for the next few days - till 2nd August, more or less. This is by no means "opposite".

Like I said, it depends on atmospheric conditions at the time. It's why you see it sometimes in day time. It is a dome after all, it's going  to produce varying reflections at times, just like when you see 3 suns and stuff. There's loads of weird stuff that can happen.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 08:24:34 AM

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.

Denpressure is a made up force. Made up by you.

Weird as hell.

Correct. And gravity was supposedly made up by Newton which is double weird as hell considering it cannot be explained as a force, whereas mine can.

But if you look at the Sun through a filter or make a projection you can see details, like sunspots, that look nothing like the Moon's surface, and furthermore these change over time while the Moon doesn't. I thought you were all about using your eyes and your brain Scepti; even a little kid can see the Moon and Sun are two different things!

Yea and if you look at the moon from the reflection of the sun you can actually seen the craters which is the inside of the sun glow which is (guessing) some kind of graphite core.

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 24, 2014, 03:56:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 08:24:34 AM

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.

Denpressure is a made up force. Made up by you.

Weird as hell.

Correct. And gravity was supposedly made up by Newton which is double weird as hell considering it cannot be explained as a force, whereas mine can.

You've never explained where denpressure comes from, except to say it has something to do with molecules acting like irascible crowd members. However you never explain why these crowd members are so keen on pushing against each other.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 24, 2014, 04:03:47 PM

But if you look at the Sun through a filter or make a projection you can see details, like sunspots, that look nothing like the Moon's surface, and furthermore these change over time while the Moon doesn't. I thought you were all about using your eyes and your brain Scepti; even a little kid can see the Moon and Sun are two different things!

Yea and if you look at the moon from the reflection of the sun you can actually seen the craters which is the inside of the sun glow which is (guessing) some kind of graphite core.

Show me where I can see this graphite core of the Sun which matches the features of the lunar surface.

It may not make sense to you, but I can do the math and calculate the answer to within a decimal place or two, while you can't even get started using denpressure. That tells me all I need to know. If you don't think calculations are important in the real world, then you don't understand the real world in many respects. I suppose when you get your paycheck, you don't care if the accountant adds up your hours and calculates your pay properly?

Well come on then, give me your gravity calculations for something Earthly and not space. After all, engineers use gravity right?
So come on then, let's see a simple calculation using gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 04:18:55 PM

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 24, 2014, 03:56:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 08:24:34 AM

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.

Denpressure is a made up force. Made up by you.

Weird as hell.

Correct. And gravity was supposedly made up by Newton which is double weird as hell considering it cannot be explained as a force, whereas mine can.

You've never explained where denpressure comes from, except to say it has something to do with molecules acting like irascible crowd members. However you never explain why these crowd members are so keen on pushing against each other.

Denpressure is you or any object pushing up against atmospheric pressure. I've told you this many times, haven't you been taking any notice?