Can anyone spot the error?

I'm not arguing;  I'm simply stating a fact.  And you just don't get it do you my friend?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 04:55:12 AM

What are you arguing about? Fluids compress, it's as simple as that. End of argument.
No need to use bullshit to get around it.

Gases are compressible because there's a lot of empty space between the individual molecules, so it's easy to confine them to a smaller volume.

A gas, any gas, at 0ºC and 1 atm occupies 22.4 litres/mol.  In contrast liquid water occupies about 18ml or about 1.8x10^-4 litres. In the case of liquids and solids the molecules are almost "touching" one another so they resist further compression.

(And gutter language doesn't help your argument either.)

You're blinded by scientific guesswork.
There is no empty space between any molecules/matter. ALl space is took up at all times.
Your head has been battered by silly table top balls on stems that they tell you is this and that and it's hogwash.

Every molecule is attached or cocooned in another and it's as simple as that.
I could draw you a simply diagram bit it will be fircely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated, so I won't bother with that.

Stop talking about empty space because empty space does not exist and cannot exist.
Your problem is, you think your molcules act like someone throwing a sack full of random balls into the air with space in between. You're wrong. Dead wrong. Your science is wrong.

You're blinded by scientific guesswork.
There is no empty space between any molecules/matter. ALl space is took up at all times.
Your head has been battered by silly table top balls on stems that they tell you is this and that and it's hogwash.

Every molecule is attached or cocooned in another and it's as simple as that.
I could draw you a simply diagram bit it will be fircely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated, so I won't bother with that.

Stop talking about empty space because empty space does not exist and cannot exist.
Your problem is, you think your molcules act like someone throwing a sack full of random balls into the air with space in between. You're wrong. Dead wrong. Your science is wrong.

I'm sorry sceptimatic, but there's just so many things absolutely wrong with these comments, I can't even begin to address them.  Maybe someone else with more time and patience than I have will?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 06:55:39 AM

You're blinded by scientific guesswork.
There is no empty space between any molecules/matter. ALl space is took up at all times.
Your head has been battered by silly table top balls on stems that they tell you is this and that and it's hogwash.

Every molecule is attached or cocooned in another and it's as simple as that.
I could draw you a simply diagram bit it will be fircely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated, so I won't bother with that.

Stop talking about empty space because empty space does not exist and cannot exist.
Your problem is, you think your molcules act like someone throwing a sack full of random balls into the air with space in between. You're wrong. Dead wrong. Your science is wrong.

I'm sorry sceptimatic, but there's just so many things absolutely wrong with these comments, I can't even begin to address them.  Maybe someone else with more time and patience than I have will?

The reason why you can't address them is because you don't know how to, because you don't know how it all works.
Plastic balls on sticks on a desk tells a story of made up junk.

You're blinded by scientific guesswork.
There is no empty space between any molecules/matter. ALl space is took up at all times.

And you know this for a fact because...?

Every molecule is attached or cocooned in another and it's as simple as that.

When molecules are attached, you get a solid.  I have no idea what you mean by molecules being "cocooned in another", but it sounds fascinating. 

I could draw you a simply diagram bit it will be fircely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated, so I won't bother with that.

Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so maybe a good diagram might help us understand what the Th*rk you're going on about.

Stop talking about empty space because empty space does not exist and cannot exist.
Your problem is, you think your molcules act like someone throwing a sack full of random balls into the air with space in between.

Who said that's what we think? 

You're blinded by scientific guesswork.
There is no empty space between any molecules/matter. All space is took up at all times.

And you know this for a fact because...?

I'm a logical genius. 

Every molecule is attached or cocooned in another and it's as simple as that.

When molecules are attached, you get a solid.  I have no idea what you mean by molecules being "cocooned in another", but it sounds fascinating. 

Maybe thinking back to your own big bang might aid you in this. Think of something being so dense that it can fit in the palm of your hand, yet expanded out, it could be the size of something like, an Earth. See what I'm saying?

