Oh dear...

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2014, 06:21:56 AM

How should his movements look?

Very restricted.

Why?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2014, 06:21:56 AM

High altitude pressure suits have been around since at least the 1930s.  Are you saying that in over 80 years of development, no one has yet been able to develop a high altitude pressure suit that that works at 128,000 feet?  And you have the nerve to say that I'm living in denial?

Who was flying at high altitude in the 1930's?

Wiley Post, for one.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2014, 06:21:56 AM

When diving into the deep ocean, the suit is closer to a man shaped submarine.  When flying into the near vacuum of space, the suit is closer to a man shaped space capsule.  Seriously, why do you have such a hard time believing in technology that has been in constant development for the better part of a century?  It's like saying that you couldn't survive in a high speed train because the wind would be too great and you would suffocate.

Men can survive in pressure suits and sensible pressures. It's action and reaction in equal measure no matter what you are doing.

Hmmm....  Does this mean that we're making progress?  I suppose that the only thing left is to figure out what could be considered "sensible pressures".

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Actually if a train could go fast enough, you would suffocate. You would be constricted.
Go and look at a pilot training facility in a centrifuge to see what happens when there's a pressure build up.
It's a shame that people cannot grasp this stuff and simply go with the nonsense spouted off by supposed experts.

It's also a shame that you can't grasp the difference between speed and acceleration. 

Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?

Wily post, indeed. 
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

This thread really exposes septic for what he is. He's just some guy who thinks he knows it all, his opinions aren't based on anything resembling fact and he argues like a child.

I mean he thinks the pressures at deep sea are something similar to what is experienced at high altitude. This is just blatant stupidity. It's completely worthless to waste time debating with this uneducated child.

Septic, for your own good, go to school and learn something.

Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?

No, I'm not kidding.  Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?

Wily post, indeed. 

You asked and I answered.  Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?

No, I'm not kidding.  Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Wily post, indeed. 

You asked and I answered.  Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?

No, I'm not kidding.  Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Wily post, indeed. 

You asked and I answered.  Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?

Just answer the question please.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:31:19 AM

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?

No, I'm not kidding.  Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Wily post, indeed. 

You asked and I answered.  Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?

Just answer the question please.

I've already said I don't know. How about you tell me seeing as you obviously do know, then you can tell me the relevance of why it is what it is.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 24, 2014, 09:41:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:31:19 AM

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?

No, I'm not kidding.  Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Wily post, indeed. 

You asked and I answered.  Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?

Just answer the question please.

I've already said I don't know. How about you tell me seeing as you obviously do know, then you can tell me the relevance of why it is what it is.

So find out how to. It's what science is about.

Quote

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't enough to rip them apart or suffocate them.

I can't participate in this anymore. Sceptimatic seems purposefully obtuse and there is no real discussion going on here.

I can't participate in this anymore. Sceptimatic seems purposefully obtuse and there is no real discussion going on here.

That's just his way. Frustration is natural, it's also what he counts on to win arguments. No one will blame you for taking a break at least, dealing with him is exhausting.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:31:19 AM

Quote

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't enough to rip them apart or suffocate them.

I didn't think it would be at around 40,000 feet. I don't see people in pressure suits on passenger jets, so it's a little bit irrelevant isn't it?

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2014, 09:50:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 09:31:19 AM

Quote

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2014, 07:34:30 AM

Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.

How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?

I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't enough to rip them apart or suffocate them.

I didn't think it would be at around 40,000 feet. I don't see people in pressure suits on passenger jets, so it's a little bit irrelevant isn't it?

Passengers don't wear pressure suits because passenger jets have pressurized passenger cabins.  Do you honestly think that the air pressure at 40,000 feet is conducive to breathing?

What extra drag and stability is this at 128,000 feet?
That's what I'm taking about. I've showed you what a pressurised suit looks like. Deny it all you want. The fact is, this is what would happen to a suit as it approached a near vacuum. There's no getting away from it.
The jump is fake just like Kittingers. The simply reality is no helium balloon is going to take a man and capsule up to that height, first of all.
The balloon on it's own could maybe make it before popping.

