The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Danang on January 18, 2021, 07:09:54 PM
-
Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌
-
Ducking hell.
Hot air is less dense so it rises.
-
Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌
You're joking, right?
-
fire is made of boner
-
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
About boner, that's a good info. Let me research about it later. 👌
-
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.
Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.
-
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.
Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.
Do it in a vacuum! What would you expect with no oxygen to support combustion?... unless like on a spacecraft the lighter had both fuel and an O2 supply.
-
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.
Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.
In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.
So you try again 8)
-
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.
Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.
In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.
So you try again 8)
You think? Think again.
-
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.
Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.
In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.
So you try again 8)
Fluid dynamics does not state it would fall at one G. Try again.
-
In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.
No, not a rocket fire. You need it to basically sit there, not fly out so it would hit the side of the container before it has a chance to fall.
So try again.
Or just acknowledge the much denser air around the flame in your experiment and thus accept it is 100% in accordance with gravity.
-
The fire goes horizontal. The smoke is not strong enough to lift the fire like in open air.
The bonus:
In aeronautic, thrust requires a closed system -- in which there is glass wall -- for realizing action-reaction mechanism.
-
Dome is Real. 8)
-
The fire goes horizontal. The smoke is not strong enough to lift the fire like in open air.
The bonus:
In aeronautic, thrust requires a closed system -- in which there is glass wall -- for realizing action-reaction mechanism.
Draw a force diagram.
Rocket engines don’t need a glass wall.
-
@Sokarul
So.. what makes action-reaction mechanism?
The rocket toy accepts a reaction because of the smoke hitting from behind, or from reverse direction of the action. And it requires a closed system in which there is a wall resisting the smoke, so that the smoke goes back towards the rocket toy to make a thrust.
Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing. After the smoke sufficiently fill the cylinder, it's not vacuum anymore.
-
Magical reaction? :o
-
Nope.
There is a 100+ page thread stating you are wrong.
Thrust comes from the velocity and mass of exhaust of the rocket. Equal and opposite of it.
-
The fire goes horizontal.
Yes, because of how fast it is going.
You can do the same with a jet lighter in open air.
In aeronautic, thrust requires a closed system
Nope. It requires action-reaction.
A closed system cannot develop thrust, the centre of mass must remain moving without any change.
Planes work by moving air, the action-reaction pair is accelerating the air backwards and accelerating the plane forwards.
A rocket works in a similar manner, but provides its own air, the pair is the air/exhaust accelerating backwards, and the rocket accelerating forwards.
Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing.
No, even at the beginning it gives thrust. What you are confused about is the ignition of the rocket is not simultaneous. It starts off at a very low power, and then rapidly builds up.
So the thrust increases as it all starts burning.
If you wish to disagree, tell us what accelerates the air backwards to leave the rocket.
-
@Sokarul
So.. what makes action-reaction mechanism?
The rocket toy accepts a reaction because of the smoke hitting from behind, or from reverse direction of the action. And it requires a closed system in which there is a wall resisting the smoke, so that the smoke goes back towards the rocket toy to make a thrust.
Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing. After the smoke sufficiently fill the cylinder, it's not vacuum anymore.
It’s really quite a display of ignorance on this thread. Fire of course points upwards! For thousands of years candles and other wick based light sources have used flames for illumination and they have all pointed upward! As for them proving gravity does not exist!!!
A ball kicked or thrown upwards will move in that direction. You whenever you stand or raise arm or head are opposing gravity..... what happens when you trip? Or when the ball stops rising after being kicked. Or you drop a cup or plate?
If you cant even understand those simple concepts what makes you think you can understand and comment on rocked based combustion and thrust?
-
Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing. After the smoke sufficiently fill the cylinder, it's not vacuum anymore.
Rockets are actually more efficient in a vacuum. As you can see in the equation for thrust, when P0 (atmospheric pressure) is zero then the thrust is at its maximum.
(https://i.imgur.com/3Vx3XcM.png)
-
Wow you guys read a book and then you forward its idea without question. :o
Thrust ain't have to do with what's in the book. It also ain't magic.
Thrust is real, it needs a hitting by the air mass from behind. It's the closed system that allows such thrust.
Back to my experiment...
My proposition is Downwards Universal Deceleration in which the entire earth's close system -- along with the air -- is hit by the velociting downwards fire which in turn will make the fire goes upwards.
(Or if you use UA model: 👉 the air hit the fire upwards).
Let's be simple.
If the lighter's fire goes upwards, it NEEDS some amount of energy from below to make it goes upwards.
WHAT IF the position of the lighter is changed to be 👉 vertical (not horizontal as shown in the video),
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5p0iFm1dqIlHOSDB7pt_PBTpgA7vsSKN-fw&usqp=CAU)
In order to make the fire goes horizontal, you need to store similar amount of energy, say, with mouth blowing, while you know a horizontal "magnet" doesn't count. It's irrelevant.
Precisely, if you blow the fire from the left side, the fire will go rightwards. No magnet from the left to pull the fire leftwards.
"Left side magnet doesn't exist".
If you claim there is a magnet at the left side. It might be the case only in the dream.👌
-
Thrust is real
Yes, thrust for a rocket is real. All it needs is to be expelling gas/exhaust behind it,
Again, all it takes is a simple question:
What accelerates the exhaust to cause it to leave the rocket at such high velocity?
That demands a reactionary force which can only act on the rocket.
Back to my experiment...
You mean your experiment that is entirely consistent with gravity where the low density gas rises due to all the much denser gas around it?
Like I said, if you want to use this as evidence against gravity, you need to remove all that low density gas around it, yet still have it slow.
The only other option would be to light it in a 0-g environment.
Either way, a flame like that doesn't work well.
-
Wow you guys read a book and then you forward its idea without question. :o
Thrust ain't have to do with what's in the book. It also ain't magic.
Thrust is real, it needs a hitting by the air mass from behind. It's the closed system that allows such thrust.
Back to my experiment...
My proposition is Downwards Universal Deceleration in which the entire earth's close system -- along with the air -- is hit by the velociting downwards fire which in turn will make the fire goes upwards.
(Or if you use UA model: 👉 the air hit the fire upwards).
Let's be simple.
If the lighter's fire goes upwards, it NEEDS some amount of energy from below to make it goes upwards.
WHAT IF the position of the lighter is changed to be 👉 vertical (not horizontal as shown in the video),
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5p0iFm1dqIlHOSDB7pt_PBTpgA7vsSKN-fw&usqp=CAU)
In order to make the fire goes horizontal, you need to store similar amount of energy, say, with mouth blowing, while you know a horizontal "magnet" doesn't count. It's irrelevant.
Precisely, if you blow the fire from the left side, the fire will go rightwards. No magnet from the left to pull the fire leftwards.
"Left side magnet doesn't exist".
If you claim there is a magnet at the left side. It might be the case only in the dream.👌
Because of density (p = m/v), hot air rises. This is because, when something has an increase in energy, its molecules become more active and "bounce" around, thus becoming less dense. When this happens to a certain degree, it becomes less dense than the surrounding air, thus, it can float. It's not because of any Downwards Acceleration mumbo jumbo; just simple math and physics. And because of Newton's third law, when you blow it on the left side, it goes rightwards.
-
No air needed.
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
-
If such blowing from below doesn't exist, how can you certain that gravity produce air dense on the ground? (Which is also doesn't exist).
The thing is, our universe is traveling downwards so that the detached fire -- with faster velocity than the earth -- gets colided against the decelerating air, which in turn makes the fire goes up as much as the vertical fire (as comparison) goes horizontal.
Where is such blowing energy?
Try again 8)
-
If such blowing from below does exist, how can you certain that gravity produce air dense on the ground?
Measurements of it and simple logic.
There are quite a few ways to explain it. One is like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Any layer of air needs to support all the weight of the air above.
As you go down through the air, more and more weight is added, and thus the pressure increases.
You can also do some simple math. If you have a column, with an cross sectional area of A, and a height of h, with the pressure pushing down at the top of P, the column is made of air with a density of p:
The volume of the column is A*h.
The mass is p*A*h.
The weight is g*p*A*h.
The force due to the pressure at the top is P*A.
The force at the bottom is P*A + g*p*A*h
The pressure at the bottom is (P*A + g*p*A*h)/A=P+g*p*h
And this pressure is hydrostatic. If it wasn't constant at the bottom, the higher pressure would push outwards.
So if you have 2 columns of air, side by side, where they each have a different density, the greater density air will push the lower density air out of the way, pushing it up so the more dense air falls and the less dense air rises.
This is also why and other fluids are self-leveling.
Try again 8)
Why? You are the one who needs to try again.
You still haven't got your candle flame without gas around it, nor have you got a flame in 0g.
-
No air needed.
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
In a one of your vacuums, is he?
-
No air needed.
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
In a one of your vacuums, is he?
The air plays no significant role, as easily demonstrated by varying the weight of the thrown object while keeping the volume the same.
And the simple question, what force accelerates the ball and what is the reactionary force in that force pair?
-
fire is made of boner
Unfortunately yours wouldnt make too big of a fire :/
-
No air needed.
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
In a one of your vacuums, is he?
The air plays no significant role, as easily demonstrated by varying the weight of the thrown object while keeping the volume the same.
And the simple question, what force accelerates the ball and what is the reactionary force in that force pair?
You have to look at how much air in front of the person is being pushed away and actually replaced.
The medicine ball is dense. It is much much less porous than a air filled ball of a similar size....meaning, it displaces much more air by its overall dense mass.
The person who uses their own energy to not only pick it up, also uses it to throw that ball, meaning they add the movement of their own mass against the air around that movement. In this case, their bent to outstretched arms.
Once that ball is pushed into the air....and notice the angle it is thrown at..... that ball compresses the air it's pushed into whilst the air it was initially displacing rushes in, immediately to fill that lower pressure void, causing a crash back towards the person who threw it, which moves that person a little.
It has absolutely everything to do with air and it has everything to do with equal action and reaction upon the overall dense mass of the objects in play..
-
Just stop. You were played out 5 years ago.
-
You have to look at how much air in front of the person is being pushed away and actually replaced.
Yes, basically nothing.
The medicine ball is dense. It is much much less porous than a air filled ball of a similar size
The fact that air doesn't go through it and instead goes around it means that is irrelevant. Any air that is inside the ball is just part of the ball.
Again, the fact that it is the mass of the ball that determines how fast/for you go back and how much force you need to apply shows that the air is basically irrelavent.
If it was actually the air, the mass of the ball would not matter, and instead it would be the size of the ball.
The person who uses their own energy to not only pick it up, also uses it to throw that ball
Meaning they push the ball in one direction and the ball pushes them in the other.
Simple action and reaction.
No need to invoke the air.
It has absolutely everything to do with air and it has everything to do with equal action and reaction upon the overall dense mass of the objects in play..
Close, it has basically nothing to do with the air and it has everything to do with equal action and reaction upon the overall dense mass of the objects in play.
Person applies force to accelerate heavy ball (action) and the ball in turn applies a force to accelerate person (reaction).
Pretty simple when you don't want to add in a bunch of nonsensical complexity to pretend there is a massive problem with physics.
-
You have to look at how much air in front of the person is being pushed away and actually replaced.
Yes, basically nothing.
And this is where you fail.
A bird can lift with the flap of its wings. I wonder why, if air is irrelevant.
You negate the air because it kills your gravity and it really is as simple as that.
-
And this is where you fail.
No, this is where you fail.
You continually reject reality and refuse to answer simple questions.
Again, what accelerates the ball?
There are really only 2 options.
1 - The air. In this case the reactionary force is on the air, and there is no reason at all for the person to move. The person is merely acting as a force conduit to transfer the force from the air to the ball.
2 - The person. The simplest and most logical option. The person, by extending their arms, applies a force to accelerate the ball. This results in a reactionary force of the ball pushing on the person.
Option 2 is the only one which explains why the person moves, and it doesn't need the air to explain it.
If you want to replace the small, dense ball with a giant fan that the person swings back and forth, or a similarly small, but low density ball (like a balloon), then you can bring air into it.
A bird can lift with the flap of its wings
A light weight, high surface area object moving quickly through the air.
So nothing like the scenario here.
If air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of a bird shouldn't matter, and you should be able to fly by flapping your arms.
And again, if the air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of the ball wouldn't matter.
You negate the air because it kills your gravity and it really is as simple as that.
If you are referring to your denp BS, when we last left that it was implicitly relying upon gravity to explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, and just completely failing to explain anything other than why an object sitting on the ground has a force applied to it.
I negate the air in this situation because it is insignificant.
-
A bird can lift with the flap of its wings
A light weight, high surface area object moving quickly through the air.
So nothing like the scenario here.
If air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of a bird shouldn't matter, and you should be able to fly by flapping your arms.
And again, if the air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of the ball wouldn't matter.
Let's work it out.
If you had a container with a lid that was slightly bigger than a medicine ball and you placed that medicine ball into that container and placed the lid on....where does all the air go from inside that container?
Is the air irrelevant that was originally inside that container?
If you were to place a plunger into that empty (except for air) container and that plunger fitted that container wall so as to not leak air, then you pushed down onto it...how long before that push of the plunger, by you, would it take before that air stopped you compressing it?
Is it irrelevant?
If that plunger had a hole in it as you pushed down, you would push that air up through that hole by using your dense mass of pressure upon that plunger and the result would be to push/compress that air under it which is pushed through the hole and back behind the plunger along with the external atmosphere already upon the backside of that plunger.
Once your plunger hits the bottom of the container, where has all that air went?
If you were to have that container hanging up and on its side and had a medicine ball to throw at it, would the container move before the medicine ball hits it?
Air is massively relevant because air is the reason why everything works and the very reason why equal and opposite reaction to action, occurs.
There is absolutely no such thing as gravity unless the word atmosphere is replaced by gravity, which is when we'd know for sure what gravity was and what it does...and why.
The problem with that is, it kills off the vacuum and space....etc.
Gravity as a force, is absolute nonsense. It's simply made up to make the world work in a fictional universe and really should be seen for that It really takes very little basic thought to understand how naff it is.
-
I'll make this more simpler.
If you were on a skateboard with your medicine ball, inside a big tube and threw that medicine ball, do you think you'd compress the air in that tube and if so, where does that air go?
Does it go around the medicine ball and back towards you on the skateboard, which would push you the opposite way?
If you think it wouldn't, then explain why?
As soon as you understand the basics, you also understand how and why atmosphere is the sole cause and effect and nothing to do with gravity.
-
Let's work it out.
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
Lets not deal with the bird, and instead lets deal with the situation at hand?
What is accelerating the ball?
The only simple, logical answer is the person.
The person is applying a force to the ball. This results in a reactionary force to move the person.
There is no need for any air.
If you had a container with a lid that was slightly bigger than a medicine ball
You would not be in the situation of throwing such a ball in a very large room.
Again, can you deal with the situation at hand rather than trying to completely change it to pretend air is needed?
The fact that that is such a drastically different situation, and that by having the container a significantly different size you get a completely different result, shows that air is not the cause in this case.
There is absolutely no such thing as gravity unless the word atmosphere is replaced by gravity
Only in your delusional fantasies.
In reality, the atmosphere and gravity function in vastly different ways.
The atmosphere pushes in response to pressure gradients. This means it pushes up, and is the reason why the low density air of the fire rises.
Gravity instead pushes down. And it is gravity pushing down which creates the pressure gradient in the atmosphere in the first place.
The problem with that is, it kills
The only thing it kills is any credibility you have.
-
If the lighter position is vertical, it needs certain amount of energy (from side) to bend its fire.
When the lighter position is horizontal, the similar amount of energy (from below) is supposed to exist, in fact not. The existence of the blowing energy is supposed to be felt/tangible (as occuring in the vertical lighter). That's not the case.
The actual air is relatively in the same pressure everywhere, That indicates: such blowing energy doesn't exist.
So where does such energy come from?
Surely not from gravity. It's all about DUD or the traveling universe.
-
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
-
Just stop. You were played out 5 years ago.
Five years? Is that how long this has been going on?
Kind of hilarious, and also quite sad. He imagines he has discovered a great hidden truth of the world, and what has he done? Used the past years mindlessly bickering about it on a backwater internet site. He has convinced no one, performed no demonstrative experiments, invented no new thoughts on how this knowledge he has obtained can help us.
No, he knows this is played out - he cant share this with anyone, do anything, or take it any farther.
All that is left for him is impotent self deception and pretending that by still arguing it, he hasnt actually lost.
I would feel sorry for him if he wasn't such a jerk to everyone.
-
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.
Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?
When the lighter position is horizontal, the similar amount of energy (from below) is supposed to exist, in fact not. The existence of the blowing energy is supposed to be felt/tangible (as occuring in the vertical lighter). That's not the case.
That is because it isn't blowing. It is the air directly around it.
The actual air is relatively in the same pressure everywhere
But there is a pressure gradient, which is well known. The pressure is greater the lower down you go.
So where does such energy come from?
Surely not from gravity.
Gravity is what causes the air to have a pressure gradient in the first place.
-
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.
Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?
The energy applied to it by the person.
-
So if I jump off the ground I can then jump off the air?
-
So if I jump off the ground I can then jump off the air?
I don't think we are talking about using the ground to jump off, so what are you talking about?
-
Every one knows they can jump off the ground. See basketball players. I’m wondering if I first jump off the ground can I then jump off the air?
-
Every one knows they can jump off the ground. See basketball players. I’m wondering if I first jump off the ground can I then jump off the air?
Why would you need to jump off the air?
-
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
-
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
Yes it's possible but why are you asking this?
-
Do you have any video of people jumping off the air? I tried it but I can’t.
-
Do you have any video of people jumping off the air? I tried it but I can’t.
-
So no. I didn’t think so.
You will never beat me.
For the others, sceptitank is just using recycled arguments. One of my quotes was from 2017. He was long destroyed on this topic. Just ignore the North Korean.
-
So no. I didn’t think so.
You will never beat me.
For the others, sceptitank is just using recycled arguments. One of my quotes was from 2017. He was long destroyed on this topic. Just ignore the North Korean.
Maybe the video didn't show up where you live.
Never mind.
It shows people being catapulted up with compressed air trapped inside a thin membrane.
-
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.
Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?
The energy applied to it by the person.
And thus by the law of action-reaction, that means the ball is accelerating the person.
i.e. no need for any air.
-
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.
Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?
The energy applied to it by the person.
And thus by the law of action-reaction, that means the ball is accelerating the person.
i.e. no need for any air.
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back. It has to create a resistance to the person's push.
That resistance is?.......................?
Atmospheric pressure.
-
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back.
No, I know that it can.
The fact that it takes energy to accelerate is the resistance. It is called inertia, something you hate as it destroys your attacks on science.
It takes a force to accelerate the ball.
This force exists as part of an action-reaction pair.
The action is the person applying a force to accelerate the ball.
The reaction is the ball applying a force to accelerate the person.
Nice and simple.
No need to invoke any air.
-
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back.
No, I know that it can.
The fact that it takes energy to accelerate is the resistance. It is called inertia, something you hate as it destroys your attacks on science.
It takes a force to accelerate the ball.
This force exists as part of an action-reaction pair.
The action is the person applying a force to accelerate the ball.
The reaction is the ball applying a force to accelerate the person.
Nice and simple.
No need to invoke any air.
I'm going to give you a scenario and see if you can answer it honestly and without bias.
You have a medicine ball at the front end of a tube that is sealed at the other end and that tube is horizontal and affixed to a wall at the sealed end.
You are on a skateboard holding a medicine ball that is just smaller than the tube. Just enough to hold it in one hand while you have the other hand to push it.
With the palm of your hand you push as hard as you can on that ball.
Immediately you feel the skateboard going in the opposite direction to your push and quite a rate of movement.
You also notice the ball didn't go anywhere near the other end of the tube, because it seemed to have something that prevented it that you could feel on that push.
So here's some questions and I'd appreciate as many people answering to this and not just globalists.
1. Do you believe the medicine ball compressed the air inside that tube?
2. Do you think the medicine ball compressing that air was due to your energy in pushing it to cause that compression?
3. Do you believe a reaction to this would be for the air to decompress and find a way past the medicine ball as much as it pushes back on that medicine ball by the energy applied to it, as in, action and equal and opposite,reaction?
4.Do you believe the reaction against your push in due to this and is why the skateboard is pushed backwards due to it having little friction, nor high resistance to that push?
Scenario 2.
Turn the tube vertically plumb, or close to it and affix the sealed end to a ceiling or a fairly solid resistance.
Hold the medicine ball in the palm of your hand whilst standing on a small trampoline.
Now you push the medicine ball up the tube with as much force as you can muster.
You feel the trampoline resistance underfoot being stretched and being pushed down. You know for sure it isn't being pulled down from under you...right? If you think it is, then tell me why?
Anyway, logic can tell you your energy and push on that medicine ball has compressed the air inside the tube and the harder and faster you push, the more compressed to make the air inside of that tube and that air creates an opposite reaction to that action, equally, which is why the trampoline springs stretch and the cloth moves down.
I think any logical person can understand this.
Now then, if you were to do the very same experiments without the tube you will lose a lot of reactionary compression of air but the initial compression of it is enough to cause opposite movement, albeit much less, as we see with the skateboard experiment that the little lad put up, earlier on.
The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.
Let's deal with the throwing of these two balls, on that skateboard.
The medicine ball resists a lot of air around it with it's dense make up of matter displacing it. To give you an example and a mindset on what that means, just think of it being in water and how much water that ball would displace by it's very own mass, if it was submerged.
You can understand that very little water could penetrate it except what was already within it, in between the mass of matter it's made up from (think back to air).
If you were to stop time/movement and take that medicine ball out of the water, it would leave a cartoon like gap of it. This is what it was displacing.
To understand the pressure upon that ball, restart time and movement and watch as the water crashes into the gap left by the ball.
Quite a push...right?
Ok, transfer that to it being in atmosphere and displacing the atmosphere just the same and stopping time and movement, then take away the ball and you see the same kind of thing. the cartoon gap.
Restart time and movement and the atmosphere crashes in to fill that gap.
A lot of pressure that is overlooked in favour of fictional gravity.
Now let's go to the football with the thin skin and air and go back to the water analogy.
You have a football filled with water in water and separated by a skin that displaces the water. The water inside of it is already part of the water outside but is trapped inside by the thin skin.
So basically the thin skin is all that is displacing the water, which means it is under little pressure.
To gain a better understanding of it, you have to burst that ball and release the water. You now have a small skin that, if folded up tight, would be minimal in size.
Let's go back to air.
The ball is air and skin against air.
It has little displacement of it, provable by bursting it and folding it up to show that.
-
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back.
No, I know that it can.
The fact that it takes energy to accelerate is the resistance. It is called inertia, something you hate as it destroys your attacks on science.
It takes a force to accelerate the ball.
This force exists as part of an action-reaction pair.
The action is the person applying a force to accelerate the ball.
The reaction is the ball applying a force to accelerate the person.
Nice and simple.
No need to invoke any air.
I'm going to give you a scenario and see if you can answer it honestly and without bias.
How about you try to ask questions directly related to the topic, rather than you trying to change the topic and situation to pretend air is needed.
Again, the fact that you get such a different result when you make it so much harder to move air out of the way shows that air is not a significant factor in this experiment.
Like I have explained repeatedly, the situation is quite simple and there is no need to invoke the air.
The person applies a force to the ball to accelerate it.
This means there MUST be an equal and opposite reaction where the ball applies a force to the person.
Now then, if you were to do the very same experiments without the tube
You turn it into a completely different situation.
In your situations, the ball was acting as a seal and a mechanism of force transfer.
You were using the ball to push on the air.
You can achieve the same effect regardless of what object you use to seal the tube, as long as it is rigid enough.
It could be a plunger that is a few hundred grams, or a solid metal ball that is a few 10s of kgs.
You have the same effect because the ball itself is not being accelerated any significant amount.
But when you take it out of the tube, it is then completely different.
The ball is then accelerating significantly.
And now, the force you can achieve and the acceleration depends on the ball.
You can accelerate a low density ball quite quickly, with minimal force and thus it doesn't' accelerate you a lot.
But if you use a medium density ball, you can achieve similar acceleration with a greater force and it accelerates you significantly.
And if you use an even higher density ball, you can make it so you can't actually apply a large enough force to accelerate it to the same speed.
The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.
No, it doesn't.
Even if you want to claim there is magically air trapped inside it, the 2 objects displace the same amount of air when they move.
Again, you can try this by doing your experiment and measuring the forces involved.
We can also determine this by looking at what happens to the 2 objects after they are thrown.
If you do it with a balloon, the vast majority of the horizontal speed is lost almost straight after you release it.
But if you try it with a dense object, it continues to move with no significant change in horizontal speed until it hits a solid object.
If your nonsense was correct, and the only thing providing a resistance to motion was the displacement of air, then they should follow the exact same trajectory.
The fact they don't shows there is something other than the air resisting changes in motion, and that is the mass of the objects.
When you throw the light object, it has a low mass and thus is easily accelerated. It flowing through the air causes air resistance to try to slow it down with a force based upon velocity and the amount of air displaced. Its low mass and thus low resistance to changes in motion allows the air to easily stop it.
When you throw the heavy object, it has a large mass and thus is difficult to accelerate. It flowing through the air causes air resistance to try to slow it down with a force based upon velocity and the amount of air displaced. But its large mass and thus large resistance to changes in motion makes it much harder for the air to stop it, so it takes a lot longer for the air to stop it.
A lot of pressure that is overlooked in favour of fictional gravity.
Pressure that is "overlooked" because it plays no significant role.
Gravity is not what is replacing it, and gravity is certainly real.
-
The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.
No, it doesn't.
Even if you want to claim there is magically air trapped inside it, the 2 objects displace the same amount of air when they move.
Again, you can try this by doing your experiment and measuring the forces involved.
Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no air trapped inside those balls?
Surely you can't be pushing that line.
-
The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.
No, it doesn't.
Even if you want to claim there is magically air trapped inside it, the 2 objects displace the same amount of air when they move.
Again, you can try this by doing your experiment and measuring the forces involved.
Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no air trapped inside those balls?
Surely you can't be pushing that line.
No, I am saying when you move the balls you are displacing the same around it.
If you want to get to more detail, you actually move more air with the balloon and in your fantasy more air inside any low density object, because not only are you moving the air around it, but also the air in it.
That means a lower density object should be harder to accelerate and you should be able to easily push off it.
But yet again, your nonsense fails to match reality.
Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
-
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
-
Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.
No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.
-
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
You are trying to make a point but all you are doing is furthering my point. You can’t explain why I can’t jump off air. A 100 ton rocket can push off air but I can’t? Makes no sense.
-
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why
My existence on this Earth is not insignificant. My presence here, the coalescence of mass I've put together has a non zero measurable effect that will eventually affect the orbit of the exoplanet OGLE-2014-BLG-0124L. Hell, even an alien babe banging her mate far in the future in a far away galaxy will unwittingly be affected by me even if she'll never notice it :'(
Of course, no one could ever craft a tool sensitive enough to detect the attraction but the number is not zero
-
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why
We can all agree that nothing is, or ever will be completely understood. No matter how much we know, there will always be one more 'why' to look into. You can never 'get to the bottom'. You can always ask why one more time.
But that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.
Remember, even Flat Earth theory is susceptible to the same objections, they can never ever fully explain anything either. So any objection you bring up about not knowing EVERYTHING about gravity can be used against any of their theories to dismiss them too.
I can never measure a piece of wood exactly, no matter how exact I get, it will never be exact. That doesn't mean that I can't cut a board to fit a bench. You can't tell me that I have no idea how big a board is that I measured down to 1/100th of an inch because I don't know it's length to 1/1000th of an inch.
If you want to argue that because we will never fully understand everything, that all our knowledge is useless, well I present the entire civilization we have built on those foundations. Science seems to be doing pretty well.
To go back to your opening statement... we notice a behavior and have explained exactly HOW it behaves, to the point that every experiment performed gives exactly the results we predicted. Science deals with how, philosophy and religion deal with why. Don't get them mixed up.
-
Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.
No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.
The reason why you are propelled back when you throw a ball is because of Newton's third law which can be roughly outlined by the equation Fa = -Fb. This is also why rockets can propel themselves due to thrust (F = ṁeVe-ṁ0V0 + (pe - p0)Ae)
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
It is gravity that's pushing the egg into the bottle. Gravity is a force. Gravity pulls anything with mass (Fg = Gm1m2/r2). The air is rushing past the egg, making it vibrate, and then it gets pushed into the bottle because the pressure is so intense. Even if there are more causes than gravity for something to fall, like this case, the air pressure helps it fall into the bottle, gravity is still acting on it as eggs have mass.
-
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why
We can all agree that nothing is, or ever will be completely understood. No matter how much we know, there will always be one more 'why' to look into. You can never 'get to the bottom'. You can always ask why one more time.
But that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.
Remember, even Flat Earth theory is susceptible to the same objections, they can never ever fully explain anything either. So any objection you bring up about not knowing EVERYTHING about gravity can be used against any of their theories to dismiss them too.
I can never measure a piece of wood exactly, no matter how exact I get, it will never be exact. That doesn't mean that I can't cut a board to fit a bench. You can't tell me that I have no idea how big a board is that I measured down to 1/100th of an inch because I don't know it's length to 1/1000th of an inch.
If you want to argue that because we will never fully understand everything, that all our knowledge is useless, well I present the entire civilization we have built on those foundations. Science seems to be doing pretty well.
To go back to your opening statement... we notice a behavior and have explained exactly HOW it behaves, to the point that every experiment performed gives exactly the results we predicted. Science deals with how, philosophy and religion deal with why. Don't get them mixed up.
We don't even know how to classify gravity. Einstein argued that it was not a force at all. He described it as a space-time curvature caused by mass and energy. My point about gravity and the debate as to its existence is it's hard to have a reasonable debate when what we are debating about is still enigmatic
We know of particles associated with the other forces like the strong and weak nuclear force but have yet to find one regarding gravity. At this point the existence of the graviton is just a theory you can believe or not.
-
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why
We can all agree that nothing is, or ever will be completely understood. No matter how much we know, there will always be one more 'why' to look into. You can never 'get to the bottom'. You can always ask why one more time.
But that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.
Remember, even Flat Earth theory is susceptible to the same objections, they can never ever fully explain anything either. So any objection you bring up about not knowing EVERYTHING about gravity can be used against any of their theories to dismiss them too.
I can never measure a piece of wood exactly, no matter how exact I get, it will never be exact. That doesn't mean that I can't cut a board to fit a bench. You can't tell me that I have no idea how big a board is that I measured down to 1/100th of an inch because I don't know it's length to 1/1000th of an inch.
If you want to argue that because we will never fully understand everything, that all our knowledge is useless, well I present the entire civilization we have built on those foundations. Science seems to be doing pretty well.
To go back to your opening statement... we notice a behavior and have explained exactly HOW it behaves, to the point that every experiment performed gives exactly the results we predicted. Science deals with how, philosophy and religion deal with why. Don't get them mixed up.
We don't even know how to classify gravity. Einstein argued that it was not a force at all. He described it as a space-time curvature caused by mass and energy. My point about gravity and the debate as to its existence is it's hard to have a reasonable debate when what we are debating about is still enigmatic
We know of particles associated with the other forces like the strong and weak nuclear force but have yet to find one regarding gravity. At this point the existence of the graviton is just a theory you can believe or not.
These particles associated with the strong and weak nuclear force, what makes them up? And what makes up those things? And what makes those up, and those up? Why? Why? Why?
See, you can ask endless questions about everything. You seem to think gravity doesn't exist because we know more about other things? That's a weak argument.
Again, science explains how things work. You are focusing on why, which is a valid discussion... if you are discussing philosophy.
Science is very, very good at describing how gravity works. From calculating orbits to bending light to detecting gravity waves to detecting the tug of spinning objects on the very fabric of spacetime itself. Every experiment to verify Einstein's theories of time and space and gravity have resulted in exactly what was predicted.
If you think the theory of gravity is wrong, please provide an experiment that gives results contrary to what Einstein predicts.
We don't know everything, sure, and never will. What created the universe? Can you tell me? If not, then it's hard to debate ANYTHING when what we are debating about is still enigmatic. Right? We all might as well just stop posting and asking questions forever since the entire universe is unknowable and nobody knows anything. :P
-
We don't know everything, sure, and never will. What created the universe? Can you tell me? If not, then it's hard to debate ANYTHING when what we are debating about is still enigmatic. Right? We all might as well just stop posting and asking questions forever since the entire universe is unknowable and nobody knows anything. :P
But it's about the journey though, not the destination :P
I guess that sounds philosophical... Whoops :)
-
We don't know everything, sure, and never will. What created the universe? Can you tell me? If not, then it's hard to debate ANYTHING when what we are debating about is still enigmatic. Right? We all might as well just stop posting and asking questions forever since the entire universe is unknowable and nobody knows anything. :P
But it's about the journey though, not the destination :P
I guess that sounds philosophical... Whoops :)
Unless you're born on year 87 on a slower than light generation starship on it's way to Wolf 359 then it's literally about the journey, not the destination.
-
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass
And that resistance is called inertia.
Again, we know it isn't the air, because it requires a dense mass to achieve a significant push by simply throwing it away like that.
If it was air pressure, any similar sized object will do.
Likewise, we know it isn't the air, because if it was, there is no reason for the air to be able to easily blow low density objects like feathers and paper while doing basically nothing to dense objects like the medicine ball or bowling ball and so on.
Likewise, we know it isn't the air, because if it was, then objects of different density would be stopped by the air and fall the same. But instead, low density objects like a balloon stop almost straight away when you throw them into the air, and just basically drift with quite a low velocity. But a medicine ball basically acts as if the air isn't there.
No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.
Gravity is not directly involved in this.
All gravity is doing is making it so objects don't just float away.
It is inertia that is involved in this.
All objects (with mass) take a force to accelerate them. The force required is based upon the mass.
Again, there is no need for your magic air, and simple reality shows that it is not the air that is responsible.
Again, it is very simple, the medicine ball has mass. It takes a force to accelerate that mass. The person applies a force to the ball. As a reactionary force the ball applies a force to accelerate the person.
Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
And this also demonstrates that air pressure won't normally just push things down.
Notice how the egg doesn't just magically get pushed in normally?
Instead it requires a significant pressure gradient.
-
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
You are trying to make a point but all you are doing is furthering my point. You can’t explain why I can’t jump off air. A 100 ton rocket can push off air but I can’t? Makes no sense.
You can jump off air but in order to do so you need to compress it enough to allow you the resistant foundation in order to do it.
If you stood on a deflated air bed you would be using the ground and a thin membrane as your foundation for your feet.
Inflate the airbed and you now use the membrane and air as your foundation to lever off.
But we aren't talking about jumping off air from a standing start to upright jump, we are talking about throwing an object that already displace air and which is thrown at an angle or arc trajectory in one direction to create a resistant force equal to that throw by compressing the air in that throw by the amount of mass that is already displacing the atmosphere.
Absolutely no need for gravity and you have zero explanation for what is happening by using it.
-
Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.
No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.
The reason why you are propelled back when you throw a ball is because of Newton's third law which can be roughly outlined by the equation Fa = -Fb. This is also why rockets can propel themselves due to thrust (F = ṁeVe-ṁ0V0 + (pe - p0)Ae)
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
It is gravity that's pushing the egg into the bottle. Gravity is a force. Gravity pulls anything with mass (Fg = Gm1m2/r2). The air is rushing past the egg, making it vibrate, and then it gets pushed into the bottle because the pressure is so intense. Even if there are more causes than gravity for something to fall, like this case, the air pressure helps it fall into the bottle, gravity is still acting on it as eggs have mass.
Push or pull?
You can't have it both ways for your gravity.
Let's make this clear.
If gravity was the cause of the egg being pulled into the bottle, then why isn't it pulled into the bottle straight away?
Let me explain what really happens and why the egg vibrates.
It's because the pressure inside the bottle is lowered by expanding the air out of it which pushes past the egg and rattles it on it's way past to take its place into the atmosphere and add to the egg to create that leverage to push the egg into the bottle.
Have a serious think about it.
-
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass
And that resistance is called inertia.
Call it what you want but the resistance is entirely due to air/atm pressure and the imbalance of it by applying a force/energy to a mass that is already displacing it.
The word, inertia has no real meaning.
-
Call it what you want but the resistance is entirely due to air
Again, PURE BS!
Stop just repeating the same BS and instead deal with the refutations of that.
Again, if it was the air, then you have 2 options, 1 is that the density of the object doesn't matter at all and only the volume does.
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
The second, especially with your delusional fantasy of the air filling everything, is that a less dense object has more air in it and thus more air is moved by moving the object and thus it would provide a greater resitance.
But neither of those is the case.
Instead, in direct contrast, directly contradicting your nonsense, the resistance is proportional to mass, at least for a sufficiently dense object.
That shows that it is not the air.
Without mass, inertia has no meaning.
Without air, it still makes perfect sense.
With air, at least your idea of it, it becomes pure nonsense with no connection to reality.
Now going to try to actually deal with those things which show your claim is pure BS, or are you just going to keep repeating the same pathetic, refuted claim?
You can jump off air but in order to do so you need to compress it enough to allow you the resistant foundation in order to do it.
So throwing a ball through the air with no chance to compress it enough clearly is not using the air as a "resistant foundation"
Absolutely no need for gravity and you have zero explanation for what is happening by using it.
Because gravity has basically nothing to do with it.
Again, it is INERTIA!
What we absolutely don't need is all your BS regarding the air, as that has no hope of explaining it.
Push or pull?
You can't have it both ways for your gravity.
Sure we can.
For fundamental forces like gravity it is pure semantics.
-
Call it what you want but the resistance is entirely due to air
Again, if it was the air, then you have 2 options, 1 is that the density of the object doesn't matter at all and only the volume does.
The density of the ball displaces the atmosphere and to be fair you cannot refute this. It's in your book of science. the only issue is in how that science book pushes an extra so called force that is called, (fictional) gravity.
As for the volume. The volume is only what the object holds of air or water.
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
No.
A dense medicine ball or an iron ball displaces a massive amount of air as opposed to an air filled ball which only displaces the air by the membrane/skin.
But neither of those is the case.
Instead, in direct contrast, directly contradicting your nonsense, the resistance is proportional to mass, at least for a sufficiently dense object.
That shows that it is not the air.
It's pretty clear it's air.
What's not clear and never has been, is the gravity nonsense.
You can't explain what's happening, except say gravity supposedly works because mass attracts mass...but never explain why and how.
Without mass, inertia has no meaning.
Inertia has no meaning anyway, other than a word used to describe a resistance to energetic force. So just called it, resistance.
Without air, it still makes perfect sense.
Without air or in your vacuum as you're implying, there is nothing. Nothing can work or exist.
With air, at least your idea of it, it becomes pure nonsense with no connection to reality.
It makes perfect sense. Gravity is absolutely senseless.
You can jump off air but in order to do so you need to compress it enough to allow you the resistant foundation in order to do it.
So throwing a ball through the air with no chance to compress it enough clearly is not using the air as a "resistant foundation"
The air is already compressed by the dense mass of the ball displacing it. Once that ball is thrown it's an atmospheric crash bang wallop into that lower pressure left behind by that medicine ball along with the compression of the air directly in it's trajectory. It all crashes IMMEDIATELY back onto the person in terms of a decompressive force, pushing that person back a little, or a lot, depending on the actual mass and energy applied to it in the throwing.
Absolutely no gravity involved, which you cannot explain...at all.
-
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
No.
A dense medicine ball or an iron ball displaces a massive amount of air as opposed to an air filled ball which only displaces the air by the membrane/skin.
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume. The contents of the objects don't matter in the slightest. If you drop an iron ball and a stone ball of the same size in a bathtub, both will displace the same amount of water.
-
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball
One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star
Which displaces the most water?
-
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.
The contents of the objects don't matter in the slightest.
The contents of the objects can be dense matter and atmospheric/water volume. Of course it matters.
If you drop an iron ball and a stone ball of the same size in a bathtub, both will displace the same amount of water.
That actually depends on whether both have the same porosity or one holds more atmosphere or denser mass than the other.
If you drop an iron ball in the bath and an equal sized sponge ball into that bath, would they both displace the same amount of water?
If not, then you're on your way to understanding porosity and absorption of atmosphere.
-
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball
One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star
Which displaces the most water?
If I believed in neutron stars then I could maybe answer it, no problem.
Let's change the neutron star ball to a lead ball.
The answer would be, lead.
-
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.
If I have a ball 1 meter in diameter, it displaces the same volume as another ball 1 meter in diameter.
-
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball
One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star
Which displaces the most water?
Nice trolling, but not particularly creative. Couldn't think of a black hole or a supernova to use as examples? Or a partially phased dragon transiting from the prime material plane? What's his volume when activating the 3rd runestone? :P
We are talking about displacing volume.
The foam ball displaces a tiny volume of water and a larger volume of air. The volume of these combined is the same volume of displaced water from the iron and stone balls.
Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?
Which has the larger volume, a 1 meter sphere or a 1 meter sphere?
-
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.
If I have a ball 1 meter in diameter, it displaces the same volume as another ball 1 meter in diameter.
What do you mean by displacing volume?
Give me an example.
-
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.
If I have a ball 1 meter in diameter, it displaces the same volume as another ball 1 meter in diameter.
What do you mean by displacing volume?
Give me an example.
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water. That is how displacing works. Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
-
Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.
No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.
The reason why you are propelled back when you throw a ball is because of Newton's third law which can be roughly outlined by the equation Fa = -Fb. This is also why rockets can propel themselves due to thrust (F = ṁeVe-ṁ0V0 + (pe - p0)Ae)
Maybe this will help:
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.
I’m not a question of need, it’s a question if it’s possible.
Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball “jump” off air?
Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
It is gravity that's pushing the egg into the bottle. Gravity is a force. Gravity pulls anything with mass (Fg = Gm1m2/r2). The air is rushing past the egg, making it vibrate, and then it gets pushed into the bottle because the pressure is so intense. Even if there are more causes than gravity for something to fall, like this case, the air pressure helps it fall into the bottle, gravity is still acting on it as eggs have mass.
Push or pull?
You can't have it both ways for your gravity.
Let's make this clear.
If gravity was the cause of the egg being pulled into the bottle, then why isn't it pulled into the bottle straight away?
Let me explain what really happens and why the egg vibrates.
It's because the pressure inside the bottle is lowered by expanding the air out of it which pushes past the egg and rattles it on it's way past to take its place into the atmosphere and add to the egg to create that leverage to push the egg into the bottle.
Have a serious think about it.
The reason why gravity doesn't force the egg into the bottle is that the bottle's opening's diameter is smaller than the diameter of the egg. The air pressure helps gravity push the egg in, and because the air is dying to get out of the bottle, it forces the entire egg into it.
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
-
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball
One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star
Which displaces the most water?
