What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?

  • 592 Replies
  • 56558 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #390 on: September 17, 2021, 06:09:11 AM »
I'm hard-pressed to understand why "pull" doesn't fit into denpressure. Like I've said before, you've historically altered your notions as new things come up. So I just don't understand why "pull", when it's everywhere and everyone can see it and everyone uses it, is the hill you want to die on.

In short, why doesn't "pull" fit with your musings? What's the problem?
Because one of his biggest objections to gravity is that it is a pulling force.
By claiming there are no such things as pulling forces he can pretend that gravity can't possibly be real.
It isn't real.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #391 on: September 17, 2021, 06:10:14 AM »
Quote
Anyway, tell me how this centrifugal force works with the Earth in a so called vacuum.
And also tell me why we're told its spinning so fast that this happens but when we argue about water not flying off we're told it's spinning so slowly at one revolution every 24 hours.
You can only tell someone how something works if they are willing to learn. Since you have already made up your mind that the conventional explanations of such fundamental aspects of physics such as centrifugal force and the rotation of the Earth every day are all part of the lies and misinformation that we are all apparently being fed then we cannot actually tell you anything.

So until you become a little less fixed in your opinions about these basic facts I can't see any point in further discussing it.

Then don't.

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #392 on: September 17, 2021, 06:22:11 AM »
People lie for a variety of reasons.

What is your reason? 

Why do you lie by saying you have explained how the "push" on the magnet changes directions when you have not explained it?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #393 on: September 17, 2021, 07:29:02 AM »
People lie for a variety of reasons.

What is your reason? 

Why do you lie by saying you have explained how the "push" on the magnet changes directions when you have not explained it?
Why do you lie by saying I haven't?

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #394 on: September 17, 2021, 08:04:00 AM »
There's no problem if people want to use pull.
I'm just saying it has no real meaning when looked at down to basic molecular level.

It certainly does.


Quote
Anyone looking at a tug or war will see tow teams pulling at a rope and that's basically it.
No issue with the meaning of the visual.

What’s happening in the rope?  It’s in tension.  It’s being pulled in opposite directions, all the way down to molecular level.


Quote
To get a real understanding of what I mean is to look at the start of something and the ending.

Why ignore the middle?  The middle still exists.

Quote
Let's look at a locomotive and carriages.

The loco at the front appearing to be pulling the carriages.

Correct.

Quote
We know the pistons are being pushed down by the steam but why is the steam pushing the pistons down?
It's allowed to expand water from a compressed state to a super expanded state to be compressed much more severely into that piston cylinder.

All push, no pull.

The wheels of the loco attached to a rod are turned by the push of the rod.
The loco now pulls the carriage. But is that what's really happening?

Or is the coupling hooked behind the other coupling so it's now a curved grip and a push and so on and so on all the way to the end carriage.

No pulling at all.

All you’ve done is given a few places where there are compressive forces and ignored places where there are tensile forces, of which there are lots.

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #395 on: September 17, 2021, 04:31:12 PM »
Why does anyone start a religion?
Surely you're not naive enough to think people won't lie to gain control and power and all the trimmings that come with that...are you?
What do religions have in common?
Rules you are expected to live by.
Some call them commandments.
They also have religious leaders you are expected to obey.
The RE doesn't have that.


There's no problem if people want to use pull.
I'm just saying it has no real meaning when looked at down to basic molecular level.
Yet you refuse to look at simple situations at the basic molecular level which quite clearly expose this pull.
Instead you want to treat the link in a chain as one solid magical object with no internal forces.
Those looking at tit at the basic molecular level see that you push the right side of the link, and then the atoms there pull the atoms to the side and around the link, pulling the left side of the link at all.

To get a real understanding of what I mean is to look at the start of something and the ending.
No, to get a real understanding you need to look at it at every step along the way.
You want to ignore the vast majority of those steps so you can pretend that there are only pushing forces, because you ignore all the steps which involve pulling forces.