I could draw you a simply diagram bit it will be fircely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated, so I won't bother with that.

Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so maybe a good diagram might help us understand what the Th*rk you're going on about.

If I can be bothered I will do just that. Sometimes I have to decide whether it's worth doing because all your minds are made up anyway.

Stop talking about empty space because empty space does not exist and cannot exist.
Your problem is, you think your molcules act like someone throwing a sack full of random balls into the air with space in between.

Who said that's what we think? 

Well what do you think, if you mention free space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 06:55:39 AM

You're blinded by scientific guesswork.
There is no empty space between any molecules/matter. All space is took up at all times.

Quote from: markjo

And you know this for a fact because...?

I'm a logical genius. 

What does logic have to do with facts?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 06:55:39 AM

Every molecule is attached or cocooned in another and it's as simple as that.

Quote from: markjo

When molecules are attached, you get a solid.  I have no idea what you mean by molecules being "cocooned in another", but it sounds fascinating. 

Maybe thinking back to your own big bang might aid you in this. Think of something being so dense that it can fit in the palm of your hand, yet expanded out, it could be the size of something like, an Earth. See what I'm saying?

And what would that something expand out into if not empty space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 06:55:39 AM

I could draw you a simply diagram bit it will be fircely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated, so I won't bother with that.

Quote from: markjo

Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so maybe a good diagram might help us understand what the Th*rk you're going on about.

If I can be bothered I will do just that. Sometimes I have to decide whether it's worth doing because all your minds are made up anyway.

Perhaps a good diagram would help us understand enough to change our minds.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 06:55:39 AM

Stop talking about empty space because empty space does not exist and cannot exist.
Your problem is, you think your molcules act like someone throwing a sack full of random balls into the air with space in between.

Quote from: markjo

Who said that's what we think? 

Well what do you think, if you mention free space?

It depends on the context of the conversation.  Besides, I was referring to the "throwing a sack full of random of balls into the air" bit.

How about telling me what you think free space is then, markjo. It might give me an insight into how you're thinking, before I diagram what I'm talking about.

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Oh, ok, we're playing that game. I'd better make sure I'm more specific next time, eh?

Ok, let's go for your empty space. Tell me about this electron cloud and what do you mean by cloud, as in what constitutes the cloud, because a cloud does not tell me it's empty space.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 09:54:05 AM

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Oh, ok, we're playing that game. I'd better make sure I'm more specific next time, eh?

Ok, let's go for your empty space. Tell me about this electron cloud and what do you mean by cloud, as in what constitutes the cloud, because a cloud does not tell me it's empty space.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Standard science, please look up.

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 09:54:05 AM

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Allow me to presume to respond for Markjo:

"Markjo could draw you a simple diagram, if he could be bothered to do so, but it will be fiercely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated in your own bullshit, so he won't bother with that. Sometimes he has to decide whether it's worth doing because your mind is made up anyway. Just think about it, really think, and you'll get it."

That's the only answer you deserve.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 09:59:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 09:54:05 AM

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Oh, ok, we're playing that game. I'd better make sure I'm more specific next time, eh?

Ok, let's go for your empty space. Tell me about this electron cloud and what do you mean by cloud, as in what constitutes the cloud, because a cloud does not tell me it's empty space.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Standard science, please look up.

No. I want people like you to explain it. I explain mine using my typing hands, so do the same.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 09:59:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 09:54:05 AM

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Allow me to presume to respond for Markjo:

Thanks Whiskey, but I don't mind spoon feeding Scepti every now and then.  I just have to remember to burp him and put him down for a nap afterwards, otherwise he gets awful cranky.

Scepti, how's this?