Nice trolling, but not particularly creative. Couldn't think of a black hole or a supernova to use as examples? Or a partially phased dragon transiting from the prime material plane? What's his volume when activating the 3rd runestone? :P
We are talking about displacing volume.
The foam ball displaces a tiny volume of water and a larger volume of air. The volume of these combined is the same volume of displaced water from the iron and stone balls.
Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?
Which has the larger volume, a 1 meter sphere or a 1 meter sphere?
I was going to say the neutron star displaces more because it's so hot it vaporises everything around it :P or you might find that the neutron star ball doesn't drop into the bath but the bath drops to the neutron star because the neutron star ball weighing many trillions of tonnes would have its own gravitational field!
When people ask the question about bricks or feathers and then add which falls faster or lands quicker the answer is bricks
Feathers have less air resistance and will just blow around :P
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
-
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball
One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star
Which displaces the most water?
Nice trolling, but not particularly creative. Couldn't think of a black hole or a supernova to use as examples? Or a partially phased dragon transiting from the prime material plane? What's his volume when activating the 3rd runestone? :P
We are talking about displacing volume.
The foam ball displaces a tiny volume of water and a larger volume of air. The volume of these combined is the same volume of displaced water from the iron and stone balls.
Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?
Which has the larger volume, a 1 meter sphere or a 1 meter sphere?
I was going to say the neutron star displaces more because it's so hot it vaporises everything around it :P or you might find that the neutron star ball doesn't drop into the bath but the bath drops to the neutron star because the neutron star ball weighing many trillions of tonnes would have its own gravitational field!
When people ask the question about bricks or feathers and then add which falls faster or lands quicker the answer is bricks
Feathers have less air resistance and will just blow around :P
Yes... people do answer that question when it's asked. I didn't ask that question though. But... good job answering your own questions, I guess?
A 1 meter sphere displaces the same volume as a 1 meter sphere. Regardless of what you try and change the question into. :)
-
Again, stop talking about gravity, it shows you have no clue what you are talking about, or that you are just spouting garbage to hate on it.
Gravity has no part in a discussion of action-reaction, unless one of those is gravity.
The density of the ball displaces the atmosphere and to be fair you cannot refute this.
I can, and have.
The VOLUME of the ball displaces the atmosphere. Not the density.
The air doesn't magically squeeze in between the atoms/molecules in the structure.
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
No.
A dense medicine ball or an iron ball displaces a massive amount of air
We are not talking about how much you want to pretend it displaces of the air when it just sits there.
We are talking about how much it displaces when it is moved.
And with that, either they displace the same amount due to their same volume, or the lighter object displaces more because you are also displacing the magic air trapped inside.
Now stop ignoring what is said and try honestly responding to it for once.
It's pretty clear it's air.
Repeating the same lie will not make it true.
If it is the air, you need to explain why it does the exact opposite of what you would expect.
You can't explain what's happening
But I have, it is really quite easy.
The ball has mass
This means it resists changes in motion.
This means to accelerate it you need to apply a force to it.
Applying this force will result in a reactionary force which accelerates you.
There is no need for any of your magic air BS.
And note that gravity is not involved in this case.
Without mass, inertia has no meaning.
Inertia has no meaning anyway, other than a word used to describe a resistance to energetic force.
i.e. inertia. So inertia has no meaning, other than a word used to describe inertia.
It is a resistance to change in motion.
It is not merely "resistance".
Without air or in your vacuum as you're implying, there is nothing.
No, there is still something.
Removing the air doesn't mean removing everything.
Try again.
It makes perfect sense.
Then why am I am able to easily how it would produce results which directly contradict what is observed in reality?
While all you are capable of doing is repeating the same pathetic lies asserting that it makes sense and the same lies that gravity is nonsene, without being able to refute what I have presented nor being able to show anything wrong with gravity; and all "attempts" to do so result in you presenting a complete strawman where you often change the topic?
That sure makes it seem like your nonsense is pure nonsense with no connection to reality.
The air is already compressed by the dense mass of the ball displacing it.
And thus it should also be by your feet.
You have contradicted yourself once again.
-
The reason why gravity doesn't force the egg into the bottle is that the bottle's opening's diameter is smaller than the diameter of the egg. The air pressure helps gravity push the egg in, and because the air is dying to get out of the bottle, it forces the entire egg into it.
You keep to that. One day you might decide to think on it....maybe.
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
-
Again, stop talking about gravity, it shows you have no clue what you are talking about, or that you are just spouting garbage to hate on it.
Gravity has no part in a discussion of action-reaction, unless one of those is gravity.
Take a look at the topic title.
You can't answer it and this is why you're acting like you are.
You know gravity has nothing to back it up, because it is a nothing. It's just a word to describe a fantasy and to add to the reality of atmospheric pressure being the reason things are in resistance.
You can't explain it other than to appeal to it, just because.
-
Take a look at the topic title.
Or take a look at what you were actually talking about.
Gravity has no place in the explanation, not because it is fictional like you continually falsely claim, but simply because it isn't involved.
You can't explain it other than to appeal to it, just because.
That would still be you, with your inability to explain why observed reality spits in the face of your delusional nonsense.
Again, if it was the air that was causing the resistance, a lower density object would either have the same or greater resistance, as the motion displaces the same amount of air, or more air if you want to appeal to the air magically trapped inside.
But if you want to go back to what the start of the thread was about, then yes, air pressure does get involved.
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere (you know, that thing you fled the other thread over because you couldn't explain it without appealing to gravity), which is a direct consequence of gravity, causes the lower density flame to rise.
No gravity means no pressure gradient.
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it as unfortunately for you, they don't see it conforming to the reality around them. The bigger question is why after years and years and years of silly arguing on an internet forum, you are no closer to getting anywhere with anyone? Your ideas are simplistic (except for all the strange convolutions you add when cornered). If they were broadly true, it would literally take an afternoon and a couple hundred dollars to absolutely, conclusively demonstrate in a way that no one could argue with. Why not do that? It would be ~so~ easy, do you not do it because you are unable to, or is it because you know deep down that any attempt at demonstration would result in abject failure?
-
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
He is the one who fails to grasp atmospheric pressure.
For example, I grasp that it applies a force based upon area and pressure.
I grasp that this means that without a pressure gradient it applies no net force.
I grasp that with a pressure gradient it applies a net force from high to low pressure.
I grasp that this means in the atmosphere, with a vertical pressure gradient with pressure greatest at the bottom, that the atmosphere pushes objects upwards (commonly known as buoyancy).
Instead of this, he completely rejects that idea and instead thinks the atmosphere magically pushes objects down for no reason at all, except when it magically decides to push them up.
Likewise I grasp that in order for air to resist motion, a pressure gradient needs to be established.
I grasp that the open atmosphere won't simply just push on the object, but also flow around it.
I grasp that that means in the open atmosphere a small ball will have quite a small resistance from the air unless it is travelling at a very high velocity.
I also grasp that this means it will be based upon the size and shape of the object and have nothing at all to do with mass.
He again rejects that and instead claims it magically resists based upon the mass of the object, with quite a significant force.
-
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
Confused, Isn't that what I just said?
He is the one who fails to grasp atmospheric pressure.
Clearly. In my opinion he is not really arguing with others here, he is just arguing with himself. He has built up a strange fantasy world that he thinks people believe in, and argues against that. He would do well in trying to understand basic concepts they way they used, but I am not sure he is actually capable of comprehending them, his mind is quite closed to outside information.
-
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
Confused, Isn't that what I just said?
I may have misunderstood.
I interpreted it more akin to his denpressure. I grasp it, and reject it as BS.
As opposed to air pressure, where I grasp it, and realise that it shows he is wrong and that he doesn't grasp it.
I don't reject air pressure, just his pure nonsense.
-
Gravity has no place in the explanation
.
Of course it doesn't. No one can explain it...not even you.
-
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
Confused, Isn't that what I just said?
I may have misunderstood.
I interpreted it more akin to his denpressure. I grasp it, and reject it as BS.
As opposed to air pressure, where I grasp it, and realise that it shows he is wrong and that he doesn't grasp it.
I don't reject air pressure, just his pure nonsense.
I guess I was not completely clear that I was referring to his conception of 'atmospheric pressure' that people grasp but reject, rather than the concept of air pressure in general.
-
The silly part is, you know you can push the air out of a strongly built rubber cup whilst it is placed on a surface.
You know you will have an absolute struggle trying to lever that rubber cup off that surface.
It's blatantly obvious that gravity is not at play because it's blatantly obvious that pushing out the air in that cup has resulted in it being clamped to a surface.
So why is it clamped to that surface?
It's clamped to that surface because the energy/force that a person placed upon that cup, not only pushed out a lot air from in it, it allowed that air to take its place against it on the outside, added to the pressure of the atmosphere and leaving fat too little of it inside the cup to equally push back. An imbalance.
To give anyone a better insight into why this is the case, you only have to think of this cup under water and placing it against a surface under that water then pushing out as much water as you can.
The cup will stay clamped on that surface.
Why?
Because the water is pushed out, leaving little of it left in to push up against what is on top of the cup, including the added water pushed out that takes its place in that water, just like it does in atmosphere in the above scenario..
The imbalance means the cup cannot return to its original shape, until the water is added back into it, because it's being crushed or held in a crushed position of the force that created that crush in the first place.
Absolutely none of this requires fictional gravity and it shows how displacement creates return pressure back to the object, no matter what it is.
I don't expect globalists to bother with this but I'd hope thinkers who want to see past this gravity nonsense, will.
I hope people are sat at home pondering what I'm saying, so they can see things for themselves.
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure? Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
-
Okay. Fun question
You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.
You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.
Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
-
Okay. Fun question
You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.
You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.
Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.
But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too. So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure? Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
-
Okay. Fun question
You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.
You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.
Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
The lead.
-
Okay. Fun question
You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.
You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.
Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.
But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too. So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure? Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube. ::)
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure? Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube. ::)
They aren't. They're both just a cube.
You'll need to come back with what the cubes are made of.
-
Okay. Fun question
You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.
You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.
Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.
But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too. So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.
Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with. Be sure to take lots of pictures. :)
-
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.
That is how displacing works.
Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
What do you think was in the glass before the water went in? That's atmosphere. It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure? Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube. ::)
They aren't. They're both just a cube.
You'll need to come back with what the cubes are made of.
What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
-
Okay. Fun question
You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.
You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.
Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.
But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too. So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.
Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with. Be sure to take lots of pictures. :)
You're becoming far too petty I'm going to have to cut down on replies to you. I'll stick to the relevant one's. I hope you don't mind.
-
What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.
-
Okay. Fun question
You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.
You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.
Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.
But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too. So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.
Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with. Be sure to take lots of pictures. :)
You're becoming far too petty I'm going to have to cut down on replies to you. I'll stick to the relevant one's. I hope you don't mind.
Since you avoid answering pretty much any question anyone poses to you, I don't see how that makes much difference.
Don't demand people cater to all your whims and conditions you make up and think you will get a free pass when asked to do even a minimal amount of work yourself.
So... going to do the experiment? :P
-
What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.
Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them. Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.
-
Gravity has no place in the explanation
Of course it doesn't. No one can explain it...not even you.
And there you go ignoring everything that shows you are wrong yet again.
When will you grow up?
Once more, gravity has no part in the explanation because it simply is not involved.
All that is needed is action-reaction.
This is not an issue for gravity. Just like gravity not being involved in explaining how paints dry doesn't mean there is some problem for gravity.
And again, I CAN EXPLAIN IT!
As I have.
The person who can't explain it is you.
Once more, person pushes against ball, with the mass and thus inertia of the ball providing resistance to that force and subsequent acceleration causing the ball to push back, and this "push back" accelerates the person.
Conversely if you replace the ball with an object of low mass, but the same volume (which according to your delusional nonsense means that when you move it you move more air), it has significantly less resistance, due to its much lower mass.
Entirely consistent with reality and my explanation, but directly contradicting your fantasy and your "explanation".
The silly part is, you know you can push the air out of a strongly built rubber cup whilst it is placed on a surface.
You know you will have an absolute struggle trying to lever that rubber cup off that surface.
Yes, because we understand how air pressure actually acts.
The partial vacuum created when you try to pull the rubber cup off that surface creates a tremendous pressure differential which results in a massive force being applied.
We understand that without the air pressure, that does not work, yet things still fall.
We also understand that without a seal and thus without that partial vacuum and pressure gradient, it isn't difficult at all.
This also means that we understand that if you break the seal by applying enough force to pull the object off the surface, it just lets go and there is then no significant force required to pull it.
You are clearly trying to compare this to a heavy object, that but works nothing like air pressure.
The object is heavy without any seal. It is even heavy in mid-air, with no surface for it to be clamped against.
It is blatantly obvious that air pressure is not at play because it is blatantly obvious that there is no significant pressure gradient acting on the object (and the insignificant pressure gradient that is acting on the object is acting in the wrong direction).
Again, your delusional nonsense has no connection to reality.
Stop trying to equate fundamentally different situations.
Again, gravity not being at play in explaining how paint dries is not a problem for gravity.
Stop trying to pretend gravity should be able to explain everything and that anything it isn't involved in magically disproves it.
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
-
What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.
Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them. Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.
Of course two objects with the same volume have the same volume. What in the hell are you getting at?
-
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
It's you that cannot explain gravity.
-
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.
You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.
But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.
-
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.
You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.
But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.
Nothing of what you say here makes sense.
What exactly are you talking about?
-
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.
You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.
But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.
Nothing of what you say here makes sense.
Is that why you are unable to show a single fault with it?
Perhaps if you stopped ignoring everything that was said it would make more sense to you.
It has been explained quite a few times.
Again, in reality (you know, that thing you hate because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy) the greater mass results in greater resistance.
This shows it isn't the air that is responsible.
Again, if it was the air, the mass should be irrelevant.
Instead it should be based upon how much air is moved when you move the object.
And looking at the air around the object, the same amount is moved regardless of the mass. That means a light weight balloon should have the same resistance as a dense medicine ball due to the air around it.
And with that all that is left would be the air inside the object. And if the nonsense you spout is true (and in this case even in reality), the lower density object (the balloon) has more air inside it, and that means more air is moved when moving it. That means that the lower density object would have greater resistance.
Notice how reality doesn't match your fantasy and that you are the one unable to explain reality?
-
Again, if it was the air, the mass should be irrelevant.
Instead it should be based upon how much air is moved when you move the object.
And looking at the air around the object, the same amount is moved regardless of the mass.
You see, this is where you either get mixed up or are deliberately bypassing what's been said.
Seeing as you are using the above, I'll explain.
The mass is massively relevant and so is the volume of that mass because it's the volume that dictates how much of that actual mass is displacing the actual atmosphere.
You see, your idea that a medicine ball and a thin skinned football of the same size displace the same amount of air, is nonsense.
You know this.
-
What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.
Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them. Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.
Of course two objects with the same volume have the same volume. What in the hell are you getting at?
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
-
Again, if it was the air, the mass should be irrelevant.
Instead it should be based upon how much air is moved when you move the object.
And looking at the air around the object, the same amount is moved regardless of the mass.
You see, this is where you either get mixed up or are deliberately bypassing what's been said.
You mean this is where YOU either get mixed up or are deliberately misrepresenting what has been said so you can pretend your delusional fantasy has a chance at matching reality.
You see, your idea that a medicine ball and a thin skinned football of the same size displace the same amount of air, is nonsense.
But I didn't say that.
I said that when you move a solid object like a medicine ball and a hollow object filled with air like a football (I used a balloon), assuming they have the same volume, you display more air by moving the hollow object.
You know this.
So stop playing dumb.
Your nonsense clearly does not match reality.
It predicts the exact opposite of what is observed in reality.
Your delusional fantasy predicts that lighter objects with the same volume as a much heavier object should be harder to move, but reality shows they are easier.
The only way out would be to claim the air inside is merely part of the object, but that still contradicts reality, as then you just have the air around the objects providing the resistance and thus they should resist the same.
And of course, you have no explanation at all for why the air should resist motion.
You are aware that is based upon the very concept you are rejecting?
Air pressure is a result of inertia. There is no reason for the mass of the air to resist motion but the ball to magically not.
-
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.
When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.
-
You see, your idea that a medicine ball and a thin skinned football of the same size displace the same amount of air, is nonsense.
But I didn't say that.
I said that when you move a solid object like a medicine ball and a hollow object filled with air like a football (I used a balloon), assuming they have the same volume, you display more air by moving the hollow object.
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
The solid object is made up mostly of dense mass that literally displaces air.
The air filled ball/balloon holds the volume of air.
Think about it.
I won't hold my breath.
-
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
Because when you move that object you move (i.e. DISPLACE) that air inside the object as well.
That means you displace more air by moving the hollow object than the solid object.
Think about it.
Follow your own advice and actually try thinking
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.
But you do, all the time.
You want to claim that a higher density object magically has more volume than an equal volume, low density object.
-
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
Because when you move that object you move (i.e. DISPLACE) that air inside the object as well.
No you're not. You don't displace air with air. You displace air with a dense mass.
I knew you wouldn't get it.
All this time.
-
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
Because when you move that object you move (i.e. DISPLACE) that air inside the object as well.
No you're not.
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
-
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon but it's only moving against itself. There's no object displacing it. except for the skin of the balloon itself.
-
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.
That means if your delusional fantasy was correct it would have a greater resistance, not a lesser resistance.
-
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.
You're not correct, at all.
More air is not moved by a hollow object than a dense one.
The hollow one only displaces air by it's mass make up and the rest is volume, made up of the air itself.
The dense object displaces that air from itself, much more whilst leaving much less volume within.
The more dense object always displaces more air.
If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw, because only the skin is displacing it and that's all that's crashing back into that lower pressure void.
The medicine ball is displacing a lot of atmosphere, as is. Once you throw it you leave a massive low pressure that is filled by the compressed atmosphere around that ball which crashes into itself and opposite the throw. along with the compressed air from that throw directly into the atmosphere in front.
Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.
-
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.
You're not correct, at all.
I sure seem to be.
You have now admitted that more air is moved by a hollow object than a dense one, because the hollow is moving all the air inside it.
But because you have realised you have shot yourself in the foot you now just directly contradict yourself. Truly pathetic.
Remember, we aren't talking about air that is displaced merely by existing which you foolishly claim magically causes weight, but the air that is displayed when the object moves.
Both displace the same amount due to the outside surface moving the air around it.
But the hollow one also moves the air inside it.
Again, according to your delusional nonsense the hollow object should resist more, in direct defiance of observed reality.
The best you can hope to achieve is by claiming the air inside doesn't matter. But that then means they move the same amount of air when you move them and thus they resist the same, but that still doesn't match reality.
So either way, your nonsense is DOA.
And that is before we even get to why the air should resist motion in the first place, which will just lead us straight back to inertia and no reason for it to magically only apply to air and not to the ball itself.
And the more pathetic thing is that you are then trying to use this to argue against rockets working, which literally are pushing away air (i.e. the exhaust gas).
If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw
And that applies for both. You move the object and the air needs to move to fill the void.
Again, if that was the determining factor they would resist the same.
Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.
No, action and reaction is simply you applying a force to accelerate the MASS of the ball, and it resisting that change in motion due to inertia and thus applying a force back on you.
No need for your delusional air BS, and as repeatedly shown, your delusional air BS has no chance of matching reality.
-
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.
You're not correct, at all.
I sure seem to be.
You have now admitted that more air is moved by a hollow object than a dense one, because the hollow is moving all the air inside it.
But because you have realised you have shot yourself in the foot you now just directly contradict yourself. Truly pathetic.
Remember, we aren't talking about air that is displaced merely by existing which you foolishly claim magically causes weight, but the air that is displayed when the object moves.
Both displace the same amount due to the outside surface moving the air around it.
But the hollow one also moves the air inside it.
Again, according to your delusional nonsense the hollow object should resist more, in direct defiance of observed reality.
The best you can hope to achieve is by claiming the air inside doesn't matter. But that then means they move the same amount of air when you move them and thus they resist the same, but that still doesn't match reality.
So either way, your nonsense is DOA.
And that is before we even get to why the air should resist motion in the first place, which will just lead us straight back to inertia and no reason for it to magically only apply to air and not to the ball itself.
And the more pathetic thing is that you are then trying to use this to argue against rockets working, which literally are pushing away air (i.e. the exhaust gas).
If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw
And that applies for both. You move the object and the air needs to move to fill the void.
Again, if that was the determining factor they would resist the same.
Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.
No, action and reaction is simply you applying a force to accelerate the MASS of the ball, and it resisting that change in motion due to inertia and thus applying a force back on you.
No need for your delusional air BS, and as repeatedly shown, your delusional air BS has no chance of matching reality.
Carry on Mr twister. You have nothing and think twisting what is gains you the upper hand. Not with me it doesn't.
-
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.
When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.
I find it ironic how desperate you are to avoid what you have said, to the point where you keep deleting your own quotes from replies to avoid having to deal with them.
Lets remind you, again of what you claimed and try not to avoid and dodge the question this time.
Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
-
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.
When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.
I find it ironic how desperate you are to avoid what you have said, to the point where you keep deleting your own quotes from replies to avoid having to deal with them.
Lets remind you, again of what you claimed and try not to avoid and dodge the question this time.
Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
No they don't. Didn't you get it the first time?
You seriously need to pay attention to what you type. I'll be patient and give you time.
Maybe someone who has been paying attention will get it.
-
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.
When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.
I find it ironic how desperate you are to avoid what you have said, to the point where you keep deleting your own quotes from replies to avoid having to deal with them.
Lets remind you, again of what you claimed and try not to avoid and dodge the question this time.
Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
No they don't. Didn't you get it the first time?
You seriously need to pay attention to what you type. I'll be patient and give you time.
Maybe someone who has been paying attention will get it.
Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored. How about you answer the question I actually asked?
So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
-
Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored. How about you answer the question I actually asked?
So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
I already answered no, so how come you can't get it?
Let's see if you're sensible enough to understand where you went wrong.
Here's massive hint. See if it marries up to the above.
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
See any change? Do you see how you can't even grasp what you're talking about?
-
Air pressure is a result of inertia.
How about you explain what this means.
-
Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored. How about you answer the question I actually asked?
So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
I already answered no, so how come you can't get it?
Let's see if you're sensible enough to understand where you went wrong.
Here's massive hint. See if it marries up to the above.
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
See any change? Do you see how you can't even grasp what you're talking about?
All you did was dodge answering my question while claiming you already did. Standard FE deflection tactic.
Why can't you answer this? Don't claim you did, don't change my question, don't deflect or avoid or hide from it. Just answer yes or no.
Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
-
Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored. How about you answer the question I actually asked?
So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
I already answered no, so how come you can't get it?
Let's see if you're sensible enough to understand where you went wrong.
Here's massive hint. See if it marries up to the above.
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume. You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
See any change? Do you see how you can't even grasp what you're talking about?
All you did was dodge answering my question while claiming you already did. Standard FE deflection tactic.
Why can't you answer this? Don't claim you did, don't change my question, don't deflect or avoid or hide from it. Just answer yes or no.
Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
I never did agree and now I'm worrying about what or who I'm dealing with...seriously.
-
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.
You're not correct, at all.
I sure seem to be.
You have now admitted that more air is moved by a hollow object than a dense one, because the hollow is moving all the air inside it.
But because you have realised you have shot yourself in the foot you now just directly contradict yourself. Truly pathetic.
Remember, we aren't talking about air that is displaced merely by existing which you foolishly claim magically causes weight, but the air that is displayed when the object moves.
Both displace the same amount due to the outside surface moving the air around it.
But the hollow one also moves the air inside it.
Again, according to your delusional nonsense the hollow object should resist more, in direct defiance of observed reality.
The best you can hope to achieve is by claiming the air inside doesn't matter. But that then means they move the same amount of air when you move them and thus they resist the same, but that still doesn't match reality.
So either way, your nonsense is DOA.
And that is before we even get to why the air should resist motion in the first place, which will just lead us straight back to inertia and no reason for it to magically only apply to air and not to the ball itself.
And the more pathetic thing is that you are then trying to use this to argue against rockets working, which literally are pushing away air (i.e. the exhaust gas).
If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw
And that applies for both. You move the object and the air needs to move to fill the void.
Again, if that was the determining factor they would resist the same.
Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.
No, action and reaction is simply you applying a force to accelerate the MASS of the ball, and it resisting that change in motion due to inertia and thus applying a force back on you.
No need for your delusional air BS, and as repeatedly shown, your delusional air BS has no chance of matching reality.
Carry on Mr twister. You have nothing and think twisting what is gains you the upper hand. Not with me it doesn't.
If I have nothing, why have I been able to refute you yet again.
Once more, we observe in reality simple inertia, and action-reaction pairs.
Any object with mass takes a force to accelerate it. As such, if you try, by applying a force to it, it will resist and apply a force back to you.
So when you accelerate a light object like a balloon and a heavy object like a medicine ball, the medicine ball has more resistance and thus pushes you back more.
This matches what is observed in reality.
Meanwhile, your delusional nonsense fails.
Ignoring any air trapped inside the object, when you move 2 objects of the same volume (and no, I don't mean your nonsense idea of volume), then they displace the same amount of air, with the same amount of air needing to flow around them and fill the void they leave behind. That would mean they have the same resistance if your nonsense was correct.
If you include the air trapped inside, then the lower density/hollow object has more air inside that needs to be moved and thus you would displace more air by moving it, meaning a lighter object should have more resistance.
So your nonsense simply doesn't match reality. So instead you need to try to twist reality to pretend a denser object magically displaces more air when you move it, which makes no sense at all.
Sorry, but back in reality, it is mass, not the air, which is creating resistance here.
No they don't. Didn't you get it the first time?
The problem is that you keep contradicting yourself.
You claim that you know that 2 objects with the same volume occupy the same volume/have the same volume. But then you claim that 2 objects with the same volume don't occupy the same volume/don't have the same volume.
Air pressure is a result of inertia.
How about you explain what this means.
Air pressure is a result of collision with air molecules resulting in these molecules changing direction.
A force is applied over a period of time to accelerate the molecules.
Without inertia, there would be no air pressure.
-
If I have nothing, why have I been able to refute you yet again.
Copy and paste in abundance does not give you any credence against me. You cannot refute what I'm saying because you never grasp it for whatever reasons you have.
One thing you cannot do and that is, back up the gravity nonsense, other than to say " it is, it is" and then saying " because, inertia"...
It's a nonsense and you know it.
You argue against air pressure by using the nonsense of gravity and inertia just because that's what the books tell you and you absolutely have no clue as to what any of it means.
Sooooooo....noooooo....you are not even a gnats step in any direction as to refuting anything I say. It's just copy/paste from you.
-
Copy and paste in abundance does not give you any credence against me. You cannot refute what I'm saying because you never grasp it for whatever reasons you have.
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
Meanwhile, your continued dismissal does nothing to magically make you correct.
Again, I HAVE refuted what you are saying.
And all you have to counter it is to insult me and say I'm wrong, and ignoring what I have said.
You cannot explain why you think I am wrong, other than that I am showing you are wrong.
Again, I have clearly shown that the best you can hope to achieve with your nonsense is have all objects of the same size have the same resistance. You cannot explain why a denser object has more resistance.
But mainstream science explains it trivially.
gravity
Like I said, what we are discussing now is simply inertia and action-reaction pairs.
Gravity is not part of it.
Continually bringing it up shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are intentionally lying.
You argue against air pressure by using the nonsense of gravity and inertia
No, I argue against your delusional nonsense using air pressure, with how air pressure actually works, which is nothing like what you pretend.
-
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff is because you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time and think copy and pasting large sections of the same thing is you gaining traction. You're gaining nothing and wasting your own time, even though you actually seem to enjoy doing it, it seems.
Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
-
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff
Is because you have no rational refutation.
So instead of honestly engaging and explaining what is wrong with what I have said you need to ignore it to pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.
you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time
No, that would be you.
You were incapable of sticking to just a single topic. You pretended to, but then as soon as you couldn't answer, you wanted to change topic.
You do this because you need to have a bunch of different topics to switch between so you can pretend you haven't been shown to be wrong on all of them.
You don't like it when I address everything, because then you don't have another topic to switch to. So instead you just jump to your pathetic insults.
Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
You were already given that chance, and you threw it away.
So when you are ready to start dealing with something, go ahead.
Until then I will just keep on calling out all your BS.
Again, we know from reality that the more massive an object is the more it resists being accelerated.
We know that this even applies for 2 objects of the same size.
We also know that in terms of the air outside the object, they move the same amount when you move the object.
We know that moving a hollow object results in moving the air outside the object, and the air inside.
So moving a hollow object (and in your fantasy word a low density object) displaces a lot more air than moving a dense, solid object.
So this means we know if it was air resistance or the like, the hollow/low density object would have equal or greater resistance than the dense object.
This directly defies what is observed in reality.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.
When we do have things based upon pressure, like a plunger, it doesn't matter what the plunger is made of, other than it being able to have an air-tight seal. It still applies the same force.
Likewise, with a syringe or the like, the material is irrelevant.
The force is simply the product of the pressure gradient and the area.
So it is quite clear your nonsense has no chance of matching reality.
-
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff
Is because you have no rational refutation.
So instead of honestly engaging and explaining what is wrong with what I have said you need to ignore it to pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.
you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time
No, that would be you.
You were incapable of sticking to just a single topic. You pretended to, but then as soon as you couldn't answer, you wanted to change topic.
You do this because you need to have a bunch of different topics to switch between so you can pretend you haven't been shown to be wrong on all of them.
You don't like it when I address everything, because then you don't have another topic to switch to. So instead you just jump to your pathetic insults.
Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
You were already given that chance, and you threw it away.
So when you are ready to start dealing with something, go ahead.
Until then I will just keep on calling out all your BS.
Again, we know from reality that the more massive an object is the more it resists being accelerated.
We know that this even applies for 2 objects of the same size.
We also know that in terms of the air outside the object, they move the same amount when you move the object.
We know that moving a hollow object results in moving the air outside the object, and the air inside.
So moving a hollow object (and in your fantasy word a low density object) displaces a lot more air than moving a dense, solid object.
So this means we know if it was air resistance or the like, the hollow/low density object would have equal or greater resistance than the dense object.
This directly defies what is observed in reality.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.
When we do have things based upon pressure, like a plunger, it doesn't matter what the plunger is made of, other than it being able to have an air-tight seal. It still applies the same force.
Likewise, with a syringe or the like, the material is irrelevant.
The force is simply the product of the pressure gradient and the area.
So it is quite clear your nonsense has no chance of matching reality.
This is what I'm talking about.
Look at the state of this.
-
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff
Is because you have no rational refutation.
So instead of honestly engaging and explaining what is wrong with what I have said you need to ignore it to pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.
you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time
No, that would be you.
You were incapable of sticking to just a single topic. You pretended to, but then as soon as you couldn't answer, you wanted to change topic.
You do this because you need to have a bunch of different topics to switch between so you can pretend you haven't been shown to be wrong on all of them.
You don't like it when I address everything, because then you don't have another topic to switch to. So instead you just jump to your pathetic insults.
Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
You were already given that chance, and you threw it away.
So when you are ready to start dealing with something, go ahead.
Until then I will just keep on calling out all your BS.
Again, we know from reality that the more massive an object is the more it resists being accelerated.
We know that this even applies for 2 objects of the same size.
We also know that in terms of the air outside the object, they move the same amount when you move the object.
We know that moving a hollow object results in moving the air outside the object, and the air inside.
So moving a hollow object (and in your fantasy word a low density object) displaces a lot more air than moving a dense, solid object.
So this means we know if it was air resistance or the like, the hollow/low density object would have equal or greater resistance than the dense object.
This directly defies what is observed in reality.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.
When we do have things based upon pressure, like a plunger, it doesn't matter what the plunger is made of, other than it being able to have an air-tight seal. It still applies the same force.
Likewise, with a syringe or the like, the material is irrelevant.
The force is simply the product of the pressure gradient and the area.
So it is quite clear your nonsense has no chance of matching reality.
This is what I'm talking about.
Look at the state of this.
Yes, clearly pointing out why you are wrong.
And how do you respond?
Using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you aren't wrong.
-
Yes, clearly pointing out why you are wrong.
And how do you respond?
Using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you aren't wrong.
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong, you're pointing out that you are right on something that you have absolutely no clue about.
This is the major issue with you.
-
Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
I never did agree and now I'm worrying about what or who I'm dealing with...seriously.
So now you don't agree with that? Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not? You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
-
Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
I never did agree and now I'm worrying about what or who I'm dealing with...seriously.
So now you don't agree with that?
I never agreed with it at any time. Wake up.
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?
Yes they do.
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.
I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.
Put your brain into gear and look at what you are saying.
Can anyone help this person out?
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
No.
-
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?
Yes they do.
You say yes here.
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
No.
You say no here.
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.
I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.
You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.
One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter. That's what volume is, a measurement of space.
You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.
You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.
Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
-
You're right, he doesn't know what volume is. This might help decipher, a Rosetta Stone, if you will; A translation of terms as defined by one person who made them up to conform to a theory that is shared by only one person:
"Density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"Mass" .....The amount of material that makes up an object. (see above).
...
"Weight" ....A man made scale measurement that gives a reading of the compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"Volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"Speed" ....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction. (ie mph)
"Velocity" ..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"Acceleration" .....The continuous build up of movement.
...
"Force" ..... Any energy push in any direction
"Pressure" .....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
...
"Pressure gradient" ........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"Power".... Energy push.
"Energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.
"Inertia" ..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
Use this as a reference because this is on my terms not on the terms of someone who wants to dictate my theory and ways.
-
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
Again, you claim that it is based upon displacing air, and displacing more air means the air resists more.
But the hollow object displaces more air and has less resistance.
The major issue is you refusing to accept you are wrong and refusing to honestly and rationally engage in any discussion.
Can anyone help this person out?
Yes, the amount of space something takes up is its volume.
You are saying 2 objects with the same volume do not have the same volume.
-
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?
Yes they do.
You say yes here.
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
No.
You say no here.
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.
I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.
You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.
One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter. That's what volume is, a measurement of space.
You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.
You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.
Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
-
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not...not one bit. You twist things to suit yourself and that's fine but wasting your own time to try and make me accept them is an ongoing thing with you.
Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
-
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
Follow your own advice.
"Amount of space" is volume.
He is asking if 2 objects which have the same volume (they take up the same amount of space) have the same volume.
And you are saying no, while contradicting yourself and saying that 2 objects with the same volume have the same volume.
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not
Again, ignoring reality will not change it.
I have clearly explained how we know that with your delusional nonsense, we would expect a lower density object to have an equal or greater resistance to motion.
You have been unable to refute that other than by repeatedly ignoring it.
Grow up.
Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
Follow your own advice. For the entire time you have been on these fora I don't think I have ever seen you be fair and honest, or engage properly.
So do you really mean once I just start accepting whatever nonsense you say even if it contradicts other things you say or makes no sense at all then you will "engage". i.e. you wont engage when you are shown to be wrong?
-
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
Follow your own advice.
"Amount of space" is volume.
He is asking if 2 objects which have the same volume (they take up the same amount of space) have the same volume.
And you are saying no, while contradicting yourself and saying that 2 objects with the same volume have the same volume.
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not
Again, ignoring reality will not change it.
I have clearly explained how we know that with your delusional nonsense, we would expect a lower density object to have an equal or greater resistance to motion.
You have been unable to refute that other than by repeatedly ignoring it.
Grow up.
Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
Follow your own advice. For the entire time you have been on these fora I don't think I have ever seen you be fair and honest, or engage properly.
So do you really mean once I just start accepting whatever nonsense you say even if it contradicts other things you say or makes no sense at all then you will "engage". i.e. you wont engage when you are shown to be wrong?
Read what he said and absorb it all if you want to argue for him.
-
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?
Yes they do.
You say yes here.
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water? Do they have the same volume?
No.
You say no here.
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.
I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.
You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.
One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter. That's what volume is, a measurement of space.
You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.
You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.
Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
That's not an explanation, that's avoiding the question.
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
-
Read what he said and absorb it all if you want to argue for him.
I did. Perhaps you should try.
A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.
Them having the same volume means that if there is no air trapped inside them, then they displace the same volume of air when they move.
It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.
So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.
And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
-
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes. Answer this correctly and you won't need to ask the questions you do.
-
A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.
2 of the exact same objects or different objects? Be specific Mr twister.
Them having the same volume means that if there is no air trapped inside them, then they displace the same volume of air when they move.
If there's no air trapped inside then there is no volume in the objects.
It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.
No, they don't.
So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
The higher density resists more. Stop twisting it gets you nowhere.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.
It actually doesn't. It just shows that you are trying to twist things to suit your own agenda.
And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
I have plenty of basis. I've given you it. The beauty of it is, even your books tell you about air resistance.
The problem is, it's massively skewed with a fictional other force called gravity which is only really used because it keeps alive the fictional space stuff and all the little shenanigans of why water stays on a spinning ball...and us....etc.
Pure utter nonsense but indoctrination is super strong.
-
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.
A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.
2 of the exact same objects or different objects? Be specific Mr twister.
The only one twisting here is you, trying to pretend the amount of space an object occupies magically is different to its volume.
If there's no air trapped inside then there is no volume in the objects.
Instead you just have the volume OF the object.
It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.
No, they don't.
You have already admitted that they do.
They need to displace the air around it as well the air inside it.
That means they displace more.
So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
The higher density resists more. Stop twisting it gets you nowhere.
You are the one continually twisting it.
I know that in reality the higher density object resists more, because it has a greater mass.
The problem for you is that your delusional garbage indicates the exact opposite.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.
It actually doesn't.
Yes, it does.
Unless you can explain how displacing less air causes a greater resistance, it shows that your claims are pure garbage with no connection to reality.
And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
I have plenty of basis. I've given you it.
Where?
The beauty of it is, even your books tell you about air resistance.
No, it doesn't.
Our books do not tell us that air is magic.
Air is just another fluid.
It resists due to INERTIA, that thing you hate.
The problem is, it's massively skewed with a fictional other force called gravity
And again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, it is inertia, not gravity.
The fundamental reason air resists an object moving through it is because it has inertia.
Pure utter nonsense but indoctrination is super strong.
Yes, that does seem to be all you have, pure utter nonsense, but you have been so indoctrinated you will not see past it.
-
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.
You need to try again and understand.
What do you mean by, continuous?
Understand that everything has porosity.
What I'm saying is right, so how about you explain this continuous.
-
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes. Answer this correctly and you won't need to ask the questions you do.
An object with holes in it like a sponge is not the same as something solid like stone or metal. You might as well ask if a cube and a hollow cube have the same volume or not.
I did not say porous stone, I did not say stone with holes in it. I did not say a hollow stone block.
A sponge and stone would have the same volume if I compressed enough sponges until there were no more holes in it.
-
An object with holes in it like a sponge is not the same as something solid like stone or metal.
Correct they aren't the same, so why try and tell me that they have the same volume?
You might as well ask if a cube and a hollow cube have the same volume or not.
A cube? You mean a cube with more mass than the hollow cube?
If so, they don't have the same volume.
I did not say porous stone, I did not say stone with holes in it. I did not say a hollow stone block.
It doesn't matter what you say, The stone is porous and has volume.
A sponge and stone would have the same volume if I compressed enough sponges until there were no more holes in it.
But we aren't talking about compressing enough sponges.
Twisting it to fit only confuses you.
-
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.
You need to try again and understand.
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
What do you mean by, continuous?
The structure is approximately close packed so there are no large voids in it.
Understand that everything has porosity.
And you understand that for the vast majority of things, that porosity is irrelevant as pretty much nothing will fit inside it.
You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.
What I'm saying is right
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place. Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
-
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
You mean two objects with the same volume that displace the same amount of atmosphere?
If you're saying that, then, of course. I've already stated that.
What do you mean by, continuous?
The structure is approximately close packed so there are no large voids in it.
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
Understand that everything has porosity.
And you understand that for the vast majority of things, that porosity is irrelevant as pretty much nothing will fit inside it.
Porosity is the atmospheric filled gaps.
As long as there are gaps you can always make something denser and equally make the object less dense, depending on how you apply different energetic pressures.
You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.
Whatever gets trapped in the void, is what it is.
What I'm saying is right
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.
Nope.
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
Resist motion?
Explain.
If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
Of course. But then again if I ignore all the people inside two planes I have two empty (of people) planes.
Basically, what are you getting at?
And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place.
I have, you just spent hundreds of posts denying it.
Resistance is the leverage used by any dense object to repel a force applied to that object.
Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia
, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Inertia has no meaning, unless you simply call it, resistance or leverage or at least use it in that context.
-
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
You mean two objects with the same volume that displace the same amount of atmosphere?
If you're saying that, then, of course. I've already stated that.
If you mean actual atmosphere, then yes. If you mean your fantasy where every object is full of atmosphere, then no.
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Porosity is the atmospheric filled gaps.
In that case, not every object is pourous.
As long as there are gaps you can always make something denser
Sure, you can collapse it into a neutron star, or a black hole. But for everyday stuff, YOU CAN'T!
There is a limit to how much you can compress an object.
Likewise, with no pressure at all, there is still a minimum density to the solid. If you try to pull it apart, there is a limit before it loses cohesion and falls apart.
This is seen as tensile failures.
The only thing you can decompress like that is gas, which has large voids between the molecules.
You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.
Whatever gets trapped in the void, is what it is.
And the point you are ignoring is that there is nothing in those voids.
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.
Nope.
Then explain how displacing less atmosphere causes it to resist a change in motion more.
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
Resist motion?
Explain.
[/quote]
Stop playing dumb. You know exactly what is meant. It resists being accelerated. A force needs to be applied to accelerate it.
And that is another massive problem for your nonsense. It should be a force is needed to move it through the air, like how air resistance actually works. But as well as that, there is an entirely separate force required to accelerate it.
If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
Of course. But then again if I ignore all the people inside two planes I have two empty (of people) planes.
Basically, what are you getting at?
That even in the best case scenario for you, your garbage still fails massively.
And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place.
I have, you just spent hundreds of posts denying it.
No, you haven't.
If you did, you would have provided it here.
Resistance is the leverage used by any dense object to repel a force applied to that object.
And just what is this supposed to be?
An attempt at a definition?
Because it certainly isn't an explanation.
Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Inertia has no meaning, unless you simply call it, resistance or leverage or at least use it in that context.
I have already explained how it has meaning.
It is not simply resistance. It is resistance to an acceleration, i.e. a change in motion.
It is a specific type of resistance.
It is something inherent to all matter.
And as soon as you accept it, it means accepting all your claims about air are pure BS.
-
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Large or small they are already filled.
The only reason water or atmosphere don't get into smaller holes is because those holes are already filled with atmosphere or water, depending on the exposure to whatever pressure, be it atmospheric or water..
-
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Large or small they are already filled.
Repeating the same lies wont help you.
When they are small enough, such as in the crystal structure of steel and aluminium, they are empty. Air cannot fit.