Ignoring the vast majority of the steps and pointing out some pushing forces doesn't mean there are no pulling forces.
In order to show there are no pulling forces, you need to go through every step along the chain, and explain them all using pushing forces.

Ignoring the pulling forces doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you are ignoring reality.

Stop focusing on the forces people accept are pushing forces and instead focus on the parts people claim you need a pull.

Let's look at a locomotive and carriages.
And you have the same issue.
How is the force transferred from the wheels to the rest of the locomotive?
How is the force transferred from the front of one carriage to the end of that carriage?

It is effectively the same as the chain link. Lets assume the train is travelling to the right.
You have a pushing force acting on the right side of the carriage. That would move that right side of the carriage to the right, but how does it move the rest of the carraige?
Go down to the molecular level and explain how this carriage in its entirety moves.

What you actually have is just like the link.
The carriage in front provides a pushing force to the carriage we are interested in. Importantly, this provides it on the right hand side of the carriage.
This is then transferred through the solid material of the coupler via PULLING forces.

It is not all push. It is a combination of push and pull.
You ignoring these pulling forces doesn't mean they are not there.
It just means you are ignoring reality.

Yes, it is.
What?
If you didn't ignore the rest of the post, that would be clear.
Like I said, STOP PLAYING DUMB!
Deal with the fact that you are wrong.

Why do you lie by saying I haven't?
He doesn't, as you haven't explained it.
You continually ignore the molecular level you claim you need to go down to.
You continually focus on the forces people accept are pushing forces, and ignore the issue where people accept there are pulling forces.

So that is why people are saying you haven't explained it, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T. Because you continually avoid the issue.
So no, he isn't lying, just like all the other people saying you haven't explained it aren't lying.
You are the one lying by claiming to have explained it.

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #396 on: September 17, 2021, 07:47:29 PM »
People lie for a variety of reasons.

What is your reason? 

Why do you lie by saying you have explained how the "push" on the magnet changes directions when you have not explained it?
Why do you lie by saying I haven't?

I am not lying, because you haven't explained it.  Prove me wrong by copying your explanation of how the push changes direction right here, in response to this post.

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #397 on: September 18, 2021, 07:09:25 AM »
Quote
Anyway, tell me how this centrifugal force works with the Earth in a so called vacuum.
And also tell me why we're told its spinning so fast that this happens but when we argue about water not flying off we're told it's spinning so slowly at one revolution every 24 hours.
Tell me...tell me... tell me... O if only it was that simple. Why do you want anyone to tell you anything?  Because you genuinely don't know and are interested in learning (I don't believe that for a moment!) or simply because you are inviting another opportunity to dismiss anything anyone tries to tell you because you have already decided that the idea of us living on a spinning globe is just nonsense? Another chance to further feed that scepti-ego of yours.

I look back through various discussions where you have repeatedly asked for explanations of this or that. Each time whatever they have said you have simply stuck your nose up at them and said fair enough, that doesn't tell me anything new so that don't prove nothin!  So I will stick to my original idea thank you very much!

So what is different about this time round?

I found this link on the BBC website Bitsize page.  Given your dismissal of a pulling force, I assume you disagree with all of it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zttfyrd/revision/1

So how is this an example of anyone trying to gain wealth, power or control rather than simply educating kids?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2021, 07:26:41 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #398 on: September 19, 2021, 12:56:55 AM »
Quote
Anyway, tell me how this centrifugal force works with the Earth in a so called vacuum.
And also tell me why we're told its spinning so fast that this happens but when we argue about water not flying off we're told it's spinning so slowly at one revolution every 24 hours.
Tell me...tell me... tell me... O if only it was that simple. Why do you want anyone to tell you anything?  Because you genuinely don't know and are interested in learning (I don't believe that for a moment!) or simply because you are inviting another opportunity to dismiss anything anyone tries to tell you because you have already decided that the idea of us living on a spinning globe is just nonsense? Another chance to further feed that scepti-ego of yours.
Against the utter egotism of people like yourself and all the rest of the hangers on to the globe who attack people en-masse, I have to fight fire with fire.
Not only that but I also have to ensure I stick rigidly to my own thoughts and ensure that the posse do not try to alter it by those attacks.