Since we cannot identify an electron’s position, we can identify distinct probabilities where an electron can be found in an atom.  It is in the form of an electron cloud around the nucleus.  In the picture above, electrons are very likely to be found in the “cloud” of blue dots.  Electrons are not likely to be found in the white areas.  It is important to remember that an atom is three-dimensional, therefore these circles of high density are actually spheres around the nucleus.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 09:59:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 09:54:05 AM

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Allow me to presume to respond for Markjo:

"Markjo could draw you a simple diagram, if he could be bothered to do so, but it will be fiercely ridiculed due to how you've been indoctrinated in your own bullshit, so he won't bother with that. Sometimes he has to decide whether it's worth doing because your mind is made up anyway. Just think about it, really think, and you'll get it."

That's the only answer you deserve.

That's a fair enough answer. If Markjo feels that way, then equally it's fair enough. I'm happy enough with that.

Quote from: Whiskey on May 27, 2014, 11:39:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 09:59:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 09:54:05 AM

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Allow me to presume to respond for Markjo:

Thanks Whiskey, but I don't mind spoon feeding Scepti every now and then.  I just have to remember to burp him and put him down for a nap afterwards, otherwise he gets awful cranky.

Scepti, how's this?

Quote from: http://ths.talawanda.net/~BrambleN/classroom/Chemistry/Notes/Section%202A/Orbitals.htm

Since we cannot identify an electron’s position, we can identify distinct probabilities where an electron can be found in an atom.  It is in the form of an electron cloud around the nucleus.  In the picture above, electrons are very likely to be found in the “cloud” of blue dots.  Electrons are not likely to be found in the white areas.  It is important to remember that an atom is three-dimensional, therefore these circles of high density are actually spheres around the nucleus.

Ok, so is it basically saying that the white areas are perfect vacuums? If not, then what is in the white areas? This is all I'm after clarifying. I'm sure you can understand why.

@scepit - simple question:  how do you know molecules exist?



I really hope you have seen one yourself, and are not just taking those pointy head scientists at their word...

@scepit - simple question:  how do you know molecules exist?



I really hope you have seen one yourself, and are not just taking those pointy head scientists at their word...

It depends on how you want to construe a molecule/matter.atom or whatever. The fact is, we know by looking down a road on a hot day that we are part of much smaller matter. Looking under microscopes can bring up more matter than we can't see. Going from that point, even for scientists, it's about guesswork as to how it all works in it's entirety and I'm no different.

I have my way and you and others have their way. It's about what logically fits in a persons mind.
We could argue this till the cows come home to be fair and never gain an inch, so let's leave it at that.

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 12:22:55 PM

Quote from: Whiskey on May 27, 2014, 11:39:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 09:59:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2014, 09:54:05 AM

Do you mean "empty" space of "free" space, because they can mean completely different things.  Empty space is just that, space that is empty.  You know, like the space between the electron cloud and nucleus of an atom.  Or are you suggesting that the electrons are whizzing around through some sort of medium (aether?)

Free space is someplace where I can park my car on a crowded street.

Can you draw me a little diagram showing me how your atom is set out, as in just the one atom.

Allow me to presume to respond for Markjo:

Thanks Whiskey, but I don't mind spoon feeding Scepti every now and then.  I just have to remember to burp him and put him down for a nap afterwards, otherwise he gets awful cranky.

Scepti, how's this?

Quote from: http://ths.talawanda.net/~BrambleN/classroom/Chemistry/Notes/Section%202A/Orbitals.htm

Since we cannot identify an electron’s position, we can identify distinct probabilities where an electron can be found in an atom.  It is in the form of an electron cloud around the nucleus.  In the picture above, electrons are very likely to be found in the “cloud” of blue dots.  Electrons are not likely to be found in the white areas.  It is important to remember that an atom is three-dimensional, therefore these circles of high density are actually spheres around the nucleus.

Ok, so is it basically saying that the white areas are perfect vacuums? If not, then what is in the white areas? This is all I'm after clarifying. I'm sure you can understand why.

Actually (depending on who you ask), the "electron clouds" are where electrons are likely to be found, so, at any given moment, even the clouds themselves would be mostly empty space.  But, yes, I do believe that electrons are fundamental particles (i.e., can't be broken down any more) and whizz around in as perfect a vacuum as one can conceive (give or take the occasional electron or atomic nucleus).