Secondly, no human is going to survive that height no matter what suit they are in, in any craft of space suit. It's just not going to happen, ever.
People need to do a little bit of serious thinking as to how they manage to survive living at sea level pressure under 15 psi of pressure to understand why the body is not going to survive altitude or deep sea diving. I'm not talking about a few hundred meter dives, I'm talking about deep sea, no matter what the suit is.

It requires people to start to open up their rational minds and to stop believing in the utter fantasies thought up by hollywood producers.
The lies are kicking you hard in the face, constantly. When is the time gonna come when people say, " that's it, I'm sick of being kicked in the face"...?

The space ruse is exactly that. Nonsense. The high altitude helium stuff, is fantasy.
The deep sea trenches  that humans supposedly go down to in oceans, are fantasy. It's simply hollywood productions, or similar film making nonsense.

The flat screen or box in your living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens or wherever, are hypnotic tools to keep your mind focused on the fantasy that is given out.
There's a reason why people are called ACTORS.

All you are watching, are fantasies being acted out by people paid to deliver it to your psyche. The ones that do it better are the best paid. It's as simple as that.
There's nothing wrong with living out that fantasy world they give you, just don't pretend you know what reality is when you start stating that the fantasy is actual fact.

I have seen positive proof that the brightest minds can easily be fooled. People who use scientific jargon they have studied and memorised and regurgitated to all who listen. They do this with their chests puffed out. They believe what they are saying. They are oblivious to the truth because the truth comes in a plain package. Science does not deal in plain packages, because it's no fun if it's too logical and easy to actually see the truth. It has to be packed in fancy wrapping, then tied and wrapped again till the package is so bulked it will take someone a long long time to get to the reality of what's inside of that.

It's called finding reality by removing truths protective layers.

I can only assume that you're simply trying to attain the magical number of 10,000 posts sceptimatic?

It's been a long time since—if ever—that I've read so much absolute bullshit in one single post as this meandering, nonsensical drivel.

Can you say that you truly believe the rubbish you spew endlessly on these forums?  Or do you sit back, laughing smugly as a few people here attempt in vain to engage you in some sort of meaningful debate?  If you are serious, then I can only say that I've never come across any alleged adult with such an almost non-existent understanding of even the very basic tenets of science.

Charles Darwin observed that "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge".  Think about it.

Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.

Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.

Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?

Quote from: n1rvana on July 29, 2014, 06:25:43 AM

Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.

Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?

Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.

Quote from: n1rvana on July 29, 2014, 06:25:43 AM

Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.

Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?

Why shouldn't we be able to use a text book or Google?  Why should we need to reinvent the rebuttal?  Besides, it isn't as if we haven't suggested that you take a college level physics course where you can see for yourself, step-by-step, how so many of the things that you deny were discovered.

Can you rebut anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or Google?

I've asked you numerous times to let us know what reference books you consult for your data sceptimatic, but thus far you've refused.  Why is that?

I often refer to Wiki and Google.  Why?  Because they both provide a plethora of resources where I can educate myself about astrophysics and astronomy, and rocket propulsion and mechanics, and geophysics and meteorology etc.

And why is it that you actually seem proud to say you never refer to Google or text books?  Maybe you subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" frame of mind, as the majority of your comments certainly support that truism LOL.  There's none so blind as those who will not see.

In fact, if you were to refer to Google or Wiki occasionally, it might save you some of the personal ridicule that nearly all your responses elicit from other members here.  Just a word from the wise my friend.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 07:59:08 AM

Quote from: n1rvana on July 29, 2014, 06:25:43 AM

Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.

Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?

Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.

No it doesn't. It also doesn't make it valid either, or the person who uses it - an expert.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 07:59:08 AM

Quote from: n1rvana on July 29, 2014, 06:25:43 AM

Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.

Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?

Why shouldn't we be able to use a text book or Google?  Why should we need to reinvent the rebuttal?  Besides, it isn't as if we haven't suggested that you take a college level physics course where you can see for yourself, step-by-step, how so many of the things that you deny were discovered.

I'm hardly going to take a college course on the things I'm going against, am I? Going to college is walking right back into the indoctrinated process I freed myself from. Come on, use your common sense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 07:59:08 AM

Can you rebut anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or Google?

I've asked you numerous times to let us know what reference books you consult for your data sceptimatic, but thus far you've refused.  Why is that?

I often refer to Wiki and Google.  Why?  Because they both provide a plethora of resources where I can educate myself about astrophysics and astronomy, and rocket propulsion and mechanics, and geophysics and meteorology etc.

And why is it that you actually seem proud to say you never refer to Google or text books?  Maybe you subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" frame of mind, as the majority of your comments certainly support that truism LOL.  There's none so blind as those who will not see.

In fact, if you were to refer to Google or Wiki occasionally, it might save you some of the personal ridicule that nearly all your responses elicit from other members here.  Just a word from the wise my friend.

The personal ridicule you speak of, to me, is so mild it's almost pleasant.
Looking up official lines is not going to help me find the truth. I have to rely on my own common sense and logic as well as my own experiments and findings.

Looking up official lines is not going to help me find the truth. I have to rely on my own common sense and logic as well as my own experiments and findings.

So I'll ask you again sceptimatic... exactly what texts or papers do you consider to be truthful in order to learn about the planet and our universe?  You weren't born with that knowledge imprinted on your brain, so please name those books.  We all need to refer to texts written by people smarter than ourselves, so can you also name a couple of people you trust to provide you with information?

Can you also provide a few brief details of the results of experiments you've carried out, or the types of experiments?  Have they involved easily obtainable, cheap bits and pieces, or have you spent considerable funds of your own to purchase specialised equipment?  And if so, what sort of equipment have you purchased?

Have the "findings" of any of your experiments been peer reviewed, and if so by whom?  Have you had any of your research papers published in any journals?

So I'll ask you again sceptimatic... exactly what texts or papers do you consider to be truthful in order to learn about the planet and our universe?

There are no texts or papers that are truthful to learn about our planet or universe. This is not a planet and there is no known universe that we can see. Space is a figmkent of people's imaginations due to being told it is what it is, when everything is simply reflections and the Earth is a cell not a planet.

You weren't born with that knowledge imprinted on your brain, so please name those books.  We all need to refer to texts written by people smarter than ourselves, so can you also name a couple of people you trust to provide you with information?

Wise heads and the ability to rationally think on what was told to me and explained to me. From that point I started to nibble away to be where I'm at now, destroying gravity, space and Earth being a rotating globe.

Can you also provide a few brief details of the results of experiments you've carried out, or the types of experiments?

I provided you with some, you mocked it, so just take it or leave it, it's no skin off  my nose.

 

Have they involved easily obtainable, cheap bits and pieces, or have you spent considerable funds of your own to purchase specialised equipment?  And if so, what sort of equipment have you purchased?

I've spend a reasonable amount of money doing experiments. Nothing the average person couldn't afford to do.

Have the "findings" of any of your experiments been peer reviewed, and if so by whom?  Have you had any of your research papers published in any journals?

Yep, peer reviewed by some very good people who re scientists, who find them fantastic, so much so that some are actively doing experiments of their own to back up what I'm saying.

There are no texts or papers that are truthful to learn about our planet or universe. This is not a planet and there is no known universe that we can see. Space is a figmkent of people's imaginations due to being told it is what it is, when everything is simply reflections and the Earth is a cell not a planet.

Why do you think there are no texts that are truthful?

And..

Is there a test I can preform that would show that this...

everything is simply reflections and the Earth is a cell not a planet.

is true?