One way to easily see this is in the ability of a substance to form am airtight container.
If you try to use a sponge, it wont work. The air and water go straight through it.
But if you try to use steel, it works just fine. If steel really was so porous it would just let the air through.
You simply cannot compress air enough (without turning it into neutron matter which takes tremendous force) to make it fit.
And again, none of that helps you with the key part of this thread.
You are claiming that air is the magical cause of inertia.
But if that was the case, displacing more air should cause more resistance. If your delusional nonsense is correct you displace more air when moving a lower density object, meaning it should resist more.
But in reality it resists less.
That is what you need to address.
-
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Large or small they are already filled.
Repeating the same lies wont help you.
When they are small enough, such as in the crystal structure of steel and aluminium, they are empty. Air cannot fit.
One way to easily see this is in the ability of a substance to form am airtight container.
If you try to use a sponge, it wont work. The air and water go straight through it.
But if you try to use steel, it works just fine. If steel really was so porous it would just let the air through.
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
-
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.
According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.
So if the air is what is causing the resistance to motion, moving this larger amount of air means you should have more resistance.
But in reality, you have less.
And the other key point, why should the air resist it at all if it doesn't have inertia?
-
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.
According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.
The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
-
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.
According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.
The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and address the actual issue.
Moving the object moves the air around it and the air you claim is inside it.
That means the lower density moves more air and thus should resist according to your nonesnse.
And again, without inertia there is no reason for the air to resist at all.
-
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.
According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.
The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and address the actual issue.
Moving the object moves the air around it and the air you claim is inside it.
That means the lower density moves more air and thus should resist according to your nonesnse.
And again, without inertia there is no reason for the air to resist at all.
Get this into your head and try and deal with it, only.
Spewing nonsense and mass wording just frustrates you.
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space. Hopefully you can agree to this without twisting it.
I'll await your answer before I move on.
-
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.
I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.
:)
-
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.
I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.
:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?
-
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.
I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.
:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?
If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
-
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.
I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.
:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?
If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
No they wouldn't.
-
Get this into your head and try and deal with it, only.
Spewing nonsense and mass wording just frustrates you.
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space. Hopefully you can agree to this without twisting it.
I'll await your answer before I move on.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and deflection.
Deal with the issue raised, and then you can move on.
Explain how displacing more air causes less resistance.
But also how displacing more air causes more resistance.
That is what you need.
The lower density, when moved, displaces more air according to your nonsense, as it displaces the air around it as well as the air inside it.
You need to explain how this causes less resistance, when larger objects which displace more air, have a greater resistance.
-
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.
I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.
:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?
If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
No they wouldn't.
So you're saying they wouldn't displace the same amount of water and they wouldn't displace the same amount of air in the atmosphere? If so, how come?
-
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.
I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.
:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?
Is the hollow box metal sealed or open to the surroundings?
-
So you're saying they wouldn't displace the same amount of water and they wouldn't displace the same amount of air in the atmosphere? If so, how come?
I think he is saying it would displace the same amount of water, but not the same amount of air, because he is saying the air inside doesn't count as displaced.
-
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.
I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.
:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?
If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
No they wouldn't.
Yes they would.
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.
The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.
The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.
Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:
"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"
- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow
1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube
You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.
The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.
Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:
"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"
- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow
1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube
You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.
-
No they wouldn't.
Yes they would.
No they would not.
Yes they would so.
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.
The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.
Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:
"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"
- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow
1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube
You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.
A sealed, hollow steel 10 cm cube will not float in water if the walls are more than 0.45 cm thick.
With walls any thicker than this, the hollow and solid cube will displace exactly the same volume of water when immersed.
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.
The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.
Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:
"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"
- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow
1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube
You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.
Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size. I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?
So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
-
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.
Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.
Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.
Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.
The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.
Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:
"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"
- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow
1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube
You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.
A sealed, hollow steel 10 cm cube will not float in water if the walls are more than 0.45 cm thick.
With walls any thicker than this, the hollow and solid cube will displace exactly the same volume of water when immersed.
10cm is a lot of dense mass.
-
Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size. I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?
So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.
How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.
-
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.
Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.
Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.
Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
-
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.
Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.
Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.
Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
Due to your complete inability to refute what I have said, nor answer my extremely simple questions, I quite clearly am.
So can you explain why a denser object which displaces less air when it moves (or equal if we ignore your nonsense) resists more?
-
Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size. I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?
So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.
How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.
I already gave you the exact scenario. Do they both displace the same amount? Sinking, floating, buoyancy, don’t care. I’m talking just volume. Do the same sized airtight cubes, one hollow, one solid, displace the same amount when submerged in a container of water? Simple as that.
-
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.
Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.
Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.
Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
Due to your complete inability to refute what I have said, nor answer my extremely simple questions, I quite clearly am.
So can you explain why a denser object which displaces less air when it moves (or equal if we ignore your nonsense) resists more?
Twisting is wasting your own time.
-
Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size. I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?
So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.
How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.
I already gave you the exact scenario. Do they both displace the same amount? Sinking, floating, buoyancy, don’t care. I’m talking just volume. Do the same sized airtight cubes, one hollow, one solid, displace the same amount when submerged in a container of water? Simple as that.
Understand volume from my side before you carry on.
-
Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size. I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?
So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.
How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.
I already gave you the exact scenario. Do they both displace the same amount? Sinking, floating, buoyancy, don’t care. I’m talking just volume. Do the same sized airtight cubes, one hollow, one solid, displace the same amount when submerged in a container of water? Simple as that.
Understand volume from my side before you carry on.
I do. It has to do with porosity. But the question is both cubes are the same size, airtight, one hollow, one solid, do they displace the same amount? If you say they don’t based upon some porosity difference, how so? Both are airtight. Therefore porosity is the same, right?
-
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.
Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.
Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.
Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
Due to your complete inability to refute what I have said, nor answer my extremely simple questions, I quite clearly am.
So can you explain why a denser object which displaces less air when it moves (or equal if we ignore your nonsense) resists more?
Twisting is wasting your own time.
So perhaps you can stop twisting and start actually dealing with the issue.
If you want to pretend that a more dense object displaces (i.e. MOVES) more air when it moves, go ahead. But remember, on the outside it is the same. All you have to establish a difference is the inside, and as the lower density you claim has air inside it, moving the lower density object will move that air as well.
-
I do. It has to do with porosity. But the question is both cubes are the same size, airtight, one hollow, one solid, do they displace the same amount? If you say they don’t based upon some porosity difference, how so? Both are airtight. Therefore porosity is the same, right?
Answer this question.
If you were to have two cubes exactly the same size...one is a sponge with larger holes in it all the way through and the other has tiny holes in it al the way through.
If both were dropped into water, which one would displace the most?
-
So perhaps you can stop twisting and start actually dealing with the issue.
Come back to me when you have something to offer.
-
Come back to me when you have something to offer.
I have already offered it and you just keep on running away.
Again, how does displacing more air result in less resistance?
-
Come back to me when you have something to offer.
I have already offered it and you just keep on running away.
Again, how does displacing more air result in less resistance?
Take notice of the last post.
-
Yes they would.
No they would not.
If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.
The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.
Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:
"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"
- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow
1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube
You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.
A sealed, hollow steel 10 cm cube will not float in water if the walls are more than 0.45 cm thick.
With walls any thicker than this, the hollow and solid cube will displace exactly the same volume of water when immersed.
10cm is a lot of dense mass.
The solid block would mass at around 8 kg. The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
-
The solid block would mass at around 8 kg. The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
Wrong.
Let me explain why. Use your brain.
A container ship ready to load will displace a lot less water that the same ship when loaded with containers.
Why?
Because you've added more mass against the atmosphere by pushing out the atmosphere from the empty ship and made it more difficult for the water to resist that push.
Now think about this with your hollow and solid block.
-
Come back to me when you have something to offer.
I have already offered it and you just keep on running away.
Again, how does displacing more air result in less resistance?
Take notice of the last post.
Why?
We aren't talking about sponges.
We are talking about air tight objects.
They move the same air on the outside when you move them, and the only distinction would be any air trapped inside.
Now again, HOW DOES DISPLACING MORE AIR CAUSE LESS RESISTANCE?
A container ship ready to load will displace a lot less water that the same ship when loaded with containers.
Why?
Because it isn't submerged.
This is because it is too light.
As you increase the weight, you need to displace more water (or higher density fluid) to have the same buoyant force. But eventually you reach a point where the water isn't dense enough and the ship sinks, displacing the same volume.
There is no need for your magic atmosphere which you have repeatedly failed to defend and fled from threads destroying your nonsense.
-
The solid block would mass at around 8 kg. The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
Wrong.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want. Maybe in your imagination fairies are dancing through the atmosphere dropping pixie dust on objects to make them float. So be it but who cares really.
The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L.
If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L.
This is just the way things are. Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.
Sorry.
-
The solid block would mass at around 8 kg. The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
Wrong.
The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L.
If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L.
This is just the way things are. Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.
Sorry.
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.
-
The solid block would mass at around 8 kg. The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
Wrong.
The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L.
If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L.
This is just the way things are. Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.
Sorry.
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.
I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.
1. A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2. A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3. Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4. Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.
Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting?
Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
-
Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌
Gravity is the most studied subject in history of physics. There is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed published data.
Your inability to understand that hot air will rise regardless of what causes objects to fall changes none of peer reviewed data. AAMOF, the very fact that hot air rises is not evidence for or against gravity and not evidence for or against universal acceleration.
Mike
-
Twisting is wasting your own time.
Is twisting your new replacement word for lying?
-
The solid block would mass at around 8 kg. The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
Wrong.
The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L.
If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L.
This is just the way things are. Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.
Sorry.
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.
I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.
1. A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2. A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3. Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4. Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.
Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting?
Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.
I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.
-
Twisting is wasting your own time.
Is twisting your new replacement word for lying?
It depends on how you want to look at it.
-
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.
I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.
1. A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2. A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3. Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4. Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.
Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting?
Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.
You of course are entitled to that opinion. I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone than you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!). So it doesnt really matter. I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine. No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination.
I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.
Water pressure? Tell me more!!! Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now? Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?
-
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.
I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.
1. A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2. A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3. Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4. Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.
Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting?
Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.
You of course are entitled to that opinion. I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone that you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!). So it doesnt really matter. I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine. No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination.
I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.
Water pressure? Tell me more!!! Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now? Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?
Come back when you can actually type normally.
-
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.
I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.
1. A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2. A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3. Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4. Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.
Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting?
Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.
You of course are entitled to that opinion. I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone that you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!). So it doesnt really matter. I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine. No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination.
I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.
Water pressure? Tell me more!!! Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now? Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?
Come back when you can actually type normally.
Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me. No need for any excuses.
Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!
-
Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me. No need for any excuses.
Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!
No problem. Just sit back and read on and come in when you feel you can actually type something worthwhile.
-
Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me. No need for any excuses.
Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!
No problem. Just sit back and read on and come in when you feel you can actually type something worthwhile.
Lol. We are on a backwater, outdated messaging board bickering over lines, triangles, and magic pixie dust.
Nothing here is really that worthwhile. Don't delude yourself on the importance of this discussion.
-
You didn't answer the shipping question.
Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.
Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.
You sure do love projecting your own inadequacies don't you?
Pretty much everyone can realise (at least if they bother thinking about it) that all your claims about your magical air are pure nonsense with no connection to reality at all.
You just refuse to see it because you don't want to, because you hate the globe so much you will do whatever you can to dismiss it and things associated with it.
For example, any sane person can see that in reality, 2 objects of the same size (e.g. 2 balls with diameter of 20 cm), will resist changes in motion by different amounts, i.e. it will require a different force to accelerate them. They can see that the denser (i.e. more massive) object resists more.
This shows them that it is not merely the result of air pressure like you claim.
If it was, then the 2 balls should resist the same amount. The only thing that would change that is if there is any air inside the object, which you claim the lower density object has. But that simply means the lighter object is displacing more air and should resist more, not less.
And we know this last part in 2 ways, one is that it is simply nonsense to think that less air (eventually resulting in no air) would produce more resistance. The other is that by using a larger object, which displaces more air, we get more resistance, so if displacing less air caused more resistance you would have a massive contradiction.
Meanwhile, the simple idea of inertia actually makes sense and matches what is observed.
Attempting to accelerate any mass will result it in resisting, simply because of its mass.
If you were to take 2 such objects and join them together, the mass would increase and so would the amount of resistance, with them being proportional to each other, exactly as observed.
And even worse applies for your nonsensical attempt at replacing gravity, where you can't even explain what causes a pressure gradient in the atmosphere to exist in the first place, nor why this pressure gradient typically applies a force in the wrong direction, nor how this force is magically applied to each bit of mass to establish a pressure gradient, rather than simply being applied at the top and crushing everything.
-
The solid block would mass at around 8 kg. The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Said the scientist who never played stink finger.
-
You didn't answer the shipping question.
Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.
Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.
No they do not.
-
You didn't answer the shipping question.
Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.
Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.
No they do not.
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
And again, you ignore the bigger issue, the fact that the resistance to a change in motion is not dependent upon the amount of air displaced on moving.
-
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
-
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
-
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
Let me make this clear.
First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.
But let's not side step this.
Tell me what would happen if both bottles were in a huge tank or deep sea and they were both dragged down.
Explain what happens and we'll go from there.
-
Sceptimatic:
1. A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2. A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3. Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4. Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.
You're 100% wrong
Also Sceptimatic:
Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical.
:D :D :D
-
Sceptimatic:
1. A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2. A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3. Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4. Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.
You're 100% wrong
Also Sceptimatic:
Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical.
:D :D :D
Maybe pay attention to depths and what I'm saying. It might help you understand.
-
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
Let me make this clear.
First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.
But let's not side step this.
Tell me what would happen if both bottles were in a huge tank or deep sea and they were both dragged down.
Explain what happens and we'll go from there.
So the volume is the same, measured as such. Submerged in a tank on my kitchen counter the measured displacement wouldn't show little discrepancy, it would show no discrepancy. The measured volume would be the same. We got that cleared up.
Yes, I know what you're getting at, submerge them deep and the higher depth pressure will crush the weak empty plastic bottle over the one that's filled with stuff, thereby compressing it and perhaps making it of smaller volume. But that's really neither here no there. We're talking about just on the surface of earth with normal pressure. And if I took the steel cubes, one solid, one not, and submerged them deep in the ocean, it would take a ton of pressure to crush the hollow one and a mega ton of pressure to crush the solid one. Probably what submarine engineers/designers calculate the shit out of to make sure their vessels don't get crushed at depth. There's a mountain of data out there on how that stuff works.
The point is, on earth, the displacement is the same in the coke bottle experiment and therefore the volume is the same having nothing to do with density/porosity. Same as if I submerged the steel cubes in the container on my kitchen counter they would measurably displace the same amount, thereby measured as the same volume.
-
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
It is a fact, because just below the surface of the water the change in pressure is insignificant, and would not impact the size of the cube by any measurable amount, and would effect both cubes.
Stop trying to completely change the situation so one of the cubes is crushed. It just shows how pathetic and indefensible your position is.
The simple fact is unless you actually crush the hollow cube, the displacement of water by the 2 cubes would be practically identical and would come down to manufacturing tolerances. It cannot explain the variation in the mass of the cubes nor in their resistance to changes motion.
Again, for the actual key part of the topic you continually run from, if you were to accelerate these objects and have them move through the air they would displace the same amount of air external to the cube.
The only difference in displacement of air is the air inside the hollow cube, which means the lower density and thus lighter object displaces more air when you move it. That means according to your nonsense it should resist changes in motion MORE, not less. But in reality, we observe the exact opposite.
Yet again, your nonsense is wrong.
-
Yes, I know what you're getting at, submerge them deep and the higher depth pressure will crush the weak empty plastic bottle over the one that's filled with stuff, thereby compressing it and perhaps making it of smaller volume. But that's really neither here no there.
It is massively important.
It not only shows atmospheric pressure is the reason it also shows there's no extra force that we are told is supposed gravity.
We're talking about just on the surface of earth with normal pressure.
Yep and you need to take that in mind when you talk about solid and hollow and submerging using force to displace. Force other than just atmospheric with objects with more volume having to have extra applied pressure to displace that water.
Think on it.
And if I took the steel cubes, one solid, one not, and submerged them deep in the ocean, it would take a ton of pressure to crush the hollow one and a mega ton of pressure to crush the solid one.
Yep, it's all about the pressures applied.
Probably what submarine engineers/designers calculate the shit out of to make sure their vessels don't get crushed at depth. There's a mountain of data out there on how that stuff works.
Of course but they do not use gravity as any calculation. They simply use atmospheric and water pressures against the shell of the sub.
No. The displacement is only similar if you apply extra pressure to the empty coke bottle, otherwise the coke bottle in itself does not displace much water.
Same as if I submerged the steel cubes in the container on my kitchen counter they would measurably displace the same amount, thereby measured as the same volume.
Only if they sink to the bottom where there is a foundation which stops the hollow one from being massively crushed and therefore, like I said, the displacement appears to be the same but will, even in this case, be minutely different, yet likely undetectable in that shallow tank.
-
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
It is a fact, because just below the surface of the water the change in pressure is insignificant, and would not impact the size of the cube by any measurable amount, and would effect both cubes.
Stop trying to completely change the situation so one of the cubes is crushed. It just shows how pathetic and indefensible your position is.
The simple fact is unless you actually crush the hollow cube, the displacement of water by the 2 cubes would be practically identical and would come down to manufacturing tolerances. It cannot explain the variation in the mass of the cubes nor in their resistance to changes motion.
Again, for the actual key part of the topic you continually run from, if you were to accelerate these objects and have them move through the air they would displace the same amount of air external to the cube.
The only difference in displacement of air is the air inside the hollow cube, which means the lower density and thus lighter object displaces more air when you move it. That means according to your nonsense it should resist changes in motion MORE, not less. But in reality, we observe the exact opposite.
Yet again, your nonsense is wrong.
Come back when you're less angry.
-
It is massively important.
No, it isn't.
It is you trying to deflect from the issue at hand to pretend to have a point and pretend to be correct.
It is clear that at atmospheric pressure the displace the same volume.
That means when you move them, they will displace the same amount of air around them.
This means the hollow object will displace more air as it displaces the air outside and inside and thus should have a much greater resistance.
This directly contradicts observed reality and shows your garbage to be wrong.
This is what you continually refuse to address.
Of course but they do not use gravity as any calculation.
Yes, they do.
They use the density of water along with gravity to determine the pressure at any depth. Atmospheric pressure does not factor into it, because it cannot explain things like pressure gradients in water.
will, even in this case, be minutely different, yet likely undetectable in that shallow tank.
Which means it cannot explain the difference in resistance to changes in motion, and thus your nonsense is garbage which does not explain reality.
Come back when you're less angry.
How about you leave and come back when you can defend your garbage and answer simple questions rather than continually avoid them and insult and dismiss people.
Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
-
Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
You continually twist what I say and you also don't grasp what I'm saying. You think you do but you don't. That is clear in your answers.
Shape up and stop the anger.
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve. Start with the basics, work your way up from there.
You can only lead a horse to water after all.
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve. Start with the basics, work your way up from there.
You can only lead a horse to water after all.
I don't need to. I simply need to know what a straight sight is or a straight line or a level sight or a level line.
I have no need to play with equations until there's a need to play with equations.
This is not one of them from my point of view.
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve. Start with the basics, work your way up from there.
You can only lead a horse to water after all.
I don't need to. I simply need to know what a straight sight is or a straight line or a level sight or a level line.
I have no need to play with equations until there's a need to play with equations.
This is not one of them from my point of view.
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you. You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
-
Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
You continually twist what I say and you also don't grasp what I'm saying. You think you do but you don't. That is clear in your answers.
Shape up and stop the anger.
No, I don't. Instead I clearly explain why your nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Your complete inability to actually respond to what has been said shows that.
Shape up and stop the insults and deflection.
You have already admitted that the difference in outside volume is negligible and only under quite high pressure.
This means that they both move the same amount of air around the object.
That means any significant change in the air displaced will come from the air trapped inside.
This means a hollow/low density object displaces MORE air.
This means it should have a greater resistance to change in motion.
But back in reality, it has less resistance.
This means your nonsense is wrong.
The air does not explain why objects resist acceleration.
This is what you need to address.
But this is what you can't address other than by admitting you are wrong, so you continue to deflect and insult.
-
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.
Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you. You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
-
Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
You continually twist what I say and you also don't grasp what I'm saying. You think you do but you don't. That is clear in your answers.
Shape up and stop the anger.
No, I don't. Instead I clearly explain why your nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Your complete inability to actually respond to what has been said shows that.
Shape up and stop the insults and deflection.
You have a nerve.
-
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
Lol. Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work.
No one. They are complete mysteries.
Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
-
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
Lol. Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work.
No one. They are complete mysteries.
Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.
-
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
Lol. Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work.
No one. They are complete mysteries.
Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.
Yes, please dont hold your breathe. I simply don't care enough to explain it to you. It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.
If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show. You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for. Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?
That is, you could if you were actually interested. I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
-
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
And all the ways you can try to dismiss or deny that reality?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
You mean that is all you ever show. You have absolutely no idea how any of your garbage works or why. You cannot explain any of it. So you continue with pathetic deflections.
If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
Stop with the pathetic deflections and start defending your garbage or admit it is wrong.
If you think that a low density or hollow object displacing more air magically makes it resist less, explain how; otherwise, admit your air nonsense does not explain inertia (i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion).
-
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.
Yes, we all know you deny reality. Nothing new here. You won't do any experiments, or try any math if you already 'know' the answer.
It's why you are wrong on nearly everything you say.
Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you. You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.
No, you are not willing to learn. You flat out refuse to do any experiments or look at math if you think it might prove you wrong. It's pure denial.
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
You are free to look up how they work yourself. Watch some YouTube videos. Read some wikis. Have you tried? If you don't understand how they work, ask some specific questions on where you got confused when trying to learn about them on your own.
-
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
Lol. Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work.
No one. They are complete mysteries.
Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.
Yes, please dont hold your breathe. I simply don't care enough to explain it to you. It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.
If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show. You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for. Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?
That is, you could if you were actually interested. I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.
-
If you think that a low density or hollow object displacing more air magically makes it resist less, explain how; otherwise, admit your air nonsense does not explain inertia (i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion).
I didn't say it displaced more air. Pay more attention and try not to twist. All you're doing is winding yourself up, not me.
-
People have in previous discussions tried to explain gravimeters to you, but as it involves gravity you are unable to understand.
Here are a couple of your previous responses :-
The instruments do, indeed exist. That's not my issue.
It's what they exist to actually show and they could be showing atmospheric changes over land, in dips, mounds, valleys...you name it, all cast off as gravity changes.
Nobody knows how they work from this side because nobody has one to understand it, so it's merely accepted to do what they say it does.
It doesn't matter what bullshit is pushed by mainstream supposed scientists. it's swallowed up with gusto by people who have no frigging clue what they're on about but cite it all anyway because they think it makes them look smart.
The superconducting gravimeter achieves sensitivities of one nanogal, :P approximately one thousandth of one billionth (10−12) of the Earth surface gravity. ::) In a demonstration of the sensitivity of the superconducting gravimeter, Virtanen (2006), describes how an instrument at Metsähovi, Finland, detected the gradual increase in surface gravity as workmen cleared snow from its laboratory roof.
Seriously folks, what chance do we have when people believe this utter puke?
So it would seem to be a waste of effort to try and explain gravimeters to someone with as much dense mass as yourself.
You can't explain it. You're just parroting a story.
-
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.
Yes, we all know you deny reality. Nothing new here. You won't do any experiments, or try any math if you already 'know' the answer.
It's why you are wrong on nearly everything you say.
Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you. You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.
No, you are not willing to learn. You flat out refuse to do any experiments or look at math if you think it might prove you wrong. It's pure denial.
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
You are free to look up how they work yourself. Watch some YouTube videos. Read some wikis. Have you tried? If you don't understand how they work, ask some specific questions on where you got confused when trying to learn about them on your own.
Another one that can't explain. You're not alone....nobody can. Why?............Because a so called gravimeter does not work for fictional gravity.
People are obviously free to believe this utter utter utter gravity nonsense, of course.
-
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
Lol. Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work.
No one. They are complete mysteries.
Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.
Yes, please dont hold your breathe. I simply don't care enough to explain it to you. It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.
If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show. You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for. Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?
That is, you could if you were actually interested. I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.
Stomp your feet as much as you like, and throw whatever little tantrum you need to.
If you calm down and want to find out what a gravimeter is, how it works, and what it is useful for, the information will still be right there for you.
If it is too difficult for you to understand, there is lots of knowledge out there, and I'm sure many people (myself included) would be happy to help if you ask nicely. :)
-
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
Lol. Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work.
No one. They are complete mysteries.
Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.
Yes, please dont hold your breathe. I simply don't care enough to explain it to you. It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.
If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show. You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for. Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?
That is, you could if you were actually interested. I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.
Stomp your feet as much as you like, and throw whatever little tantrum you need to.
If you calm down and want to find out what a gravimeter is, how it works, and what it is useful for, the information will still be right there for you.
If it is too difficult for you to understand, there is lots of knowledge out there, and I'm sure many people (myself included) would be happy to help if you ask nicely. :)
No need, I'm more than happy with my thoughts and the fact you have no clue what gravity is.
-
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
Lol. Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work.
No one. They are complete mysteries.
Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.
Yes, please dont hold your breathe. I simply don't care enough to explain it to you. It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.
If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show. You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for. Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?
That is, you could if you were actually interested. I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.
Stomp your feet as much as you like, and throw whatever little tantrum you need to.
If you calm down and want to find out what a gravimeter is, how it works, and what it is useful for, the information will still be right there for you.
If it is too difficult for you to understand, there is lots of knowledge out there, and I'm sure many people (myself included) would be happy to help if you ask nicely. :)
No need, I'm more than happy with my thoughts and the fact you have no clue what gravity is.
Okay, if you would rather sit around smiling dimly and lost in your own thoughts and opinions instead of trying to know more about the world around us, I certainly cant stop you. Good luck with it, I hope though the next five years go better in communicating you thoughts and ideas than the last five.
Just saying though - 2021 is not off to a good start for you in this regard.
-
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.
Yes, we all know you deny reality. Nothing new here. You won't do any experiments, or try any math if you already 'know' the answer.
It's why you are wrong on nearly everything you say.
Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you. You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.
No, you are not willing to learn. You flat out refuse to do any experiments or look at math if you think it might prove you wrong. It's pure denial.
We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.
You are free to look up how they work yourself. Watch some YouTube videos. Read some wikis. Have you tried? If you don't understand how they work, ask some specific questions on where you got confused when trying to learn about them on your own.
Another one that can't explain. You're not alone....nobody can. Why?............Because a so called gravimeter does not work for fictional gravity.
People are obviously free to believe this utter utter utter gravity nonsense, of course.
I can explain it, you can't understand it. That's the problem.
You have the entire internet to research this, if you are unable to figure out how a gravimeter works, nobody here can explain it to you.
Why do you keep asking people to explain things that you clearly have no interest in believing? So you can just call everything said to you nonsense? We all know you won't accept anything we tell you, your mind is completely closed to learning.
-
Good luck with it
Cheers.
-
I can explain it, you can't understand it. That's the problem.
Yeah, of course you can.
You have the entire internet to research this, if you are unable to figure out how a gravimeter works, nobody here can explain it to you.
Course you have the entire internet. This is why you pretend you know. The reality is, you don't know.
Why do you keep asking people to explain things that you clearly have no interest in believing?
I have every interest in believing...but to do so, I need proof. I have zero as it stands, from you or any other globalist.
So you can just call everything said to you nonsense?
Only if I think it is nonsense.
We all know you won't accept anything we tell you, your mind is completely closed to learning.
Subscribing to lies and misinfo is not learning.
-
I can explain it, you can't understand it. That's the problem.
Yeah, of course you can.
You have the entire internet to research this, if you are unable to figure out how a gravimeter works, nobody here can explain it to you.
Course you have the entire internet. This is why you pretend you know. The reality is, you don't know.
If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.
But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.
Why so lazy? Do your own research. Come back when you understand how they function.
Why do you keep asking people to explain things that you clearly have no interest in believing?
I have every interest in believing...but to do so, I need proof. I have zero as it stands, from you or any other globalist.
This is your problem, not gravity or us or science. You can't understand it, so you choose to believe it's nonsense.
That is your problem, not anyone elses.
So you can just call everything said to you nonsense?
Only if I think it is nonsense.
You think everything is nonsense, that's the problem. You don't think it's, odd that literally everything you are told here you see as nonsense? Maybe the problem isn't with what you are being told, but your inability to understand it.
We all know you won't accept anything we tell you, your mind is completely closed to learning.
Subscribing to lies and misinfo is not learning.
There you go again, blanket denial of literally everything. No reasons other than you don't understand it, so you call it lies.
If you truly think the entire world is lying to you... nothing anyone says here is going to help.
-
If you think that a low density or hollow object displacing more air magically makes it resist less, explain how; otherwise, admit your air nonsense does not explain inertia (i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion).
I didn't say it displaced more air. Pay more attention and try not to twist. All you're doing is winding yourself up, not me.
Yes, you keep avoiding that conclusion, because you want to pretend you aren't wrong, but you have admitted that the amount of water displaced is negligibly different and logic dictates that the exact same applies to the air around the object when you move it, and you have admitted that you need to move the air inside the object when you move it.
So it is a simple fact that you displace more air by moving a hollow object than you do by moving a solid object of the same exterior volume.
So stop twisting it, accept this fact and explain how that causes a lesser resistance.
Because all you are doing is deflecting your complete and utter failure to explain reality.
Another one that can't explain.
The one who can't explain here, is YOU!
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and either explain how displacing less air causes more resistance or admit you have no ability to explain observed inertia.
I have every interest in believing...but to do so, I need proof. I have zero as it stands, from you or any other globalist.
Stop lying. You have no interest in accepting reality.
You have been proven wrong repeatedly and you just ignore that proof so you continue to pretend your rejection of reality and promotion of your delusional fantasy is justified.
If you truly had an interest in believing you would accept that inertia is based upon mass, not the amount of air displaced. You would accept that your denspresure nonsenses is incapable of explaining why things fall, and so on.
But instead you continually reject all that because you do not give a damn about reality at all, as you hate it.
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
-
If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.
But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.
Why so lazy? Do your own research. Come back when you understand how they function.
I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.
-
Stop lying.
Lying about what?
-
Stop lying.
Lying about what?
About so many things it isn't funny, including those I clearly explained in the section of my post you have dishonestly ignored.
Now again, stop with the pathetic deflection and explain how displacing more air results in less resistance. If you can't, admit your garbage cannot explain inertia.
-
Stop lying.
Lying about what?
About so many things it isn't funny, including those I clearly explained in the section of my post you have dishonestly ignored.
Stop filling half a topic with copy and paste and you may get a bit better correspondence.
Coming out with the garbage you do just makes me pick a relevance or merely something to pick out and throw back.
You're the cause of your own issues.
-
you may get a bit better correspondence.
Start actually addressing the issues raised and you may get a bit better correspondence.
Again, you have effectively admitting that moving a lighter object of the exterior volume as another object displaces more air.
As such, in order for your garbage to have any hope of explaining reality you need to explain how displacing more air causes less resistance.
If you can't explain that paradox then the only honest and rational thing for you to do is admit that your garbage does not explain inertia.
-
you may get a bit better correspondence.
Start actually addressing the issues raised and you may get a bit better correspondence.
If that's your final offer then you carry on with your nonsense and don't be shocked when your replies are the same.
-
you carry on with your nonsense
The only one spouting nonsense here is you. Now stop with the pathetic deflection and insults and start either defending your nonsense, or admit it is wrong.
Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object. You did this by admitting the amount of water displaced is negligible.
This means for the air outside the object, there is no significant difference in the amount of air displaced by moving/accelerating the object.
This means the sole difference in amount of air displaced will come from the air inside the object, and a hollow object with air inside demands that more air is displaced when you move the object, and you even admitted this.
This means that according to your nonsense by displacing more air, you get less resistance. That is the nonsense you need to justify (and then justify the exact contradiction due to larger objects).
So either justify that, or admit you are wrong and that your air BS cannot explain inertia.
-
The only one spouting nonsense here is you.
Then don't bother with me. Blank me.
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
Ouch!
How did he handle this? Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
Ouch!
How did he handle this? Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didn’t he said everything was invalid.
I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
Ouch!
How did he handle this? Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didn’t he said everything was invalid.
I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.
Ah yes, of course.
If you don’t control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless.
Makes total sense.
-
The only one spouting nonsense here is you.
Then don't bother with me. Blank me.
Again, I care about the truth and thus will object to your nonsense.
If you want me to stop then either stop spouting nonsense or justify it.
I have repeatedly explained why your nonsense is wrong, and you just continue to ignore it because you want to pretend it is correct to pretend all of science is wrong.
Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object. You did this by admitting the amount of water displaced is negligible.
This means for the air outside the object, there is no significant difference in the amount of air displaced by moving/accelerating the object.
This means the sole difference in amount of air displaced will come from the air inside the object, and a hollow object with air inside demands that more air is displaced when you move the object, and you even admitted this.
This means that according to your nonsense by displacing more air, you get less resistance. That is the nonsense you need to justify (and then justify the exact contradiction due to larger objects).
Conversely, inertia, where it requires a force to accelerate a mass with that force proportional to the mass, works just fine.
-
If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.
But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.
Why so lazy? Do your own research. Come back when you understand how they function.
I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.
No, you keep asking for people to explain it to you, then you just can't understand it and tell everyone they aren't making any sense.
Why don't YOU explain how gravimeters function? If you actually understand it as you claim. Lets hear it.
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
Ouch!
How did he handle this? Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didn’t he said everything was invalid.
I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.
Ah yes, of course.
If you don’t control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless.
Makes total sense.
Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:
(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)
-
If you want me to stop then either stop spouting nonsense or justify it.
I'm not bothered whether you stop or not. I'm just saying....if you want to play honestly then half a topic of copy/paste isn't helpful to you, with me.
I'll just pick one bit. It's easy for me.
-
If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.
But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.
Why so lazy? Do your own research. Come back when you understand how they function.
I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.
No, you keep asking for people to explain it to you, then you just can't understand it and tell everyone they aren't making any sense.
Why don't YOU explain how gravimeters function? If you actually understand it as you claim. Lets hear it.
Why don't you people actually explain to show what you say, is real. Or just explain it from your point of view, instead of putting up silly equations to supposedly make up a reality that you cannot prove.
Honesty.
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
Ouch!
How did he handle this? Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didn’t he said everything was invalid.
I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.
Ah yes, of course.
If you don’t control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless.
Makes total sense.
Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:
(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)
hat's not gravity.
The longer you people go, the weaker you lot get.
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
Ouch!
How did he handle this? Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didn’t he said everything was invalid.
I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.
Ah yes, of course.
If you don’t control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless.
Makes total sense.
Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:
(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)
hat's not gravity.
The longer you people go, the weaker you lot get.
What is it then, denpressure?
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
-
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.
1234
Ouch!
How did he handle this? Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didn’t he said everything was invalid.
I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.
Ah yes, of course.
If you don’t control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless.
Makes total sense.
Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:
(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)
That is actually super cool. The control pilots can have is really impressive.
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
I would love to hear how denpressure works in the plane example, will you regale us?
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
I would love to hear how denpressure works in the plane example, will you regale us?
Absolutely, just as soon as stash clears up this fictional gravity thing that can be artificial.
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?
Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?
Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?
Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.
Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.
In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?
Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.
Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.
In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
Explain how its moving to the centre?
The only way I could see anything moving towards a centre is due to a vortex. You know, like something going down a plug hole.
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?
Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.
Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.
In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
Explain how its moving to the centre?
Gravity. And dependent on your frame of reference. This is my interpretation, because it's kinda complicated - It involves actual physics, which is not necessarily my forte: As the liquid is being poured into the cup (the frame of reference) in a gravitationally downward vector toward a center mass as gravity does, the plane (not the frame of reference) is literally rotating around it. Others feel free to correct my interpretation.
The only way I could see anything moving towards a centre is due to a vortex. You know, like something going down a plug hole.
That's fine that that's the only way you can see it doing that, a vortex. But you're seeing it and it is not a vortex. And we can see it's not going down a plug-hole. So what does denpressure have to say about it?
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?
Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.
Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.
In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
Explain how its moving to the centre?
Gravity. And dependent on your frame of reference. This is my interpretation, because it's kinda complicated - It involves actual physics, which is not necessarily my forte: As the liquid is being poured into the cup (the frame of reference) in a gravitationally downward vector toward a center mass as gravity does, the plane (not the frame of reference) is literally rotating around it. Others feel free to correct my interpretation.
The only way I could see anything moving towards a centre is due to a vortex. You know, like something going down a plug hole.
That's fine that that's the only way you can see it doing that, a vortex. But you're seeing it and it is not a vortex. And we can see it's not going down a plug-hole. So what does denpressure have to say about it?
It can only be a vortex. The plane itself creates it, not the man holding a bottle over a cup.
Like I said, it's like swinging a bucket of water around, only the plane is the swinger.
-
If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.
But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.
Why so lazy? Do your own research. Come back when you understand how they function.
I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.
No, you keep asking for people to explain it to you, then you just can't understand it and tell everyone they aren't making any sense.
Why don't YOU explain how gravimeters function? If you actually understand it as you claim. Lets hear it.
Why don't you people actually explain to show what you say, is real. Or just explain it from your point of view, instead of putting up silly equations to supposedly make up a reality that you cannot prove.
Honesty.
Honestly? We don't explain it top you because you have a track record of simply ignoring it and not even trying to understand it.
See, you did it right there... people try and show you the math and you just call them silly and made up.
Why would anyone take the time to carefully explain something complex after you respond like that? Why bother taking you seriously?
The information is out there. If you can't understand how a gravimeter works, and looking it up still leaves you confused... that's not anyone's problem but your own. If you are unable or unwilling to learn things on your own, then any debate with you is just going to be throwing mild insults back and forth.
-
if you want to play honestly then half a topic of copy/paste isn't helpful to you, with me.
You are the one not being honest. If you want to pick one bit, try picking the bit that is actually relevant to the topic rather than continually deflecting.
Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object. You did this by admitting the amount of water displaced is negligible.
This means for the air outside the object, there is no significant difference in the amount of air displaced by moving/accelerating the object.
This means the sole difference in amount of air displaced will come from the air inside the object, and a hollow object with air inside demands that more air is displaced when you move the object, and you even admitted this.
This means that according to your nonsense by displacing more air, you get less resistance. That is the nonsense you need to justify (and then justify the exact contradiction due to larger objects).
Conversely, inertia, where it requires a force to accelerate a mass with that force proportional to the mass, works just fine.
-
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
You mean INERTIA!
Just how does your denspressure BS explain this?
Inertia explains it trivially.
The plane goes around in a circle such that the cup and water bottle are always away from the centre, with the cup further away. This requires an acceleration to have it continue in this circular path, as I had already shown to you before in another thread, and you simply ignored because you couldn't show any fault with it.
For the cup, this acceleration is provided by the plane it is sitting on. For the bottle it is by the hand. But the water doesn't have anything to accelerate it directly by any significant amount so it appears to fall.
Even something as simple as swinging a bucket around is explained trivially by inertia, but makes no sense with your nonsense.
-
Honestly? We don't explain it top you because you have a track record of simply ignoring it and not even trying to understand it.
I'd say you lot have a track record of playing games, so shall we argue that and you can tit for tat me and then we can have a dig over other stuff?
Or maybe you can explain what a gravimeter does from your own knowledge and use of one.....or, at least explain why you know it works as they tell you, without just saying " oh I just know it."
Why would anyone take the time to carefully explain something complex after you respond like that? Why bother taking you seriously?
You don't have to respond to me. You choose to. Feel free to deck out when you're ready. I'm not holding you to ransom for any input.
The information is out there. If you can't understand how a gravimeter works, and looking it up still leaves you confused... that's not anyone's problem but your own.
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?
If you are unable or unwilling to learn things on your own, then any debate with you is just going to be throwing mild insults back and forth.
I'm more than willing to learn but I'd prefer to learn about the potentials for what our reality actually is.
I'm trying to do that and none of it involves a globe....as you know. It also doesn't involve gravity, as you know.
You are willing to absorb whatever you believe comes from authority. You'll argue black and blue that you believe it because you've done the calculations what were handed to you and will argue that those calculations fit in with what those in authority told you.
You know in your heart and mind that you are simply parroting.
-
Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object.
The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
-
I'd say you lot have a track record of playing games
Because that is the kind of game you love to play. Projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
What we have a track record of is actually explaining things and providing logical arguments and/or evidence to justify our claims/refutations of yours. And that something you severely lack.
I'm more than willing to learn
Again, if that was the case you would have accepted your denpressure nonsense doesn't work to explain reality.
You would actually pay attention to and engage with the explanations that are provided.
Instead you just dismiss or ignore anything that shows you are wrong, even though you cannot show any problem with it.
That shows you are not willing to learn.
Even now, you still act like the globe cannot possibly be real, even though you have no actual argument against it.
Again, that shows you are not willing to learn.
If you were, you would at least accept the possibility that it could involve a globe.
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
-
The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
I was trying to use a word to clearly indicate I mean what post people think of as volume so you stop pretending the volume is different. The point is the amount of air around the object displaced is basically the same. You have admitted that with your comments regarding the displacement of water.
-
I think scepti is describing things in a more (w)holistic manner then you are familiar with.
I cannot say I fully understand what scepti's viewpoint is, but in regards to the "volume equals volume but also doesn't" misunderstanding - I think I can clear that up.
I think Scepti is saying that although the amount of the atmosphere displaced by any 2 objects with identical volume (and differing weight) is the same, the amount of atmosphere they move around as they move ( the amount of atmosphere they, newly, displace/move) is different - which is their proposed mechanism for the "equal opposite" demonstration on the skateboard/dolly.
If scepti (and others) is correct, then the recoil in a vacuum will always be nothing and there are intuitive/logical/rational musings/reasoning on why this might be the case. But without demonstration / testing / validation it is merely speculation (and many demonstrations exist to, at least potentially, challenge this assertion)
The most important thing about this claim is that it can be relatively easily put to the test, and this question (unlike the vast majority of them on this site) can actually be answered instead of the profitless endless flapping of the gums.
-
Calculus is a very real thing used to explain multidimensional math.
Its very useful in predicting things.
A very real a verifiably prediction of things that you cant seem to produce.
And all the while you insult its existence, you cant say one way or another why its wrong.
Meanwhil, in the other thread, you cant even grasp the concept of a triangle.
Three sides.
-
.
Like I said, it's like swinging a bucket of water around, only the plane is the swinger.
The swinging bucket explanation requires inertia.
Inertia doesn’t exist, remember?
-
Honestly? We don't explain it top you because you have a track record of simply ignoring it and not even trying to understand it.