And then you have your decent people.
The one's that actually put forward some good stuff and good arguments and are patient enough to want to try and follow an obscure set of them by myself, or others.

Act like an ******** and you will be responded to in that vein which gives you little to no impact on my thoughts.
Have a think about that when you decide to have a go and then try psychology and what not.
Because it's people like you that display the big ego but twist it when you can't hammer down someone who simply has ideas for alternatives to the accepted run of the mill normality.


Quote from: Solarwind
I look back through various discussions where you have repeatedly asked for explanations of this or that. Each time whatever they have said you have simply stuck your nose up at them and said fair enough, that doesn't tell me anything new so that don't prove nothin!
 So I will stick to my original idea thank you very much!
No.
I certainly take onboard the explanations for the person who puts the effort in.
I do throw plenty back at people who simply copy/paste stuff as some kind of argument and then tell me that I could've looked it all up.

The point is, they're not putting in any effort other than looking something up and using it as their proof.
This is why I ask people to briefly explain what they're arguing and do it as basic as they can.
Some do it and have my utmost internet respect. Stack being one of those and there are a few more.
You once had it but are fast losing it.
JB has absolutely zero.


But....well...never mind.


Quote from: Solarwind
So what is different about this time round?
There's no difference. I'll stick to what I feel has legs and argue what I feel has not.
I'm always open to change if offered something that peaks my interest and can potentially have something.
None of that comes from globalists.

Quote from: Solarwind
I found this link on the BBC website Bitsize page.  Given your dismissal of a pulling force, I assume you disagree with all of it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zttfyrd/revision/1

So how is this an example of anyone trying to gain wealth, power or control rather than simply educating kids?
Don't waste your time trying to build a strawman argument by using this as your yardstick.

Don't even try to argue it because I won't respond.
This is why you people make me cringe and smirk at the same time. Trying to use something way out as though I'm trying to say people want wealth and control because they're cloaking pulling and pushing forces.

*** ******** ******* ********
« Last Edit: September 19, 2021, 01:05:40 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #399 on: September 19, 2021, 01:02:45 AM »
Quote
You once had it but are fast losing it.
It's a shame you feel like that because I am one of a small few people around here who actually knows what I am talking about. The only problem is that I think a lot differently to the majority here. As I would expect.

I did want to try and help you learn something but never mind. I won't waste my time anymore.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #400 on: September 19, 2021, 01:11:27 AM »
Quote
You once had it but are fast losing it.
It's a shame you feel like that because I am one of a small few people around here who actually knows what I am talking about. The only problem is that I think a lot differently to the majority here. As I would expect.

I did want to try and help you learn something but never mind. I won't waste my time anymore.
The way you're going on you were wasting your time, so stop acting like you're hard done by.
If you thought you knew more than others then why go into psychology mode?

If you want to engage in chat then be you...be patient and accept there's different sides whether it frustrates you or whatever.

If you want to create a fight back argument then get down to basics.

This push and pull argument is a classic example of getting down to basics to understand where I'm coming from and not to to be influenced by ******** like JB and others.

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #401 on: September 19, 2021, 01:24:21 AM »
Quote
The way you're going on you were wasting your time, so stop acting like you're hard done by.
I tell it the way I see it just like you tell it the way you see it.  You won't change and nor will I so don't go trying that hard done by stuff on me. Cos it won't work.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #402 on: September 19, 2021, 01:25:50 AM »
Quote
The way you're going on you were wasting your time, so stop acting like you're hard done by.
I tell it the way I see it just like you tell it the way you see it.  You won't change and nor will I so don't go trying that hard done by stuff on me. Cos it won't work.
We'll leave it at that. I'm not interested in another psychology course.

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #403 on: September 19, 2021, 01:42:01 AM »
Against the utter egotism of people like yourself and all the rest of the hangers on to the globe who attack people en-masse, I have to fight fire with fire.
Fighting fire with fire would be you providing evidence and logical arguments,
What you do is act like you are the smartest person in the world and insult others.

