Put a flat earthier into space



How you claim light is generated is wrong. Sound and light are not the same thing.
They actually are at the source, like I mentioned.
Then it's down tohow it's all perceived.
You still fail to say why they travel at different speeds and what you say is conjecture not an experiment that proves sound and speed are the same thing.
I don't need to mention speeds.
All I need to say is, sound takes time to hit a receiver. Light is instant to your eye.
Shining a torch and saying "yep see it" is not measuring the speed, you need pretty sensitive equipment because light is so quick. But the fact we can get an echo off a object shows sound is much slower.

Yep, as I said.
What you say about sound taking time to hit your ear drums is completely disproved by pretty much anything that you can use to detect a sound wave in relation to light. You can use electronic equipment, just a phone camera will do. Look at the wave form output from an audio track along side a frame by frame stills from the video. Or a thin membrane stretched over something with a sprinkling of particles such as sand will allow you to see vibrations from certain sounds.
Seeing what causes vibrations is not hearing them. Different senses.
With both human perception and electronic means of measuring, the difference in sound and light hitting is directly proportional to the distance of the source. For example thunder far away might take a few seconds, but someone close up does not have lip sync issues. Why would your brain or camera know the distance and adjust accordingly?

Adjust accordingly for what?

What you say is complete bollocks.
In your mind, fair enough. I don't believe it is.
But what I said still holds true. An idea plucked from nowhere but your imagination with no experimental evidence to back it up and because the entire rest of the world does not agree, conspiracy.

And you're welcome to that. Keep saying it as many times as you feel is best to suit you and those who you think it suits.

You do not see light without friction/vibration, which is sound.
It's all about energy and frequency of it which determines what you see and what you hear.
 
Last edited:
Time for this thread to be locked
If you don't like it, just don't read it.
They actually are at the source, like I mentioned.
Then it's down tohow it's all perceived.

I don't need to mention speeds.
All I need to say is, sound takes time to hit a receiver. Light is instant to your eye.


Yep, as I said.

Seeing what causes vibrations is not hearing them. Different senses.


Adjust accordingly for what?


In your mind, fair enough. I don't believe it is.


And you're welcome to that. Keep saying it as many times as you feel is best to suit you and those who you think it suits.



You do not see light without friction/vibration, which is sound.
It's all about energy and frequency of it which determines what you see and what you hear.
So you still can't see what experiments you have performed to say they are the same.

I stand by what I said. Sound=light is an idea plucked from your arse and you are telling lies when you said you have done experiments that prove that. Otherwise why would you keep avoiding the question and be so unwilling to share?
 
Last edited:
If you don't like it, just don't read it.

So you still can't see what experiments you have performed to say they are the same.

I stand by what I said. Sound=light is an idea plucked from your arse and you are telling lies when you said you have done experiments that prove that. Otherwise why would you keep avoiding the question and be so unwilling to share?
You're asking way too sensible questions, you'll be next on ignore at this rate.
I don't think he has shared a single experiment yet about any of his vast number of musings, well apart from the water in his bath being flat which proves space doesn't exist or something.
 
You're asking way too sensible questions, you'll be next on ignore at this rate.
I don't think he has shared a single experiment yet about any of his vast number of musings, well apart from the water in his bath being flat which proves space doesn't exist or something.
Bit disappointing he’s got 90% of us on ignore now like, cannot fathom why either🤷‍♂️
 
Bit disappointing he’s got 90% of us on ignore now like, cannot fathom why either🤷‍♂️
We're obviously not intellectual enough to understand his discoveries.
They do get more batshit crazy as time passes (actually has he touched on time yet, is that a thing🤔)
Can't wait to see what else we have learned from him by Christmas
 
You're asking way too sensible questions, you'll be next on ignore at this rate.
I don't think he has shared a single experiment yet about any of his vast number of musings, well apart from the water in his bath being flat which proves space doesn't exist or something.
I think the issue is, he does not know what an experiment is. I think he confuses causal observation and drawing a random conclusion with an experiment.
 