I'd say you lot have a track record of playing games, so shall we argue that and you can tit for tat me and then we can have a dig over other stuff?
Or maybe you can explain what a gravimeter does from your own knowledge and use of one.....or, at least explain why you know it works as they tell you, without just saying " oh I just know it."
I'd say I have a track record of actually performing experiments and showing my results.
I also find it EXTREMELY ironic that you of all people are accusing others if saying "I just know it" when that's your ENTIRE argument here.
LOL.
Why would anyone take the time to carefully explain something complex after you respond like that? Why bother taking you seriously?
You don't have to respond to me. You choose to. Feel free to deck out when you're ready. I'm not holding you to ransom for any input.
You just demand people explain things to you instead of looking them u0p. If you're honestly curious you can learn this stuff yourself you know.
It's obvious you want people to explain things so you can just say they are wrong because "I just know it"
The information is out there. If you can't understand how a gravimeter works, and looking it up still leaves you confused... that's not anyone's problem but your own.
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?
See, you did it again. If you don't accept any of this, why ask for it to be explained? You already stated you simply reject it, so what god will it do?
Just a transparent attempt to make people explain concepts so you can say it's wrong because "I just know it"
How are you supposed to just accept is as truth? You have to answer that one for yourself.
If you are unable or unwilling to learn things on your own, then any debate with you is just going to be throwing mild insults back and forth.
I'm more than willing to learn but I'd prefer to learn about the potentials for what our reality actually is.
I'm trying to do that and none of it involves a globe....as you know. It also doesn't involve gravity, as you know.
You are willing to absorb whatever you believe comes from authority. You'll argue black and blue that you believe it because you've done the calculations what were handed to you and will argue that those calculations fit in with what those in authority told you.
You know in your heart and mind that you are simply parroting.
No, you are clearly NOT interested in learning. You just said above you disbelieve anything about dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and gravity and the shape of the earth and pretty much the entirety of science. If it doesn't fit in whatever fantasyland you constructed inside your head, you reject it. For some reason you decided gravity isn't real, and that's that. No amount of explaining can fix that.
And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
-
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?
Yes you could. Because all the information and evidence relating to dinosaurs and galaxies has been very well documented by a lot of different and independent sources and is freely available over the Internet.
Where on the other hand can we look up any information and evidence relating to your 'model' of the Earth? Other than from what you say you have documented but which no one seems to be able to find and you won't point us to? You call yourself a 'Flat Earth Scientist'. The aim of science is to understand nature of the physical world and the Universe as a whole. In your case you don't seem to know much at all about your Earth and you bluntly deny that anything beyond the atmosphere even exists so that counts the Universe as a whole out. So how do you justify labelling yourself as a flat Earth 'scientist'? When are you going to start doing some flat Earth 'science' so you can figure out some of even the most basic facts about whatever it is you believe?
-
I think Scepti is saying that although the amount of the atmosphere displaced by any 2 objects with identical volume (and differing weight) is the same, the amount of atmosphere they move around as they move ( the amount of atmosphere they, newly, displace/move) is different - which is their proposed mechanism for the "equal opposite" demonstration on the skateboard/dolly.
What he is actually claiming is that a low density object actually displaces less air as the internal structure has loads of air in it, and that the amount of air displaced perfectly correlates to the mass/weight of the object.
The problem is that even if you accept that completely false assumption, it still doesn't explain inertia.
He has admitted that at least for a water tight object, they would displace the same (or negligibly different) amounts of water. So the air displaced by it moving on the outside of the 2 objects are the same, so the only air left is the air inside the object.
That means that the lighter object displaces more air when it moves.
If scepti (and others) is correct, then the recoil in a vacuum will always be nothing and there are intuitive/logical/rational musings/reasoning on why this might be the case.
Can you provide any of that?
Because I see no reason for inertia to magically not exist in a vacuum. We know it is not air resistance, as that acts in a fundamentally different way, where the resistance is based upon velocity and is 0 for a velocity of 0, and is highly dependent upon the shape of the object as that affects the aerodynamics, meanwhile inertia is not 0 when the velocity is 0 and doesn't depend on the aerodynamics of the object.
It also makes very little sense for an object to have no inertia as that would mean it could accelerate for no reason at all, and it violates the conservation of energy as it means you could accelerate an object with no energy input.
And you have the problem of those same kind of people rejecting the existence of a vacuum and instead claiming that there will always be some air and that allows it to act as if it was just a normal atmosphere.
and many demonstrations exist to, at least potentially, challenge this assertion
Do you mean Scepti's assertion?
Or mainstream science? If the latter, care to provide one?
The most important thing about this claim is that it can be relatively easily put to the test, and this question (unlike the vast majority of them on this site) can actually be answered instead of the profitless endless flapping of the gums.
And like all the other evidence that shows he is wrong, he would just dismiss it, even if you managed to get past the fundamental issues of if a vacuum can exist.
Here you go:
(Note, it is in slow motion).
Notice how the ball smashes into the crate? That is inertia.
If your claim is true and it being in a vacuum means there is no inertia, it should just reach the crate and stop, without denting the crate at all.
Likewise, the feathers should just stop rather than being bent and then bouncing back.
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
Yes, ofcourse I can. To cut a long story short, a gravimeter works by making a measurement of a mass pulling down on a spring, at a location. The measurement is compared against a reference location.
A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
-
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Observed inertia?
-
The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
I was trying to use a word to clearly indicate I mean what post people think of as volume so you stop pretending the volume is different. The point is the amount of air around the object displaced is basically the same. You have admitted that with your comments regarding the displacement of water.
No I have not admitted to anything like it.
Here you go again, twisting.
Mr twister.
-
Calculus is a very real thing used to explain multidimensional math.
Its very useful in predicting things.
A very real a verifiably prediction of things that you cant seem to produce.
And all the while you insult its existence, you cant say one way or another why its wrong.
Meanwhil, in the other thread, you cant even grasp the concept of a triangle.
Three sides.
By all means make stuff up to suit yourself. It has absolutely no bearing on my thoughts.
-
.
Like I said, it's like swinging a bucket of water around, only the plane is the swinger.
The swinging bucket explanation requires inertia.
Inertia doesn’t exist, remember?
It can exist if you want to be clear about it in a sense of, inertia is simply another word for, resistance.
Would this be fair enough?
-
And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?
-
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?
Yes you could. Because all the information and evidence relating to dinosaurs and galaxies has been very well documented by a lot of different and independent sources and is freely available over the Internet.
Harry Potter books have all been well documented.
Where on the other hand can we look up any information and evidence relating to your 'model' of the Earth?
Probably on here over the years.
Other than from what you say you have documented but which no one seems to be able to find and you won't point us to? You call yourself a 'Flat Earth Scientist'.
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.
The aim of science is to understand nature of the physical world and the Universe as a whole.
No. Science is the reality. The aim of a scientists is to figure out that reality.
We are arguing exactly that. Whether scientists have figured it all out. I don;t believe they have, in many cases, by what we're told.
Maybe it's deliberate or maybe they just don't know.
In your case you don't seem to know much at all about your Earth and you bluntly deny that anything beyond the atmosphere even exists so that counts the Universe as a whole out.
I know enough to convince myself to carry on tweaking it.
I may never know the reality. I'll likely not know the full reality.
What I will know is, gravity is nonsense and so is a spinning globe we walk upon.
The rest is up for scientific research.
So how do you justify labelling yourself as a flat Earth 'scientist'?
I thought it was easier than labelling myself as a flattish Earth with rough terrain and under a dome, scientist.
When are you going to start doing some flat Earth 'science' so you can figure out some of even the most basic facts about whatever it is you believe?
Already done.
Water level absolutely nails it in one.
The rest is just added in for spice.
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
Yes, ofcourse I can. To cut a long story short, a gravimeter works by making a measurement of a mass pulling down on a spring, at a location. The measurement is compared against a reference location.
A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.
-
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.
Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?
The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
I was trying to use a word to clearly indicate I mean what post people think of as volume so you stop pretending the volume is different. The point is the amount of air around the object displaced is basically the same. You have admitted that with your comments regarding the displacement of water.
No I have not admitted to anything like it.
Yes, you have:
First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.
It can exist if you want to be clear about it in a sense of, inertia is simply another word for, resistance.
Would this be fair enough?
No, it isn't fair enough.
Inertia describes a specific type of resistance. It is not simply resistance, but resistance to a change in motion.
When are you going to start doing some flat Earth 'science' so you can figure out some of even the most basic facts about whatever it is you believe?
Already done.
Water level absolutely nails it in one.
The rest is just added in for spice.
You sure do love repeating the same lie.
Water level nails your coffin shut, showing clearly that Earth is not flat, such as by how an observer, above water level, can look out over a large body of water at another object, also well above water level, yet be unable to see the bottom of the object and the water obscures the view. Clearly showing the water is curved.
Just admit you have no clue.
Follow your own advice. Admit you have no clue and have no reason at all for thinking Earth is flat or isn't round, and that your nonsense has no chance of describing relaity.
-
@jackblack
What he is actually claiming is that a low density object actually displaces less air as the internal structure has loads of air in it, and that the amount of air displaced perfectly correlates to the mass/weight of the object.
They are saying both things. The air isn't "exactly" displaced by anything but the encapsulated thin skin of the beach ball, as it is filled with the fluid it would otherwise displace (by volume) - semantically/technically/conceptually I think this is arguable - though moot.
The real crux of the claim is that the beach ball causes less imbalance in the fluid of the air which then causes the recoil effect. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, in scepti's conception and most everyone else's - is the weight/matter of the object. Scepti's conceptions of density/weight and the equal-opposite recoil effect being atmospheric pressure effects (at least in part. I don't think it is anyone's claim that weight is caused purely or even chiefly by atmospheric pressure.) no doubt color/flavor that view in novel ways.
That means that the lighter object displaces more air when it moves.
I don't know what you are getting at / mean. In your view, the lighter object displaces the same amount at rest and in motion, at any given instant (unless there is significant deformation). I think scepti's view is the same, however the amount of air that is moved by both objects - purely externally mind you - is different because of their weights. Scepti's conceptions on the cause of weight may differ greatly, but I don't think they are really waging war on inertia in the way you might imagine.
Can you provide any of that?
I'm definitely not the right person to do that, as I am not a proponent personally. That said, some of the reasonings I have seen described are
1. The ball and the observer (at rest or in motion together) are one "system"/"inertial frame". In order for the ball to influence the motion of the observer, it MUST come from an external system. This is by definition in the newtonian laws themselves - arguably.
2. Connected to #1, in order for the "ejected mass" to have any impact on the motion of the observer, the force from the thrown object must have influenced an object in an external system which then influenced the observer by proxy.
I am not saying that the reasonings or rationales are flawless, but they exist and are somewhat defensible. All things are possible in discussion and imagination (not so much in reality, which is what the rigorous experimental validation in the scientific method is intended/required to determine)
And you have the problem of those same kind of people rejecting the existence of a vacuum and instead claiming that there will always be some air and that allows it to act as if it was just a normal atmosphere.
For many objects, that is true - they fall much the same in partial vacuum (the best we can do, and likely - can be achieved even in theory) and normal atmospheric conditions. However, just because we can't get rid of absolutely every last bit of air in a vacuum chamber, doesn't mean we can't learn a lot about that air's influence by altering the amount!
Or mainstream science? If the latter, care to provide one?
I meant to my claim, which I think is a logical consequence of scepti's position as I currently understand it and so a part of "scepti's claim", that there ought to be no recoil in a vacuum if it is true that the recoil effect is purely caused by air. I do not have a demonstration of recoil not existing in a vacuum, though there are some compelling arguments / reasonings from some in regards to chemical rockets along these lines. Vapor pressure is important for combustion, and when all the air is gone - the vapor pressure needed for combustion isn't there.
I think a demonstration of recoil in a vacuum (not involving gas) would effectively refute that the recoil effect is purely caused by air and strongly suggest that chemical rockets, if designed properly for extremely low vacuum, do actually function without air.
I thought it would be trivial to find such a video demonstration, but alas. Do you know of one?
And like all the other evidence that shows he is wrong, he would just dismiss it, even if you managed to get past the fundamental issues of if a vacuum can exist.
They certainly could dismiss anything, but I don't think that is what scepti is doing. They are just using non-standard definitions and conceptions, and that is the root of the miscommunication from what I've seen.
If your claim is true and it being in a vacuum means there is no inertia, it should just reach the crate and stop, without denting the crate at all.
Likewise, the feathers should just stop rather than being bent and then bouncing back.
The claim about inertia is yours. I expect it is based on misinterpretation of what scepti said, but in any case I think your perception of a "war against inertia" is only taking place in your head, and no one is making the claim that different objects don't have different weights (in fact, that is the presumptive reason for the recoil effect whether you think it is the third law or some sort of misunderstood air pressure / fluid dynamics effect - scepti's position isn't really intelligible without this common posit).
-
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.
Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?
Ok, so as long as we know inertia is just resistance.
So, what exactly do you want me to explain?
-
I thought it was easier than labelling myself as a flattish Earth with rough terrain and under a dome, scientist.
OK Mr flat Earth scientist. Tell me then. What is this dome you keep on about made of then? What is its diameter? What is its thickness? How old is it compared to the Earth? Who made it? Does it rotate or is it stationary? Has anyone got any physical evidence that it even exists?
-
The real crux of the claim is that the beach ball causes less imbalance in the fluid of the air which then causes the recoil effect. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, in scepti's conception and most everyone else's - is the weight/matter of the object.
No, Scepti specifically rejects the matter of the object and instead pretends it is just the air around it.
Most people accept that it is the matter of the object and the air is negligible unless it is a quite low density object.
Likewise, for the air, most people realise that the matter the object is made of doesn't matter, instead it is the shape and aerodynamics. The actual material only comes into it at the very surface where depending on the texture you can have the air stick to it or slide past it.
I don't think it is anyone's claim that weight is caused purely or even chiefly by atmospheric pressure.
That is pretty much Skepti's claim, that the object displaces air and that magically pushes back to push the object down. Except in the cases where it magically decides to push it up.
I don't know what you are getting at / mean. In your view, the lighter object displaces the same amount at rest and in motion, at any given instant
I'm getting at the MOTION, so not in any instant.
i.e. if it is in one location, and you move it to another, you need to move the air around it, and in Scepti's world (and for a hollow, air filled object in reality), the air inside it.
This means you displace more air by moving a hollow object, and the best you could get is the same amount of air displaced.
This means the denser/heavier object is not displacing more air and thus has no reason to have a greater resistance according to Scepi.
I don't think they are really waging war on inertia in the way you might imagine.
Yes, he is, to try to claim you need air to push against.
This is so he can pretend that rockets couldn't possibly work in a vacuum (even though he claims that vacuums don't exist) to pretend that all of science is wrong and Earth is flat.
1. The ball and the observer (at rest or in motion together) are one "system"/"inertial frame". In order for the ball to influence the motion of the observer, it MUST come from an external system. This is by definition in the newtonian laws themselves - arguably.
That is no by definition in the Newtonian laws. That is pure nonsense with basically no connection to those laws, promoted by those who want to dismiss what they don't like from modern science.
The fact that you can isolate it into a ball and observer shows that they are 2 systems/objects.
This means that you can have 1 apply a force to the other and move both.
Any "system" can typically be broken down into multiple smaller "systems".
You can isolate the ball and the observer as 2 systems. You can further divide the ball into its various parts, all the way down to the atoms and even smaller parts.
You can also go the other way and combine small systems into a larger one, such as combing it into a system containing everything on Earth, or even the entire universe.
If that nonsense was correct, nothing would ever be able to move as you would always be able to combine the object being accelerated and the object applying the force into a single system.
What you need something external for is to accelerate the centre of mass of the system.
If you don't have any external force, the centre of the mass needs to remain moving at a constant rate (which can be 0).
2. Connected to #1, in order for the "ejected mass"
And thus still just as broken, and in fact, even helps to show how broken it is.
The fact that you can eject mass, shows #1 is pure nonsense.
Ejecting that mass requires applying a force to accelerate it and thus will result in a force being applied back to whatever object did the acceleration.
I am not saying that the reasonings or rationales are flawless, but they exist and are somewhat defensible.
They are indefensible, at least if you require defensible to be rational and honest and not just ignore the evidence available on a daily basis that shows it is wrong.
And you have the problem of those same kind of people rejecting the existence of a vacuum and instead claiming that there will always be some air and that allows it to act as if it was just a normal atmosphere.
For many objects, that is true - they fall much the same in partial vacuum (the best we can do, and likely - can be achieved even in theory) and normal atmospheric conditions. However, just because we can't get rid of absolutely every last bit of air in a vacuum chamber, doesn't mean we can't learn a lot about that air's influence by altering the amount!
That is ignored by people like Skepti. They come up with all sorts of excuses for why changing the amount of air not affecting something not refuting the air being the cause.
Even ignoring the fact that things weigh more in a vacuum due to the lack of buoyant force as if it doesn't refute the idea that air causes weight.
I do not have a demonstration of recoil not existing in a vacuum, though there are some compelling arguments / reasonings from some in regards to chemical rockets along these lines.
Again, care to provide any? Because I am yet to hear of any compelling arguments or reasoning to show that. Instead I just see repeated assertions which cannot be defended in any way.
Vapor pressure is important for combustion
Which is an entirely separate argument to recoil.
I thought it would be trivial to find such a video demonstration, but alas. Do you know of one?
I provided one showing inertia in a vacuum.
They certainly could dismiss anything, but I don't think that is what scepti is doing.
Then you should go look at the other threads, where he dismisses photographic evidence as fake merely because it shows he is wrong.
He then uses whatever excuse he can to either ignore or dismiss logical arguments which show he is wrong.
scepti's position isn't really intelligible without this common posit).
No need to add in a "without" qualifier.
-
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.
Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?
Ok, so as long as we know inertia is just resistance.
So, what exactly do you want me to explain?
It is not JUST RESISTANCE!
It is resistance to change in motion.
Do you understand that?
What I want you to explain has been made abundantly clear, why the resistance to change in motion (i.e. inertia) is always proportional to the mass of the object and has nothing to do with how much air is displaced by moving it, why it has nothing to do with the area of the object which can have a pressure applied to it, nor the aerodynamics of the object, and can you provide a justification for why the air should cause resistance but the object itself?
-
I thought it was easier than labelling myself as a flattish Earth with rough terrain and under a dome, scientist.
OK Mr flat Earth scientist. Tell me then. What is this dome you keep on about made of then? What is its diameter? What is its thickness? How old is it compared to the Earth? Who made it? Does it rotate or is it stationary? Has anyone got any physical evidence that it even exists?
Wrong topic.
-
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.
Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?
Ok, so as long as we know inertia is just resistance.
So, what exactly do you want me to explain?
It is not JUST RESISTANCE!
It is resistance to change in motion.
Do you understand that?
Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.
-
Wrong topic.
You mentioned the 'dome' so I am asking you to tell me more about this so-called dome. What is keeping this dome in place? If not gravity (since you say it doesn't exist) then what?
Why is it that whenever you are asked for any specific details about anything you make claims about you immediately try to deflect it away? To use a phrase that you love to aim at others so much, why don't you simply admit you actually have no clue about anything you claim to believe in?
-
Wrong topic.
You mentioned the 'dome' so I am asking you to tell me more about this so-called dome. What is keeping this dome in place? If not gravity (since you say it doesn't exist) then what?
Why is it that whenever you are asked for any specific details about anything you make claims about you immediately try to deflect it away? To use a phrase that you love to aim at others so much, why don't you simply admit you actually have no clue about anything you claim to believe in?
Why don't you?
-
And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?
I learned my by being taught and verifying what I can, and being able to look objectively at the world and judge sources and see the results of all the knowledge I have been told and taught. Cell phones and computers work pretty well, and if science was all wrong then how do we build such things?
You seem to just make things up. You just know it. I see evidence, some others collect, some I collect.
-
And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?
I learned my by being taught and verifying what I can, and being able to look objectively at the world and judge sources and see the results of all the knowledge I have been told and taught. Cell phones and computers work pretty well, and if science was all wrong then how do we build such things?
You seem to just make things up. You just know it. I see evidence, some others collect, some I collect.
What have you verified?
-
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.
Yeah right... That's why you keep going on time and time again about silly global nonsense is it? Possibility my a**e. You have already made your mind up about it all. Trouble is when asked for details of whatever it is you believe in you can't come back with any. All you ever say is it has already been explained elsewhere but you then can't give any details of where 'elsewhere' is either. But anything other than what you believe in is dismissed as silly nonsense.
I admit.. I don't know anything about this dome that you insist exists. That's why I am asking you to tell me at least something about it. What is it?, where did it come from, what is it made of?, how do you know it actually exists?
The sky looks like a big dome in that you can turn through 360 degrees in azimuth from N back to N again and there are 180 degrees of altitude from 0 to 90 and back to 0 again. That produces the perception of a dome to you as an observer. But it doesn't mean there actually is a dome. As it says on brittania.com
'Celestial sphere, the apparent surface of the heavens, on which the stars seem to be fixed.'
You seem to be mis-understanding apparent with actual.
-
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.
Yeah right... That's why you keep going on time and time again about silly global nonsense is it? Possibility my a**e. You have already made your mind up about it all. Trouble is when asked for details of whatever it is you believe in you can't come back with any. All you ever say is it has already been explained elsewhere but you then can't give any details of where 'elsewhere' is either. But anything other than what you believe in is dismissed as silly nonsense.
I admit.. I don't know anything about this dome that you insist exists. That's why I am asking you to tell me at least something about it. What is it?, where did it come from, what is it made of?, how do you know it actually exists?
The sky looks like a big dome in that you can turn through 360 degrees in azimuth from N back to N again and there are 180 degrees of altitude from 0 to 90 and back to 0 again. That produces the perception of a dome to you as an observer. But it doesn't mean there actually is a dome. As it says on brittania.com
'Celestial sphere, the apparent surface of the heavens, on which the stars seem to be fixed.'
You seem to be mis-understanding apparent with actual.
Pm me if you want to ask questions on it.....or set up a topic specific to you with what you want from me.
-
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.
I admit.. I don't know anything about this dome that you insist exists. That's why I am asking you to tell me at least something about it. What is it?, where did it come from, what is it made of?, how do you know it actually exists?
The sky looks like a big dome in that you can turn through 360 degrees in azimuth from N back to N again and there are 180 degrees of altitude from 0 to 90 and back to 0 again. That produces the perception of a dome to you as an observer. But it doesn't mean there actually is a dome.
The dome is theoretical.
-
Pm me if you want to ask questions on it.....or set up a topic specific to you with what you want from me.
I was specific about what I would like to know about this dome. Or at least about what this dome is in your opinion.
Where did this dome come from? What is it made from?, Who or what made it?,Is it rotating or static? How big is it? What physical evidence is there that it exists?
No need to PM you about it. These are open questions so neither of us has anything to hide from anyone else.
-
I was specific about what I would like to know about this dome. Or at least about what this dome is in your opinion.
Where did this dome come from? What is it made from?, Who or what made it?,Is it rotating or static? How big is it? What physical evidence is there that it exists?
No need to PM you about it. These are open questions so neither of us has anything to hide from anyone else.
Pm me if you want to ask questions on it.....or set up a topic specific to you with what you want from me.
-
I'm just asking you some questions about this dome you believe exists. I've been quite clear about what I am asking so either you won't or you can't answer them in the public domain. Which one is it?
-
Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.
Again, not simply resistance. A very specific kind of resistance. This is why it isn't simply called resistance but is called inertia. It is resistance to change in motion. That is only one of the multitude of different types of resistance.
Now, can you explain that?
-
And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?
I learned my by being taught and verifying what I can, and being able to look objectively at the world and judge sources and see the results of all the knowledge I have been told and taught. Cell phones and computers work pretty well, and if science was all wrong then how do we build such things?
You seem to just make things up. You just know it. I see evidence, some others collect, some I collect.
What have you verified?
Have you forgotten already? I took pictures through a tube. ::)
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
Yes, ofcourse I can. To cut a long story short, a gravimeter works by making a measurement of a mass pulling down on a spring, at a location. The measurement is compared against a reference location.
A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.
Did you think mining companies hired people with divining rods to locate areas of earth to mine for mineral deposits?
A weight is suspended from a spring and the device measures the precise pull on the spring. I've employed the kiss principle in my explanation.
I don't think you could handle an explanation which includes a full nomenclature of how a gravimeter is constructed and functions. But if you think you can, I'll deliver.
-
Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.
Again, not simply resistance. A very specific kind of resistance. This is why it isn't simply called resistance but is called inertia. It is resistance to change in motion. That is only one of the multitude of different types of resistance.
Now, can you explain that?
Resistance is resistance no matter which way you try to dress it up into something else.
Now; like I said; if inertia is resistance then I'll go along with inertia.
Seems fair enough...right?
-
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? ???
Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.
Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
Yes, ofcourse I can. To cut a long story short, a gravimeter works by making a measurement of a mass pulling down on a spring, at a location. The measurement is compared against a reference location.
A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.
Did you think mining companies hired people with divining rods to locate areas of earth to mine for mineral deposits?
A weight is suspended from a spring and the device measures the precise pull on the spring. I've employed the kiss principle in my explanation.
I don't think you could handle an explanation which includes a full nomenclature of how a gravimeter is constructed and functions. But if you think you can, I'll deliver.
Explain as you deliver, just so I know that you understand what you're delivering and not just parroting.
-
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)
No, Scepti specifically rejects the matter of the object and instead pretends it is just the air around it.
I have not seen them say this. I think you are misunderstanding them. What they are claiming REQUIRES the matter of the objects to differ, in order to create different pressure waves that cause the different recoils (claimed).
Most people accept that it is the matter of the object and the air is negligible unless it is a quite low density object.
They accept that because they must to matriculate (and because they are convinced by demonstrations on skateboards), but regardless of whether the air is negligible or fundamental (as scepti claims) doesn't change the importance, necessary (for the claim), and obvious impact of the differing weights of the objects causing differing pressure waves when thrown through the air.
That is pretty much Skepti's claim, that the object displaces air and that magically pushes back to push the object down. Except in the cases where it magically decides to push it up.
Again, I think this is based on your misunderstanding. From what I have read, scepti is recognizing both of those effects (the weight of the air above an object being weighed along with the object, as well as the bouyant force - seperate and distinct though caused by the same thing - the weight of matter)
I'm getting at the MOTION, so not in any instant.
Motion is irrelevant to archemedian "displacement". It is static, and based merely on the volume of media displaced. The blue whale does not displace more water when it swims faster (in the archemedian sense of the word "displace").
This means you displace more air by moving a hollow object
Technically/semantically, that is correct. Though it isn't to do with being hollow (or in motion), just being different than the surrounding media.
When fully deflated, the beach ball displaces only the amount of air/media equal to the volume of the beach ball's material. When inflated WITH THE SURROUNDING MEDIA (air) and then sealed, it is still only displacing the exact same volume when it was deflated. It is a "trick" of sorts. Fill the ball with anything other than the surrounding media and the trick doesn't work anymore.
This means the denser/heavier object is not displacing more air and thus has no reason to have a greater resistance according to Scepi.
It is true that the denser/heavier object is not displacing more air (we defined that explicitly, it is true by definition), however that does not negate its weight or preclude its obvious/demonstrable impact of that weight on "displacing" (non archemedian - i.e. forcably move the air molecules by collision and occupy their previous position) air when it is thrown. Scepti is not denying inertia or weight - you seem to be misunderstanding them (or I am, or both!).
Yes, he is, to try to claim you need air to push against.
Actually the claim of the "rocket hoax / deniers" is a little more profound than that, though this is a common mistaken reduction (and is often described in similar terms/verbiage by proponents - which certainly doesn't help...) Though many don't seem to realize it, they are actually making the claim that the air can never do the job on its own. It needs walls. They propose that if you could design a "test chamber" with no walls/floor and only gas in it, there is no thickness of gas (or water, or most any material) that will ever cause you to move when you push against it. It is almost intuitive in a nonsensical way. How could you swim on the top of the ocean if the layers beneath it weren't there (perhaps most especially, as the rocket deniers seem convinced, the ground which contains the water)? Each stroke may lack the energy to travel all the way to the bottom of the ocean and back up again, however without the resistance/pressure/"reaction" that the floor provides (and in turn provides to every layer above it, until that resistance is utilized by the swimmer) there is reason to suspect that "swimming" won't work anymore.
This is so he can pretend that rockets couldn't possibly work in a vacuum (even though he claims that vacuums don't exist) to pretend that all of science is wrong and Earth is flat.
This is a discussion about science. Although the definitions, concepts, and interpretations being employed are non standard, this is not the exercise of someone who feels/pretends all of science is wrong. Scepti, like most all earnest flat earth researchers, is in no way a science denier from what I've seen (and from their statements). You seem to be under the mistaken impression (lamentably common) that all of science must be wrong in order for humanity to be incorrect about the shape of the earth (or anything else, for that matter). Science in no way prevents us from being completely and utterly wrong about fundamental things (that subsequent generations find obvious, and mock and deride their ancestors for believing in such primitive things under the guise of science)
That is pure nonsense with basically no connection to those laws, promoted by those who want to dismiss what they don't like from modern science.
From what I've seen, it isn't dismissal - it is reinterpretation. There is a critical difference it is important to recognize. The position/argument is defensible despite your feelings, however - this in NO WAY indicates its accuracy or consistency with actual manifest reality. Demonstration is required for that! QED.
-
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)
The fact that you can isolate it into a ball and observer shows that they are 2 systems/objects.
So make it even more ridiculous and define the singular observer/system as a sadist that viciously tears their own limbs off and throws them in a, likely, vain attempt to return to the space station. The point is not about the amount of objects in the system, nor if they were intended/designed to be seperate or not.
They are indefensible, at least if you require defensible to be rational and honest and not just ignore the evidence available on a daily basis that shows it is wrong.
At least some of them are rational and honest, and are not ignoring the evidence - they are reinterpreting it. You should fully recognize/appreciate the good fortune in regards to this claim, because unlike the endless onslaught of unvalidatable and unvalidated speculation you will find on sites like this - this one is convenient to test somewhat conclusively. All we need is a demonstration of recoil occurring in as close to a vacuum as we can muster (without introducing any gas into / diminishing that vacuum during the demonstration). That will effectively address the claim that the recoil is a purely gas based effect.
As I said, I thought this demonstration would take me no time to find - but I spent much longer than I had intended, unsuccessfully. Perhaps you've had (or will have) better luck?
That is ignored by people like Skepti.
There are other people like scepti? Seriously, whatever psuedo-archetype you've cobbled together or been convinced of for "deluded flat earthers" almost certainly doesn't apply to scepti. They seem to be very much "doing their own thing", which is typical of independent researchers.
Even ignoring the fact that things weigh more in a vacuum due to the lack of buoyant force as if it doesn't refute the idea that air causes weight.
I don't think this is being ignored. I agree that it is strong evidence, but it doesn't necessarily refute the idea that air causes weight. It is not an irreconcilable paradox that cannot be rationalized (even when they are, we humans have no trouble rationalizing them), at least potentially. For instance, if one were an aetherist - one might posit that the aether (itself an ultrafine fluid in behavior) is not being removed from the container, and it is this "air" that is most responsible for the pressure effect we know as weight. In imagination, all things are possible - though those machinations have no impact on reality which continues on without regard for such things.
Again, care to provide any?
Not particularly (because I am not a proponent). However, there are many video analyses showing that combustion rockets in vacuum chambers do not induce thrust until after the air pressure behind them has been sufficiently established.
Instead I just see repeated assertions which cannot be defended in any way.
They are reasonably easy to defend, in discussion anyhow. Demonstration is called for in this case, more discussion is not.
Which is an entirely separate argument to recoil.
Yes, and that is yet another fundamental reason, potentially, why combustion rockets can't function in "space" (if such a place there be).
I provided one showing inertia in a vacuum.
True, but I don't think anyone doubts inertia or weight in a vacuum chamber. This discussion is about recoil. What we really need is a recoil demonstration under vacuum that doesn't involve introducing gas into that chamber at the same time (negating/lessening the "vacuum" that we are trying to test with). I was very surprised that I couldn't find it, but obfuscation is a bitch. Perhaps you've had / will have better luck? I'll do it if I absolutely must, but we should be able to find this don't you think?
Then you should go look at the other threads, where he dismisses photographic evidence as fake merely because it shows he is wrong.
He then uses whatever excuse he can to either ignore or dismiss logical arguments which show he is wrong.
Perhaps, but it doesn't (and shouldn't be allowed to) have bearing on the claim being made. The claim about newton's third law being a misinterpretation of air pressure effects is what is being discussed/evaluated, not the earnesty or veracity of scepty (even in this thread, but outside it as well).
No need to add in a "without" qualifier.
Lol.
Why/how are you so certain that you have not misinterpreted scepti, as I have observed and conveyed, and that everything they are claiming is "indefensible"? Is it because you have some prejudices/biases in regards to this subject (like that anyone who researches it, or considers it seriously, is deluded / crazy / lost / manipulated etc.)?
-
I have to applaud jack44's logical mindset on this and the devil's advocate approach. It is a breath of fresh air.
-
Resistance is resistance
But the type of resistance matters.
Resistance to transfer of heat is different to resistance to transfer of electrical energy, which is different to resistance to realtive motion, which is different to resistance to compression, which is different to resistance to tension, which is different to resistance to acceleration aka change in motion.
There are a multitude of different types of resistance which are observed in reality.
Inertia is specifically resistance to change in motion, rather than any other type.
So can you explain that?
-
Resistance is resistance
But the type of resistance matters.
Resistance to transfer of heat is different to resistance to transfer of electrical energy, which is different to resistance to realtive motion, which is different to resistance to compression, which is different to resistance to tension, which is different to resistance to acceleration aka change in motion.
There are a multitude of different types of resistance which are observed in reality.
Inertia is specifically resistance to change in motion, rather than any other type.
So can you explain that?
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
Dress it up as much as you want but there's only one resistance for everything.
Unless you want to give me an example of what you think is different about resistance to motion?
-
What they are claiming REQUIRES the matter of the objects to differ, in order to create different pressure waves that cause the different recoils (claimed).
No, what they are claiming, that the air causes the resistances, does not require the matter to change.
It makes the matter irrelevant, other than the matter directly in contact with the air.
They accept that because they must to matriculate
And there you go with more deragotory comments.
They couldn't possibly accept anything because that is what the evidence actually shows, it always has to be about brainwashing and forcing people to accept the lie of the globe.
regardless of whether the air is negligible or fundamental doesn't change the importance, necessary and obvious impact of the differing weights of the objects
Yes, it does.
If it is the air which is causing it the mass (and thus weight) is entirely irrelavent.
The obvious and important impact of the mass shows it isn't the air.
scepti is recognizing both of those effects (the weight of the air above an object being weighed along with the object
No, he is rejecting the weight of the object and claiming the resistance comes entirely from the air.
Motion is irrelevant to archemedian "displacement"
Who said anythign at all about archemedian displacement?
We are merely talking about needing to move (i.e. DISPALCE) the air when you try to move/accelerate the object.
It is a "trick" of sorts.
No, it isn't. It is merely a demonstration that it isn't the air magically causing the resistance.
however that does not negate its weight or preclude its obvious/demonstrable impact of that weight
Tell that to scepti who wants to dismiss that.
Scepti is not denying inertia or weight
Yes, he is. All so he can pretend that rockets can't work in a vacuum.
Actually the claim of the "rocket hoax / deniers" is a little more profound than that
Not really. They might try to dress it up to be more profound, but at its heart, it is that.
Appealing to a wall is just replacing the air with something else but it is the same principle.
without the resistance/pressure/"reaction" that the floor provides (and in turn provides to every layer above it, until that resistance is utilized by the swimmer) there is reason to suspect that "swimming" won't work anymore.
Not if you have a basic understanding of physics, including if you carry out the experiments to determine that yourself.
this is not the exercise of someone who feels/pretends all of science is wrong.
Yes it is, with how much he rejects and how much science he claims isn't actually science.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression (lamentably common) that all of science must be wrong in order for humanity to be incorrect about the shape of the earth (or anything else, for that matter).
No, I have just seen how much Scepti rejects, and I haven't seen him accept a single thing from science.
mock and deride their ancestors for believing in such primitive things under the guise of science
You mean under the guise of their religion.
The position/argument is defensible despite your feelings
Then defend it.
Also, my feelings have nothing to do with it. The evidence including from daily experience does.
this in NO WAY indicates its accuracy or consistency with actual manifest reality.
That is basically what defensible means in this context.
In order for it to be defendsible, you need to be able to justify it. Not merely show that it is capable of producing an internally consistent system, but actually justifying it.
So claims about how reality operates need evidence to support them, to show they are consistent with reality, in order to be defensible.
The fact that you can isolate it into a ball and observer shows that they are 2 systems/objects.
So make it even more ridiculous and define the singular observer/system as a sadist that viciously tears their own limbs off and throws them in a, likely, vain attempt to return to the space station. The point is not about the amount of objects in the system, nor if they were intended/designed to be seperate or not.
The point is, THEY ARE separate objecst and thus can accelerate each other. Each one can provide an external force to the other.
It shows the grouping to form a system is a completely arbitrary choice and that the argument is nonsense.
All we need is a demonstration of recoil occurring in as close to a vacuum as we can muster
Firstly, no we don't. Logic alone is enough to show the arguments are nonsense.
Secondly, you have been provided with an example of inertia in a vacuum.
almost certainly doesn't apply to scepti.
It sure seems to.
Continually make bold, baseless claims and refuse to ever justify them.
Ignore or dismiss evidence and logical arguments that show you are wrong, unless you have an excuse you think you can use to dismiss it.
Use whatever dishonest tactics possible (such as trying to change the subject, or trying to get the other side to explain something, only to ignore that, and so on) to avoid having to explain things you cannot and to pretend you are correct.
If it is too difficult, flee from the thread you have been refuted in and then bring it up in another thread sometime later.
I agree that it is strong evidence, but it doesn't necessarily refute the idea that air causes weight.
It sure seems to.
If air causes weight, more air should cause more weight and less air should cause less weight.
Instead we have the opposite.
it is this "air" that is most responsible for the pressure effect we know as weight.
Which is just a fancy way of saying it isn't the air.
But instead of being honest about it you pretend that something that isn't the air actually is the air to pretend it is the air that causes weight.
Not particularly (because I am not a proponent)
Then stop promoting the idea, and stop claiming such things exist.
Because whenever you make such a claim you become a proponent of at least that claim.
They are reasonably easy to defend
Again, if you wish to claim that, DEFEND THEM.
True, but I don't think anyone doubts inertia or weight in a vacuum chamber. This discussion is about recoil.
The discussion is directly about inertia. Without inertia recoil wouldn't exist and you cannot simply separate recoil from inertia.
Especially in the context of rockets and any decent understanding of how objects work.
Saying you can have the gas get accelerated, needing a force to do so, without producing that "recoil" makes about as much sense as claiming that a spring, compressed between 2 objecst, can magically apply a force to a single side, without applying a force to the other side.
Perhaps, but it doesn't (and shouldn't be allowed to) have bearing on the claim being made.
No, but it does make suggestions of us going out to try to find evidence to appease him entirely worthless. The claim about newton's third law being a misinterpretation of air pressure effects is what is being discussed/evaluated, not the earnesty or veracity of scepty (even in this thread, but outside it as well).
Why/how are you so certain that you have not misinterpreted scepti
Due to the long period of interaction with him.
-
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.
-
Is he describing inertia?
The thing he said isnt a thing?
-
At least some of them are rational and honest, and are not ignoring the evidence - they are reinterpreting it. You should fully recognize/appreciate the good fortune in regards to this claim, because unlike the endless onslaught of unvalidatable and unvalidated speculation you will find on sites like this - this one is convenient to test somewhat conclusively. All we need is a demonstration of recoil occurring in as close to a vacuum as we can muster (without introducing any gas into / diminishing that vacuum during the demonstration). That will effectively address the claim that the recoil is a purely gas based effect.
As I said, I thought this demonstration would take me no time to find - but I spent much longer than I had intended, unsuccessfully. Perhaps you've had (or will have) better luck?
Hi Jack, like Scepitmatic, I like the devils advocate approach here and appreciate the much more thought out responses.
On this point though, how is that you say so called "rocket deniers" DONT ignore evidence? Isn't every documented space launch prima facie evidence that they HAVE to ignore in order to hold their positions? Im not making any judgements on whether they should or not ignore this evidence - but it does seem to be a HUGE body of evidence that is completely ignored, does it not?
And you are right, this should be trivially easy to demonstrate, I can personally think of many ways to conclusively test this. What do you think about the argument that as conventional science has already concluded through this is correct (e.g. for example through space science), there is no need to make youtube videos demonstrating this to people who are willing to completely close to their eyes to such a wide body of already existing evidence?
I would ask this the other way - if people are making claims about the nature of physics that: 1) massively contradict the existing framework we use to understand and engineer the world the around us, AND 2) would be VERY easily demonstrable using simple equipment, then WHY haven't they performed this demonstration? Why bicker endlessly on the internet rather than just go and do the work?
-
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.
I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.
First of all, your so called gravity is supposedly a pull towards the centre of your Earth, of any mass. The more mass the greater the pull, as I'm told. Feel free to correct me on this if I've taken it out of term.
Anyway, the lesser mass, such as a helium balloon seems to rise up.
This gravity makes no sense, at all.
And yet the moon is also told to us to be pulling against the Earth. Soooo, is the moon pulling the helium balloon up; negating the Earth's pull, down?
I see arguments that gravity is what pulls air down and keeps it on Earth. It's absolutely senseless, yet my way explains it all in a rational way that seems to be brushed aside in favour of something that has no reasoning.
You explain this gravity to me and I'll explain what you want to know from my side.....not that I haven't done it many times....but....well.
Ok, over to you.
-
Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.
Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.
-
Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.
Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.
Anything to add?
-
Buoyancy has been understood since at least 243 BC.
-
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.
I have also explained how it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object.
Whereas you claim it is a result of the air.
I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.
First of all, your so called gravity
Gravity has nothing to do with inertia.
This thread is discussing inertia. Stop with the distractions.
is supposedly a pull towards the centre of your Earth, of any mass. The more mass the greater the pull, as I'm told. Feel free to correct me on this if I've taken it out of term.
Anyway, the lesser mass, such as a helium balloon seems to rise up.
Only when it is in a fluid.
Buoyancy has been explained to you many times and you just ignore it.
When you have a fluid like water or air, gravity will create a pressure gradient as the fluid at the bottom needs to support the fluid at the top.
This pressure gradient means that if you put something in this fluid the pressure at the bottom from the fluid is higher than the pressure at the top from the fluid. This means the fluid applies an upwards force on the object.
Assuming the density is roughly constant:
The upwards force is equal to Fb=ρf g v.
