Meteors and Comets

  • 176 Replies
  • 19305 Views
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #120 on: July 20, 2014, 08:12:05 AM »
Why don't you just start with a diagram showing how day/night cycles work in your "model"?  Then you can move onto stuff like seasons, tides, lunar phases etc

Until you can explain the basics, how do you expect anyone to believe you?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #121 on: July 20, 2014, 08:12:15 AM »
You don't even understand how your system works, how can anyone else?

You're too ignorant to see where you contradict yourself and you lack fundamental understanding to see why you're wrong.

There's nothing to absorb here. You're simply pulling words out of your ass and then deciding to ridicule anyone that doesn't believe you........which you may notice happens to be anyone that reads what you write.

Nothing you're saying could possibly exist in reality. None of it. Fact.
Who am I ridiculing. Show me a post where I'm ridiculing? What's the matter with you?
I'm telling you how it is. If you choose to think I'm talking nonsense, then do not partake in the conversation with me. It's quite simple.

You are talking nonsense. It's quite evident.

You ridicule when you tell people they are brainwashed because they don't believe the incoherent crap you write.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #122 on: July 20, 2014, 08:12:52 AM »
Can't we make a dome out of some material? Glass, metal? I don't understand why this would present a problem when making a model to test your idea.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #123 on: July 20, 2014, 08:13:10 AM »
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #124 on: July 20, 2014, 08:16:05 AM »
Why don't you just start with a diagram showing how day/night cycles work in your "model"?  Then you can move onto stuff like seasons, tides, lunar phases etc

Until you can explain the basics, how do you expect anyone to believe you?
Make your own choice what you want to believe or not. I'm not you. All I do is put my posts in. From that point on I'll deal with what I see fit.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #125 on: July 20, 2014, 08:19:05 AM »
Can you explain a little, why can't you make a model to test?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #126 on: July 20, 2014, 08:20:47 AM »
Can't we make a dome out of some material? Glass, metal? I don't understand why this would present a problem when making a model to test your idea.
Yes you can, if you can make one that accepts all of the elements pumped into it with an energy source on some scale.
If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum.
The massive ussue is, we cannot create a perfect vacuum on Earth, so trying to do that by making a dome inside of a glass dome, we are going to have an inevitable collapse due to the atmospheric pressure outside of it...something that is not present outside of the real Earth dome.

See how complicated that could be?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #127 on: July 20, 2014, 08:21:40 AM »
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #128 on: July 20, 2014, 08:23:39 AM »
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #129 on: July 20, 2014, 08:26:08 AM »
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #130 on: July 20, 2014, 08:32:09 AM »
"If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum."

Could you rephrase this please? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Are you asking for a dome over a dome and in between the two domes is a perfect vacuum?

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #131 on: July 20, 2014, 08:34:56 AM »
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.

I don't need to know how it works.

It doesn't work because it isn't real.

It can't work because nothing you say adds up. You're wrong and you contradict yourself without knowing you do because you're ignorant.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #132 on: July 20, 2014, 08:42:26 AM »
"If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum."

Could you rephrase this please? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Are you asking for a dome over a dome and in between the two domes is a perfect vacuum?
No. In a nutshell I'm trying to say it's impossible to build a working dome that emulates Earth's under atmospheric conditions.

The closest you could do is to put a glass dome over a glass dome, then fill the inner dome with all the gases of Earth, plus elements and an energy source, etc.
The outer dome would have top be evacuated of pressure to a perfect vacuum which cannot be achieved on Earth.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #133 on: July 20, 2014, 08:43:52 AM »
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.

I don't need to know how it works.

It doesn't work because it isn't real.

It can't work because nothing you say adds up. You're wrong and you contradict yourself without knowing you do because you're ignorant.
If you believe I'm wrong without actually reading up, then stick to it. I'll refrain from answering to you in this topic or any topic about the dome from this point on. It'll save me typing time.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #134 on: July 20, 2014, 08:44:46 AM »
No such thing as a perfect vacuum.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #135 on: July 20, 2014, 08:46:17 AM »
Why wouldn't a smaller model of your dome be tested? We could make a scaled down disc with a heat source and dome? Is there something missing?
How do you make the dome?
Tell me how you make the dome at sea level and we can talk further on this.