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

I really hope you have seen one yourself, and are not just taking those pointy head scientists at their word...
It depends on how you want to construe a molecule/matter.atom or whatever.

Well, what are your definitions?

The fact is, we know by looking down a road on a hot day that we are part of much smaller matter.

I've honestly no idea what you mean by this??

There's a fundamental asymmetry which isn't always recognised here.

It's meaningless (or maybe just lazy) to ask markjo or Geoff (or whoever it was) what their atoms look like. Scepti, you have your own atoms, your own pressure, your own gravity, your own light, your own table of elements (nesting doll of elements?) and so on. But the outsiders here don't, we all subscribe to what has been demonstrated and what gets used in practical engineering. This isn't a philosophical debate between your atoms and his atoms. This is the weight of all human knowledge (which you can either be bothered to look up or you can't) being challenged by your intuition and gut feeling that "there can't be such thing as empty space" because you're pretty certain that there can't.

tldr: if you want to know what 'markjo's atoms' are, google it.

They exist everywhere and have been studied by everyone. They aren't only in his head. So while we do need to ask you specifically about your gas (or whatever), if you want to know about 'ours', you can always just look it up.

Quote from: inquisitive on May 27, 2014, 05:22:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 04:55:12 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on May 27, 2014, 12:15:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2014, 09:40:01 AM

All liquids can be compressed.

You obviously missed the part of Shmeggley's comment where he said "Liquids are basically not compressible while gases are".

Basically in this sense of the word means "in essence", "for all practical purposes" or "substantially".

Like many other flat earthers, you rely all too often on the semantics of peoples' claims, rather than the substance of their claims.  It's simply a cop-out anyway, and ultimately irrelevant.  Please do better.

What are you arguing about? Fluids compress, it's as simple as that. End of argument.
No need to use bullshit to get around it.

Please give some examples of compressing fluids, and by how much.

Miltons baby fluid put in a hydraulic jack and pressed a little bit.

Basically FO.

You need to give examples to be taken seriously.

The reason why you can't address them is because you don't know how to, because you don't know how it all works.
Plastic balls on sticks on a desk tells a story of made up junk.

I really can't understand why you're so averse to even considering accepted scientific principle and practices sceptimatic.

I've already "addressed" this issue earlier, as per:

"A gas, any gas, at 0ºC and 1 atm occupies 22.4 litres/mol.  In contrast liquid water occupies about 18ml or about 1.8x10-4 litres. In the case of liquids and solids the molecules are almost "touching" one another so they resist further compression".

I'm sorry if you're unable to understand this simple principle, but I can't really make it any clearer.  Maybe you need to do a bit more research of your own to clarify the relative compressive degrees of solids and liquids?
 

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

So a true vacuum isn't a vacuum as it contains stray particles just dancing about like loner kids in play grounds. Is this right or am I reading you wrongly?

Oh and giving rise to so called VIRTUAL particles? What does this actually mean?

As you're still pontificating on your own version of primary school science, I'm not sure you'll find anyone here jumping at the chance to teach you quantum electrodynamics, even if they do understand it themselves.

Just google it, misunderstand and ignore it or call it names but do it privately, you don't need anyone to hold your hand.

As you're still pontificating on your own version of primary school science, I'm not sure you'll find anyone here jumping at the chance to teach you quantum electrodynamics, even if they do understand it themselves.

Just google it, misunderstand and ignore it or call it names but do it privately, you don't need anyone to hold your hand.

Stop worrying yourself about what I do or don't do. Just concentrate on your bullshit science and I'll concentrate on delving for the truth.
Nothing you pretentious tefal heads say to me will have any bearing on my thoughts, unless you are looking for the truth, which you are clearly not. You're just here to make sure the lies stay lies.

Tefal head? 

Wassat?

Tefal head? 

Wassat?

I always try to explain what I'm saying, so here you are. 

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tefal Deep fat frier advert 1980s (1988)

That is a retro reference. Bit before my time, though.