The downwards force due to gravity is equal to Fg=ρo g v
So the net force downwards is FT=ρo g v - ρf g v = (ρo - ρf) g v.
For a very dense object like steel, the correction for buoyancy is quite small and it has a weight almost the same as if there was no air.
But put it in a vacuum (or otherwise lower the pressure) and the apparent weight increases due to the density of fluid decreasing its effect. Put it in a denser fluid, like water or mercury, and its apparent weight decreases. In mercury it even floats.
Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.
This all makes perfect sense and you have been unable to find any fault with it any of the times it has been explained to you.
I see arguments that gravity is what pulls air down and keeps it on Earth. It's absolutely senseless
Yet all you can do is repeat that it is senseless. You cannot provide any explanation as to why.
Meanwhile in your system you can't even explain why the air stacks to create a pressure gradient, nor can you explain why this air pushes anything down when the pressure is greater a the bottom, nor can you explain why the force down depends on mass rather than area or volume (and no, pretending that magically the volume of the object matches the mass with no justification at all doesn't count), nor can you explain how it causes a pressure/force gradient in stacks of objects or fluids when it can only apply the downwards force by pushing from the top, nor can you explain how it then magically changes and pushes some objects upwards, nor can you explain the directionality.
yet my way explains it all in a rational way that seems to be brushed aside in favour of something that has no reasoning.
There you go projecting.
Mainstream science explains it all in a rational away, which you brush aside in favour of pure nonsense that has no reasoning to back it up at all.
-
Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.
Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.
Anything to add?
Youve been asked plenty of times to add.
You refuse and give non answers or deflect.
Ill say it to your face.
Youre dont even stand up for your own ideas and continue to pathetically dodge its so obvious
Dont deflect.
Youre the one whos insisting things are not what they seem to be.
Feel free to enlighten us beyond your word salad with a photo or sensical diagram of your ideas.
-
Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.
Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.
-
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.
I have also explained how it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object.
Whereas you claim it is a result of the air.
What do you mean it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object?
Can you explain it because this explains nothing.
Also, I've already told you it's mass against atmosphere, for mine.
But let's deal with this gravity. I want to see how much you know, by explaining.
-
Youve been asked plenty of times to add.
You refuse and give non answers or deflect.
Ill say it to your face.
Youre dont even stand up for your own ideas and continue to pathetically dodge its so obvious
Dont deflect.
Youre the one whos insisting things are not what they seem to be.
Feel free to enlighten us beyond your word salad with a photo or sensical diagram of your ideas.
Anything to add?
-
Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.
Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.
Explain it with gravity.
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
1. Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.
2. This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.
3. Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.
4. There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
5. The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.
6. For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
This isn’t that advanced. The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad.
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
You sound like my grade 2 school teacher. Explain it. Explain how. Gravity has been explained to you a dozen times, in ways a child could comprehend. Each time you turn your upturned nose up and say, "that doesn't explain anything", when it always does.
"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it? My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
-
Its always the same with Scepti. Explain this, explain that etc... Then whenever we do try to explain how things actually work he immediately comes back with whatever BS he can think of to dismiss our explanations as complete nonsense.
Then whenever we ask him to explain anything he comes back at us with whatever excuse he can think of to avoid having to explain anything of his own nonsense. Normally it is something along the lines of 'It's already been explained'. Yeah? Where exactly?
So Scepti - what does the term 'resultant force' mean to you? Then think about how strong the downward pulling force on the helium balloon is compared to the upward buoyancy force and then decide which way the balloon is going to move. Up or down?
This gravity makes no sense, at all.
Doesn't it? Why not? Seems pretty straight forward to me and that isn't just based on what I am 'told'. Which bit don't you understand? We all experience this thing that everyone else apart from you calls gravity in our everyday life. I stood on my bathroom scales this morning and they told me I weigh... well too much! 15st 10lb. Converted to kg that comes to 99.
So I know my mass (from the scales) and from that I can work out my weight. So I could use that information to work out the Earths acceleration due to gravity could I not? For example if I take my mass (as measured by me using my scales) as 99kg and I am 'told' that g is 9.81m/s2. So I exert a force (f) on the scales of f=99x9.81 = 971.2N. The universal gravitational constant is 6.67e-11 and the Earths mass is given as 6e24kg.
So if we plug those numbers into the well known and accepted equation we are all told we get that the radius of the Earth squared is (6.67e-11*6e24*99)/971.2. That gives us 4.07e13 and if we sqr root that we get the radius of the Earth in metres since we are using SI units. That comes to 6,387,071.86m or 6,387km. The quoted figure is 6,371km. That is a % error of less that 1% which I don't think is bad do you? Obviously since the mass and radius of the Earth are involved in the calculation if I changed either or both of those based on whatever you think they should be then that would also affect my mass and weight which I have personally measured. No book can tell me my weight so I have to measure that myself. Just what figures do you accept for the mass and radius of your Earth? That's just basic information.
But you say that gravity doesn't exist, so in that case what exactly are my bathroom scales telling me? What is causing my bathroom scales to read 99kg? Perhaps you could explain it to me and give me your figures to show me how you reach the same result. Without any reference to gravity of course.
-
What do you mean it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object?
[/quote]
They are all pretty simple English words.
It means that you need to apply a force to accelerate the object and that force is proportional to the mass of the object, and in fact that is one of the ways to determine the mass of the object. It being innate means it is a natural property of the mass.
To go any further would require an understanding of the Higg's field which causes mass.
Also, I've already told you it's mass against atmosphere, for mine.
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
But let's deal with this gravity. I want to see how much you know, by explaining.
Like I said, stop with the pathetic deflections. It is time for you to start explaining your BS rather than trying to continually deflect to another topic.
Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.
Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.
Explain it with gravity.
I already did, back in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2304268#msg2304268
and like I predicted, you just ignored it and asked for the explanation again.
Why do you continually ask for that which has already been provided?
-
What I want to know from Sceptimatic is how you can calculate your weight without using gravity. Since according to him gravity as we understand it to be doesn't exist, how does he work out his weight.
I have gone through the calculation for how I calculated my weight using my bathroom scales. So I would like a similar explanation including work through with figures from Sceptimatic of how you can calculate the weight of a person or indeed anything without using the acceleration due to gravity.
He always asks us to explain things according to what we believe so that is exactly what I have done. Over to you for yours now Scepti.
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
1. Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
2. This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.
Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?
3. Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.
Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?
4. There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?
5. The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.
Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?
6. For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.
This isn’t that advanced. The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad.
Try and make me not so sad by explaining it in the reality you believe.
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
You sound like my grade 2 school teacher. Explain it. Explain how. Gravity has been explained to you a dozen times, in ways a child could comprehend. Each time you turn your upturned nose up and say, "that doesn't explain anything", when it always does.
"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it? My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
Gravity has never been explained as to what it is, only what it supposedly does.
Your gravimeter has never been explained by you or anyone else, except to say that it works.
How about explaining what gravity is and explain what this gravimeter does to tell you it's gravity it's measuring?
-
Its always the same with Scepti. Explain this, explain that etc... Then whenever we do try to explain how things actually work he immediately comes back with whatever BS he can think of to dismiss our explanations as complete nonsense.
Then whenever we ask him to explain anything he comes back at us with whatever excuse he can think of to avoid having to explain anything of his own nonsense. Normally it is something along the lines of 'It's already been explained'. Yeah? Where exactly?
So Scepti - what does the term 'resultant force' mean to you? Then think about how strong the downward pulling force on the helium balloon is compared to the upward buoyancy force and then decide which way the balloon is going to move. Up or down?
Differences between forces and the resultant percentage left over as the major force.
Your gravity is nonsense.
You go on about gravity acting on mass. If this was so, gravity would pull (no such thing as pull) that mass down and the lesser mass would be much more easily pulled (no such thing as pull) down.
This gravity makes no sense, at all.
Doesn't it? Why not? Seems pretty straight forward to me and that isn't just based on what I am 'told'.
It's not straightforward, at all. You say it is because you simply follow the word as your proof, based on nothing other than fictional story adherence, to be fair.
Which bit don't you understand?
None of it as any reality.
We all experience this thing that everyone else apart from you calls gravity in our everyday life. I stood on my bathroom scales this morning and they told me I weigh... well too much! 15st 10lb. Converted to kg that comes to 99.
So I know my mass (from the scales) and from that I can work out my weight. So I could use that information to work out the Earths acceleration due to gravity could I not? For example if I take my mass (as measured by me using my scales) as 99kg and I am 'told' that g is 9.81m/s2. So I exert a force (f) on the scales of f=99x9.81 = 971.2N. The universal gravitational constant is 6.67e-11 and the Earths mass is given as 6e24kg.
So if we plug those numbers into the well known and accepted equation we are all told we get that the radius of the Earth squared is (6.67e-11*6e24*99)/971.2. That gives us 4.07e13 and if we sqr root that we get the radius of the Earth in metres since we are using SI units. That comes to 6,387,071.86m or 6,387km. The quoted figure is 6,371km. That is a % error of less that 1% which I don't think is bad do you? Obviously since the mass and radius of the Earth are involved in the calculation if I changed either or both of those based on whatever you think they should be then that would also affect my mass and weight which I have personally measured. No book can tell me my weight so I have to measure that myself. Just what figures do you accept for the mass and radius of your Earth? That's just basic information.
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.
But you say that gravity doesn't exist, so in that case what exactly are my bathroom scales telling me?
What is causing my bathroom scales to read 99kg?
They're telling you that your mass is displacing atmosphere and the resulting displaced pressure is pushing right back onto you and the scales, overcoming some spring resistance to create a person made measuring scale.
Perhaps you could explain it to me and give me your figures to show me how you reach the same result. Without any reference to gravity of course.
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.
-
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
No, it doesn't.
-
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.
How is my measured weight (by me) just 'accepted gobbledegook' as you so eloquently put it? And how is it that when I enter my measured weight into a widely recognised equation I get consistent figures for the known mass and radius of the Earth? The only gobbledegook around here is made up of your totally unqualified wild claims.
It's always the same with you. You demand people explain things to you and show you things and then when they do you just dismiss it all as 'accepted gobbledegook'. Yet you cannot an/or will not back up anything that you claim with actual figures.
Probably because you can't. No surprises there then.
What is the mass and radius of the Earth according to you?
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.
So how then do you measure weight using pressure? Pressure is force / area by the way. So pressure would be a downward directed force towards the ground. What is causing that downward force if it isn't due to gravity?
-
What I want to know from Sceptimatic is how you can calculate your weight without using gravity. Since according to him gravity as we understand it to be doesn't exist, how does he work out his weight.
I have gone through the calculation for how I calculated my weight using my bathroom scales. So I would like a similar explanation including work through with figures from Sceptimatic of how you can calculate the weight of a person or indeed anything without using the acceleration due to gravity.
He always asks us to explain things according to what we believe so that is exactly what I have done. Over to you for yours now Scepti.
You already resist a lot of air pressure upon you by your own displacement of it, of your own dense mass.
You have no weight at all unless you have something in which to measure that displacement. Enter the person(s) made scales that have numbers on and a spring which will determining how much your body's dense mass is resisting the atmospheric pressure upon it.
It's all been explained if you care to look.
-
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.
How is my measured weight (by me) just 'accepted gobbledegook' as you so eloquently put it? And how is it that when I enter my measured weight into a widely recognised equation I get consistent figures for the known mass and radius of the Earth.
It's always the same with you. You demand people explain things to you and show you things and then when they do you just dismiss it all as 'accepted gobbledegook'. Yet you cannot back up anything that you claim with actual figures.
Probably because you can't. No surprises there then.
What is the mass and radius of the Earth according to you?
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.
So how then do you measure weight using pressure? Pressure is force / area by the way. So pressure would be a downward directed force towards the ground. What is causing that downward force if it isn't due to gravity?
Let's make this abundantly clear. You have absolutely no clue what the mass of the Earth is. You absolutely do not. Your reliance is completely on authority and you appeal to it as and when you feel it's needed.
Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass. It's ridiculous and I'm well within my rights to call it out.
-
Let's make this abundantly clear.
There is one thing that is abundantly clear to me. And that is that you cannot explain anything you claim. I have shown you how I can make a very simple measurement with nothing other than a set of bathroom scales and then use that figure to calculate and verify the mass of the Earth, the gravitational acceleration and the radius of the Earth. All of which has been measured and re-measured many, many times.
Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass.
I have just calculated the Earths mass using my weight. So how can I 'pretend' to know the Earths mass when I have just worked it out using some simple maths and something I have measured myself?
Your reliance is completely on authority
No my reliance is based on using my brain to solve a problem and prove something to myself.
As I said, if I change the value of any of these it will immediately give me a different value for my weight. Which I would then know is wrong because it would be different from my measured value.
What is abundantly clear to me is that you cannot bring yourself to understand that or accept it. Instead you would rather stick to your guns and believe whatever crazy ideas exist only in your head. I am certainly not the one lying to myself here. Just go and play with your tubes instead eh.
-
I have just calculated the Earths mass using my weight. So how can I 'pretend' to know the Earths mass when I have just worked it out using some simple maths and something I have measured myself?
If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
1. Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
2. This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.
Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?
3. Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.
Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?
4. There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?
5. The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.
Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?
6. For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.
This isn’t that advanced. The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad.
Try and make me not so sad by explaining it in the reality you believe.
Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?
Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't.
Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.
-
If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?
I more than think I can. I have actually demonstrated I can. If you weren't so obsessed with your own self-denial about simple concepts in science and your 'Sceptimatic is always right' state of mind then you would see that I have.
There is this equation that we use and has been used for a long time now. You need two masses and a distance between those masses. As long as I have one mass I can calculate the other. It's not hard. That's what we do in science. Just to re-iterate you have two constants (G and g) one of which is universal and one is specific to the Earth. As long as I know my mass then I can work out both the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth. Clearly you cannot get your head around that can you. Working the same method backwards, can you not see if the Earths mass and radius were any different to what we are 'told' then I would get a discrepancy between the measured value for my weight and my calculated value. That would tell me something was wrong somewhere. As it is there was a less than 1% difference in my calculation.
You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you. You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
How do you work out your weight? You talk about pressure. OK so what is pressure? Force/Area. In the case of weight that force is a downward (towards the ground) force. So where does the force come from if not from gravity? Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height? Weight is a force. F=ma. My mass is a physical property of me and will be the same where ever I am. So why do astronauts in the ISS float? Because they are further away from the Earth and hence F is less.
None of us are your servants. It's not a case of you say jump and we say how high. We give you the information that would otherwise help you actually learn something but no... Scepti would prefer to just sit there and live in denial.
-
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it explain nothing, just like I said.
Now again, care to try providing an explanation?
As a hint, we know that air provides a force based upon pressure and area.
1. Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Again, why continually ask for explanations for things that have been explained to you countless times.
Remember the thread which you fled from because you couldn't explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere (or anywhere)?
It was all explained there, complete with a little diagram to show what is needed to explain pressure gradient you couldn't explain.
Remember this:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Now stop playing dumb.
Your gravity is nonsense.
You go on about gravity acting on mass. If this was so, gravity would pull (no such thing as pull) that mass down and the lesser mass would be much more easily pulled (no such thing as pull) down.
No, your objection is nonsense.
If gravity acts on mass, i.e. creates a force, real or apparent, based upon the mass of the object, (just like the columbic force applies a force based upon the charge and so on), then the larger the mass, the greater the force. This means the greater mass would have a larger force acting on it than the lesser mass.
It's not straightforward, at all.
It is quite straight forward, but you hate it, and need to deny it at all costs, so you come up with whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it must be wrong.
Just like you use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid admitting your wild claims are pure garbage, even massively changing the topic, where you have now almost completely fled from your inability to defend your nonsense replacement for inertia (ending with a mere denial).
They're telling you that your mass is displacing atmosphere and the resulting displaced pressure is pushing right back onto you and the scales, overcoming some spring resistance to create a person made measuring scale.
See, this is an example of something which makes no sense at all and is not straight forward at all.
When you displace the atmosphere, it pushes back FROM ALL DIRECTIONS!
It doesn't magically push you down.
In fact, as the pressure is greater the lower down you are, it actually pushes you UP, in complete defiance of your BS.
In order to have your BS work, you need to explain how the air magically pushes things down.
As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.
And as has been made abundantly clear, your claims require a complete rejection of logic and reality and self-delusion.
You are yet to explain anything, probably because you can't.
Shall we go back to the most basic thing in your model, the pressure gradient, and see if you can explain that yet?
Again, what magic causes the increase in pressure as you go down your "stack"
You have no weight at all unless you have something in which to measure
As has been explained to you repeatedly, if that was the case we would float.
The fact that we don't, and instead fall to the ground, shows measuring is irrelevant.
We have weight regardless of it is measured.
It's all been explained if you care to look.
By mainstream science, which you reject (although I wouldn't say all, as there is always a step further back you can go).
Meanwhile, you have explained nothing.
Let's make this abundantly clear. You have absolutely no clue what the mass of the Earth is. You absolutely do not. Your reliance is completely on authority and you appeal to it as and when you feel it's needed.
Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass. It's ridiculous and I'm well within my rights to call it out.
Again, this is because we are not paranoid and delusional.
If we really wanted to, we could determine the mass of Earth ourselves, the same way it was determined in the past.
So no, it is ridiculous for you to object to things like that, especially when you offer nothing in exchange.
Feel free to go and do the experiment yourself.
Now again, stop playing dumb, stop with the pathetic dishonest deflection, and explain your pure BS.
Explain how the air causes inertia such that all objects resist changes in motion based upon their mass, rather than another property actually related to the air with aerodynamics, such as volume or area? (and again, your garbage idea of volume which is in no way supported by reality, doesn't help, not unless you can show no objects are air-tight).
-
I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true. For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.
So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?
-
Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?
Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't.
Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.
Ok I'll try and learn.
First of all I need to actually know what I'm learning. I mean, learning.
I don't want stories of old, told as stories of new.
I don't want to be told gravity is, so there. I want to learn what this gravity actually is in real time.
I want to know what it is and how it can be explained to become the force to do what it supposedly does.
Nobody's explained it in any realistic terms.
It'sd absolutely fine to go on about advanced physics...but show what that is by dumbing it right down to the basics of explanation instead of simply copy/paste what is to be parroted.
And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't. You people make that claim about me due to frustrations of not being able to batter the stuff you follow, into my head. You then claim I know I think I know better than scientists of hundreds of years, rather than just saying...today.
It's always harking back.
Why?
-
If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?
I more than think I can. I have actually demonstrated I can. If you weren't so obsessed with your own self-denial about simple concepts in science and your 'Sceptimatic is always right' state of mind then you would see that I have.
There is this equation that we use and has been used for a long time now. You need two masses and a distance between those masses.
Ok, let's sort this out. I'll start and you can correct me.
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
If you think I'm being childish and simple....yes I am, because this is how you're coming across with your explanations, as thought it was just like this.
In nice steps like explaining it to a retard like myself, please. Enlighten me as to how it all works and forgive me if I stop you and quiz you as you go.
As long as I have one mass I can calculate the other. It's not hard. That's what we do in science. Just to re-iterate you have two constants (G and g) one of which is universal and one is specific to the Earth.
As long as I know my mass then I can work out both the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth. Clearly you cannot get your head around that can you. Working the same method backwards, can you not see if the Earths mass and radius were any different to what we are 'told' then I would get a discrepancy between the measured value for my weight and my calculated value. That would tell me something was wrong somewhere. As it is there was a less than 1% difference in my calculation.
Ok what is the G and what Is the g when pertaining to Earth and this universe thing?
Remember, explain it to me like I'm a retard.
You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you. You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused. It's a rarity that I get flustered. I used to years ago.
How do you work out your weight? You talk about pressure. OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.
Weight is a man made concept. Understand that first.
It's a man made measure.
It's measured on a scale.
You accept that atmosphere has mass, right?
You also accept that for that mass to build up to the sky it has to stack.
You also know that anything stacked onto another will make the below stacks more compacts than the above.
You also must understand that, if you place a dense mass into that atmospheric stack, that dense mass will be compressed and that dense mass will resist that atmospheric stacking it is part of and under.
Place a scale plate under that dense mass and you will see how much the resistance and displacement of that atmosphere, is, on a scale reading by a spring, or sorts, that resists the crush onto that dense mass and then shows up a man made scale reading.
Pretty simple really and explainable to those who wish to actually throw away the magical stuff.
In the case of weight that force is a downward (towards the ground) force. So where does the force come from if not from gravity?
The ground, up, for objects using that ground.
Or the sea up, for any object using the sea/water as the foundation of resistance to stacked pressure upon that mass.
Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height?
Less amount of atmospheric stacking.
Weight is a force. F=ma.
And?
My mass is a physical property of me and will be the same where ever I am.
Yep...but understand what your real mass is. However, although your mass will be the same, it's how that mass is spread out as pressure upon is lessened, or if pressure was increased then it would be the opposite in terms of how smaller and compressed that mass becomes.
So why do astronauts in the ISS float?
They don't. It fictional.
Because they are further away from the Earth and hence F is less.
No, they are not. Astronauts are not in any space.
hey may be underwater pretending to be in so called space, or whatever...but not what we're coaxed in accepting, In my view.
None of us are your servants.
You do not need to ever respond to me. You make that choice. Don;t be anything and just forget I exist and you won't need to worry or whine.
It's not a case of you say jump and we say how high.
Correct...and this massively applies to you and your posse of globalists.
We give you the information that would otherwise help you actually learn something but no... Scepti would prefer to just sit there and live in denial.
When I get info that I believe will help me, I'll be sure to let you now.
First of all, offer me genuine reality, not parroted theory passed off as some kind of peer reviewed fact, cloaked back into a theory as a security mechanism.
-
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it explain nothing, just like I said.
Explain what gravity actually is and why it does what you claim it does.
-
I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true. For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.
So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?
I'm managing just fine as it is, so I must be ok in the middle of this mish mash of truth and fiction.
-
Explain what gravity actually is and why it does what you claim it does.
Again, STOP DEFLECTING!
Try to explain and justify your BS, or see if you can actually provide any problem with gravity. Because so far all you have done is completely misrepresent it and dismiss it as nonsense.
If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?
Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.
For example, will you accept Newton's idea of a force-field where by any mass creates a gravitational field and any object in that field will experience a force based upon the mass and the strength of that field?
Would you accept Einstein's curvature of space time where every object is travelling through normalised space-time at a rate of c, and any object with mass or energy will distort spacetime, curving it based upon the mass/energy, and objects travelling through this distorted spacetime will have motion through time converted into motion through space due to this distortion?
If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.
I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true. For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.
So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?
I'm managing just fine as it is, so I must be ok in the middle of this mish mash of truth and fiction.
But you aren't learning anything, you are just continuing to cling to fiction.
And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't.
Yes you do. You claim that what we all accept is pure BS and that you can easily see through the nonsense and so on and realise it is all BS.
That is claiming you know better.
The problem is that you cannot justify that claim in any way.
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.
An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.
Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
-
You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you. You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
Nahhhhh, I really don't.
Oh yes you do, such as when you entirely ignore explanations which have been provided because you cannot find fault with them, and how you ignore logical arguments until you can think of some excuse to dismiss it, and how you dismiss so much evidence as fake merely because it shows you are wrong.
So you most certainly do. The only question is how annoyed you get.
How do you work out your weight? You talk about pressure. OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.
Weight is a man made concept. Understand that first.
Or, how about you understand reality first.
Weight is a very real thing, which exists completley independent on man.
Again, the fact things fall shows weight is very real.
It is not a man-made concept.
The fact we measure weight doesn't magically mean it is man made.
We are simply measuring something in reality.
Understand that first, before spouting so much BS about it.
You accept that atmosphere has mass, right?
You also accept that for that mass to build up to the sky it has to stack.
You also know that anything stacked onto another will make the below stacks more compacts than the above.
Due to gravity, which you dismiss and try to replace with something else.
Again, clearly explained by the simple diagram you hate as it shows the massive flaw in your argument.
Here is a simple schematic of a stack of anything, including air or any other fluid, or solid objects:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
The green layer is being pushed down by the layer above, with a force of F.
In addition to that, it has gravity acting on it, applying a force of W.
This means the layer below which is supporting it has a force of F+W acting on it. This is greater than F and thus the force and pressure is greater at this lower layer.
Notice how this requires gravity, which you outright reject.
You need to explain what causes this extra force of W.
If it is just the air and you don't have gravity or anything like it, then there is no extra force and the mass of that layer is irrelevant.
Without this force of W, you have F=G, and there is no increase in pressure.
We can easily see this by turning the stack on its side.
If you take a simple spring and compress or stretch it between 2 objects horizontally, the force is constant throughout.
You can even try this yourself with a slinky.
Get a slinky, lie it on a table and pull the ends of the slinky to the sides of the table. Then measure how elongated any section is. You will find it is the same along the length (within measuring and manufacturing tolerances).
But now, suspend it by hanging it from the top.
Now you find that the top is stretched out far more than the bottom.
This is because the bottom only has to hold up its small weight, while the top has to hold up the weight of the entire slinky.
This is different to the above diagram as it is now under tension rather than compression, however technically when noting the sign of the force, it still applies as now F and G are now upwards, rather than downwards in the diagram.
Again, this is all explained perfectly with gravity providing weight to all mass.
But your nonsense rejects that.
If it is just air pushing it down, there is no increase in force at all and the atmosphere should have the same pressure throughout.
So in your attempt to explain and justify an alternative to gravity you are implicitly appealing to it.
So can you explain this pressure gradient, just using your system, rather than appeal to clear evidence of gravity?
will resist that atmospheric stacking it is part of and under.
Why not above?
Place a scale plate under that dense mass and you will see how much the resistance and displacement of that atmosphere, is, on a scale reading by a spring, or sorts, that resists the crush onto that dense mass and then shows up a man made scale reading.
No, you will see the force of gravity pushing it down.
If you want to see the effect of the atmosphere, there are 2 options, one is to ensure the entire scale and the object are sealed in an airtight bag, with no air in there at all (or only a negligible amount). Then you see the air exert a force based upon the AREA of the scales, not the volume, not the mass.
The other option, to see the effect of the pressure gradient (i.e. the stack), you can compare the weight of the object in different fluids, or no fluid. With this you see the air applies an upwards force, not a downwards one.
This has all already been pointed out to you. Stop playing dumb.
Pretty simple really and explainable to those who wish to actually throw away the magical stuff.
Yes, when we throw away your magical nonsense and instead stick to the very real gravity it is trivial to explain.
But with your nonsense, you can't even explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The ground, up, for objects using that ground.
And for objects in mid air?
Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height?
Less amount of atmospheric stacking.
You need to explain why this stacking causes a pressure gradient in the first place, without appealing to gravity.
it's how that mass is spread out as pressure upon is lessened, or if pressure was increased then it would be the opposite in terms of how smaller and compressed that mass becomes.
But increasing pressure reduces your weight, not increases it, due to the buoyant force increasing.
It fictional.
There you go rejecting reality and evidence again.
When I get info that I believe will help me, I'll be sure to let you now.
By which I take it you mean when you get info that will help you attack reality that you hate and prop up your delusional nonsense?
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
You sound like my grade 2 school teacher. Explain it. Explain how. Gravity has been explained to you a dozen times, in ways a child could comprehend. Each time you turn your upturned nose up and say, "that doesn't explain anything", when it always does.
"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it? My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
Gravity has never been explained as to what it is, only what it supposedly does.
Your gravimeter has never been explained by you or anyone else, except to say that it works.
How about explaining what gravity is and explain what this gravimeter does to tell you it's gravity it's measuring?
I'm not a scientist, so any answer you get from me will be a quote, or other people's ideas.
Simply put, "Gravity is a natural phenomenon. It is a natural phenomenon where things of mass or energy are brought towards each other."
More specifically, Newton's law of universal gravitation describes what gravity is, as, "A force. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."
Or alternatively, "Einstein's general relativity describes gravity is as a result of space time curvature."
In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
-
Explain it with gravity.
You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity. When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
1. Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Sure, but first can you let me know what you do and don't understand about this? It has been explained to you by others, what did you understand and what is still eluding you?
2. This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.
Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?
Sure, imagine a solid object submerged in a liquid. The liquid exerts a pressure over the entire surface of the object. Now visualize that there is a pressure gradient in the fluid. This means the pressure on one side of the object will be lower than the pressure at the other side. What will this difference in pressure through the fluid do to the object? If you want, you can think about holding an object with pressure between your two hands - if you press equally with both hands, the object doesn't move, if you push harder with one side than the other, you are creating a difference in pressure between the sides, and what happens? the object will move. That is due to the fact that even though you are pushing on both sides, the NET force is in one direction.
In the case of the submerged object, if we want to find out what the force from the pressure differential will be, the heterogenous pressure in the fluid can be integrated over the entire surface area of the object to find the resulting net force vector. Here, it will be normal to the direction of gradient and in the opposite direction of increasing pressure. Or, more simply for the case of an object submerged in a fluid on Earth, up.
3. Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.
Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?
Sure, careful observation shows that two masses exert a pull on each other directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass. Therefore, as we understand it, any object (mass 1) will experience a pull downwards towards the earth (mass 2) with a predictable and calculable force.
4. There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?
The surface force is electrostatic in nature, made up by statistical repulsive interaction of the electron clouds of individual fluid molecules and the surface.
Meanwhile, while the properties of the observed force between mass is well characterized and described, and the physics of its abstraction incredibly useful, the fundamental mechanism of how mass generates gravity remains undiscovered. Still work to be done!
5. The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.
Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?
This exact buoyancy framework is used to describe the resulting forces on any body submerged in a fluid acting under a external field. Maybe the most easily demonstration of this is in the calculation of settling rates for use in the design and execution of centrifugal separation. I have done these, and the framework worked wonderfully. I have also used our collective understanding of solid mechanics and fluid dynamics, which are the backbone of this analysis (and all of engineering), to calculate and investigate forces in structures under motion and load. They too have worked beautifully, highly predictive and informative.
As for my personal opinion of whether this is THE TRUTH, I dont think it is possible to claim any one abstraction of reality is the total truth. In my opinion, the physical framework we are currently using seems to be a reasonable approximation of reality, and is without any doubt incredibly predictive and useful. Im totally open to it being falsified and replaced by something better though.
6. For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.
See steps 1-6 in case you missed them last time.
-
If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?
Nothing if what you're saying is, gravity is mass against atmosphere. Is this what you're saying?
Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.
Yeah, I get this regularly. We'll explain when you do this and that. You can't explain it and you know it. Nobody can because it's ludicrous. It's a fictional addition to reality to create the magic required for your globe and space to work.
For example, will you accept Newton's idea of a force-field where by any mass creates a gravitational field and any object in that field will experience a force based upon the mass and the strength of that field?
I'll accept a vortex that pushes anything towards the centre. Is this any good?
Would you accept Einstein's curvature of space time where every object is travelling through normalised space-time at a rate of c, and any object with mass or energy will distort spacetime, curving it based upon the mass/energy, and objects travelling through this distorted spacetime will have motion through time converted into motion through space due to this distortion?
I'll certainly accept atmospheric warping by any mass within it and especially moving within it to actually warp it.
If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.
How air causes resistance, you mean?
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.
An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.
Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
Ok, so now tell me how you measure Earth.
Dip it in water?
Put Earth on a scale plate?
-
I'm not a scientist, so any answer you get from me will be a quote, or other people's ideas.
At least you're being honest.
Simply put, "Gravity is a natural phenomenon. It is a natural phenomenon where things of mass or energy are brought towards each other."
Is the attraction, magnetic?
Is the attraction simply something you just don't know or haven't ever seen?
What about horizontal attraction?
One tiny non magnetic iron ball 1 foot away from a massive non magnetic iron ball. Do you think the tiny ball will simply attach to the larger one?
You know it wouldn't.
Just drop a tennis ball and that's enough to called gravity, real....right?
More specifically, Newton's law of universal gravitation describes what gravity is, as, "A force. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."
So, basically we should be flung into the sun, or the moon should be, or the moon should be flung into us, or all the other so called stars and planets.
You know this in nonsense.
Or alternatively, "Einstein's general relativity describes gravity is as a result of space time curvature."
Space time curvature?
Tell me in your own words what this actually means.
Space time first and then curvature in space and how this curvature works.
In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
Denpressure.
Any mass up against atmospheric mass to create a pressure/push upon that mass.
-
If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?
Nothing if what you're saying is, gravity is mass against atmosphere. Is this what you're saying?
Not how it works.
Provide the standard for what you think is an acceptable explanation.
If you think your above nonsense is an explanation, just what is wrong with that provided for gravity which is vastly superior to that pile of nonsense of yours?
Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.
Yeah, I get this regularly.
Yet instead of providing any answer, you just dismiss any explanation provided as nonsense.
You can't explain it and you know it.
Until you provide an actual standard, that question is impossible to answer.
If you provide a ridiculously high standard, then no one can explain anything.
If you provide a reasonable standard, then I already have explained gravity.
So again, WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?
I'll certainly accept atmospheric warping
The atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
It seems the only standard you have is if it agrees with you.
If you accept the atmosphere warping as an explanation then you have no reason to reject space warping as one.
And again, this just shows that you have an extremely dishonest double standard and have no interest in ever accepting an explanation for gravity and will never find any explanation acceptable, simply because it doesn't agree with your delusional nonsense.
Grow up.
If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.
How air causes resistance, you mean?
[/quote]
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.
An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.
Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
Ok, so now tell me how you measure Earth.
Dip it in water?
Put Earth on a scale plate?
That was already explained to you.
The simplest way to realise is that weight on a scale is the weight of the object against Earth and the weight of Earth against the object.
It is given by F=GMm/r^2.
So by measuring gravitational attraction between small objects (e.g. Cavendish experiment) you can determine the value of G, and from that and the weight of an object on Earth and its known mass, you can determine the mass of Earth.
How about you stop deflecting from your own inability to explain anything and instead you start providing explanations.
Again, what magic causes your pressure gradient? What provides the necessary extra force if not gravity?
By what magic does air explain inertia (i.e. resistance to change in motion).
Is the attraction, magnetic?
No, it is gravitational.
Do you accept magnetism as real, or do you reject that as well and also want to pretend that is the air?
So, basically we should be flung into the sun, or the moon should be, or the moon should be flung into us, or all the other so called stars and planets.
You know this in nonsense.
We know your claim about it is pure nonsense.
This ties in with the other part of reality you are rejecting in this thread, INERTIA!
If Earth was stationary relative to the sun, it would be accelerated towards the sun and crash into it.
But it isn't.
Earth is moving, and not directly towards the sun.
So instead of falling into the sun, the gravitational pull of the sun just bends Earth's path. It does this in such a way to produce an elliptical orbit.
Kind of like how the tension (I know, pulling another thing you hate about reality) on a string will make an object at the end of it trace a circle if you swing it around. It is the same principle, the string pulls the object towards the centre, but its motion and inertia means it traces a circle instead of flying straight into your hand.
So no, reality isn't nonsense, just your rejection of it.
All you can do is dismiss it as nonsense, based upon more and more rejection of reality.
You have no actual argument against it.
Tell me in your own words what this actually means.
Did you forget where he clearly said that it wasn't his own words?
In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
Denpressure.
No, not denpressure, nothing like it.
-
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused.
So do I whenever I read most if not all the 'theories' you come out with. Your holographic theory for the Sun and Moon is the best.
I am not going to go to the trouble of re-quoting you on every single sentence like you have for me. But I will reply to you on this
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
Tell me what the big block is made of first of all and then we'll take it from there. For example if it was a specific material then I could find out its density, estimate its volume and then multiply together to calculate the mass. Or I could get hold of a nice big spring balance and hang the big block of something from it and then use the known value of g to calculate the mass.
You didn't specify what equipment I have or haven't got available to me so there are two possible methods. Obviously if this nice big block of something was say a metre cube of ice then I would already know what the mass was.
I don't know whereabouts in the world you are but where I come from we have GCSEs and A levels. The difference between the two is that at GCSE level you are generally given all the information in a science exam for example that you need to solve a problem. You just need to know what to do with that information. At A level you are given some information you need to solve the problem but not all. So what you are not given you have to work out. It requires a deeper level of understanding. That of course is more resembling of the real world. Which level would you say you are at?
So your block in the road problem. Obviously the big block of whatever it is has a mass. So there is a way of working it out to whatever level of accuracy is appropriate. But unless there is a big label stuck to this block which says something along the lines of Mass= ... you would have to do some work of your own to work it out. Or would you say 'Don't know and it is impossible for me to work it out' and leave it at that?
Obviously if you lived in prehistoric times when very little was known about anything then it would be harder to work out. However we don't live in prehistoric time and there is no need for us to pretend we do. We can look stuff up which will help us solve the problem. In a physics exam you are given a list of standard physical constants to help you. So would you refuse to use that because you would have no way of proving the validity of those constants for yourself?
Finally just one more question. Do you need to understand what gravity is in order to understand what gravity does? I know... I know as far as you are concerned gravity is fictional. Just humour me for once will you. I'm talking about the phenomenon that every one else in the world calls gravity. Likewise do you need to understand how a car works in order to drive it?
-
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.
Resistance is resistance, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If inertia is resistance then I'm onboard with inertia.
Is this the case?
-
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused.
So do I whenever I read most if not all the 'theories' you come out with. Your holographic theory for the Sun and Moon is the best.
I am not going to go to the trouble of re-quoting you on every single sentence like you have for me. But I will reply to you on this
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
Tell me what the big block is made of first of all and then we'll take it from there. For example if it was a specific material then I could find out its density, estimate its volume and then multiply together to calculate the mass. Or I could get hold of a nice big spring balance and hang the big block of something from it and then use the known value of g to calculate the mass.
You didn't specify what equipment I have or haven't got available to me so there are two possible methods. Obviously if this nice big block of something was say a metre cube of ice then I would already know what the mass was.
I don't know whereabouts in the world you are but where I come from we have GCSEs and A levels. The difference between the two is that at GCSE level you are generally given all the information in a science exam for example that you need to solve a problem. You just need to know what to do with that information. At A level you are given some information you need to solve the problem but not all. So what you are not given you have to work out. It requires a deeper level of understanding. That of course is more resembling of the real world. Which level would you say you are at?
So your block in the road problem. Obviously the big block of whatever it is has a mass. So there is a way of working it out to whatever level of accuracy is appropriate. But unless there is a big label stuck to this block which says something along the lines of Mass= ... you would have to do some work of your own to work it out. Or would you say 'Don't know and it is impossible for me to work it out' and leave it at that?
Obviously if you lived in prehistoric times when very little was known about anything then it would be harder to work out. However we don't live in prehistoric time and there is no need for us to pretend we do. We can look stuff up which will help us solve the problem. In a physics exam you are given a list of standard physical constants to help you. So would you refuse to use that because you would have no way of proving the validity of those constants for yourself?
Finally just one more question. Do you need to understand what gravity is in order to understand what gravity does? I know... I know as far as you are concerned gravity is fictional. Just humour me for once will you. I'm talking about the phenomenon that every one else in the world calls gravity. Likewise do you need to understand how a car works in order to drive it?
You just told me you know the mass of the entire Earth just by weighing yourself.
And now you're asking me what my block just 10 feet away from you , is made of.
The Earth is made of all kinds of different masses, so what are you playing at?
-
You just told me you know the mass of the entire Earth just by weighing yourself.
And now you're asking me what my block just 10 feet away from you , is made of.
The Earth is made of all kinds of different masses, so what are you playing at?
Ah Sceptimatic... you are funny. Earth is made up of different masses? Really? It is certainly made up of different materials I'll give you that. Have you never heard of such a thing as a composite material? So tell me more about this big block of whatever lying in the road. What is it made of? A big block of iron is going weigh more than a big block of polystyrene or wood is it not? Because wood and iron are both more dense than polystyrene and you need to know the density and the volume of a 'big block' of something in order to calculate its mass. Remember mass = volume x density yes? So far all you've told me is that there is a big block of something in the road. I can't calculate anything from that. More information needed. I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight. That's the difference.
I can use information I have measured myself to verify known (or you would say given) information. F=GMm/r2. I know G and I can calculate F (my weight) and from that m (my mass) and so from that I can measure M (mass of the Earth) and r (radius of the Earth). Since F is a function of M, m and r if I was to change M or r then that would also alter the value of F to something other than my measured value. That's how I can verify that the figures for M and r that I am 'given' are correct. Why would anyone lie about the mass or the radius of the Earth?
This can work with any mass. Take a 1kg mass used in school science lab or a 10kg weight used in a gym. They are called weights in the gym but it is actually a 10kg mass. Now place the 'weight' on some scales and from that you can read off the downward force (it's actual weight) in Newtons. Since we know g we can predict what the weight will be even before we use the scales to confirm our prediction. From there we can use the equation to work out r (radius of the Earth). You can use whatever mass you like you will always get the same value for r. However since I don't know anything about your big block in the road I cannot work out anything from that unless you provide me with some information about it.
There is only one Earth as far as I know so there is only one mass value associated with the Earth. Just like there is only one of you and so you have a certain mass. But you are made up of a myriad of different materials aren't you. If you want to break it down to the atomic level you are made of a lot of oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, carbon atoms etc etc. If someone asked you what your mass was you wouldn't say to them 'What mass do you want.. the mass of all the oxygen atoms or the mass of all the hydrogen atoms or calcium atoms or carbon atoms?' Well you could but you would get some very bemused expressions!
Does that help?
If you think I'm being childish and simple....yes I am, because this is how you're coming across with your explanations, as thought it was just like this.
A good teacher will always try to assess the level of their students knowledge so they can relate to them at a level appropriate to them. So when you start to ask grown up questions about whatever it is that you want to try and prove then you will get grown up explanations. But if you think the Earth has different masses for the different materials it is made up of... well that doesn't bode well does it.
-
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.
Resistance is resistance, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If inertia is resistance then I'm onboard with inertia.
Is this the case?
Again, NO IT ISN'T!
There are fundamentally different types of resistance.
I know you want to pretend they are all the same so you can pretend to explain it by explaining something completely different, like how you tried to pass it off as increasing the pressure in a sealed tube.
But it simply is not the case.
So can you actually explain inertia, i.e. a resistance to change in motion, or are you only capable of continuing this dishonest BS?
Likewise, can you explain what magic provides the extra force needed to create your pressure gradient?
-
Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?
Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't.
Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.
Ok I'll try and learn.
First of all I need to actually know what I'm learning. I mean, learning.
I don't want stories of old, told as stories of new.
Great, you want to learn, but you’ve already fallen at the first hurdle by deciding beforehand what you want it be.
I’m not even suggesting you accept it as true, just to learn the physics that everyone else learns, so you understand how it works. Because only then can you begin to find problems with it, if there are any.
I don't want to be told gravity is, so there. I want to learn what this gravity actually is in real time.
I want to know what it is and how it can be explained to become the force to do what it supposedly does.