According to you....it's made from ice.
So you haven't actually read up on what it's made up of. It's just ice?

It's your fantasy brother, not mine.
Then arguing it without knowing how it works is pointless for you. Learn how it all works...it's all there, then argue it. If not, just leave it at that.

I don't need to know how it works.

It doesn't work because it isn't real.

It can't work because nothing you say adds up. You're wrong and you contradict yourself without knowing you do because you're ignorant.
If you believe I'm wrong without actually reading up, then stick to it. I'll refrain from answering to you in this topic or any topic about the dome from this point on. It'll save me typing time.

I've read the things you have typed.

You're wrong. It's as obvious as can possibly be.

You can't answer me with anything of actual substance because you too know you're full of shit.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #136 on: July 20, 2014, 09:00:42 AM »
"If you can make it like it casts ice onto the dome then we could class that outer glass dome as the perfect vacuum."

Could you rephrase this please? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Are you asking for a dome over a dome and in between the two domes is a perfect vacuum?
No. In a nutshell I'm trying to say it's impossible to build a working dome that emulates Earth's under atmospheric conditions.

The closest you could do is to put a glass dome over a glass dome, then fill the inner dome with all the gases of Earth, plus elements and an energy source, etc.
The outer dome would have top be evacuated of pressure to a perfect vacuum which cannot be achieved on Earth.

Why do you need a perfect vacuum or any vacuum in the outer dome?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #137 on: July 20, 2014, 09:30:43 AM »
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.


*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #138 on: July 20, 2014, 10:33:40 AM »
I've never read such a load of shite in my life.  Not since your last post anyway.

As obviouslyround says: you just pull this stuff from your ass then call us brainwashed when we point this out.  That's all you ever do.

I too have to agree with these sentiments.  At the very least, sceptimatic's rambling, incoherent, nonsensical comments usually give me a good laugh to brighten up an often very dull day.  And I have to take my hat off (and turn my brain off) in thanks to sceptimatic for giving me that glimmer of joy.

     ;D

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #139 on: July 20, 2014, 11:50:45 AM »
As a simple explanation: if you are sanding a piece of wood, lightly, you are creating a vibration which is creating some heat, yet that heat due to expansion of matter is quickly pushed away from the source by the dense matter coming under it to fill the void or expansion. Basically it's a low pressure crwation that is immediately filled by the sea level pressure, smaller molecules.

Start using more energy and frequency on that wood and you can basically set fire to it, because you're creating a much higher expanasion of the molecules that are being constantly filled by the high pressure sea level molecules pushing into the space, forcing the expanded molecules up. If the vibration and frequency are upped a little, then so would the expansion of molecules, until you basically create a fire by the super speed of dense molecules filling the space.

You're totally missing the point about why wood burns. Yes, using friction you can heat it up, and when you stop sanding it will cool off, i.e. the heat will dissipate into the cooler environment. But the fire is not going to stop because you stop sanding. At that point a chemical reaction has started that releases a lot of heat and will keep the fire going until all the available fuel and/or oxygen have been used up.

For a much better plain language description of how a fire works, please watch:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Feynman: FUN TO IMAGINE 2: Fire

And to your other point that the world is not like a thermos flask, in your model, it's exactly like that. Everything, including the ice dome itself, is wrapped in the most perfect insulator imaginable - your hypothetical perfect vacuum through which nothing can travel, not even light.

Also, if you want to say that things can cool off without having to transfer their heat energy (or their vibration, which is still energy) somewhere else, then you misunderstand what heat is and how thermodynamics works. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from a warmer place to a cooler place. This law is never violated. If it was, crazy things could happen. My coffee could get cold without warming the cup. I could leave an ice cube tray full of water out on the counter on a summer day and make ice cubes. I could put a pot of water on a block of ice and it could boil. These are such common sense absurdities that it should be obvious to you how the First Law of Thermodynamics can't be violated.