We're obviously not intellectual enough to understand his discoveries.
They do get more batshit crazy as time passes (actually has he touched on time yet, is that a thing🤔)
Can't wait to see what else we have learned from him by Christmas
Think I was put on ignore cos I said he was a “fantasist”😂
Actually enjoy his musings but it’s his refusal to share his experiments and his absolute refusal to accept everything put to him which frustrates 🤷‍♂️
 
Think I was put on ignore cos I said he was a “fantasist”😂
Actually enjoy his musings but it’s his refusal to share his experiments and his absolute refusal to accept everything put to him which frustrates 🤷‍♂️
I dunno why he put me on, I thought I'd asked some sensible questions, but that's probably why ha ha.
Totally get what you're saying.
 
You're asking way too sensible questions, you'll be next on ignore at this rate.
I don't think he has shared a single experiment yet about any of his vast number of musings, well apart from the water in his bath being flat which proves space doesn't exist or something.

No he has also shared "if you shine a torch from a distance away you see it instantly - ergo Light has no speed and operates instantaneously" - what more do you need?
 
If you don't like it, just don't read it.

So you still can't see what experiments you have performed to say they are the same.

I stand by what I said. Sound=light is an idea plucked from your arse and you are telling lies when you said you have done experiments that prove that. Otherwise why would you keep avoiding the question and be so unwilling to share?
I never said I did any experiments to show sound is light. I said anyone can do them to show it's a reality.
The thing is, people refuse to look at stuff in simple terms and prefer to go right down the complicated so called scientific route of uncertainty pass off as proof, not because they want to avoid simplicity it's more likely wanting to avoid peer pressure.

They still pluck arguments out with wave/particle duality.
Basically they struggle to understand if light is a wave or a particle.

Or do they?

I stand by what I've said.You cannot get light without friction and you cannot get sound without it, either.
Friction and frequency is your energy and the power/pressure of that energy determines what you hear and what you see, in terms of us humans.
Insects and animals differ but the premise is exactly the same from source.
If sound and light are the same thing, how come I can hear my neighbours playing music next door but can't see their lights through the wall?
I think the issue is, he does not know what an experiment is. I think he confuses causal observation and drawing a random conclusion with an experiment.

Do you know what an experiment is?
 
Last edited:
I never said I did any experiments to show sound is light. I said anyone can do them to show it's a reality.
The thing is, people refuse to look at stuff in simple terms and prefer to go right down the complicated so called scientific route of uncertainty pass off as proof, not because they want to avoid simplicity it's more likely wanting to avoid peer pressure.

They still pluck arguments out with wave/particle duality.
Basically they struggle to understand if light is a wave or a particle.

Or do they?

I stand by what I've said.You cannot get light without friction and you cannot get sound without it, either.
Friction and frequency is your energy and the power/pressure of that energy determines what you hear and what you see, in terms of us humans.
Insects and animals differ but the premise is exactly the same from source.
So what are the experiments anyone can do to show sound and light are the same?

I've got a couple of days off work, so would like to try them?
 
So what are the experiments anyone can do to show sound and light are the same?

I've got a couple of days off work, so would like to try them?
The experiments are all around you.
Strike a match.
strike a flint.
Rub wood together.

Basically lots of stuff.
Here's a question for you.
Do you think you can get heat without friction?
 
The experiments are all around you.
Strike a match.
strike a flint.
Rub wood together.

Basically lots of stuff.
Here's a question for you.
Do you think you can get heat without friction?
They aren't experiments, they are actions. What variables are they testing, how do they prove light and sound are the same thing.

I'm with Dave, I don't think you know what an experiment is.

Heat without friction, easy an electric fire, a gas ring ignited from a electrical source
 
They aren't experiments, they are actions. What variables are they testing, how do they prove light and sound are the same thing.

I'm with Dave, I don't think you know what an experiment is.

Then leave it at that and carry on with something else that doesn't involve me.
Heat without friction, easy an electric fire, a gas ring ignited from a electrical source
That's heat with friction.
 

Back
Top