Act like an ******** and you will be responded to in that vein
And that is probably why you get the treatment you do.
If you acted with integrity and honesty, people would likely treat you better.

I certainly take onboard the explanations for the person who puts the effort in.
No, you don't.
You have shown repeatedly that you just dismiss or reject or ignore anything which shows you are wrong, regardless of how sincere the person who provided it is, or how much effort they have put in.

JB has absolutely zero.
If that was the case, you wouldn't be ignoring all the issues that have been raised and refusing to provide an explanation.
The fact you continually refuse to provide an explanation shows that I have plenty of proof you are wrong.
But then again, this level of dishonesty is expected from you.

Again, there are so many things that show you are wrong it isn't funny.
A simple chain link shows the existence of pulling forces, yet you continually flee from it and play dumb, because you know you cannot explain it without pulling forces.

You even go so far to spout pure nonsense like the only thing you have to look at is the start and end.
Any honest person can easily see that is pure garbage.
Just because the first force along the line and the last force along the line is a pushing forces, doesn't mean there are no pulling forces in between.
But you need to just cling to those few examples of pushing forces to pretend there aren't any pulling forces along the way.
You need to throw logic out the window, just like you throw reality out the window.
All to continue your irrational hatred of the globe.

Another simple example is the observed polarity of magnets, which you continually refuse to explain and shows beyond any sane doubt that it isn't the air or any simple substitute for the air.

Quote from: Solarwind
So what is different about this time round?
There's no difference.
So you will ask for an explanation, and provided with one you can't poke any holes in you will just flee from the issue or dismiss it as nonsense.
Always rejecting reality, because you don't like it.

Don't waste your time trying to build a strawman argument by using this as your yardstick.
Don't even try to argue it because I won't respond.
Of course you wont respond honestly to something that so easily shows you are wrong, and which you can't argue against.
Again, what motivation is there to lie about the existence of pulling forces?
What motivation is there to lie about Earth being round?
None, yet you need to act like there is to act like there is a grand conspiracy to pretend your delusional BS is true in the face of basically all of science disagreeing with you.
Truly pathetic.

And if you want to try appealing to respect, try showing some to others. Such as by actually dealing with the issues they have raised and the evidence they have provided rather than continually ignoring the issues, or outright lying by claiming to have already explained them, and rather than just claiming they are faking the evidence.

The only people here that you show respect to are those willing to accept your BS. As soon as they question you and show that you are wrong, you refuse to show any respect for them. So why should anyone show you any respect?

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #404 on: September 19, 2021, 04:33:56 AM »
JB, one thing that occurs to me is that in the professional circles of science, scientists working either individually or in teams spend their careers in effect trying to prove themselves wrong. That is the purpose is it not of experiment. To analyse the results in fine detail and try and fine the exceptions to any previously identified trends or patterns. Each run of an experiment changes one or more variables in order to try and learn more about whatever it is that the experiment concerns. If the data shows that the theory or existing models could be wrong then this is declared very early on.  For example there were experiments carried out which initially suggested that it is possibly for particles with mass to exceed the speed of light.  But the reasons for this were down to systematic errors rather than any new scientific discovery.  All of those relativists could breathe again!

You can find the details of these experiments in published papers that are then posted on the internet for anyone interested to read about.

Yet the whole of Sceptimatics 'alternative' view of what he loosely calls 'science' exists entirely and only in his mind. So the results of his own 'simple' experiments which somehow according to him prove that the rest of the science community has got it all wrong are hidden from view to everyone else except him. Contrary to his repeated protests otherwise. Normal practice is to try and independently confirm such revolutionary results because no new discovery in science can be officially confirmed by only one source.. And then he has the nerve to accuse everyone else of being part of some kind of cover up!

Classic case of Pot and kettle if ever I heard one...
« Last Edit: September 19, 2021, 04:36:48 AM by Solarwind »

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #405 on: September 19, 2021, 05:22:25 AM »
I'm not interested in another psychology course.