And this is all backwards. Every scientific discovery has come from observing and experimenting with the effects first. eg. people understood that fire was hot long before they’d figured out the mechanics of exothermic chemical reactions. With gravity, we know what it does which is observed and measured, but the precise mechanism is still up for debate.
Nobody's explained it in any realistic terms.
How do you judge what’s realistic?
It'sd absolutely fine to go on about advanced physics...but show what that is by dumbing it right down to the basics of explanation instead of simply copy/paste what is to be parroted.
I’m not here to explain it to you. I’m suggesting you find out yourself. Basic physics first though. The point is that our technology is built on these principles, which is a pretty good way of knowing that they work.
And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't. You people make that claim about me due to frustrations of not being able to batter the stuff you follow, into my head. You then claim I know I think I know better than scientists of hundreds of years, rather than just saying...today.
It's always harking back.
Why?
You may not use those words, but you claim that the physics that everyone uses to make all the technology we rely on is all just indoctrination. Pretty much the same thing.
-
I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight. That's the difference.
First of all, you don't.
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
This is the utter nonsense that appears to look ok on paper for anyone who does not need to bother thinking logically on the reality.
Basically 1+1 can be made into 5 if enough utter gobbledygook is applied
I can use information I have measured myself to verify known (or you would say given) information.
The only thing you can measure is what a scale shows you.
The rest is all added in bits of reality and nonsense to make it appear like it's worthwhile scientific theoretical so people can hide behind letters on the external breast pocket.
F=GMm/r2. I know G and I can calculate F (my weight) and from that m (my mass) and so from that I can measure M (mass of the Earth) and r (radius of the Earth). Since F is a function of M, m and r if I was to change M or r then that would also alter the value of F to something other than my measured value. That's how I can verify that the figures for M and r that I am 'given' are correct. Why would anyone lie about the mass or the radius of the Earth?
You don't know your mass by using so called G and you certainly do not know what Earth is in its entirety. You believe you know because you were massively indoctrinated. Accept that as a truth if you care to be honest about it.
This can work with any mass. Take a 1kg mass used in school science lab or a 10kg weight used in a gym. They are called weights in the gym but it is actually a 10kg mass. Now place the 'weight' on some scales and from that you can read off the downward force (it's actual weight) in Newtons. Since we know g we can predict what the weight will be even before we use the scales to confirm our prediction. From there we can use the equation to work out r (radius of the Earth). You can use whatever mass you like you will always get the same value for r. However since I don't know anything about your big block in the road I cannot work out anything from that unless you provide me with some information about it.
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout. Until then, it's a mass.
There is only one Earth as far as I know so there is only one mass value associated with the Earth.
Yep, if you look at it that way.......but, it's knowing what Earth is in its entirety of mass and that is something you will never be able to measure.
Just like there is only one of you and so you have a certain mass.
Yep...and because of man made scales with man made measurements on a readout, you can measure your mass by displacement against atmosphere and the resulting reaction of that compression of it back onto you.
No need for G and what not unless it's used to actually cater for the reality, which is what we are under.
When you're served up the nonsense on a platter from cradle to present, you will naturally argue for the reality you think it presents but you know in your mind that you are doing nothing more than learning to parrot.
But you are made up of a myriad of different materials aren't you.
As it appears....yes. Different densities of make up.
If you want to break it down to the atomic level you are made of a lot of oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, carbon atoms etc etc.
We could do but it would end up as one basic ingredient, so we have to deal with what we're basically told to go with and decipher from all that.
If someone asked you what your mass was you wouldn't say to them 'What mass do you want.. the mass of all the oxygen atoms or the mass of all the hydrogen atoms or calcium atoms or carbon atoms?' Well you could but you would get some very bemused expressions!
Does that help?
If someone asked me what my mass was I'd ask, in what way.
If they say kg, I'd use a scale.
A good teacher will always try to assess the level of their students knowledge so they can relate to them at a level appropriate to them. So when you start to ask grown up questions about whatever it is that you want to try and prove then you will get grown up explanations. But if you think the Earth has different masses for the different materials it is made up of... well that doesn't bode well does it.
A good protocol teacher will follow protocol. A curriculum. Anyone not onboard with it will be left behind to fend for themselves.......gradeless in terms of worth .....certificate shy.....drone material.
A good teacher is one who teaches reality or potential. A logical approach and a patient approach to all those who are not as quick as the better absorbent parrots/mimics.
Someone who doesn't cloak reality in favour of handed down fiction.
If someone can't do their 2x table, you start them at one and make them feel like they're making progress, amid, maybe those on their 4x table.
The complicated will always be complicated to anyone who is shown the complicated way. The strip down of the complicated can reveal the simplicity of anything.
Reverse engineer the conundrum.
-
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.
Resistance is resistance, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If inertia is resistance then I'm onboard with inertia.
Is this the case?
Again, NO IT ISN'T!
There are fundamentally different types of resistance.
I know you want to pretend they are all the same so you can pretend to explain it by explaining something completely different, like how you tried to pass it off as increasing the pressure in a sealed tube.
But it simply is not the case.
So can you actually explain inertia, i.e. a resistance to change in motion, or are you only capable of continuing this dishonest BS?
Likewise, can you explain what magic provides the extra force needed to create your pressure gradient?
Ok, let's deal with inertia.
You say it's a resistance to change in motion.
Ok, let's see where we go.
Does a change in motion mean the object with inertia is in motion?......Or does it also mean the object resists any force that attempts to create a motion.
Let's sort this bit out before we move on.
We are going child like on this so we can get a proper explanation.
-
You say it's a resistance to change in motion.
Ok, let's see where we go.
Does a change in motion mean the object with inertia is in motion?......Or does it also mean the object resists any force that attempts to create a motion.
Let's sort this bit out before we move on.
We are going child like on this so we can get a proper explanation.
Do you not understand change?
It means the object resists any change in motion such that a force needs to be applied to change its motion.
This applies regardless of if the object is at rest and you try to make it move, or if it is moving and you try to make it stop, or if it is moving and you try to change its speed or direction (or both).
-
I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight. That's the difference.
First of all, you don't.
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
You need to understand what it is before spouting so much nonsense about it.
You sure do love claiming things with absolutely certainty far too much for someone who claims to have no idea.
This is the utter nonsense
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is nonsense?
Because you continually dismissing it as nonsense because you don't like it does not help your case at all.
It just shows you have no case.
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout. Until then, it's a mass.
Unless it is floating, it has weight.
The force that makes things fall is weight, no matter how much you want to reject reality.
you can measure your mass by displacement against atmosphere
No, you can't. Not unless this mass floats and you can measure the volume of atmosphere (and thus mass) displaced.
Otherwise, until you can justify your garbage, the atmosphere does not cause weight.
and the resulting reaction of that compression of it back onto you.
No need for G and what not unless it's used to actually cater for the reality, which is what we are under.
When you're served up the nonsense on a platter from cradle to present, you will naturally argue for the reality you think it presents but you know in your mind that you are doing nothing more than learning to parrot.
If someone asked you what your mass was you wouldn't say to them 'What mass do you want.. the mass of all the oxygen atoms or the mass of all the hydrogen atoms or calcium atoms or carbon atoms?' Well you could but you would get some very bemused expressions!
Does that help?
If someone asked me what my mass was I'd ask, in what way.
If they say kg, I'd use a scale.
And notice how you ignored the main point.
You aren't just focusing on one part of you.
Likewise, we can just consider Earth as a hole rather than trying to focus on one part.
A good teacher is one who teaches reality or potential.
No it isn't, and even you implicitly accept that. That is the kind of teacher you hate.
A good teacher makes sure the student understands, rather than just teaching them reality.
When they are a horrible teacher and just teach reality without any understanding, we end up with people like you who dismiss reality as fictional nonsense, without any ability to justify their dismissal.
-
Do you not understand change?
It means the object resists any change in motion such that a force needs to be applied to change its motion.
This applies regardless of if the object is at rest and you try to make it move, or if it is moving and you try to make it stop, or if it is moving and you try to change its speed or direction (or both).
Let's get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong and or there's something needs to be added.
I'm stood still (ish) and you go to push me. I resist that push from you. Is this inertia?
Or I'm stood there. do I have inertia at that point and if so, why?
Just explain it like I'm a retard you think I am or a child you may think I show the mentality of.
This might make it easier for me to understand, rather than all the gobbledygook I keep seeing.
And....from now on, treat me like a retard and a child, when explaining.
-
I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight. That's the difference.
First of all, you don't.
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
You need to understand what it is before spouting so much nonsense about it.
You sure do love claiming things with absolutely certainty far too much for someone who claims to have no idea.
Ok, as above, explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple.
Let's see where we get.
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet? Couldn't he just read this all himself?
I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone. Pretty impressive feat.
I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own. But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
-
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it. So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight. OK Sceptimatic I bow to your superior knowledge so tell me exactly what weight is and how I can measure weight. Tell me and I will do the experiment to verify what you say. Weight is a numerical value though of course so I need some figures to work with.
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout.
And where does this scale measurement come from? How do you work it out?
OK let's try a different and very simple experiment. I have an apple tree in my garden and one day I pick up an apple from the ground. Being the simpleton that I am and based on the fact that the apple is lying directly under an apple tree which is still full of apples, I make an assumption that the apple has fallen from the tree onto the ground. I hold the apple in my hand and then open my hand. The apple falls to the ground.
What has caused the apple to fall to the ground?
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
I would find it odd that you can't explain it, simply. However, I think I know the real reason.
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet? Couldn't he just read this all himself?
I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone. Pretty impressive feat.
I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own. But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
You people don't do simple logic, do you?
You can't simply explain this stuff because all your efforts are spent copying and pasting or simply referencing what's put out there on a plate for you.
This is how I find that out.
No lay people among you?
-
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it. So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight.
I believe you don't, no.
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics....but....we won't go into that bit.....yet.
OK Sceptimatic I bow to your superior knowledge so tell me exactly what weight is and how I can measure weight. Tell me and I will do the experiment to verify what you say. Weight is a numerical value though of course so I need some figures to work with.
Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.
Basically and simply speaking, the object uses the man made scale plate as a leverage. A foundation to push/resist the atmospheric crush back by its own displacement, of it.
Gravity has no such luck in showing anything, because it's fictional.
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout.
And where does this scale measurement come from? How do you work it out?
You measure any mass, as above.
OK let's try a different and very simple experiment. I have an apple tree in my garden and one day I pick up an apple from the ground. Being the simpleton that I am and based on the fact that the apple is lying directly under an apple tree which is still full of apples, I make an assumption that the apple has fallen from the tree onto the ground. I hold the apple in my hand and then open my hand. The apple falls to the ground.
What has caused the apple to fall to the ground?
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.
Weakness of that stem means the mass of the apple displacing the atmosphere it was held in, is crushed down to the ground by the above stacking and the actual compression of its own mass that overcomes the stacking below it.
No gravity pull and no such thing as pull in reality. Nothing can pull. It just appears so because we're accustomed to the word, pull...which is fine to use to simply explain stuff in every day life. It just doesn't work when fictional gravity and such, is used.
-
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it. So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight.
I believe you don't, no.
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics....but....we won't go into that bit.....yet.
OK Sceptimatic I bow to your superior knowledge so tell me exactly what weight is and how I can measure weight. Tell me and I will do the experiment to verify what you say. Weight is a numerical value though of course so I need some figures to work with.
Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.
Basically and simply speaking, the object uses the man made scale plate as a leverage. A foundation to push/resist the atmospheric crush back by its own displacement, of it.
Gravity has no such luck in showing anything, because it's fictional.
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout.
And where does this scale measurement come from? How do you work it out?
You measure any mass, as above.
OK let's try a different and very simple experiment. I have an apple tree in my garden and one day I pick up an apple from the ground. Being the simpleton that I am and based on the fact that the apple is lying directly under an apple tree which is still full of apples, I make an assumption that the apple has fallen from the tree onto the ground. I hold the apple in my hand and then open my hand. The apple falls to the ground.
What has caused the apple to fall to the ground?
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.
Weakness of that stem means the mass of the apple displacing the atmosphere it was held in, is crushed down to the ground by the above stacking and the actual compression of its own mass that overcomes the stacking below it.
No gravity pull and no such thing as pull in reality. Nothing can pull. It just appears so because we're accustomed to the word, pull...which is fine to use to simply explain stuff in every day life. It just doesn't work when fictional gravity and such, is used.
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
-
I believe you don't, no.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. (that you believe I don't that is)
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.
I wasn't talking about the apples that are still on the tree. I said I picked an apple up that was on the ground. I hold the apple in my hand with the palm pointing downwards and the apple remains in my hand (because I am holding it). I open my hand and the apple falls to the ground. According to your laws of physics, why does the apple fall to the ground? Why doesn't the apple fall through my fingers while they are still closed around the apple? Explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple. (yes I copied and pasted that last sentence)
Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.
OK you have used the word push in that sentence. In school we are 'told' that a force is a push or a pull. So you are implying there is a force involved here. Where is that force coming from? If you read your own sentence you are also implying that the push is acting on the mass of an objects. So again what causes this. Mass is just mass. The weight aspect only comes into play when combined with what you are calling a push or resistance of atmosphere. So what causes this resistance you are talking about?
You measure any mass, as above.
How?
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics
No I study astrophysics. It is not something you believe or don't believe in. I don't believe in certain interpretations of God but I believe in religion.
Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
Sceptimatic keeps in talking about this pressure thing. But where does the pressure come from. What generates the pressure in the first place?
-
Let's get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong and or there's something needs to be added.
I'm stood still (ish) and you go to push me. I resist that push from you. Is this inertia?
Or I'm stood there. do I have inertia at that point and if so, why?
You ALWAYS have inertia. This is why you don't just randomly start flying around all over the place, and why accelerating something takes a force.
Instead of thinking of it as a resistance to the push, think of it as the resistance to a change in motion which requires that push.
i.e. if you stand in front of a ball and try to move your hand or foot through it, you don't just move your hand or foot as if the object wasn't there with the object moving with your hand/foot. Instead when your hand/foot reaches the object you need to apply an additional force to accelerate it, with the force required based upon the mass of the object and how quickly you are accelerating it.
Likewise, if an object is thrown to you, it doesn't just hit you and stop. Instead you need to apply a force to stop it, and again, depending on the mass and how quickly you try to slow it down the force varies.
As for the why, that is what you need to explain with how your air causes inertia in complete defiance of the known laws of aerodynamics.
-
Ok, as above, explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple.
Let's see where we get.
And like I said, describe your standard for an explanation, because so far you just reject everything as a non-explanation (or just ignore it) unless it uses your air, and you are happy to accept it if it uses your air.
Especially when I have already provided explanations and you just ignore them or try to twist them, like here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2304389#msg2304389
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it. So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight.
I believe you don't, no.
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that.
The problem is that you cannot justify your irrational hatred of gravity and are unable to show a single fault with it.
So it is really your irrational hatred which tells us what we need to know about that.
Either you don't understand physics or your just reject what you hate.
Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass
Stop just repeating the same BS.
Weight is the downwards force experienced by an object.
This is separate from mass and allows a simple way to measure mass as weight is proportional to mass if you ignore the effects of buoancy, but both are still there even when not measured.
Again, if weight didn't exist unless it was measured, nothing would fall.
It is weight that makes things fall.
Basically and simply speaking, the object uses the man made scale plate as a leverage.
How does it do that in mid air?
And even when it is on that plate, as far as the air is concerned, the object is being "crushed" against the plate and the air is on the underside of that plate crushing right back.
It doesn't push the entire top plate down.
Again, that would require the scale and object to be placed in an airtight bag with as much air removed as possible. Then we see a much larger reading, which remains roughly the same regardless of the orientation.
Gravity has no such luck in showing anything, because it's fictional.
It seems to work just fine, unlike your delusional nonsense with the air.
You are yet to provide any fault with it and instead just repeatedly dismiss the explanations provided, while being unable to explain your garbage at all.
Weakness of that stem means the mass of the apple displacing the atmosphere it was held in, is crushed down to the ground by the above stacking and the actual compression of its own mass that overcomes the stacking below it.
WHY?
Why doesn't it get pushed back up into that stem?
Why doesn't it get pushed up based upon the higher pressure air below?
Why doesn't it get pushed in any random direction?
This is one of the keys parts of your garbage you are unable to explain.
The air is all around.
The only exception is where the apple joins the stem which is above the apple.
Thus if you want to appeal to that, like you try to do so with an object on the ground, then
You have no reason at all for the air to preferentially push objects down.
In fact, due to the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, which even you accept even though you cannot explain it, the pressure is greater a the bottom than the top, and thus this should push the apple upwards.
no such thing as pull in reality. Nothing can pull.
Except the countless things that do which you can't explain otherwise.
Remember this diagram:
https://imgur.com/QCW82GY
Showing a simple chain, with you unable to explain how the force to move it to the right is transferred through the chain without needing the right side to pull the left side?
But regardless, this "pull" is just semantics.
When you get down to it, there is very little (if any) difference between the actual physics behind pushing and pulling.
-
Despite all this 'I don't believe this' and 'I don't believe that' he has yet to provide anything other than his opinions. He cannot provide any actual evidence that he is correct about any of what he believes and without that evidence none of his opinions count for anything.
With a simple pair of bathroom scales I can easily obtain an actual value for my weight and then show how I can use that to reach figures for the Earths radius and mass that agree with the quoted values.
I guess it is just a bit beyond Sceptimatics ability to comprehend that. But then he does have the mind of a child or 'retard' apparently to use his words. He obviously hates anything he cannot understand and so he hits the deny its true button and invent his own version of physics rather than making any sort of attempt to try and understand it.
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet? Couldn't he just read this all himself?
I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone. Pretty impressive feat.
I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own. But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
You people don't do simple logic, do you?
Oh come on, and you do? What's the "simple logic" behind your graphite carbonite electrode beneath a layer of crystal at the North Pole projecting holographic Sun, Moon, and stars onto a breathing melting & freezing dome heating the earth, causing night and day and seasons? Seriously.
The point is, stop asking for all of these explanations as:
A) Everything has been explained to you a million times
B) Go bone up on Globe Earth features and functions yourself (We would with your stuff, but there are zero places in the world to find out other than from you, and you alone)
C) Stop playing the "I'm just caveman..explain it to me..." trope
-
I'm assuming that Sceptimatic is actually an adult with no diagnosed learning difficulties despite his claims. In which case there is nothing contained in what I have said on here which I haven't also explained to the primary school kids that I work with. They seem to be able to make sense of what I say. I can tell that from the answers to the questions I get from them.
So come on Sceptimatic... stop playing the 'Duh... I'm thick' card and put some effort into actually trying to understand something about what we are trying to explain to you. Rather than just burying your head in the sand and denying everything as you seem to like to do so much. As my parents always told me, the world is not going to adapt to the way you think it should be you so you had better learn to adapt to the world as it is.
We would with your stuff, but there are zero places in the world to find out other than from you, and you alone
Well actually Sceptimatic insists that all that he believes in has been fully documented 'elsewhere' but whenever I have asked me where 'elsewhere' actually is he can't seem to be able to tell me.
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet? Couldn't he just read this all himself?
I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone. Pretty impressive feat.
I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own. But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
You people don't do simple logic, do you?
Seems like simple logic that someone who can single-handedly figure out the hidden nature of the world around us using thought and intuition alone should be able to understand circles and triangles.
I guess you disagree. Oh well.
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet? Couldn't he just read this all himself?
I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone. Pretty impressive feat.
I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own. But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
You people don't do simple logic, do you?
Oh come on, and you do? What's the "simple logic" behind your graphite carbonite electrode beneath a layer of crystal at the North Pole projecting holographic Sun, Moon, and stars onto a breathing melting & freezing dome heating the earth, causing night and day and seasons? Seriously.
lol, dont forget the vortex of some hydrogen-mineral slurry as an energy source, or the worldwide whirlwind of energy that pushes masses towards each other.
Simple logic. :D
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
-
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child. After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet? Couldn't he just read this all himself?
I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone. Pretty impressive feat.
I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own. But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
You people don't do simple logic, do you?
Oh come on, and you do? What's the "simple logic" behind your graphite carbonite electrode beneath a layer of crystal at the North Pole projecting holographic Sun, Moon, and stars onto a breathing melting & freezing dome heating the earth, causing night and day and seasons? Seriously.
lol, dont forget the vortex of some hydrogen-mineral slurry as an energy source, or the worldwide whirlwind of energy that pushes masses towards each other.
Simple logic. :D
Oops, forgot about those. ;)
-
I believe you don't, no.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. (that you believe I don't that is)
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.
I wasn't talking about the apples that are still on the tree. I said I picked an apple up that was on the ground. I hold the apple in my hand with the palm pointing downwards and the apple remains in my hand (because I am holding it). I open my hand and the apple falls to the ground. According to your laws of physics, why does the apple fall to the ground? Why doesn't the apple fall through my fingers while they are still closed around the apple? Explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple. (yes I copied and pasted that last sentence)
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Try and think of something else.
Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.
OK you have used the word push in that sentence. In school we are 'told' that a force is a push or a pull. So you are implying there is a force involved here. Where is that force coming from? If you read your own sentence you are also implying that the push is acting on the mass of an objects. So again what causes this. Mass is just mass. The weight aspect only comes into play when combined with what you are calling a push or resistance of atmosphere. So what causes this resistance you are talking about?
Atmosphere.
You measure any mass, as above.
How?
Pay attention.
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics
No I study astrophysics. It is not something you believe or don't believe in. I don't believe in certain interpretations of God but I believe in religion.
Of course you believe in religion. Most of your theoretical science acceptance, is like a religion.
Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
Sceptimatic keeps in talking about this pressure thing. But where does the pressure come from. What generates the pressure in the first place?
Stacking and anything within it being crushed by it, by their own displacement of it, like I already told you.
-
Let's get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong and or there's something needs to be added.
I'm stood still (ish) and you go to push me. I resist that push from you. Is this inertia?
Or I'm stood there. do I have inertia at that point and if so, why?
You ALWAYS have inertia. This is why you don't just randomly start flying around all over the place, and why accelerating something takes a force.
Instead of thinking of it as a resistance to the push, think of it as the resistance to a change in motion which requires that push.
i.e. if you stand in front of a ball and try to move your hand or foot through it, you don't just move your hand or foot as if the object wasn't there with the object moving with your hand/foot. Instead when your hand/foot reaches the object you need to apply an additional force to accelerate it, with the force required based upon the mass of the object and how quickly you are accelerating it.
Likewise, if an object is thrown to you, it doesn't just hit you and stop. Instead you need to apply a force to stop it, and again, depending on the mass and how quickly you try to slow it down the force varies.
As for the why, that is what you need to explain with how your air causes inertia in complete defiance of the known laws of aerodynamics.
So, inertia is the obstacle to a force until it becomes resistant to that force?
Is this what you are saying?
-
The problem is that you cannot justify your irrational hatred of gravity and are unable to show a single fault with it.
So it is really your irrational hatred which tells us what we need to know about that.
Either you don't understand physics or your just reject what you hate.
It's got nothing to do with any irrational hatred of physics from my side. I don't believe gravity exists so I can hardly hate it. I just have to argue against the magical story of it, against people who buy into it for no other reason than to follow mass indoctrination of stuff like this.
If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
-
If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory. You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them. Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.
Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
Sceptimatic, just so you know - the reason people don't accept your musings is that they are actually incredibly bad abstractions of what we know. They exclude known facts, they are non-predictive and non-quantitative, they can not be readily shared with others, they continually require ad-hoc addendums, and they have no demonstrated value to anyone other than yourself.
They are worst type of explanatory conjectures - confused, opaque, and completely without use.
You are of course welcome to hold them, but you are doing yourself a delusional disservice pretending that the only reason people reject your ideas is because of their own held beliefs.
The failing is yours, not ours. You should learn from that failure and try to grow, instead of simply failing again and again and again.
Unless you like failure - in which case I say keep on with what you are doing!
-
If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory. You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them. Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.
Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
Is gravity a theory?
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
Sceptimatic, just so you know - the reason people don't accept your musings is that they are actually incredibly bad abstractions of what we know. They exclude known facts, they are non-predictive and non-quantitative, they can not be readily shared with others, they continually require ad-hoc addendums, and they have no demonstrated value to anyone other than yourself.
They are worst type of explanatory conjectures - confused, opaque, and completely without use.
You are of course welcome to hold them, but you are doing yourself a delusional disservice pretending that the only reason people reject your ideas is because of their own held beliefs.
The failing is yours, not ours. You should learn from that failure and try to grow, instead of simply failing again and again and again.
Unless you like failure - in which case I say keep on with what you are doing!
I'm quite happy with my thoughts.
I'm more than happy to explain in my own way.
I'm also more than happy to play simple.
The major issue for people like you lot is, you don't understand how to play simple because your heads are crammed with mumbo jumbo that doesn't make real sense but is accepted as making sense because it would be embarrassing for you lot to dismiss it or question it in any simplified way.
Basically you do not hold any layman's mindset, because to do so would place you among the peasants of the intellectual circles you believe you are part of....and we can't be having that, can we?
I'm simple and I go about my stuff in my own way. I have no issue with being dug at or called names. I follow my own experiments, as simple as they may be.
As simple as that.
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
Sceptimatic, just so you know - the reason people don't accept your musings is that they are actually incredibly bad abstractions of what we know. They exclude known facts, they are non-predictive and non-quantitative, they can not be readily shared with others, they continually require ad-hoc addendums, and they have no demonstrated value to anyone other than yourself.
They are worst type of explanatory conjectures - confused, opaque, and completely without use.
You are of course welcome to hold them, but you are doing yourself a delusional disservice pretending that the only reason people reject your ideas is because of their own held beliefs.
The failing is yours, not ours. You should learn from that failure and try to grow, instead of simply failing again and again and again.
Unless you like failure - in which case I say keep on with what you are doing!
I'm quite happy with my thoughts.
I'm more than happy to explain in my own way.
I'm also more than happy to play simple.
The major issue for people like you lot is, you don't understand how to play simple because your heads are crammed with mumbo jumbo that doesn't make real sense but is accepted as making sense because it would be embarrassing for you lot to dismiss it or question it in any simplified way.
Basically you do not hold any layman's mindset, because to do so would place you among the peasants of the intellectual circles you believe you are part of....and we can't be having that, can we?
I'm simple and I go about my stuff in my own way. I have no issue with being dug at or called names. I follow my own experiments, as simple as they may be.
As simple as that.
"People like you lot". I guess you're including me in this lot.
I wouldn't flatter yourself, sceptimatic, by elevating your mindset to that of the layman or the simpleton. Your mindset is primitive. Your mindset is even more primitive than than that found in Amazon jungle tribes.
In terms of benefits though, who is better off in life? You're not living amongst an Amazon jungle tribe are you? You're presumably living in Western society, using all of western society technology and comforts.
The reason none of the scientific concepts in this thread make no sense to you, is you are not interested in trying to understand them or evaluate their validity for yourself.
I see no benefits in devolving my own mindset to that of a primitive, when I live in Western society. Each to their own.
-
In terms of benefits though, who is better off in life? You're not living amongst an Amazon jungle tribe are you? You're presumably living in Western society, using all of western society technology and comforts.
I have no problem using the technology and comforts. It has no bearing on my thought process. I contribute to the very same comfort and technologies, yet I question other so called technologies and mindsets/theories.
The difference is, I don't just follow authority just for the sake of it. Something official does not mean something is truth.
You follow that path of believing everything from authority and question nothing and fair enough.
If you have your own proof of it then you are right in your thinking. If you don't, then you are no more up in the ranks of educated than others, in terms of that.
You can't drop down to my so called level because that would be you embarrassingly admitting to questioning authority in regards to this hypothetical stuff you are almost bullied into believing by simple peer pressure to do so.
Being a parrot does not mean anything other than you regurgitate what's put into the mind or merely mimicking.
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
I’m not even talking about gravity.
I reject it because I studied fluid mechanics. I’ve designed, built and tested various gas and vacuum systems using the same equations (by hand or computer simulation), that other engineers use to design and everything else that uses them, from cars and planes to power stations and chemical plants. The physics works.
Your version doesn’t work. I get that Flat Earthers don’t like the idea of gravity for some reason, but if you want to propose an alternative, you should be looking for a way that doesn’t break everything else.
That’s why I suggest you try actually learning how things work in the world outside your head.
-
The difference is, I don't just follow authority just for the sake of it. Something official does not mean something is truth.
You follow that path of believing everything from authority and question nothing and fair enough.
Define exactly what you mean by 'authority' and 'something official'.
-
If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory. You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them. Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.
Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
Is gravity a theory?
There are a number of gravitational theories, all of them attempt to describe physical abstractions of our collective set of observations in space and time.
-
The major issue for people like you lot is, you don't understand how to play simple because your heads are crammed with mumbo jumbo that doesn't make real sense but is accepted as making sense because it would be embarrassing for you lot to dismiss it or question it in any simplified way.
I understand that is how you see it. But it is an awfully self important viewpoint. It is obvious that YOU do not understand the 'mumbo jumbo'. But it does not mean others do not. After all, you dont understand circles and triangles, simple geometry that many grade schoolers have already got a good hold of, so your inability to understand a concept should not necessarily mean that it is 'mumbo jumbo', right?
If you cant understand it, it means that YOU can not understand it. I thought you wanted simple logic, not some convoluted reasoning that says that if you cant understand it, everyone else has been brainwashed into accepting nonsense and are embarrassed to admit it.
The latter is pretty silly. The former is simple logic. You dont understand basic concepts. Its okay, it doesnt make you less of a person or anything, and if you are well and happy that is all you can hope for. But again, this is your failure, not others, and you might do better in your personal search for truth if you stop projecting shortcomings on everyone you talk to and instead look at your own limitations.
-
In terms of benefits though, who is better off in life? You're not living amongst an Amazon jungle tribe are you? You're presumably living in Western society, using all of western society technology and comforts.
The difference is, I don't just follow authority just for the sake of it. Something official does not mean something is truth.
You follow that path of believing everything from authority and question nothing and fair enough.
We all have some level of scepticism, and I doubt anyone here is a blind follower. Everyone here is blessed with a sense of skepticism and is able to evaluate at some level claims for their validity.
For example, you believe, with absolutely no evidence, that there is massive worldwide mind control effort being perpetrated by some unknown people for some unknown goal, and what this group does is lie to everyone about the physics of the world and its shape (the latter for some bizarre reason that I have never understood). There are whole industries set up to perpetuate this lie, and it involves millions of people silently in on the lie. Somehow this nefarious group is able to provide all sorts of technological wonders, which we are led to believe are created using the engineering principles that have been spoon-fed to us, but this is really a trick of some sort (again, haven't been able to really figure this out either), as they engineering principles given are really just 'mumbo jumbo' that dont make sense.
And...
One man has managed to figure it all out. He has cracked the secrets of the world, the physics of how it works which are totally contrary to the lies we have been spoon fed. He has figured out the sun and moon are just holograms, projected by a magic crystal tower at the north pole. That we are encased in a breathing ice dome, and, swimming through some magical atmosphere with amazing properties. This amazing genius spends his time on message boards arguing pointlessly.
This is your belief.
How should a rationally skeptical person respond to such a story. I am highly skeptical to this. And I should be, right? Whatever warning bells we have all have about being fed bullshit, which might ding softly as when someone (official or not) is generally trying claim something, are currently ringing like mad.
Healthy skepticism. We all have it here, despite your claims to the contrary.
-
I agree. If Sceptimatic was right in everything he claims then he would immediately rise in the rankings of famous scientists above the likes of Einstein and Newton. He would effectively become the Einstein of the 21st century and the man who would be remembered for disproving gravity and showing that the Sun and Moon don't actually exist. That would cement his legacy as one of the all time greats in science.
Yet he wants things explained to him as if he was a child or a 'retard'. Is it just me or does something not quite add up there? Why would someone on the intellect level of Einstein at least want to be treated like a child?
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
I’m not even talking about gravity.
I reject it because I studied fluid mechanics. I’ve designed, built and tested various gas and vacuum systems using the same equations (by hand or computer simulation), that other engineers use to design and everything else that uses them, from cars and planes to power stations and chemical plants. The physics works.
Your version doesn’t work. I get that Flat Earthers don’t like the idea of gravity for some reason, but if you want to propose an alternative, you should be looking for a way that doesn’t break everything else.
That’s why I suggest you try actually learning how things work in the world outside your head.
Denpressure perfectly fits.
However, let's have some explanation for gravity.
Show me your gravity.
Tell me about this force that you're so sure of.
-
The difference is, I don't just follow authority just for the sake of it. Something official does not mean something is truth.
You follow that path of believing everything from authority and question nothing and fair enough.
Define exactly what you mean by 'authority' and 'something official'.
I'm sure you're up to speed on that.
-
If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory. You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them. Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.
Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
Is gravity a theory?
There are a number of gravitational theories, all of them attempt to describe physical abstractions of our collective set of observations in space and time.
So, gravity is just a theory, right?
It's not a fact...right?
If I'm wrong then explain why and show me.
-
In terms of benefits though, who is better off in life? You're not living amongst an Amazon jungle tribe are you? You're presumably living in Western society, using all of western society technology and comforts.
The difference is, I don't just follow authority just for the sake of it. Something official does not mean something is truth.
You follow that path of believing everything from authority and question nothing and fair enough.
We all have some level of scepticism, and I doubt anyone here is a blind follower. Everyone here is blessed with a sense of skepticism and is able to evaluate at some level claims for their validity.
For example, you believe, with absolutely no evidence, that there is massive worldwide mind control effort being perpetrated by some unknown people for some unknown goal, and what this group does is lie to everyone about the physics of the world and its shape (the latter for some bizarre reason that I have never understood). There are whole industries set up to perpetuate this lie, and it involves millions of people silently in on the lie. Somehow this nefarious group is able to provide all sorts of technological wonders, which we are led to believe are created using the engineering principles that have been spoon-fed to us, but this is really a trick of some sort (again, haven't been able to really figure this out either), as they engineering principles given are really just 'mumbo jumbo' that dont make sense.
And...
One man has managed to figure it all out. He has cracked the secrets of the world, the physics of how it works which are totally contrary to the lies we have been spoon fed. He has figured out the sun and moon are just holograms, projected by a magic crystal tower at the north pole. That we are encased in a breathing ice dome, and, swimming through some magical atmosphere with amazing properties. This amazing genius spends his time on message boards arguing pointlessly.
This is your belief.
How should a rationally skeptical person respond to such a story. I am highly skeptical to this. And I should be, right? Whatever warning bells we have all have about being fed bullshit, which might ding softly as when someone (official or not) is generally trying claim something, are currently ringing like mad.
Healthy skepticism. We all have it here, despite your claims to the contrary.
You lot do not possess any healthy scepticism.
-
I agree. If Sceptimatic was right in everything he claims then he would immediately rise in the rankings of famous scientists above the likes of Einstein and Newton. He would effectively become the Einstein of the 21st century and the man who would be remembered for disproving gravity and showing that the Sun and Moon don't actually exist. That would cement his legacy as one of the all time greats in science.
Yet he wants things explained to him as if he was a child or a 'retard'. Is it just me or does something not quite add up there? Why would someone on the intellect level of Einstein at least want to be treated like a child?
If you can't get your head around it then I shouldn't be baffled as to why...which I am not, to be fair. I understand that there's something not quite right with how you people go on.
This is why I simply ask for super simple explanations that a child can grasp.
You lot fail to do that but pretend you do.
You can argue about you thinking that I think I'm right on everything but you know I don't put that out......yet.....you still use that as some kind of battering ram.
The thing is, you lot are arguing as fact, things that are not factual.
Gravity being one such so called force.
I ask for simplicity and get the junk you throw at me.
Are you not capable of explaining your gravity in a simple way?
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
I’m not even talking about gravity.
I reject it because I studied fluid mechanics. I’ve designed, built and tested various gas and vacuum systems using the same equations (by hand or computer simulation), that other engineers use to design and everything else that uses them, from cars and planes to power stations and chemical plants. The physics works.
Your version doesn’t work. I get that Flat Earthers don’t like the idea of gravity for some reason, but if you want to propose an alternative, you should be looking for a way that doesn’t break everything else.
That’s why I suggest you try actually learning how things work in the world outside your head.
Denpressure perfectly fits.
However, let's have some explanation for gravity.
Show me your gravity.
Tell me about this force that you're so sure of.
Only in your imagination. In the real world, where we take measurements and do experiments to find out how things work, and use that knowledge to do useful things like generate electricity, it’s not even close.
Again, if you could be bothered to learn anything at all about the subject, you’d see how utterly wrong it all is.
-
Are you not capable of explaining your gravity in a simple way?
I have described it in a simple way. I could get a lot more complex but it would be wasted on you. That you are not capable of understanding (or more correctly not accepting) my explanation is not my problem. Regardless I'm certainly not going to be dictated to by you how I describe anything.
So, gravity is just a theory, right?
Absolutely. A theory that you disagree with. Just like quantum theory, thermodynamics, GTR, STR etc etc. Remember we as humans are not the inventors of nature. Science is just our way of trying to understand and explain what we see and experience in nature. The whole of science is based on theories. Just like your flat Earth 'theory'. Although I wouldn't call that a theory. Scientific theories are continuously being tested and re-tested to higher and higher levels of precision. If we can make predictions about the results of experiments before we do those experiments and then the actual results are consistent with the predicted results we can be pretty confident that we are thinking along the right lines wouldn't you say?
But until you come up with a better theory (and not just claims) then the theory of gravity will remain in place. All you do is broadcast your disparaging remarks about mainstream science and claims about how it is all nonsense. OK we get that. So now spend more time on giving us some details that go deeper than just claims.
I'm sure you're up to speed on that.
NO. That's why I asked. I'm sure you know what you mean by 'authority' so tell me.
The thing is, you lot are arguing as fact, things that are not factual.
Gravity being one such so called force.
How would you define what a force is?
-
sceppy,
quit with your diversions.
forget gravity.
let's assume it's wrong as you say it is.
you've presented an alternative.
so how does AIR, the very tangible thing that is around us, push down through the roof of my house, through the floor above me, through my hair, onto my head without pushing my hair flat?
just simply and simply and basically do that.
explain how by pushing down on something, it can magically push around other things.
simply and basically.
and if your answer is - "it does because it does" - then you'll have to admit your double standard to this so called "gravity"
-
Let's get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong and or there's something needs to be added.
I'm stood still (ish) and you go to push me. I resist that push from you. Is this inertia?
Or I'm stood there. do I have inertia at that point and if so, why?
You ALWAYS have inertia. This is why you don't just randomly start flying around all over the place, and why accelerating something takes a force.
Instead of thinking of it as a resistance to the push, think of it as the resistance to a change in motion which requires that push.
i.e. if you stand in front of a ball and try to move your hand or foot through it, you don't just move your hand or foot as if the object wasn't there with the object moving with your hand/foot. Instead when your hand/foot reaches the object you need to apply an additional force to accelerate it, with the force required based upon the mass of the object and how quickly you are accelerating it.
Likewise, if an object is thrown to you, it doesn't just hit you and stop. Instead you need to apply a force to stop it, and again, depending on the mass and how quickly you try to slow it down the force varies.
As for the why, that is what you need to explain with how your air causes inertia in complete defiance of the known laws of aerodynamics.
So, inertia is the obstacle to a force until it becomes resistant to that force?
Is this what you are saying?
No, again, it is quite simple, inertia is a resistance to a change in motion. It is simply stating that in order to accelerate something, you need to apply a force proportional to the product of the mass and acceleration.
That is what you need to try to explain.
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
Gravity has nothing to do with accepting how air pressure works.
Air pressure is very well understood.
Air pressure applies a force proportional to the area and pressure. F=PA.
This is not hard to understand.
When immersed in a medium, pressure is typically acting from all around.
The net force is then based upon a pressure gradient, with the pressure itself just acting to compress the object (not magically crush it down).
For something like the atmosphere, this pressure gradient typically pushes upwards.
But if you move something through the air this compresses the air in front and decompresses it behind, causing a pressure gradient to push it backwards.
This is based upon how fast it is moving and the aerodynamics of the object, and completely independent of the mass of the object.
The only connected to gravity any of that had is in explaining the pressure gradient that is observed in the atmosphere.
Try and think of something else.
He did. The same thing you have been struggling with for eons.
Why does the apple fall when in mid-air, with the air all around?
Most of your theoretical science acceptance, is like a religion.
Just because your FE BS is like a religion doesn't make actual science like a religion.
The science we are talking about is nothing like a religion as it is based upon actual evidence and updates as new evidence comes to light.
It also has explanatory power.
Stacking and anything within it being crushed by it, by their own displacement of it, like I already told you.
That is just saying pressure is there. It isn't explaining where it comes from.
It's got nothing to do with any irrational hatred of physics from my side. I don't believe gravity exists so I can hardly hate it.
It sure seems to.
You hate it so much you pretend it isn't real.
You hate it so much you pretend it is just a magical story.
You hate it so much you pretend the only reason people follow it is indoctrination.
You cannot provide any reason at all for why it is wrong, or an alternative explanation to all the evidence showing it is real.
The major issue for people like you lot is, you don't understand how to play simple
But we can, as we have done so repeatedly to show your claims make no sense.
For example, playing simple, you can't explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, playing simple you can't explain why things all, playing simple you can't explain why the force pushing in a stack of objects increases as you go down the stack, playing simple you can't explain why the push down is proportional to mass rather than to pressure and area.
Denpressure perfectly fits.
Only in your delusional fantasies.
The only thing you have been able to "explain" with it is why an object sitting on the ground has weight.
You cannot explain why this doesn't push an object into a wall or a roof, nor why things fall in mid air. Nor can you explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
It doesn't fit at all.
You lot do not possess any healthy scepticism.
You clearly don't understand what healthy scepticism is.
As a hint, it isn't repeatedly dismissing things you hate, and claiming it is nonsense when you are unable to show any fault with it.
Are you not capable of explaining your gravity in a simple way?
It has been explained to you simply, and you ignored it.
-
If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory. You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them. Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.
Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
Is gravity a theory?
There are a number of gravitational theories, all of them attempt to describe physical abstractions of our collective set of observations in space and time.
So, gravity is just a theory, right?
It's not a fact...right?
If I'm wrong then explain why and show me.
Yep. It is a theory. A generalized explanation of a set of facts. And like all abstractions of observations, it remains open to falsification in one form or another if new contradictory observations come to light.
Facts are facts. Theories explain them. Good theories both explain facts, and make new testable hypotheses which then strengthen or weaken the support for the theory.
-
In terms of benefits though, who is better off in life? You're not living amongst an Amazon jungle tribe are you? You're presumably living in Western society, using all of western society technology and comforts.
The difference is, I don't just follow authority just for the sake of it. Something official does not mean something is truth.
You follow that path of believing everything from authority and question nothing and fair enough.