There are no texts or papers that are truthful to learn about our planet or universe.

So how precisely did you learn what you know about our planet?  I learned from World book Encyclopedia, Scientific American (US), New Scientist (UK), Australasian Science, Philip Plait, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, and Carl Sagan etc.

Can you name me a few of the texts and authors you trust?

Wise heads and the ability to rationally think on what was told to me and explained to me.

Can you tell me exactly who "told" you those things you learned, and/or "explained" how they worked?   
 

I provided you with some, you mocked it, so just take it or leave it, it's no skin off  my nose.

Nope;  I don't recall you providing me with any of your research details other than the laser/2km flat ice experiment.  I certainly did not mock this experiment—and in fact I'm still waiting to hear whether or not you've had any favourable comments from the scientists you sent your paper to.  I note that you refer to experiments plural (some) so I'd be interested in just a generalised overview of any others you may have carried out.

I've spend a reasonable amount of money doing experiments. Nothing the average person couldn't afford to do.

What sort of equipment did you need to purchase?  And what type of research required this equipment?  Are we talking hundreds of dollars or thousands here?

Yep, peer reviewed by some very good people who are scientists, who find them fantastic, so much so that some are actively doing experiments of their own to back up what I'm saying.

Can you please give us the names of a few of those scientists—assuming they're well-known internationally in the field of geophysics.  What countries are they carrying out their experiments in?  Any in Australia?

(I understand commercial-in-confidence laws, but if they're world-renowned scientists, there shouldn't be any issues divulging their names at least.  I'm more than sure they'd respect the legality of any confidentiality clauses you've imposed upon them.)

Quote from: rottingroom on July 29, 2014, 08:05:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 07:59:08 AM

Quote from: n1rvana on July 29, 2014, 06:25:43 AM

Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.

Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?

Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.

No it doesn't. It also doesn't make it valid either, or the person who uses it - an expert.

Citations do matter, believe or not.

Citations do matter, believe or not.

Not to sceptimatic they don't.  I've asked him numerous times to cite references to support his claims (see my post above yours) but he repeatedly refuses to do so.  My guess?  He can't, because he simply doesn't have any.  He simply plucks silly notions out of the air as the situation demands, with no attempt at all to back them up with any cold, hard facts.

I must've asked him a dozen times to define the units of measurement for his "denpressure", but he's unable to.  How can one combine two dissimilar, unrelated entities—density and pressure—to form a third entity?  It's like trying to make something by combining (say) velocity and temperature, but he can't see that.  Is it a scalar or a vector quantity?  sceptimatic can't even answer this very basic of questions.

And he can't post a citation to "denpressure" simply because there aren't any.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 30, 2014, 05:15:16 PM

Citations do matter, believe or not.

Not to sceptimatic they don't.  I've asked him numerous times to cite references to support his claims (see my post above yours) but he repeatedly refuses to do so.  My guess?  He can't, because he simply doesn't have any.  He simply plucks silly notions out of the air as the situation demands, with no attempt at all to back them up with any cold, hard facts.

I must've asked him a dozen times to define the units of measurement for his "denpressure", but he's unable to.  How can one combine two dissimilar, unrelated entities—density and pressure—to form a third entity?  It's like trying to make something by combining (say) velocity and temperature, but he can't see that.  Is it a scalar or a vector quantity?  sceptimatic can't even answer this very basic of questions.

And he can't post a citation to "denpressure" simply because there aren't any.

Well I really don't expect a flat earther to have any citations but in the real world they do matter.

I'm hardly going to take a college course on the things I'm going against, am I? Going to college is walking right back into the indoctrinated process I freed myself from. Come on, use your common sense.

Being contrary just for the sake of being contrary is not common sense.

I provided you with some, you mocked it, so just take it or leave it, it's no skin off  my nose.

No, you didn't.  You've provided us with nothing but lies.