It's not a course you need -- it's treatment. You need to understand why you make up stuff.

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #406 on: September 19, 2021, 07:21:40 AM »
Quote
This push and pull argument is a classic example of getting down to basics to understand where I'm coming from and not to to be influenced by ******** like JB and others.
Weird you should say that because from where I'm standing the smell of BS seems to be coming from your direction rather than anybody elses.

That forces consist of either a push or a pull, and the fact that the two compliment each other (Newtons 3rd law) is about as near to getting down to basics as you can get.  So if anyone is trying to complicate something doesn't need complicating here its you by your simple refusal to accept the basics.

What any of that has got to do with what meteors are I don't know.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #407 on: September 19, 2021, 11:17:43 PM »

Fighting fire with fire would be you providing evidence and logical arguments,

Yep, I agree, that's what I do.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #408 on: September 19, 2021, 11:19:40 PM »
I'm not interested in another psychology course.

It's not a course you need -- it's treatment. You need to understand why you make up stuff.
It's called hypothesising.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #409 on: September 19, 2021, 11:46:53 PM »
Quote
This push and pull argument is a classic example of getting down to basics to understand where I'm coming from and not to to be influenced by ******** like JB and others.
Weird you should say that because from where I'm standing the smell of BS seems to be coming from your direction rather than anybody elses.

Try and be yourself. You're starting to mimic JB.




Quote from: Solarwind
That forces consist of either a push or a pull, and the fact that the two compliment each other (Newtons 3rd law) is about as near to getting down to basics as you can get.

 Newtons third law, as we're told, is:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
 For every push there is a resistance to that push, basically, in equal terms.
If I push you, your body resists my push by the same force applied from me.

This doesn't answer any pull issue, so why use it?

Quote from: Solarwind
  So if anyone is trying to complicate something doesn't need complicating here its you by your simple refusal to accept the basics.
Nope.
I'm well aware how the word pull is used. I have no issue with it being used.
If I was talking to you in the street and you said you were a cable puller or you pulled someone from the water, or you pulled apart two people fighting...etc....etc...etc......I would have no issue with it.
I would not say " oh there's no such thing as pull."

My argument is about a deeper process than that and something you and other refuse to look at because you're focused on the word and visual engineering ideals of the word, pull.
This is why tensile is used, because it implies that something is under pull stress, which to the naked vision and the use of the word pull and all of its word meanings from it, like tensile, etc....it's simply understood as the opposite of push.
I'm simply saying it does not exist when reverse engineered back to the basics.

Quote from: Solarwind
What any of that has got to do with what meteors are I don't know.
Because it started as icicles as meteors if you've read the topic.
Then it was asked how it worked and push on push was mentioned.

It spirals from there.
Plus, how many topics do you know that stay on exact point?

Is this your way out?

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #410 on: September 20, 2021, 01:43:18 AM »
Fighting fire with fire would be you providing evidence and logical arguments,
Yep, I agree, that's what I do.
No, you don't.
You are yet to present anything even remotely resembling evidence or logical arguments.
Instead you continue to spout nonsense and flee from logical arguments, as you have done yet again.

You are still incapable of explaining how the force is transferred/makes the other side move, without a pulling force.
And you are still incapable of explaining the observed polarity of magnets.

You're starting to mimic JB.
You mean he is easily showing how you are wrong, and not giving in to your BS?
You say that like its a bad thing.

I'm well aware how the word pull is used. I have no issue with it being used.
I would not say " oh there's no such thing as pull."
Sure you do, like when people say things are pulled down by gravity. It isn't just gravity you object to then, but also the idea of a pulling force.
You even object to such things by saying there is not such thing as a pulling force.

My argument is about a deeper process
A deeper process that you refuse to engage with because it shows you are wrong.
You have no interest in looking deeper at the link to consider how the force is transferred through the link (or other solid material).
Instead you want to take an extremely shallow view and just focus on one like pushing the next.