We all have some level of scepticism, and I doubt anyone here is a blind follower. Everyone here is blessed with a sense of skepticism and is able to evaluate at some level claims for their validity.
For example, you believe, with absolutely no evidence, that there is massive worldwide mind control effort being perpetrated by some unknown people for some unknown goal, and what this group does is lie to everyone about the physics of the world and its shape (the latter for some bizarre reason that I have never understood). There are whole industries set up to perpetuate this lie, and it involves millions of people silently in on the lie. Somehow this nefarious group is able to provide all sorts of technological wonders, which we are led to believe are created using the engineering principles that have been spoon-fed to us, but this is really a trick of some sort (again, haven't been able to really figure this out either), as they engineering principles given are really just 'mumbo jumbo' that dont make sense.
And...
One man has managed to figure it all out. He has cracked the secrets of the world, the physics of how it works which are totally contrary to the lies we have been spoon fed. He has figured out the sun and moon are just holograms, projected by a magic crystal tower at the north pole. That we are encased in a breathing ice dome, and, swimming through some magical atmosphere with amazing properties. This amazing genius spends his time on message boards arguing pointlessly.
This is your belief.
How should a rationally skeptical person respond to such a story. I am highly skeptical to this. And I should be, right? Whatever warning bells we have all have about being fed bullshit, which might ding softly as when someone (official or not) is generally trying claim something, are currently ringing like mad.
Healthy skepticism. We all have it here, despite your claims to the contrary.
You lot do not possess any healthy scepticism.
I’m skeptical of your claim.
I’m also skeptical of your claim of massive worldwide conspiracies to hide the shape of the earth as well as your brilliance in single handed cracking the secrets of the world around us.
I think that is a demonstration of healthy skepticism, don’t you?
-
In terms of benefits though, who is better off in life? You're not living amongst an Amazon jungle tribe are you? You're presumably living in Western society, using all of western society technology and comforts.
I have no problem using the technology and comforts. It has no bearing on my thought process. I contribute to the very same comfort and technologies, yet I question other so called technologies and mindsets/theories.
The difference is, I don't just follow authority just for the sake of it. Something official does not mean something is truth.
You follow that path of believing everything from authority and question nothing and fair enough.
If you have your own proof of it then you are right in your thinking. If you don't, then you are no more up in the ranks of educated than others, in terms of that.
You can't drop down to my so called level because that would be you embarrassingly admitting to questioning authority in regards to this hypothetical stuff you are almost bullied into believing by simple peer pressure to do so.
Being a parrot does not mean anything other than you regurgitate what's put into the mind or merely mimicking.
Do you have a copyright on the denpressure theory? I hope not, because that theory is holier than my steamed vegetables strainer.
But I digress. The reason I can't drop down to your level, is because I take life seriously. I don't live on fantasy island like you do.
For instance, if the authorities were to warn me that the international space station had upset the orbit of a large satellite, and said large satellite was headed towards earth with a trajectory likely to hit my house before fully burning up, I would appropriately evacuate my house and help evacuate all houses within a radius of my house.
You on the other hand, if you were to receive the same warning, being a person who does not believe in outer space or satellites, you would scoff, and continue relaxing on your sofa in your lounge room, eating your potato chips.
-
So, gravity is just a theory, right?
It's not a fact...right?
If I'm wrong then explain why and show me.
Yep. It is a theory. A generalized explanation of a set of facts. And like all abstractions of observations, it remains open to falsification in one form or another if new contradictory observations come to light.
Facts are facts. Theories explain them. Good theories both explain facts, and make new testable hypotheses which then strengthen or weaken the support for the theory.
I would say something slightly different.
Gravity is a physical phenomenon which is well observed and documented.
Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's general relativity (as well as contributions from others) and theories to explain this observed physical phenomenon and allow us to make predictions based upon it.
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
I’m not even talking about gravity.
I reject it because I studied fluid mechanics. I’ve designed, built and tested various gas and vacuum systems using the same equations (by hand or computer simulation), that other engineers use to design and everything else that uses them, from cars and planes to power stations and chemical plants. The physics works.
Your version doesn’t work. I get that Flat Earthers don’t like the idea of gravity for some reason, but if you want to propose an alternative, you should be looking for a way that doesn’t break everything else.
That’s why I suggest you try actually learning how things work in the world outside your head.
Denpressure perfectly fits.
However, let's have some explanation for gravity.
Show me your gravity.
Tell me about this force that you're so sure of.
Only in your imagination. In the real world, where we take measurements and do experiments to find out how things work, and use that knowledge to do useful things like generate electricity, it’s not even close.
Again, if you could be bothered to learn anything at all about the subject, you’d see how utterly wrong it all is.
There's no issue with anything happening under denpressure. It works as we can see.
The only issue is, how we are told stuff works. Gravity in use is a nonsense.
You don't know what it is but argue for it.
-
So, gravity is just a theory, right?
Absolutely. A theory that you disagree with.
Yep and a theory you agree with without knowing what it is.
Just like quantum theory, thermodynamics, GTR, STR etc etc. Remember we as humans are not the inventors of nature.
Same things. You have no clue but argue it because you follow that train of thought. You mimic it. You parrot it without actually knowing what it really is.
Science is just our way of trying to understand and explain what we see and experience in nature.
Yep and showing it to be a reality or close to one, is key. Many things are and many are not. It's the latter I'm arguing about.
The whole of science is based on theories. Just like your flat Earth 'theory'.
Although I wouldn't call that a theory.
Course you wouldn't call it a theory. You're hell bent on global nonsense so I wouldn't expect you to.
Scientific theories are continuously being tested and re-tested to higher and higher levels of precision.
That depends on what is real scientific or pseudo...or simply blatant bull.
If we can make predictions about the results of experiments before we do those experiments and then the actual results are consistent with the predicted results we can be pretty confident that we are thinking along the right lines wouldn't you say?
It depends on what is postulated.
But until you come up with a better theory (and not just claims) then the theory of gravity will remain in place.
Gravity will always remain in place until such time where a forced change may come into force, like some natural phenomenon that opens it up to massive question.
Anything I say is relevant to me and anyone who wants to try and understand it against the nonsense we've been bullied into accepting all of our lives.
All you do is broadcast your disparaging remarks about mainstream science and claims about how it is all nonsense.
Ditto.
OK we get that. So now spend more time on giving us some details that go deeper than just claims.
I'm giving out what I feel. What you take from it is of no concern to me.
How would you define what a force is?
Anything that creates or is part of, friction.
-
sceppy,
quit with your diversions.
forget gravity.
let's assume it's wrong as you say it is.
you've presented an alternative.
so how does AIR, the very tangible thing that is around us, push down through the roof of my house, through the floor above me, through my hair, onto my head without pushing my hair flat?
just simply and simply and basically do that.
explain how by pushing down on something, it can magically push around other things.
simply and basically.
and if your answer is - "it does because it does" - then you'll have to admit your double standard to this so called "gravity"
I've told you so many times.
I'm now trying you to the bottom of a big NASA pool they use for faking space.
Ok, now I ask you why you feel pressure all around you but your hair seems to wave about.
Let's see where you go with this and if you're capable of thinking in simple terms, you may be able to understand how atmosphere also works.
-
No, again, it is quite simple, inertia is a resistance to a change in motion. It is simply stating that in order to accelerate something, you need to apply a force proportional to the product of the mass and acceleration.
That is what you need to try to explain.
You apply a force to a mass that resists your force...correct?
For your force to be used to accelerate that mass, something must also resist your force in order for you to do that.
The ground or even water if you were in water and pushing against an object.
So basically inertia is merely resistance.
The resist a change in motion means nothing. It's just resistance.
If inertia is resistance then I have no issue with inertia.
As for me explaining. I can't explain inertia other than to say it is resistance, by what you're putting out.
-
Total rubbish. Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesn’t work like that.
And it would be blindingly obvious that it can’t possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what you’re talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
Gravity has nothing to do with accepting how air pressure works.
Air pressure is very well understood.
Air pressure applies a force proportional to the area and pressure. F=PA.
This is not hard to understand.
Clearly it is hard to understand because you are struggling with it by adding in your fictional gravity.
-
If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory. You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them. Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.
Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
Is gravity a theory?
There are a number of gravitational theories, all of them attempt to describe physical abstractions of our collective set of observations in space and time.
So, gravity is just a theory, right?
It's not a fact...right?
If I'm wrong then explain why and show me.
Yep. It is a theory. A generalized explanation of a set of facts. And like all abstractions of observations, it remains open to falsification in one form or another if new contradictory observations come to light.
Facts are facts. Theories explain them. Good theories both explain facts, and make new testable hypotheses which then strengthen or weaken the support for the theory.
It's a theory, not a fact.
-
I’m skeptical of your claim.
I’m also skeptical of your claim of massive worldwide conspiracies to hide the shape of the earth as well as your brilliance in single handed cracking the secrets of the world around us.
I think that is a demonstration of healthy skepticism, don’t you?
Yep. You are well within your rights to do that and I would not expect anything else.
-
Do you have a copyright on the denpressure theory? I hope not, because that theory is holier than my steamed vegetables strainer.
Are the steamed one's any different from the boiled ones?
But I digress. The reason I can't drop down to your level, is because I take life seriously. I don't live on fantasy island like you do.
We'll all die one day and I'll die doing what I do and how I do it. That is a mixture of what's required for me to do to navigate life with my family. Mainly fun and experiments and manufacturing. A mixture.
If you want to live your life as Mr serious, go right ahead.
For instance, if the authorities were to warn me that the international space station had upset the orbit of a large satellite, and said large satellite was headed towards earth with a trajectory likely to hit my house before fully burning up, I would appropriately evacuate my house and help evacuate all houses within a radius of my house.
I would too, just to be on the safe side....but, I wouldn't be expecting space stations or space satellites.
Maybe something else in the atmosphere.
You on the other hand, if you were to receive the same warning, being a person who does not believe in outer space or satellites, you would scoff, and continue relaxing on your sofa in your lounge room, eating your potato chips.
Nahhhh. It would take me nothing to evacuate my family and friends for the sake of a day or two.
Like I said above, it wouldn't be because I was afraid of a space satellite hitting.
-
For your force to be used to accelerate that mass, something must also resist your force in order for you to do that.
That object is the thing resisting. You need to explain why it is.
Hypothetically (i.e. not necessarily in reality) it would be possible to have an object not resist at all and instead just accelerate as you push it, without needing any force to do so.
So basically inertia is merely resistance.
Again, it is a very specific type of resistance. A resistance to a change in motion.
You require a force to accelerate it. You require a force to slow it down.
Again, this is fundamentally different to others types of resistance.
For example, air and other fluids resist relative motion. This is where if you try to move through it, you create a pressure gradient and that gradient resists the motion. Notice that this is resistance to relative motion, rather than a change in motion. This resistance is based upon the velocity relative to the fluid and the aerodynamics of the object, and the fluid. This is fundamentally different to resisting a change in motion, which is based upon the mass and the acceleration.
As for me explaining. I can't explain inertia other than to say it is resistance, by what you're putting out.
So you are saying you cannot use the air to explain it at all?
Then why pretend you could?
Why even try claiming that the air causes it when you have literally nothing to support that and cannot use the air to explain it at all?
-
There's no issue with anything happening under denpressure. It works as we can see.
Except all the problems I have already listed.
The "only" issue is that your denpressure can't explain anything.
I've told you so many times.
No, you have avoided it many times, as you cannot tell us why at all.
You have no justification at all for why the air pushes anything down except when it is on the ground, but that is then contradicted by so many things it isn't funny.
Ok, now I ask you why you feel pressure all around you but your hair seems to wave about.
Because the pressure is pushing from all around, without any significant net force.
Clearly it is hard to understand because you are struggling with it by adding in your fictional gravity.
The only one struggling here is you.
I understand it quite well, and can easily explain how your claims about it are pure BS, as I have done repeatedly.
Again, air applies a force based upon the pressure and area. That means in something like the atmosphere with a pressure gradient with pressure grater at the bottom, the air pushes things up, not down.
But you either cannot understand or refuse to accept that, and instead want to pretend air somehow magically pushes objects down.
It's a theory, not a fact.
Gravity is a physical phenomenon, a part of reality.
The theory of gravity is a theory.
For instance, if the authorities were to warn me that the international space station had upset the orbit of a large satellite, and said large satellite was headed towards earth with a trajectory likely to hit my house before fully burning up, I would appropriately evacuate my house and help evacuate all houses within a radius of my house.
I would too, just to be on the safe side
Which just shows how little faith you have in your own garbage.
You know it is garbage.
You know you are just rejecting reality.
If you truly believed the garbage you spouted you would think these people are just lying and delusional/mistaken, as you think satellites aren't real, and thus you would stay put.
-
I’m skeptical of your claim.
I’m also skeptical of your claim of massive worldwide conspiracies to hide the shape of the earth as well as your brilliance in single handed cracking the secrets of the world around us.
I think that is a demonstration of healthy skepticism, don’t you?
Yep. You are well within your rights to do that and I would not expect anything else.
So you agree that anyone with a healthy sense of skepticism SHOULD be very skeptical of your claims? After all, unevidenced claims of vast, worldwide bizarre and perfect conspiracies, coupled with grand claims of self importance and brilliance - like you are proposing, are highly questionable and should be rightly dismissed by any rational individual, correct?
-
There's no issue with anything happening under denpressure. It works as we can see.
The only issue is, how we are told stuff works. Gravity in use is a nonsense.
You don't know what it is but argue for it.
There’s no issue because nothing happens under denpressure. It’s pure fantasy.
That’s why when people design aeroplanes for example, they don’t use denpressure nonsense, but real physics.
If denpressure were real, it would be blindingly obvious from the enormous differences from what we observe, and that’s what we would learn. But it’s not, so we don’t.
-
Yep and a theory you agree with without knowing what it is.
Could I politely ask you to stop making judgment about what I do or don't know. If you don't believe in gravity as a theory or whatever then that's fine but you have no right to tell me or anyone else what they do or don't know.
Ok, now I ask you why you feel pressure all around you but your hair seems to wave about.
Do you feel pressure all around you? I don't. Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end? Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again. Why do you think that is?
When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground. Why is that? If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand. I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right). I open my hand and the apple falls to the group. I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards. Why? Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side? If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
-
For your force to be used to accelerate that mass, something must also resist your force in order for you to do that.
That object is the thing resisting. You need to explain why it is.
Hypothetically (i.e. not necessarily in reality) it would be possible to have an object not resist at all and instead just accelerate as you push it, without needing any force to do so.
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so? It's impossible.
There's no hypothetical about it.
-
I’m skeptical of your claim.
I’m also skeptical of your claim of massive worldwide conspiracies to hide the shape of the earth as well as your brilliance in single handed cracking the secrets of the world around us.
I think that is a demonstration of healthy skepticism, don’t you?
Yep. You are well within your rights to do that and I would not expect anything else.
So you agree that anyone with a healthy sense of skepticism SHOULD be very skeptical of your claims?
Everyone has a right to be sceptical. I do not expect anyone to just accept what I say. I leave that down to those that are willing to spend the time questioning everything and scrutinising everything, to come up with their own logic and reasoning rather than being saturated in a lot of unprovable so called scientific gobbledygook.
After all, unevidenced claims of vast, worldwide bizarre and perfect conspiracies, coupled with grand claims of self importance and brilliance - like you are proposing, are highly questionable and should be rightly dismissed by any rational individual, correct?
It would be absolutely correct if I was putting it all out as factual. But I'm not putting it out as factual. I'm putting it out as my thought process, based on my small but relevant (to me) experiments...and the real belief....yes, belief...by me, that Earth is not a spinning globe in a vacuum of space as we're told.
-
There's no issue with anything happening under denpressure. It works as we can see.
The only issue is, how we are told stuff works. Gravity in use is a nonsense.
You don't know what it is but argue for it.
There’s no issue because nothing happens under denpressure. It’s pure fantasy.
That’s why when people design aeroplanes for example, they don’t use denpressure nonsense, but real physics.
Denpressure easily caters for plane flight....gravity does not.
If denpressure were real, it would be blindingly obvious from the enormous differences from what we observe, and that’s what we would learn. But it’s not, so we don’t.
It is blindingly obvious. It's just hidden behind another supposed force called gravity, which is the real fiction.
-
Do you feel pressure all around you? I don't. Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end? Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again. Why do you think that is?
When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground. Why is that? If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand. I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right). I open my hand and the apple falls to the group. I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards. Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical reasoning.
Push caters for everything by resistance.
-
It would be absolutely correct if I was putting it all out as factual. But I'm not putting it out as factual. I'm putting it out as my thought process, based on my small but relevant (to me) experiments...and the real belief....yes, belief...by me, that Earth is not a spinning globe in a vacuum of space as we're told.
What experiments? Can you show us these and the results?
-
I leave that down to those that are willing to spend the time questioning everything and scrutinising everything, to come up with their own logic and reasoning rather than being saturated in a lot of unprovable so called scientific gobbledygook.
If you seriously think that you can 'prove' the shape of the Earth by looking at whether water looks level or not then you are sadly mistaken. Science has never and will never 'prove' anything.
At the end of the day these discussions are basically an expression of opinions. You have yours we have ours. We can carry on firing these disparaging remarks about each others opinions for ever more without achieving anything. No one will ever 'prove' anything either way.
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
OK where does the energy come from in the first place?
pressure of atmosphere
Pressure doesn't just manifest itself. So what creates the pressure?
You keep on talking about the consequence of what we observe without saying anything at all about the cause of what we observe.
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Explain this nice and simply.. you know the sort of level a child or a retard might understand. As it is this is a sentence of fancy sounding words but it means absolutely nothing. In any case this doesn't explain why it always moves the same way.
The same reason it doesn't in water.
Which is?
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
Really? How does a car get a caravan to move then? How does a tractor get a plough to move? Do train engines not pull the carriages along?
based on my small but relevant (to me) experiments
So one person can single handedly carry out some experiments and confirm beyond any element of doubt that the Earth is not a globe can they? Yes I would like to know what those experiments are as well!! Fame and fortune beckons anyone who can do that.
-
OK where does the energy come from in the first place?
Earth's centre.
If you want to think of it on an easy mind process, just think of a cell or an egg or frogspawn or something along those lines.
That's all we are, I believe...just part of a cell.
A big cell to our thinking but maybe small in the grand scheme of the bigger picture...eh?
Possible?
Of course not, to you, because you think we're spinning in a space vacuum and are reliant on a massive burning sun...etc, in that vacuum.
pressure of atmosphere
Pressure doesn't just manifest itself. So what creates the pressure?
Friction/vibrational frequencies.
You keep on talking about the consequence of what we observe without saying anything at all about the cause of what we observe.
It depends how far you want to go. Do we go down the "how long is a piece of string" avenue?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Explain this nice and simply.. you know the sort of level a child or a retard might understand. As it is this is a sentence of fancy sounding words but it means absolutely nothing.
I think I am explaining like that. Maybe you need to have a think.
-
The same reason it doesn't in water.
Which is?
Put your unbiased mind to work, if you have one.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
Really? How does a car get a caravan to move then? How does a tractor get a plough to move? Do train engines not pull the carriages along?
They all push each other along. You just need to put your unbiased mind to work, as above..
based on my small but relevant (to me) experiments
So one person can single handedly carry out some experiments and confirm beyond any element of doubt that the Earth is not a globe can they?
Nope...many people can. The easiest proof's have already been told but naturally, denied....obviously.
Yes I would like to know what those experiments are as well!! Fame and fortune beckons anyone who can do that.
Fame and fortune don't beckon anyone who goes against the global mindset, stop being so naive.
-
Earth's centre.
If you want to think of it on an easy mind process, just think of a cell or an egg or frogspawn or something along those lines.
That's all we are, I believe...just part of a cell.
A big cell to our thinking but maybe small in the grand scheme of the bigger picture...eh?
Possible?
Of course not, to you, because you think we're spinning in a space vacuum and are reliant on a massive burning sun...etc, in that vacuum.
So the energy comes from Earths centre does it. OK. So how is that energy generated in the first place? Just describe to me how you visualise the centre of the Earth from your point of view. How does it create the Earths magnetic field? Obviously you are not going to deny that the Earth has a magnetic field are you.
That's all we are, I believe...just part of a cell.
You are right there...we are all made of cells. How many exactly? You say A cell. Just one?
A cell needs energy. How does that energy come from. Everything you say is just claims. How does the energy get created in the first place. You have told me where you believe it comes from now tell me how it gets created. Energy doesn't create itself.
Possible?
Anything is possible. But possible doesn't mean anything until there is evidence to support.
Related to that:
Friction/vibrational frequencies.
What causes the vibration then? Vibration requires a source of energy. You've told me where you think it comes from but not what creates it.
I like to question things. That's what science is all about. Asking where, why, how, when, what? What is the energy source, how long has it been producing energy for, what started the process off (i.e. how old is your Earth), what is the fuel source of this energy? etc etc.. You on the other hand don't question anything. You are too preoccupied dismissing and denying everything to question anything. In any case why should you question anything... you have already decided you are right about all the BS that your mind is filled with. I know you smirk away to yourself when people say these sort of things to you but you know its true.
Put your unbiased mind to work, if you have one.
So I suppose you think you have got an unbiased mind. A great comment coming from one of the most biased minds I have ever come across.
Have you ever learned something you cannot find out for yourself from someone else and if so what? If so how did you verify for yourself that they were telling you the truth and not lying to you? Or do you rely on yourself for your 'knowledge'?
-
Cells and eggs are ball-ish and goes to what jaclBs been sayong to you all this time - your theory doesnt require earth to be flat and "works" on a ball earth just the same.
-
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so?
Why is a resistance needed?
Unless you can explain that, it is not innately impossible and thus it is hypothetical (but not necessarily physically) possible to do so.
And if we accept your delusional BS, with resistance being based upon the air, then it must be hypothetically possible to do so as it is hypothetically possible to not have air, which would mean no resistance.
But again, in reality, we know this isn't the case.
We know that instead it requires a force to accelerate the object based upon its mass and the acceleration.
It is the object itself resisting.
The air does not factor into it at all.
Now care to answer the question you completely avoided which shows your massive dishonesty?
You admit you cannot explain it as anything more than the object resists changes in motion.
If that is the case, why did you outright lie and claim it is the air, and that you have explained it?
Why claim it is the air responsible if you cannot use the air to help in your explanation at all?
-
I leave that down to those that are willing to spend the time questioning everything and scrutinising everything, to come up with their own logic and reasoning rather than being saturated in a lot of unprovable so called scientific gobbledygook.
The problem is your claims are that "lot of unprovable so called scientific gobbledygook".
When people with an open mind honestly and logically scrutinise your claims, they realise they are pure BS.
For example, you claim that inertia is caused by air even though you admit you cannot explain it with air at all.
So why would any sane person accept that completely unsubstantiated lie, which you make just so you pretend rockets can't work in space and thus all the satellite photos of Earth showing it is clearly round must be fake?
What a sane person would do is realise you are just looking for whatever dishonest excuse you can come up with to dismiss the RE and the evidence supporting it.
Likewise, why would any sane person accept your denpressure BS when you can't even explain why an object falls, directly defying the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, or why there is a pressure gradient in the first place?
It would be absolutely correct if I was putting it all out as factual.
You repeatedly put out your claims as factual.
Especially with your irrational, hate fuelled attack on the RE and mainstream science, repeatedly dismissing it as nonsense and accusing anyone who supports it of being indoctrinated and only supporting it because of that indoctrination.
Denpressure easily caters for plane flight
With no ability to explain why things fall, and instead having a pressure gradient push things up, denpressure, if it were real, would make flight trivial.
But back in reality, gravity explains why objects fall and thus why planes need such large wings to generate lift to overcome gravity to be able to fly.
Again, denpressure explains nothing.
It is blindingly obvious.
It is blindingly obvious that it is delusional BS.
That is obvious from your complete inability to explain anything with it.
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.
Perhaps you should try to actually think for once.
You can just remove the support and have it fall.
There is no need to lift it first.
is then crushed down
But WHY DOES IT MAGICALLY GO DOWN?
That is what you are completely incapable of explaining.
We know the pressure is greater below the apple, and that means the air should push it up.
Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.
Apples float in water, for the exact same reason the air should be pushing the apple up.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
No, that alone is your baseless assertion you cannot justify at all and instead need to continually flee from simple questions showing it is BS.
Again, how does a chain or a rope transfer the force?
Again, remember this diagram, it shows your claims are pure BS:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Have you figured out how the right side of the chain pushes the left side to the right, even though it is on the wrong side to do that?
I'll give you a clue, it pulls it.
In reality what you typically have are fields which interact with particles and at that level there is no distinction between push and pull.
It depends how far you want to go. Do we go down the "how long is a piece of string" avenue?
How about until you get down to a fundamental force, like gravity or electromagnetism.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
Really? How does a car get a caravan to move then? How does a tractor get a plough to move? Do train engines not pull the carriages along?
They all push each other along. You just need to put your unbiased mind to work, as above..
The car is in front. It can't push the caravan. It can only pull it.
You just need to discard your extreme bias and stop rejecting reality.
The easiest proof's have already been told but naturally, denied....obviously.
You mean refuted. That is fundamentally different to denied.
An example of denial is where you dismissed the photographic evidence as fake.
An example of refuted is an explanation of how long distance photos clearly show the surface of water is curved, not flat like you want to pretend.
Now again, figured out how to explain the pressure gradient without appealing to gravity yet?
-
I’m skeptical of your claim.
I’m also skeptical of your claim of massive worldwide conspiracies to hide the shape of the earth as well as your brilliance in single handed cracking the secrets of the world around us.
I think that is a demonstration of healthy skepticism, don’t you?
Yep. You are well within your rights to do that and I would not expect anything else.
So you agree that anyone with a healthy sense of skepticism SHOULD be very skeptical of your claims?
Everyone has a right to be sceptical. I do not expect anyone to just accept what I say. I leave that down to those that are willing to spend the time questioning everything and scrutinising everything, to come up with their own logic and reasoning rather than being saturated in a lot of unprovable so called scientific gobbledygook.
And if we were having this discussion around a fire in a cave, I would agree with you. Instead, we are incredibly speaking to each other from around the world using finely controlled engines of electricity and light. We fly through the sky as if it was nothing, we build amazing structures to live and work in, and regularly control matter down to molecular level. Why should a rational person not at least try to understand the conceptual frameworks that got us here?
After all, unevidenced claims of vast, worldwide bizarre and perfect conspiracies, coupled with grand claims of self importance and brilliance - like you are proposing, are highly questionable and should be rightly dismissed by any rational individual, correct?
It would be absolutely correct if I was putting it all out as factual. But I'm not putting it out as factual. I'm putting it out as my thought process, based on my small but relevant (to me) experiments...and the real belief....yes, belief...by me, that Earth is not a spinning globe in a vacuum of space as we're told.
Still really skeptical. You say you have done experiments that convince you that there is a vast worldwide conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth and have given you alone insight into its true nature. Yet you won't say what these experiments are though, only that they are simple.
Alarm bells are clanging loudly as my skepticism kicks in. Any person with such a healthy sense of skepticism should be saying "wait a second here....", no?
-
Earth's centre.
If you want to think of it on an easy mind process, just think of a cell or an egg or frogspawn or something along those lines.
That's all we are, I believe...just part of a cell.
A big cell to our thinking but maybe small in the grand scheme of the bigger picture...eh?
Possible?
Of course not, to you, because you think we're spinning in a space vacuum and are reliant on a massive burning sun...etc, in that vacuum.
So the energy comes from Earths centre does it. OK. So how is that energy generated in the first place? Just describe to me how you visualise the centre of the Earth from your point of view. How does it create the Earths magnetic field? Obviously you are not going to deny that the Earth has a magnetic field are you.
That's all we are, I believe...just part of a cell.
You are right there...we are all made of cells. How many exactly? You say A cell. Just one?
A cell needs energy. How does that energy come from. Everything you say is just claims. How does the energy get created in the first place. You have told me where you believe it comes from now tell me how it gets created. Energy doesn't create itself.
Possible?
Anything is possible. But possible doesn't mean anything until there is evidence to support.
Related to that:
Friction/vibrational frequencies.
What causes the vibration then? Vibration requires a source of energy. You've told me where you think it comes from but not what creates it.
I like to question things. That's what science is all about. Asking where, why, how, when, what? What is the energy source, how long has it been producing energy for, what started the process off (i.e. how old is your Earth), what is the fuel source of this energy? etc etc.. You on the other hand don't question anything. You are too preoccupied dismissing and denying everything to question anything. In any case why should you question anything... you have already decided you are right about all the BS that your mind is filled with. I know you smirk away to yourself when people say these sort of things to you but you know its true.
Put your unbiased mind to work, if you have one.
So I suppose you think you have got an unbiased mind. A great comment coming from one of the most biased minds I have ever come across.
Have you ever learned something you cannot find out for yourself from someone else and if so what? If so how did you verify for yourself that they were telling you the truth and not lying to you? Or do you rely on yourself for your 'knowledge'?
When you calm down and compose yourself and ask me a civil question, I'll give you my best answer as it stands.
Don;t ask me questions and then go into that tirade on nonsense of digs and then complain that I'm digging at you.
You get what you give.
Mr nasty.
-
Cells and eggs are ball-ish and goes to what jaclBs been sayong to you all this time - your theory doesnt require earth to be flat and "works" on a ball earth just the same.
Yep and the difference is, we are inside, not walking about on the top.
Have a real good think about it.
-
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so?
Why is a resistance needed?
Unless you can explain that, it is not innately impossible and thus it is hypothetical (but not necessarily physically) possible to do so.
Pay attention then.
To push something you need leverage. You need something to push against to resist the reactionary resistant force of the object to be pushed.
It's all resistance.
Just take your mind from the magical and think about reality.
-
For example, you claim that inertia is caused by air even though you admit you cannot explain it with air at all.
Making lies up isn't going to get you very far.
I don't claim anything about inertia. I don't accept it as being anything unless you admit it is simply, resistance.
Once you do that, we can move on with it.
So, no....I did not make any claim about it.
I'm still waiting for you to explain it.
-
And if we were having this discussion around a fire in a cave, I would agree with you. Instead, we are incredibly speaking to each other from around the world using finely controlled engines of electricity and light. We fly through the sky as if it was nothing, we build amazing structures to live and work in, and regularly control matter down to molecular level. Why should a rational person not at least try to understand the conceptual frameworks that got us here?
And this is where it comes down to reverse engineering to get right back to the so called cave speak.
One brick can start a palace. One palace is complicated.
Strip it back to find the start.
That's all that's required.
This applies to everything.
After all, unevidenced claims of vast, worldwide bizarre and perfect conspiracies, coupled with grand claims of self importance and brilliance - like you are proposing, are highly questionable and should be rightly dismissed by any rational individual, correct?
It would be absolutely correct if I was putting it all out as factual. But I'm not putting it out as factual. I'm putting it out as my thought process, based on my small but relevant (to me) experiments...and the real belief....yes, belief...by me, that Earth is not a spinning globe in a vacuum of space as we're told.
Still really skeptical. You say you have done experiments that convince you that there is a vast worldwide conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth and have given you alone insight into its true nature. Yet you won't say what these experiments are though, only that they are simple.
Alarm bells are clanging loudly as my skepticism kicks in. Any person with such a healthy sense of skepticism should be saying "wait a second here....", no?
Keep them ringing. You're only catering for yourself. I have no issue with you not believing or accepting anything I say.
I do not want nor expect you to think on my side.
-
I don't claim anything about inertia. I don't accept it as being anything unless you admit it is simply, resistance.
So, no....I did not make any claim about it.
You are clearly trying to claim 'it is simply resistance'. This IS A CLAIM.
Also why do you always place commas in strange places in your sentences? You wonder why people struggle to understand you demented ramblings and being unable to make grammatically correct statements really doesn't help.
You, mus,t be, the ,new ,Eng,lish teach,er....right?
-
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so?
Why is a resistance needed?
Unless you can explain that, it is not innately impossible and thus it is hypothetical (but not necessarily physically) possible to do so.
Pay attention then.
To push something you need leverage. You need something to push against to resist the reactionary resistant force of the object to be pushed.
It's all resistance.
Just take your mind from the magical and think about reality.
I kind of get it. Take for example the train. The engine's wheels are turning pushing against the track's, I guess resistance, to move forward. However, the car(s) attached to it behind are being pulled by the engine. Otherwise they wouldn't move.
Same thing with the chain links. You're pulling the end of the loose chain with your hands. You're pushing into the resistance of the ground with your feet on some level to do so. However a loose link is sliding so that it buts up to another link and begins to physically pull on that link, not push. Otherwise the link wouldn't move.
So, ostensibly, both push and pull exist, not just push.
-
Yep and the difference is, we are inside, not walking about on the top.
Have a real good think about it.
Yes I've heard of this line of thinking before. We look down at an ant walking over your arm and think of it as tiny but if you you were to imagine yourself reduced down to the size of the ant then the hairs on our arms would seem to be like a jungle to the ant. Similarly the legs of the ant are covered in bacteria so the ant will seem enormous to the bacteria. You can carry on going down and down until you reach the atomic level.
So what is to say you cannot go the other way as well and there is another level above us looking down to our level. We might as well be a tiny living cell to whatever it is that represents that next level above us. The ant of course is completely oblivious to us looking down and watching it.
When you calm down and compose yourself and ask me a civil question, I'll give you my best answer as it stands.
Do you know what... I'm calmer now than I have been for a long time thanks. I wouldn't ask you any questions about 'your Earth' that I couldn't answer about the global model. So I will take your comment and again refusal to answer any of the questions I put to you as your usual 'haven't a clue' answer. There is nothing uncivil about my questions. I am simply asking for basic information about your model. Which anyone who is confident that they are right would be able to answer
-
And if we were having this discussion around a fire in a cave, I would agree with you. Instead, we are incredibly speaking to each other from around the world using finely controlled engines of electricity and light. We fly through the sky as if it was nothing, we build amazing structures to live and work in, and regularly control matter down to molecular level. Why should a rational person not at least try to understand the conceptual frameworks that got us here?
And this is where it comes down to reverse engineering to get right back to the so called cave speak.
One brick can start a palace. One palace is complicated.
Strip it back to find the start.
That's all that's required.
This applies to everything.
But why not just directly learn the principles that were used to create them? Why is that not a rational approach?
After all, unevidenced claims of vast, worldwide bizarre and perfect conspiracies, coupled with grand claims of self importance and brilliance - like you are proposing, are highly questionable and should be rightly dismissed by any rational individual, correct?
It would be absolutely correct if I was putting it all out as factual. But I'm not putting it out as factual. I'm putting it out as my thought process, based on my small but relevant (to me) experiments...and the real belief....yes, belief...by me, that Earth is not a spinning globe in a vacuum of space as we're told.
Still really skeptical. You say you have done experiments that convince you that there is a vast worldwide conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth and have given you alone insight into its true nature. Yet you won't say what these experiments are though, only that they are simple.
Alarm bells are clanging loudly as my skepticism kicks in. Any person with such a healthy sense of skepticism should be saying "wait a second here....", no?
Keep them ringing. You're only catering for yourself. I have no issue with you not believing or accepting anything I say.
I do not want nor expect you to think on my side.
Cool, but from my point of view it's not about me, its about rational skepticism. Why would ANYONE look at what you are saying and not be rationally skeptical to it?
You are claiming a worldwide conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth from the population at large. And that you alone have discovered the true nature of the world around us.
This is a bizarre claim when viewed from a rationally skeptical point of view, no?
-
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so?
Why is a resistance needed?
Unless you can explain that, it is not innately impossible and thus it is hypothetical (but not necessarily physically) possible to do so.
Pay attention then.
To push something you need leverage. You need something to push against to resist the reactionary resistant force of the object to be pushed.
It's all resistance.
Just take your mind from the magical and think about reality.
I kind of get it. Take for example the train. The engine's wheels are turning pushing against the track's, I guess resistance, to move forward. However, the car(s) attached to it behind are being pulled by the engine. Otherwise they wouldn't move.
Same thing with the chain links. You're pulling the end of the loose chain with your hands. You're pushing into the resistance of the ground with your feet on some level to do so. However a loose link is sliding so that it buts up to another link and begins to physically pull on that link, not push. Otherwise the link wouldn't move.
So, ostensibly, both push and pull exist, not just push.
No. It's all push, it's just a case of seeing how.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yN5f8xR/chain.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Why would ANYONE look at what you are saying and not be rationally skeptical to it?
I expect everyone to do so. I keep telling you this, so why are you going over it?
You are claiming a worldwide conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth from the population at large.
I'm obviously claiming something if I totally dismiss a global rotating Earth we supposedly walk upon.
And that you alone have discovered the true nature of the world around us.
Nope. They're your words you are attributing to me.
This is a bizarre claim when viewed from a rationally skeptical point of view, no?
What claim?
You are claiming it, so yes, it is bizarre, coming from you.
-
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so?
Why is a resistance needed?
Unless you can explain that, it is not innately impossible and thus it is hypothetical (but not necessarily physically) possible to do so.
Pay attention then.
To push something you need leverage. You need something to push against to resist the reactionary resistant force of the object to be pushed.
It's all resistance.
Just take your mind from the magical and think about reality.
I kind of get it. Take for example the train. The engine's wheels are turning pushing against the track's, I guess resistance, to move forward. However, the car(s) attached to it behind are being pulled by the engine. Otherwise they wouldn't move.
Same thing with the chain links. You're pulling the end of the loose chain with your hands. You're pushing into the resistance of the ground with your feet on some level to do so. However a loose link is sliding so that it buts up to another link and begins to physically pull on that link, not push. Otherwise the link wouldn't move.
So, ostensibly, both push and pull exist, not just push.
No. It's all push, it's just a case of seeing how.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yN5f8xR/chain.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Yeah, you see that's just silly and quite frankly a little twisted. And pointless. Why even bother making up something like this? What does it have to do with gravity, denpressure, or whatever? Why even argue something as weird as this. Shit can be pushed, shit can be pulled, whatever.
It's simply a combination of push and pull at various points if you break down all the resistive forces at all of their various disparate points of some kind of energy expended. Why do you have to make the most mundane things so bizarre?
-
This is a bizarre claim when viewed from a rationally skeptical point of view, no?
What claim?
The claim that there is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the true shape of the world from the public, to indoctrinate us with a fiction that seemingly works but really doesnt, and to sneakily manufacture a whole bizarre alternative reality to keep us all fooled.
and ...
that you have a better understanding of the truth of the world than the nonsense indoctrination that has somehow given us the modern world.
Pretty bizarre claim, simply from a rational point of view, right?
-
Wow
So wow
Thanks for providing a diagram!
See how it really helps explain your stance.
The pull is where the one chain link broke.
It was pulled appart.
Learn how to separate the individual items of your system.
Maybe a free body diagram.
https://images.app.goo.gl/zZnKyffiJqAPYSe27
-
I'm obviously claiming something if I totally dismiss a global rotating Earth we supposedly walk upon.
OK then you like to keep things simple. Simply explain to me how day and night happens if we don't live on a global rotating Earth. You cannot get much more simple than that. Explain how different parts of the world have different amounts of day and night time hours both each day and during different times of the year.
A full explanation. Not just the usual gobbledegook that other flat Earthers produce about the Sun and Moon orbiting above the flat Earth and the radius of that orbit magically varying during the year. You go on about magic. Most of what flat Earthers claim amounts seems to just happen as if by magic because they cannot explain why it happens or what causes it to happen. It just does. That is not a scientific approach.
Also explain how your model explains day and night and the seasons better than our current model with a spherical, rotating Earth orbiting the Sun while tilted at an angle. Forget all about conspiracies and indoctrination etc etc. Just explain how your model explains what we experience every day and every year better.
-
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so?
Why is a resistance needed?
Unless you can explain that, it is not innately impossible and thus it is hypothetical (but not necessarily physically) possible to do so.
Pay attention then.
To push something you need leverage. You need something to push against to resist the reactionary resistant force of the object to be pushed.
I am paying attention. What you need to do is actually explain.
Again, hypothetically, YOU DON'T.
Hypothetically it would be possible for you to move and just move anything that you contact with you, with no extra force.
In reality, we know that objects have inertia, they resist changes in motion and thus they need a force to accelerate them. But you don't need leverage to accelerate it.
What you need "leverage"/"resistance" for is to accelerate it without it accelerating you.
In this case you are applying a force to both the object you are trying to accelerate, and the object you are using as "resistance".
This means the net force on you is 0, and thus you don't accelerate.
If you don't have sufficient "resistance" like the skateboard example, you are accelerated as well.
So no, you don't need "resistance" to accelerate an object.
Just take your mind from the magical and think about reality.
Follow your own advice.
Stop clinging to magic air.
Again, you have admitted you cannot explain inertia with air. So why pretend you could? Why repeatedly lie and claim it is due to air?
-
Don;t ask me questions and then go into that tirade on nonsense of digs and then complain that I'm digging at you.
You get what you give.
Mr nasty.
Go look in the mirror.
Have you ever considered that it is actually people giving you back what you dish out?
You continually dismiss reality as nonsense with no justification at all, and when people explain why you are wrong you dismiss them as indoctrinated fools.
Grow up.
Making lies up isn't going to get you very far.
So why do you continue to make up so many?
You quite clearly claimed that air is the reason it requires a force to accelerate an object, that the medicine ball being thrown away from the person pushes the person back due to the air. That is claiming the air is the cause of inertia, regardless of if you want to directly claim that, or dishonestly play semantic BS to pretend you never claimed it just because you never stated it explicitly using those words.
Grow up.
I'm still waiting for you to explain it.
And I'm waiting for you to explain so many things it isn't funny.
I'm yet to get any of the countless explanations asked for from you.
For example, what magic causes the air to push things down, directly against the pressure gradient of the atmosphere?
How the air magically push an object down, when it is below another object? We know it isn't being pushed through the other object because the force is greater.
How do you even have the pressure gradient in the atmosphere in the first place without gravity?
How does the right hand side of a chain manage to move the left side to the right, without pulling it?
How air magically causes inertia.
Do you have any explanation for anything?
No. It's all push, it's just a case of seeing how.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
-
So Scepti, you’re saying you’ve never pulled?
;)
-
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back. It has to create a resistance to the person's push.
That resistance is?.......................?
Atmospheric pressure.
For someone who talks about global 'nonsense you don't seem to have any adversity to using the word atmosphere
So where does this pressure come from in the first place? You know in terms that a child would understand.
-
Do you feel pressure all around you? I don't. Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end? Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again. Why do you think that is?
When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground. Why is that? If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand. I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right). I open my hand and the apple falls to the group. I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards. Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical reasoning.
Push caters for everything by resistance.
do you push a wagon with a rope or pul it? pleas explain.
-
To him, your legs push off the ground so the whole system becomes a push.
-
Do you have a copyright on the denpressure theory? I hope not, because that theory is holier than my steamed vegetables strainer.