So in your ice dome model, with the perfect insulator of the vacuum that contains it, energy can only move around in different places. Heat from the Sun, and heat produced here on Earth all goes into the environment. The only thing I don't know for sure, but can definitely be calculated, is how long it takes for everything to reach the same temperature.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #140 on: July 20, 2014, 12:08:00 PM »
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.
Which as I said: we know it as venting but it's how it termed, which is the key. You are saying it needs venting and it can't vent in a closed dome. I've explained why venting is not what people think when it comes to expanded molecules being pushed away to rise to a point where it cannot rise anymore from that energy release, so it becomes condensed again.

Rainfall should explain exactly what I'm talking about as one example.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #141 on: July 20, 2014, 12:19:11 PM »
As a simple explanation: if you are sanding a piece of wood, lightly, you are creating a vibration which is creating some heat, yet that heat due to expansion of matter is quickly pushed away from the source by the dense matter coming under it to fill the void or expansion. Basically it's a low pressure crwation that is immediately filled by the sea level pressure, smaller molecules.

Start using more energy and frequency on that wood and you can basically set fire to it, because you're creating a much higher expanasion of the molecules that are being constantly filled by the high pressure sea level molecules pushing into the space, forcing the expanded molecules up. If the vibration and frequency are upped a little, then so would the expansion of molecules, until you basically create a fire by the super speed of dense molecules filling the space.

You're totally missing the point about why wood burns. Yes, using friction you can heat it up, and when you stop sanding it will cool off, i.e. the heat will dissipate into the cooler environment. But the fire is not going to stop because you stop sanding. At that point a chemical reaction has started that releases a lot of heat and will keep the fire going until all the available fuel and/or oxygen have been used up.

For a much better plain language description of how a fire works, please watch:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Feynman: FUN TO IMAGINE 2: Fire

And to your other point that the world is not like a thermos flask, in your model, it's exactly like that. Everything, including the ice dome itself, is wrapped in the most perfect insulator imaginable - your hypothetical perfect vacuum through which nothing can travel, not even light.

Also, if you want to say that things can cool off without having to transfer their heat energy (or their vibration, which is still energy) somewhere else, then you misunderstand what heat is and how thermodynamics works. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from a warmer place to a cooler place. This law is never violated. If it was, crazy things could happen. My coffee could get cold without warming the cup. I could leave an ice cube tray full of water out on the counter on a summer day and make ice cubes. I could put a pot of water on a block of ice and it could boil. These are such common sense absurdities that it should be obvious to you how the First Law of Thermodynamics can't be violated.

So in your ice dome model, with the perfect insulator of the vacuum that contains it, energy can only move around in different places. Heat from the Sun, and heat produced here on Earth all goes into the environment. The only thing I don't know for sure, but can definitely be calculated, is how long it takes for everything to reach the same temperature.
It's not me who's missing the point. I'm telling you exactly what happens. Heat does move to another place, you're right, except you're missing the whole point of what's happening.

At the core of the energy relating to friction, you get your hottest part that we perceive, as in the brightest glow or the most intense fire or heat. From that point on, it's super expanding matter being massively pushed into a higher atmosphere due to the intensity of the energy applied. It's a stackign effect of a push on push of tehse molecules as this energy is applied from the core point to the end point where the molecules cannot be pushed up anymore, so they level out and build up and up...or condence if you want, then they fall as they become more and more compressed through the now less dense molecules below.
No heat rises forever unless there is a constant heat source in a constant spot that builds all the time.

It's not the same as a thermos flask at all.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #142 on: July 20, 2014, 12:26:17 PM »

I have a question for jroa, who stated earlier:

Quote
Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.


This is contrary to my understanding.  Changing a liquid to a gas is called vapourisation.  NO pressure necessary.  How do you propose your version of a condenser works jroa?

Yes, we have already discussed this.  I admitted that I messed up the order of two words.  Maybe if you would have read the entire thread, you would see where I have already admitted that and apologized. 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #143 on: July 20, 2014, 01:15:39 PM »
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.
Which as I said: we know it as venting but it's how it termed, which is the key. You are saying it needs venting and it can't vent in a closed dome. I've explained why venting is not what people think when it comes to expanded molecules being pushed away to rise to a point where it cannot rise anymore from that energy release, so it becomes condensed again.