You are the one refusing to look at things here. And again, that is because you know that honestly looking at them so clearly and easily shows you are wrong.

Why don't you try looking at it more deeply for once and explain how the force is transferred?
Explain how the left side moves by pushing the right side right.
What is pushing the left side to make it move? We know it can't be the force that is pushing the right side as it is in the wrong direction.

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #411 on: September 20, 2021, 01:58:37 AM »
Quote
Because it started as icicles as meteors if you've read the topic.
I don't think you could really get much further from the truth than to use the word meteor and icicle in the same sentence. We have been able to record the spectrum of many meteors up to now and identify what they are through analysis of such spectra.

How do you get the spectrum of an icicle? 

So to declare that meteors (streaks of LIGHT) in the night sky are related in any way to frozen water is just fantasy.  Beyond fantasy really. Bordering on the plane ridiculous.

Through radio scatter observations we can also detect meteors that are happening in broad daylight. 

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #412 on: September 20, 2021, 06:04:04 AM »
I'm not interested in another psychology course.

It's not a course you need -- it's treatment. You need to understand why you make up stuff.
It's called hypothesizing.
Real scientists do hypothesize. Then they look at experimental evidence to see if their hypothesis holds up.  When it doesn't, they abandon that hypothesis, and admit it was wrong.

If one generously credits your statement that there is no such thing as attraction as a hypothesis, and then an experiment show magnet attracting another magnet, you, as a "scientist" are compelled to explain how that fits your hypothesis.

So you make up another hypothesis:  That some kind magical atmospheric air pressure difference creates a vortex that "pushes" the other magnet from the opposite side (even though in the experiment there is no evidence of a vortex strong enough to push a magnet being felt by the experimenter).

That's already enough evidence that any scientist would abandon such a hypothesis. But then you are presented with an experiment where a magnet first repels and then attracts a second magnet, which is so incompatible with your hypothesis that you don't even attempt to explain it. You just lie by saying you explained it.

Time to abandon your rubbish hypothesis and admit it is wrong!

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #413 on: September 20, 2021, 07:52:28 AM »
I am not sure what the difference is between 'hypothesizing' and 'questioning'. Sceptimatic seems to find reason to question pretty much everything in mainstream science. Then he comes out with these outlandish ideas which in his mind alone apparently provides a more logical explanation.

But how you can get around saying that is it more logical to propose that the Sun and Moon are somehow 'projected' onto any ice dome by a means that no human could ever confirm for themselves, over the mainstream explanation that the Sun is simply a star around which the Earth orbits and the Moon its only natural satellite I'm not sure.

There is questioning where questioning is needed.  And there is questioning just for the sake of it when you have nothing better to do.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #414 on: September 20, 2021, 08:33:06 AM »


Why don't you try looking at it more deeply for once and explain how the force is transferred?

How about you do it.
The nasty in you just wants to attack. Try acting normal.

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #415 on: September 20, 2021, 08:39:17 AM »
JB HAS done it. He has tried repeatedly to explain everything you have asked him and others to explain. But because all of these explanations do not fall in line with anything you personally believe then you completely dismiss everything that has been said.

There is nothing nasty about providing explanations that are true and correct to the best of OUR belief is there??

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #416 on: September 20, 2021, 08:44:12 AM »
Quote
Because it started as icicles as meteors if you've read the topic.
I don't think you could really get much further from the truth than to use the word meteor and icicle in the same sentence.
If they're called meteors then that's all well and good but they're hydrogen/helium/potential other, icicles as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Solarwind

 We have been able to record the spectrum of many meteors up to now and identify what they are through analysis of such spectra.
So you're involved in this analysis.
Ok tell me what you observed that shows a meteor to be what you think it is....which is?

Because I have some questions for you if you answer in the way I think.

Quote from: Solarwind

How do you get the spectrum of an icicle? 
That depends on what you think you see.

Quote from: Solarwind

So to declare that meteors (streaks of LIGHT) in the night sky are related in any way to frozen water is just fantasy.
agree, it would be fantasy if it were just frozen water  like we have down at sea level...but it isn't, It's frozen hydrogen/helium/other elements. In my theory.