Rainfall should explain exactly what I'm talking about as one example.

I just don't see how you've explained away what happens to the heat. Right here, you've explained that it rises, but as you might suspect us to understand, it's still inside of the system.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #144 on: July 20, 2014, 01:43:46 PM »
None of those examples are closed systems.

It doesn't have to be vented, it just has to be pushed away from us until the agitation through dense molecules slows down, which would happen when you slow down the energy source.

AKA vented.
Which as I said: we know it as venting but it's how it termed, which is the key. You are saying it needs venting and it can't vent in a closed dome. I've explained why venting is not what people think when it comes to expanded molecules being pushed away to rise to a point where it cannot rise anymore from that energy release, so it becomes condensed again.

Rainfall should explain exactly what I'm talking about as one example.

I just don't see how you've explained away what happens to the heat. Right here, you've explained that it rises, but as you might suspect us to understand, it's still inside of the system.
It doesn't matter that it's an enclosed system. The system is self sufficient. Nothing needs to be vented outisde of it. It can't be vented. It's a stacked system.

At sea level, we are under the pressure of the stacked system and we feel the effects of the stacking of that system every time energy is applied in anything we do or any time the sun is reflected onto us from the dome directly facing us.

I'm trying to go from a simplistic model to explain compressed matter to expanded matter relating to sea level gases that are condensed, to expanded gases that are expanded due to being PUSHED up due to the molecules above them being forced out of the way by those below, then those molecuels above taking the place of the expanded molecules and pushing them up further.

I might draw a crude picture of what I'm saying if you don't grasp this.
Basically it's a chain reaction of pushing through expansion. Think of it like drawing a tiny circle at the bottom of a paper...we will call this cold. Now we imagine this cold being pushed up the page by the even tinier circles under it, so now we draw another slightly larger circle on top of the other, then another one a little bit larger and so on and so on as if it was a big worm with a fat head and skinny tail pushing through a mass of tiny balls, which drop down to fill the area where the worm came from which fills the gap the worm leaves.
Imagine that on a scale, from say, striking a match or the mass of a fire.

The thing is, as that far headed worm is forcing it's way up, it's entirely reliant on the energy which started it motion upwards which is the point of ignition or point of friction.
If that energy is constant, then the fat headed worm will stop being pushed up because it's now at a height where it's head now matches the molecules it's in as far as size goes, so now it's head is resting above the less expanded molecules below.
As soon as the next molecule of the worms head gets pushed into the first, it's now being squashed...and the next molecules is pushed up and so on and so on until it's head is squashed even more, which condenses it and allows it all to start to fall back through the smaller molecules below.

I'm not sure you will grasp this. If not, I'll draw a picture tomorrow maybe to see if I can explain it better.

Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #145 on: July 20, 2014, 01:48:21 PM »
Pure nonsense.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #146 on: July 20, 2014, 02:44:11 PM »
I grasp it. It is you that fails to grasp that it makes zero sense.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #147 on: July 20, 2014, 03:05:55 PM »
I grasp it. It is you that fails to grasp that it makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't to you because you follow a different model where my logic does not fit that model.
You go with Earth venting heat into space. You should seriously question this. I tried to make it simple for you but I do under stand your stance being ultra defensive as I am myself over mine, regardless of you having mass opinion on your side.
I am equal to mass opinion, so I class the argument as equal.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #148 on: July 20, 2014, 03:07:54 PM »
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Meteors and Comets
« Reply #149 on: July 20, 2014, 03:28:19 PM »
So these are some actual images of molecules. Notice they physically look how chemists expected them too. Bonds and all. They also don't have other molecules around then like scepti thinks. They are independent. I'm sure scepti will say its fake but that's okay.

What do you think allows a person to actually look at stuff under a microscope?
It's doesn't matter how small, matter is, if you can view it under a microscope it has to be viewing it through other matter, as in, what you see through, as in, molecules, which is what is in between any matter seen. All matter, no matter what density, is attached. No gaps. There cannot be any gaps as this constitutes a perfect vacuum, which cannot be created inside Earth.