Quote from: Solarwind

  Beyond fantasy really. Bordering on the plane ridiculous.
Sometimes it helps if you pay attention instead of going off in a frenzy.


Quote from: Solarwind

Through radio scatter observations we can also detect meteors that are happening in broad daylight.
And?

Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #417 on: September 20, 2021, 08:52:39 AM »
Quote
as far as I'm concerned.

Quote
In my theory.

This is all we get from you isn't it.  As far as I am concerned and in my theory.  Well time to substantiate your 'theory' with a bit more than just what you think or as far as you are concerned. That's what everyone needs from you.  E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. 

There you go I have made it a bit bolder and bigger like you sometimes do. Perhaps you will see it then.

Here is a link that explains in detail how we can record the spectra of meteors and what we can learn from them.

https://www.popastro.com/main_spa1/meteor/meteor-spectra-overview/

Now I haven't done this myself but can you explain what motive the Society for Popular Astronomy (a group that I am personally part of) could possibly have or gain in lying to anyone?

This is what you call evidence to support that supports theory that meteors are fragments of rock and metallic dust from space. I don't have to have done this personally (although I have all the equipment described to do it myself) to accept it.  I accept it because I have no reason to believe anyone would want to or need to feed me with misinformation.

What evidence have you got that your theory that they are icicles is correct and the conventional theory is wrong?



« Last Edit: September 20, 2021, 09:06:38 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #418 on: September 20, 2021, 09:00:20 AM »
I'm not interested in another psychology course.

It's not a course you need -- it's treatment. You need to understand why you make up stuff.
It's called hypothesizing.
Real scientists do hypothesize. Then they look at experimental evidence to see if their hypothesis holds up.  When it doesn't, they abandon that hypothesis, and admit it was wrong.
If one generously credits your statement that there is no such thing as attraction as a hypothesis, and then an experiment show magnet attracting another magnet, you, as a "scientist" are compelled to explain how that fits your hypothesis.
So you make up another hypothesis:  That some kind magical atmospheric air pressure difference creates a vortex that "pushes" the other magnet from the opposite side (even though in the experiment there is no evidence of a vortex strong enough to push a magnet being felt by the experimenter).

That's already enough evidence that any scientist would abandon such a hypothesis. But then you are presented with an experiment where a magnet first repels and then attracts a second magnet, which is so incompatible with your hypothesis that you don't even attempt to explain it. You just lie by saying you explained it.

Time to abandon your rubbish hypothesis and admit it is wrong!
If you can't put your mind to it you'll always come back with this stuff.


You mention a vortex not strong enough but you can clearly understand how the Magdeburg hemispheres work, can't you.
If you can then enlighten me on what you think happens with those hemispheres and we can move on from this point because this may just help you understand the forces involved.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« Reply #419 on: September 20, 2021, 09:05:58 AM »
I am not sure what the difference is between 'hypothesizing' and 'questioning'. Sceptimatic seems to find reason to question pretty much everything in mainstream science.
I question what I believe begs the questions.
Quote from: Solarwind

 Then he comes out with these outlandish ideas which in his mind alone apparently provides a more logical explanation.
I genuinely believe it is more logical.

Quote from: Solarwind

But how you can get around saying that is it more logical to propose that the Sun and Moon are somehow 'projected' onto any ice dome by a means that no human could ever confirm for themselves, over the mainstream explanation that the Sun is simply a star around which the Earth orbits and the Moon its only natural satellite I'm not sure.
I smirked a little when I saw this bit.

You question me about the sun and moon and you think your sun is 93 million miles away and your moon is apparently a big rock nearly 250,000 miles away...both operating in a vacuum of space as we're told. And you think that's logical.
It's utter nonsense.


Quote from: Solarwind

There is questioning where questioning is needed.  And there is questioning just for the sake of it when you have nothing better to do.
And I believe this stuff deserves questioning for the absolute utter garbage that it is.