Are the steamed one's any different from the boiled ones?
But I digress. The reason I can't drop down to your level, is because I take life seriously. I don't live on fantasy island like you do.
We'll all die one day and I'll die doing what I do and how I do it. That is a mixture of what's required for me to do to navigate life with my family. Mainly fun and experiments and manufacturing. A mixture.
If you want to live your life as Mr serious, go right ahead.
For instance, if the authorities were to warn me that the international space station had upset the orbit of a large satellite, and said large satellite was headed towards earth with a trajectory likely to hit my house before fully burning up, I would appropriately evacuate my house and help evacuate all houses within a radius of my house.
I would too, just to be on the safe side....but, I wouldn't be expecting space stations or space satellites.
Maybe something else in the atmosphere.
You on the other hand, if you were to receive the same warning, being a person who does not believe in outer space or satellites, you would scoff, and continue relaxing on your sofa in your lounge room, eating your potato chips.
Nahhhh. It would take me nothing to evacuate my family and friends for the sake of a day or two.
Like I said above, it wouldn't be because I was afraid of a space satellite hitting.
No, steamed vegetable strainers are identical to boiled vegetable strainers. You wouldn't know, because you would only use that collander you wear on your head for your pastafarian meetings, to strain your vegetables.
So, let me get this straight, sceptimatic. You'll happily sit on your keyboard all day long crapping on about denpressure and and denying the globe and outer space, but when push comes to shove, you'll dig deep and find your common sense?
Your words lack conviction, then.
-
To him, your legs push off the ground so the whole system becomes a push.
If so that creates more questions than answers. What creates the push in the first place and why then are we not all floating around in the air having been pushed off the ground? Scepti might say that atmospheric pressure creates the push. OK so what creates the pressure? The thing about gravity is that it explains everything we experience in everyday life very nicely. But as soon as you take gravity out of the equation so to speak you have to find something else to take its place. Everything that Scepti has mentioned so far is something that is a consequence of something else. But he cannot or hasn't so far explained what that something else is.
It is Newtons third law isn't it that states that for every action force there is an equal but opposite reaction force. That has been demonstrated very successfully many times.
I fully support the consideration of alternative theories which is what brought me to this website in the first place. After reaching a particular conclusion a scientist will naturally ask themselves 'OK but is there anything else which might cause the same effect or produce the same observation?'. That is what alternative thinking is all about. The 'What if?' situation. But Scepti and other flat Earthers don't do that. They simply refuse to accept a particular model without any plausible reason. A personal reason perhaps but not a plausible one. So they are not alternative thinkers but rather alternative believers. And that is fine providing they can come up with a strong enough and convincing enough argument that supports their alternative idea.
So, let me get this straight, sceptimatic. You'll happily sit on your keyboard all day long crapping on about denpressure and and denying the globe and outer space, but when push comes to shove, you'll dig deep and find your common sense?
Isn't that what most flat Earthers do. They get their digs out of sitting on these forums all day just countering everything that the 'non-believers' put to them and since we 'non-believers' can't prove them wrong that convinces them even more that they are right. Such is the nature of conspiracy theories. But obviously if we were to plant (by magic of course) Scepti onto the stage of a mainstream physics conference the security guards would soon be politely asking him to leave.
Proving anything with 100% certainty is very, very difficult. If it was easy we would already have answered all the unanswered questions in science and it would be a lot less appealing. That is not the issue with flat Earthers though. Actually finding or knowing what is actually true or not is not the main goal of conspiracy theorists. That is why our rational explanations about Sceptis claims are of no interest to him.
-
How can you push something without using a resistance to do so?
Why is a resistance needed?
Unless you can explain that, it is not innately impossible and thus it is hypothetical (but not necessarily physically) possible to do so.
Pay attention then.
To push something you need leverage. You need something to push against to resist the reactionary resistant force of the object to be pushed.
It's all resistance.
Just take your mind from the magical and think about reality.
I kind of get it. Take for example the train. The engine's wheels are turning pushing against the track's, I guess resistance, to move forward. However, the car(s) attached to it behind are being pulled by the engine. Otherwise they wouldn't move.
Same thing with the chain links. You're pulling the end of the loose chain with your hands. You're pushing into the resistance of the ground with your feet on some level to do so. However a loose link is sliding so that it buts up to another link and begins to physically pull on that link, not push. Otherwise the link wouldn't move.
So, ostensibly, both push and pull exist, not just push.
No. It's all push, it's just a case of seeing how.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yN5f8xR/chain.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Yeah, you see that's just silly and quite frankly a little twisted. And pointless. Why even bother making up something like this? What does it have to do with gravity, denpressure, or whatever? Why even argue something as weird as this. Shit can be pushed, shit can be pulled, whatever.
It's simply a combination of push and pull at various points if you break down all the resistive forces at all of their various disparate points of some kind of energy expended. Why do you have to make the most mundane things so bizarre?
It has everything to do with what we're talking about because it shows gravity to be the nonsense that is is.
And when your easily break it down it does show there's no pull.
No pull means no gravity.
It baffles me how people accept gravity after they've had the opportunity to look at it all.
I completely understand how a person who just accepts it because that's what he/she was told and never felt the need to question anything. But not people like you lot.
-
Wow
So wow
Thanks for providing a diagram!
See how it really helps explain your stance.
The pull is where the one chain link broke.
It was pulled appart.
Learn how to separate the individual items of your system.
Maybe a free body diagram.
https://images.app.goo.gl/zZnKyffiJqAPYSe27
Pushed apart. Look at the diagram.
-
Follow your own advice.
Stop clinging to magic air.
Air is there. You know this so why deny it.
Gravity is not and you also know this but will not deny it because to do so would wipe out global Earth and space in an instant.
Again, you have admitted you cannot explain inertia with air. So why pretend you could? Why repeatedly lie and claim it is due to air?
You have yet to explain what inertia is.
You say it's resistance and then deny it by saying it's not the type of resistance I'm thinking of.
How nuts is that?
-
Don;t ask me questions and then go into that tirade on nonsense of digs and then complain that I'm digging at you.
You get what you give.
Mr nasty.
Go look in the mirror.
Have you ever considered that it is actually people giving you back what you dish out?
Ditto.
-
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
-
So Scepti, you’re saying you’ve never pulled?
;)
Nope. Pushed many a time.
-
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back. It has to create a resistance to the person's push.
That resistance is?.......................?
Atmospheric pressure.
For someone who talks about global 'nonsense you don't seem to have any adversity to using the word atmosphere
So where does this pressure come from in the first place? You know in terms that a child would understand.
If you leave solids they turn to gas...right?
-
Do you feel pressure all around you? I don't. Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end? Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again. Why do you think that is?
When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground. Why is that? If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand. I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right). I open my hand and the apple falls to the group. I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards. Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical reasoning.
Push caters for everything by resistance.
do you push a wagon with a rope or pul it? pleas explain.
Bring up a wagon and I'll place pointers where it's all push. How's that?
-
No, steamed vegetable strainers are identical to boiled vegetable strainers. You wouldn't know, because you would only use that collander you wear on your head for your pastafarian meetings, to strain your vegetables.
Same thing regardless how it's used in terms of hats and stuff....right?
So, let me get this straight, sceptimatic. You'll happily sit on your keyboard all day long crapping on about denpressure and and denying the globe and outer space, but when push comes to shove, you'll dig deep and find your common sense?
What exactly is, common sense?
Can you explain it?
Common implies, what?
Your words lack conviction, then.
Conviction of what?
-
Proving anything with 100% certainty is very, very difficult. If it was easy we would already have answered all the unanswered questions in science and it would be a lot less appealing.
As long as you understand you are arguing stuff that has been handed to you on a plate and is also not a truth, then you can better understand that your stance is not high in terms of arguing against alternate thoughts.You can throw up as many numbers as you want but those numbers do not show a truth.
Your stance is based solely on adherence to idols.
-
It has everything to do with what we're talking about because it shows gravity to be the nonsense that is is.
You mean it shows just how dishonest and desperate you are? How you are willing to use whatever dishonest nonsense you can to attack gravity because you cannot show any actual problem with it.
And when your easily break it down it does show there's no pull.
Is that why you still can't explain what causes the left side of the chain to move to the right?
When you actually break it down, honestly and rationally, it is extremely obvious that a pull is needed.
Again, with a pull the chain would simply fall apart. And no, I don't just mean the overall chain, I mean each individual link.
No pull means no gravity.
Why?
You are trying to play a game of semantics where so many things that people accept as "pull" are actually "push". Why shouldn't the same apply for gravity?
It baffles me how people accept gravity after they've had the opportunity to look at it all.
Perhaps if you stopped just dismissing it as nonsense you would see why, because unlike your garbage it actually makes sense, can be used to explain significant parts of reality, and has evidence to back it up.
What should baffle you is why you accept your delusional BS which cannot explain anything and has nothing backing it up.
Air is there. You know this so why deny it.
Air is there, your magic is not.
We not what air does.
As it has a pressure gradient, where the pressure is greater the lower down you are, it pushes objects up.
You reject this air from reality and instead appeal to and cling to magical air which magically and inexplicably push things down.
Gravity is not
It sure seems to be real, and you are yet to provide any problem with it.
You have yet to explain what inertia is.
I have explained what it is.
I say it is a very specific type of resistance.
I don't give damn if you want to pretend that it is all just "resistance" and that you choose not to distinguish between different types so you can dishonestly pretend to explain it by trying to use something fundamentally different.
That is entirely your problem.
Your inability to actually explain inertia with air, doesn't mean you get to pretend it is something fundamentally different to pretend that you have explained it by explaining something fundamentally different.
Now again, why did you lie and claim that you had explained it? Why did you repeatedly lie by claiming it is the air, rather than the object itself resisting motion?
Especially when you have now admitted you cannot explain it at all.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
Notice that I clearly indicated the individual links.
They are under tension.
You can even see one where it wasn't able to pull hard enough, which resulted in the link breaking and falling open.
That is what happens if there is no pull, it would all fall apart.
Again, here is the simpler diagram for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
A single link of a chain,
You "push" the right side of the chain to the right.
What causes the left side to move to the right?
A PULL!
Bring up a wagon and I'll place pointers where it's all push. How's that?
You mean like you did with the chain where you simply ignored all the locations where it is a pull?
As long as you understand you are arguing stuff that has been handed to you on a plate and is also not a truth
And there you go with more pathetic lies and assumptions.
You have nothing at all to show it is not a truth.
You continually ignore the mountains of evidence that show you are wrong.
And just because you don't want to do any experiments to get evidence for yourself doesn't mean none of us have.
Now again, have you figured out how to explain what magic causes the pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
Or how it magically pushes things down?
-
It has everything to do with what we're talking about because it shows gravity to be the nonsense that is is.
You mean it shows just how dishonest and desperate you are?
Are you asking me or telling me?
-
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
So what happened to the one chain link that ripped appart?
-
Proving anything with 100% certainty is very, very difficult. If it was easy we would already have answered all the unanswered questions in science and it would be a lot less appealing.
As long as you understand you are arguing stuff that has been handed to you on a plate and is also not a truth, then you can better understand that your stance is not high in terms of arguing against alternate thoughts.You can throw up as many numbers as you want but those numbers do not show a truth.
Except that the conventional physical framework gives us near instantaneous communication using complex control of materials and energy, it gives us flight and transport, it gives us materials, it gives us modern medicine.
This is strong, strong evidence that it is a reasonable framework to represent of the world around us, no?
What does your alternative thoughts give? Anything? Giant unevidenced conspiracy theories requiring millions of people? unexplained and unexplainable facts? Self imagined greatness?
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead. Why would any rational person completely discount it?
-
Do you feel pressure all around you? I don't. Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end? Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again. Why do you think that is?
When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground. Why is that? If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand. I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right). I open my hand and the apple falls to the group. I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards. Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical reasoning.
Push caters for everything by resistance.
do you push a wagon with a rope or pul it? pleas explain.
Bring up a wagon and I'll place pointers where it's all push. How's that?
For once we have a point of agreement! I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away).
Still, I would disagree with you that pulling forces do not exist. Gravity is obviously theorized to be an attractive (pull) force between mass, but there are others as well. Within objects, material bonds create an attractive force, so you end up with tensile (pulling) forces within a material under load. Electrostatic attraction between objects is another obvious example, where charged object attract oppositely charged objects, and magnetism as well exerts an attraction (pull) between opposite poles.
My favorite attractive force though is Van der Waals forces. Transiently induced electrostatic dipoles within molecules. It is a very weak attractive force, but can have important considerations for specific applications. And it is how geckos are able to stick to any surface no matter how smooth.
-
As long as you understand you are arguing stuff that has been handed to you on a plate
Not at all. I know its what you think and I know that is just the way your mind works. We can argue that point from now till eternity so we will just have to agree to disagree on that.
You go on and on about all this alternate thoughts but that is not the case at all. You are not an alternate thinker. You are just an alternate believer. So tell me just one aspect of our 'global nonsense' model which does not satisfactorily explain our every day experience of day and night or the seasons. Equally tell me how your model succeeds where a global Earth model fails. Just one.
Why do we need to think of the Earth as anything other than a globe? Just because you don't happen to like the idea and you think you have come up with something better. How is your version better? Better for just you or better for everyone?
-
For once we have a point of agreement! I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away).
Not you too?!
Tensile loads are real, and they are absolutely everywhere.
-
It has everything to do with what we're talking about because it shows gravity to be the nonsense that is is.
You mean it shows just how dishonest and desperate you are?
Are you asking me or telling me?
I'm telling, you. Just like I explained repeatedly.
Now again, can you explain what magic holds the chain together?
Can you explain what magic the chain uses in the diagram below such that the right side can move the left without pulling it?
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Again, without a pull, the chain links would fall apart, just like the broken one in your diagram.
If not, have you figured out what magic causes the pressure gradient considering you reject gravity?
Or have you figured out a way to explain why the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of that pressure gradient?
-
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
So what happened to the one chain link that ripped apart?
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.
-
Except that the conventional physical framework gives us near instantaneous communication using complex control of materials and energy.
Push one side, see a mirror image on the other...or absorption if the signal can not be contained.
No speed of light, just instantaneous reaction to action.
This is strong, strong evidence that it is a reasonable framework to represent of the world around us, no?
It depends on what the framework depicts as a known reality.
What does your alternative thoughts give? Anything? Giant unevidenced conspiracy theories requiring millions of people? unexplained and unexplainable facts? Self imagined greatness?
This is your thoughts on me, not mine.
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead. Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?
-
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.
You mean before I showed you were all the pull was?
Yes, it was pushed apart, because that section couldn't pull itself together.
But all those other points are still pulling.
If they didn't the entire chain would be broken links.
Again, HOW DOES THE LINK HOLD ITSELF TOETHER?
How does the right side move the left side without pulling it?
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
And again:
Have you figured out what magic causes the pressure gradient considering you reject gravity?
Or have you figured out a way to explain why the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of that pressure gradient?
-
Do you feel pressure all around you? I don't. Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end? Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again. Why do you think that is?
When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground. Why is that? If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand. I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right). I open my hand and the apple falls to the group. I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards. Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical reasoning.
Push caters for everything by resistance.
do you push a wagon with a rope or pul it? pleas explain.
Bring up a wagon and I'll place pointers where it's all push. How's that?
For once we have a point of agreement! I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away).
When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.
-
When it's all looked at logically
Explain what you mean by logically.
-
Why do we need to think of the Earth as anything other than a globe?
You don't. I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm merely telling you it's nonsense from my side. If you take that as a direct hit on your personal thoughts then that's down to you.
Believe everything you want to believe and argue it for however long you feel. It changes nothing from my side, unless you have concrete proof. Then I'd prick up my ears.
Just bear in mind that I came from your land of belief on a plate, just because I was massively indoctrinated into it.
I called flat Earth and alternate Earth's, silly because I was pig ignorant and believed the mass adherence to an absolute nonsensical spinning ball around a big fiery near million mile sun in a space vacuum.
I sometimes feel like punching myself in the face for doing it.
It takes a massive.....massive......massive....massive....massive sit down and slap in the face to even dare to think differently to the accepted mass indoctrination...and it doesn't just start nor stop with questioning a global Earth.
This is why I can fight my corner and take what digs and garbage comes my way from the every changing posse of playground bullies and their hangers on.
Just because you don't happen to like the idea and you think you have come up with something better. How is your version better? Better for just you or better for everyone?
My version is better....to me.......to me........ You do not have to give it 1 second of your time. You can look at my name and ignore it and treat me like an absolute retarded imbecile who has zero knowledge...etc....etc, if you so wish. You are in control of that, so don't waste your time putting that out.
People struggle with me because they have this inbuilt mechanism, borne from social adherence to what authority dictates to them, giving them an almost free rein (in their mind) to follow a trend of using the handed words of ridicule to anyone who dares to question that and who will not conform to mass opinion.
Ring any bells?
-
It has everything to do with what we're talking about because it shows gravity to be the nonsense that is is.
You mean it shows just how dishonest and desperate you are?
Are you asking me or telling me?
I'm telling, you. Just like I explained repeatedly.
Now again, can you explain what magic holds the chain together?
Can you explain what magic the chain uses in the diagram below such that the right side can move the left without pulling it?
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Again, without a pull, the chain links would fall apart, just like the broken one in your diagram.
Putting up a link does not tell any story.
How about you put up something that includes the link. Something you believe is pulling it all and I'll go through it all from start to finish.
I'll even go right down to molecular bonding if you feel the need to go that far.
From my side, obviously.
It's all chain link like, so it's pretty easy.
-
When it's all looked at logically
Explain what you mean by logically.
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.
Basically if I see the done jigsaw I'd break it down to logically see how it was best started to gain a finish that I accept....or don't...depending on what picture is given out based on, maybe, pieces jammed into the wrong pattern.
What's your idea of logic?
-
For once we have a point of agreement! I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away).
Not you too?!
Tensile loads are real, and they are absolutely everywhere.
Did you read the next sentence -
Within objects, material bonds create an attractive force, so you end up with tensile (pulling) forces within a material under load.
My point is that all contact mechanics are built from repulsive forces (pushing), not attractive forces (pulling). Do you disagree?
-
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.
OK taking that as a definition of logic. How then do you account for how pressure in the atmosphere is created. Or how the holographic images of the Sun and Moon in your model are created? Stripping it down to the basics, what causes these holographic images to circle around in the sky? How do we even see these images?
Explain your reasoning and working behind what you believe. According to your logic of course. Equally explain to me how the global model does not explain day and night or the seasons as we experience them. Not based on your personal preference or belief but based on the logic. In other words forget anything to do with what we are told. Base it purely on what we see. Is it logically possible to explain what we see regardless of our location on Earth by considering that we live on a rotating globe which is huge compared the size of us?
-
Do you feel pressure all around you? I don't. Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end? Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again. Why do you think that is?
When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground. Why is that? If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand. I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right). I open my hand and the apple falls to the group. I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards. Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.
Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical reasoning.
Push caters for everything by resistance.
do you push a wagon with a rope or pul it? pleas explain.
Bring up a wagon and I'll place pointers where it's all push. How's that?
For once we have a point of agreement! I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away).
When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.
No, you simply believe this, and have not used logic to arrive at this conclusion.
Just as you have not used logic to arrive at the global conspiracy, the ice dome, the holographic sun and moon projections, the cell based universe, and the magic crystal tower at the north pole.
Your personal thoughts are not logical just because you declare them to be.
-
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead. Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?
Utility, extension, and prediction. The tests of any explanatory framework.
-
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.
OK taking that as a definition of logic. How then do you account for how pressure in the atmosphere is created. Or how the holographic images of the Sun and Moon in your model are created? Stripping it down to the basics, what causes these holographic images to circle around in the sky? How do we even see these images?
Explain your reasoning and working behind what you believe. According to your logic of course. Equally explain to me how the global model does not explain day and night or the seasons as we experience them. Not based on your personal preference or belief but based on the logic. In other words forget anything to do with what we are told. Base it purely on what we see. Is it logically possible to explain what we see regardless of our location on Earth by considering that we live on a rotating globe which is huge compared the size of us?
I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless, so I won't bother going that full on route.
What I will do is give you snippets to look at and see where we go from there.
What I mean by this is, what Earth is, is what we see and perceive in everyday life. It's just a case of marrying it all up.
So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.
Have a good look and then come back to me, then we can inch forward.
-
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead. Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?
Utility, extension, and prediction. The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
-
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead. Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?
Utility, extension, and prediction. The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
Sure. Let’s start with your framework.
What can it be used for? Specifically. Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.
Next, what’s missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?
Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?
Start from there and we can go further.
-
I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless,
Don't flatter yourself Sceptimatic. It really doesn't suit you.
Answering questions like this is just another way of you saying you cannot explain it. Why is it that whenever anyone asks you to actually explain anything - even the really basic stuff to the rest of us - all you can do is throw back patronising comments like that? You can't actually explain anything can you.
So at the risk of repeating myself again, please explain to me using logic alone how the traditional, global model does not explain night and day or the seasons. Come on.. its not that hard. I'm not interested in all this doctrination or 'what we are told' stuff. I mean logically and back to the real basics. How does it not work in your view? Nothing you can say will be lost on me.
So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.
I designed and built a planetarium for my local astronomy club. Which is enjoyed by all who visit it thanks very much. So I am very familiar with how they work. Are you?
-
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead. Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?
Utility, extension, and prediction. The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
Sure. Let’s start with your framework.
What can it be used for? Specifically. Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.
Next, what’s missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?
Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?
Start from there and we can go further.
I still have no clue what you are on about.
-
For once we have a point of agreement! I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away).
Not you too?!
Tensile loads are real, and they are absolutely everywhere.
Did you read the next sentence -
Within objects, material bonds create an attractive force, so you end up with tensile (pulling) forces within a material under load.
My point is that all contact mechanics are built from repulsive forces (pushing), not attractive forces (pulling). Do you disagree?
Sorry, I barely glanced at the following parts, as there’s plenty wrong with the first bit. But, yes, I still strongly disagree.
The big problem is saying that the forces are fundamentally pushing. Why fundamentally? You’re talking about very localised forces, that are very dependent on the method of fixing the parts, which you can change without altering the overall system. And no, not all contact mechanics are compressive. What about welding, brazing or adhesive?
In the case of pulling a wagon, you could swap out a chain or hook with a cable welded to it. It doesn’t fundamentally change what you’re doing, which is pulling a wagon.
-
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead. Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?
Utility, extension, and prediction. The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
Sure. Let’s start with your framework.
What can it be used for? Specifically. Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.
Next, what’s missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?
Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?
Start from there and we can go further.
I still have no clue what you are on about.
I can tell.
Start with answering the questions if you can and see if we can build brick by brick from there?
-
I can tell.
Start with answering the questions if you can and see if we can build brick by brick from there?
What question?
-
I can tell.
Start with answering the questions if you can and see if we can build brick by brick from there?
What question?
Your explanatory view of the physical world
- What can it be used for? Specifically. Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.
- Next, what’s missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?
- Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?
-
For once we have a point of agreement! I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away).
Not you too?!
Tensile loads are real, and they are absolutely everywhere.
Did you read the next sentence -
Within objects, material bonds create an attractive force, so you end up with tensile (pulling) forces within a material under load.
My point is that all contact mechanics are built from repulsive forces (pushing), not attractive forces (pulling). Do you disagree?
Sorry, I barely glanced at the following parts, as there’s plenty wrong with the first bit. But, yes, I still strongly disagree.
The big problem is saying that the forces are fundamentally pushing. Why fundamentally? You’re talking about very localised forces, that are very dependent on the method of fixing the parts, which you can change without altering the overall system. And no, not all contact mechanics are compressive. What about welding, brazing or adhesive?
In the case of pulling a wagon, you could swap out a chain or hook with a cable welded to it. It doesn’t fundamentally change what you’re doing, which is pulling a wagon.
Maybe I am being unclear, or just incorrect. But my understanding is that between two independent objects, if you ignore gravity, magnetism, and weak nonionic van der waals forces, there will only be repulsive forces involved in contact mechanics. That is on each surface boundary there will only be repulsive forces, as these arise from electrostatic molecular interaction at the contact point that are completely repulsive in nature.
Internal forces instead depend on material bond energies, which under deformation can be either repulsive or attractive, so you can certainly generate internal attractive forces between any two continuous points in the object.
So in the case of a chain, all exterior forces on the surface of each link will be repulsive, (the contact force having a vector AWAY from the contact surface). Meanwhile, within each link structure, there can indeed be tensile forces.
Does this make sense or have I just confused the matter further? Happy to be incorrect as well, (well, maybe not happy, but totally okay with it), but cant think of a how an attractive surface force can actually be generated.
-
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
So what happened to the one chain link that ripped appart?
Was this answered or addressed?
So what happened to the one chain link that ripped appart?
Nm
It was addressed i see it now.
-
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
So what happened to the one chain link that ripped apart?
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.
Pushed appart from the hands friction gripping a pushing away from each other.
Ok good for THAT part
Whst about the part where the break happened?
Draw a dotted box around just the break.
What is happening at the break point?
-
Your stance is based solely on adherence to idols
I totally disagree. I actually enjoy looking at different theories and models which explain how everything in the Universe works. That's why I started making some investigations about how flat Earth theory/belief came about. For example for those who lived during a certain era in the past I think it would have been perfectly reasonable - or logical to use your word - to think that the Earth was stationary and flat. Some people were happy and content to accept that as the right and only solution and I'm sure that you would find their reasons 'logical'
Others meanwhile continued to observe and scrutinise and gradually came to realise that some observations could not be fully explained satisfactorily if the Earth was a flat plane. Was the Earth surface finite or infinite in terms of area? If it is finite then why has no one been able to find the 'edge'? If it is infinite then why is it that some people had managed to circumnavigate the Earth? Setting off from point A and then returning to point A.
As equipment and technology advanced so more and more evidence started to accumulate which supported the theory that the Earth is a globe. While flat Earth belief survived the number of people who continued to support it dwindled. So flat Earth theory became more of a conspiracy theory and less of a serious scientific theory.
I am quite willing to consider any theory which I find logically correct. And by logical I mean able to support everything that I have seen in the sky during my life. So far flat Earth theory is consistent only in its inconsistencies since different flat Earthers seem to believe different models. Some say the Sun and Moon are just a few miles across and 3000 miles above the earth. You on the other hand insist the Sun and Moon are not even real but some sort of holographic projection instead. Flat Earth theory is therefore far more confusing than it is simplifying. What are people new to flat Earth theory supposed to think? Is that what 'logical' is all about? I think not. The modern heliocentric model meanwhile explains everything very clearly and consistently and is therefore logical. It has nothing to do with indoctrination because I have a brain of my own which is capable of making its own intepretations.
If you can explain to me why your theory is more logically correct universally compared to anything else then please do. I don't know enough about your model though to make that decision. No one seems to apart from you.
-
When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.
Putting up a link does not tell any story.
Yes it does, a very important story.
It is the link itself which requires pulling to hold itself together.
It shows that you are wrong.
Again, if there was no pull when a push is applied to that right side of the link indicated by the red arrow, then the right side of the link is pushed away leaving the rest behind.
You need a pull to explain why the left hand side (anything to the left of the black line) is moved along as well.
This is the entire point of limiting it to a single link.
When you are provided with multiple links in a chain you happily point out where the push is between the links of the chain, while completely ignoring where the pull is inside the links, and because you can show where some push is, you think that is the entire story.
If you like, here is a better version of your diagram, colour coded to show push and pull:
(https://i.imgur.com/HoVTW2S.png)
The regions indicated in green are the regions you happily discuss as you can show they are push.
The regions in blue you completely ignore because they require a pull, which you want to pretend doesn't exist.
It is theses regions in blue you need to discuss which is the very reason I provided a single link.
You need to explain how the link itself holds itself together such that it can transfer that force to the next link.
You need to explain how pushing the right side of the link to the right moves the left side of the link to the right when there is absolutely no way for it to push it.
I'll even go right down to molecular bonding if you feel the need to go that far.
It's all chain link like, so it's pretty easy.
i.e. you will continually push this problem of pulling back never actually addressing how anything solves it.
Trying to claim molecular bonding in the link is just more chain linking is not addressing the problem. You will still have links that you need to explain how they hold themselves together.
If you like, pretend it is an example of a single molecule or atom or whatever you want to pretend and explain how it holds itself together.
-
I called flat Earth and alternate Earth's, silly because I was pig ignorant and believed the mass adherence to an absolute nonsensical spinning ball around a big fiery near million mile sun in a space vacuum.
Yet we can repeatedly demonstrate why your FE is pure nonsense and you are unable to show a single fault with the RE model and instead just repeatedly ridicule it.
We don't think FE is silly because we are ignorant or indoctrinated, but because we have honestly and rationally analysed the models and found them severely lacking, and have evidence some of which we have obtained ourselves, which clearly show the FE model is wrong.
My version is better....to me
And only to you.
To anyone who bothers to actually look at in honestly and rationally, they see it is severely lacking.
But you ignore all those problems, because of how much you hate the RE and how you so desperately need the RE model to be wrong.
People struggle with me
People "struggle" because you use whatever dishonest BS you can to try to prop up your complete failure of a model.
You refuse to provide explanations for quite simple things, only to then later claim you have explained it.
You continually ignore or dodge logical arguments, and dismiss any evidence that shows you are wrong as fake.
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.
Like stripping a chain down to the links and the connection between the links, and seeing that the connection between the links is a push, with each link "pushing" the next link along the chain, and also seeing that the individual links are a pull, where the pushed side of the link pulls the rest of that link along so it can push the next link along the chain.
Or stripping down the effect of the atmosphere on an object in it to the pressure, and how we have a higher pressure below than above, meaning this pressure will apply an upwards on all objects in the atmosphere.
Or stripping down the atmospheric stacking to see that in order for the pressure to increase their must be a force acting on each layer of air pushing/pulling it down, other than the layer of air above. And then, as there must be some force acting on the air to push it, it is likely that this same force acts on everything to push/pull it down.
Or stripping down inertia to objects resisting changes in motion based upon their mass, rather than the air which resists relative motion and pressure gradients.
I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless
You mean you can't actually explain it, so you will make up an excuse for why you aren't explaining it.
So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.
You mean complex artificial technology rather than any natural occurring phenomenon, and which produces a result nothing like what you need where everyone in the room can see the same ceiling with the same lights on it.
Also note that that is not a hologram, it is a projection.
Utility, extension, and prediction. The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
It is really quite simple, even a complete imbecile should understand.
Utility is the ability to actually do practical things with it, which to some extent relate to the latter 2 points.
For example, understanding the quantum world has allowed us to construct very small transistors which are in turn used to produce processors which power computers. This understanding has great utility as it has allowed us to construct computers and make lots of things so much simpler.
Extension is the ability to take something learned from one thing and apply/extend it to another thing, and this has significant implications for utility and is also based upon prediction.
For example, understanding electromagnetism has allowed us to construct large motors. The tests for it were quite small, with just simple wires with low currents. But we can extend that to more complex problems such as a winding in a motor.
This can also work in the opposite manner to show that a framework is limited in only applying to a specific set of circumstances/conditions and a more general (and complex) framework would cover more circumstances/conditions.
Prediction is the ability to calculate or determine what should happen based upon that framework. This prediction allows you to extend from the simple tests you have done to more useful and complex situations.
Applying this to what is being discussed, gravity, inertia and simple fluid dynamics has great utility, extension and prediction.
We understand gravity quite well from experiments conducted on Earth. This has allowed us to create aircraft and spacecraft, including those in orbit providing communication to remote areas and GPS and lots of pictures of Earth which are used for weather prediction. And this was only possible because we can predict what the effects of gravity, inertia and fluids are, including the forces involved and the direction and magnitude of these forces.
Conversely your model has no predictive or extension capability as you have no explanation for any of the forces involved, and your model repeatedly contradicts itself. Until you actually do the thing you have no way of knowing what should happen. For example, an object is in a pressure gradient, which way does it go? Well that depends upon which part of your magic is applying and which part applies will change to match the outcome. This complete lack of predictive capability means you cannot extend it to things you haven't tested yet and makes it entirely useless.
-
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
So what happened to the one chain link that ripped apart?
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.
Pushed appart from the hands friction gripping a pushing away from each other.
Ok good for THAT part
Whst about the part where the break happened?
Draw a dotted box around just the break.
What is happening at the break point?
The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link..especially at the breaking point.
The more push the more expansion and the more friction and the more, squeeze.
There's nothing in there that pulls. Everything is crush or squeeze or basically, push.
-
The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link
Everything is crush or squeeze
Aren't these two statements contradictory? The break is the culmination of expansion of molecular bonds which is to pull apart. Correct. Then in the next sentence you say everything is being crushed or squeezed which is being pushed together or compression.
The more push the more expansion
Pushing does not cause expansion. It causes compression.
So which is it?
-
Your stance is based solely on adherence to idols
I totally disagree. I actually enjoy looking at different theories and models which explain how everything in the Universe works. That's why I started making some investigations about how flat Earth theory/belief came about. For example for those who lived during a certain era in the past I think it would have been perfectly reasonable - or logical to use your word - to think that the Earth was stationary and flat. Some people were happy and content to accept that as the right and only solution and I'm sure that you would find their reasons 'logical'
Coming to a flat Earth forum to argue for your globe among like minded people and spend it regurgitating everything set out for you on a platter does you no favours.
It may make you feel smart and it may make you feel it puts you on a higher pedestal among the few alternate Earth theorists already on here but your brain is not even tested.
You choose the simple path when taxing your brain would be far better.
No one is asking you to believe.
Push aside your platter and try and understand alternatives. Don't fight it. Embrace it, even if you do it as your very own experiment.
Just play devils advocate and see where it gets you.
You'll have a far better chance of understanding stuff if you go down the simple route to understand from my point of view, as one such thought process.
And then there's the others.
Or you can just carry on saying the globe is your correct model and that's that.
If that was me, I'd be gone from here instead of spending all my time telling people it's a globe because I have all the ammunition at my fingertips.
You just might enjoy it and all you have to do is to conquer your fear of internet forum peer pressure name calling you for thinking outside of the box, which you know you'd get.
Are you afraid to have a go?
Others meanwhile continued to observe and scrutinise and gradually came to realise that some observations could not be fully explained satisfactorily if the Earth was a flat plane. Was the Earth surface finite or infinite in terms of area? If it is finite then why has no one been able to find the 'edge'?
There is no edge on my Earth model.
If it is infinite then why is it that some people had managed to circumnavigate the Earth? Setting off from point A and then returning to point A.
I don't know about infinite in terms of Earth itself..
As equipment and technology advanced so more and more evidence started to accumulate which supported the theory that the Earth is a globe.
Such as?
While flat Earth belief survived the number of people who continued to support it dwindled. So flat Earth theory became more of a conspiracy theory and less of a serious scientific theory.
The many can always beat the few down with a stick. It definitely does not mean anything that pushes towards a mass opinion being the true opinion.
If 500 people who believe in an invisible god then meet up with 10 people who talk to their own invisible god...which one's will be cast out as nutters?
I am quite willing to consider any theory which I find logically correct. And by logical I mean able to support everything that I have seen in the sky during my life.
No you're not.
Your mind is set in concrete in your globe because that's where your indoctrination is saturated. Your comfort is right there. Your safety net is in that following.
To dare to point a toe out of that and you know it will be stamped upon to set you right back into that circle.
So far flat Earth theory is consistent only in its inconsistencies since different flat Earthers seem to believe different models.
It's called alternate thinking. Alternate models. Alternate mindset.
Some say the Sun and Moon are just a few miles across and 3000 miles above the earth.
Many think it's 93 million miles away and they think 3000 miles is nuts.
That actually makes me smirk.
You on the other hand insist the Sun and Moon are not even real but some sort of holographic projection instead.
Absolutely because it makes perfect sense to me.
Flat Earth theory is therefore far more confusing than it is simplifying.
It depends on how you look at it.
What are people new to flat Earth theory supposed to think?
Just think outside the box and try and reason everything but never do so with a global adherence. You must place that aside, even if it's just temporary.
Is that what 'logical' is all about? I think not.
One person's logic is another persons conundrum.
The modern heliocentric model meanwhile explains everything very clearly and consistently and is therefore logical.
Of course it does.
Time travel theories can explain everything but it doesn't make them a reality.
It has nothing to do with indoctrination because I have a brain of my own which is capable of making its own intepretations.
Prove it, because I don't see any of that.
If you can explain to me why your theory is more logically correct universally compared to anything else then please do.
It's down to you what you want explaining and what you are willing to take from it.
I don't know enough about your model though to make that decision. No one seems to apart from you.
Of course you don't and likely won't ever know anything if your stance is to ridicule or simply brush anything aside whilst arguing for your globe.
-
When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.
Cut out that smut and try and be serious.
-
The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link
Everything is crush or squeeze
Aren't these two statements contradictory? The break is the culmination of expansion of molecular bonds which is to pull apart. Correct.
Then in the next sentence you say everything is being crushed or squeezed which is being pushed together or compression.
The more push the more expansion
Pushing does not cause expansion. It causes compression.
So which is it?
Try engaging your brain before your typing fingers.
For something to expand it has to push against something. There is no pull.
Here's a simple example.
If I place a balloon between two bricks and then push air into that balloon, that balloon will expand by molecules inside of it being crushed,squeezed into that space enough to stretch the membrane and those bricks will be pushed apart.
See how they both work. No pull, all push and crush, compress and expand due to friction/vibration and energy applied in the push.
You do not have the ability to think outside of the books on the platter.
-
When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.=
Cut out that smut and try and be serious.
How about you cut it out?
I am being serious. The simple chain cannot hold itself together without it pulling itself together.
Now stop with the repeated pathetic distraction and dismissal and explain what magic holds the link together such that as you push the right hand side to the right, the left side also moves to the right.
The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link..especially at the breaking point.
Because it wasn't capable of pulling itself together.
But the other side still is.
There's nothing in there that pulls.
Again, how do the links hold themselves together without a pull?
You choose the simple path when taxing your brain would be far better.
No, we chose the honest path, where we accept what is supported by evidence, rather than dismissing it as nonsense because we hate it.
I am quite willing to consider any theory which I find logically correct. And by logical I mean able to support everything that I have seen in the sky during my life.
No you're not.
Yes we are.
The problem for you is that you are unable to show a fault with the globe model and unable to support your nonsense at all.
Many think it's 93 million miles away and they think 3000 miles is nuts.
Because 3000 miles is far too close.
Just think outside the box and try and reason everything but never do so with a global adherence. You must place that aside, even if it's just temporary.
And we have, plenty of times, and you still failed to justify your position.
It's down to you what you want explaining and what you are willing to take from it.
You have been provided with plenty of examples of things for you to explain and just continually dodge them because you can't, only to turn around lying to everyone by claiming that you have explained it already.
Try engaging your brain before your typing fingers.
More advice for you to follow.
But try to put it to use actually trying to explain things, rather than just looking for a way out.
Here's a simple example.
You have already been provided with a simple example, a single link in a chain.
But you refuse to address it because you know it shows you are wrong.
But even with your balloon, why does the surface of the balloon remain intact? Why doesn't it just separate and fall apart as you try inflating it?
Why does it eventually reach a point where it pops and then it does fall apart.
So see how even that example of yours still requires pulling.
Being able to show a push in the system doesn't mean that no pulling is involved.
You do not have the ability to think outside of the books on the platter.
The one with no ability to think outside of a limited scope here is you. You have no ability to think out of your own delusional model.
-
@jackblack
The idea that there is only push, and no pull, is at least commonplace if not central in traditional (ie. material collision / billiard ball based) physics. Don't get bogged down in the details (especially over an arbitrary sign/direction change). Call it centripetal, call it centrifugal - do you really care which (and if you do, SHOULD you)? It's the same in this situation - call it pull, call it push - whatever.
The traditional view was that because there is no clear mechanism for "pulling" in conventional physics (via billiard balls), it is proposed that in actuality - there is only pushing. It is a fine, and scientifically sound perspective.
Magnetic attraction (and other forms of attraction) may pose some difficulty, but they are mysterious in any conception and so pose roughly equivalent difficulty. (when convection/air is not involved / the cause)
-
@jackblack
The idea that there is only push, and no pull, is at least commonplace if not central in traditional (ie. material collision / billiard ball based) physics.
That is an extremely limited section of physics that does not explain solid materials, like the links in the chain.
As soon as you get to that, pulling is important.
Billiard balls are only a tiny portion of conventional physics.
Don't get bogged down in the details (especially over an arbitrary sign/direction change).
That would be more applicable if he was using his claim that there is no such thing as pull to claim gravity can't exist as it uses a pull.
The traditional view was that because there is no clear mechanism for "pulling" in conventional physics (via billiard balls), it is proposed that in actuality - there is only pushing. It is a fine, and scientifically sound perspective.
There is nothing sound about that.
While billiard balls can work to explain gases and to some extent liquids, they cannot explain solids, nor fully explain liquids.
The simplest way to demonstrate that is to set up a collection of billiard balls to act as a solid object. But now try to push one side of it, and notice that it does not move like a solid at all.
This shows that there is something fundamentally missing.
You can even do it with the chain link example I provided, where you model a single link in the chain with a collection of billiard balls, and see that pushing the right side to the right, just results in the right side moving.
Fortunately, with everyday objects we have other things we can use, such as springs.
Attach the billiard balls together with springs in a hexagonal lattice and then it is far better at modelling solids, where we can see how pushing on one side results in the springs pulling the other balls along.
This massive flaw should easily show it is not scientifically sound at all.
The only way for it to be sound, is if these simple billiard ball physics could explain everything that we have observed.
Magnetic attraction (and other forms of attraction) may pose some difficulty, but they are mysterious in any conception and so pose roughly equivalent difficulty. (when convection/air is not involved / the cause)
Yes, like the attraction in solids. But them being "mysterious" doesn't mean you get to just ignore them.
And I wouldn't call them mysterious.
-
Quite simply Sceptimatic, based on logic and nothing else, explain to me explicitly how the day and night cycle and the seasons cannot be explained by a rotating globe orbiting the Sun. I go out into my garden and I see the Sun move across the sky from east to west. In winter the Sun is high in the sky, in winter it is low.
What is not explained fully and simply by our current model?
Just answer that question.
You simply want to be different. Regardless of whether mainstream physics is right or wrong you seem to think it is clever to break ranks and devise your own version of physics with its own laws etc etc. If you think being different makes you some how better than everyone else then explain why. Not the case with me. If what I am told in science works and can explain and predict everything I need it too in the real world (which it can and does) then that is good enough for me.
I base what I think on evidence. You base what you think on what you believe and also a belief that being different is somehow better. No its not But if your brain cannot handle mainstream physics and you need to try and simplify everything so your brain can comprehend it then fair enough.
In the meantime, just answer the question above. Nothing else. Just answer my question. The one in bold lettering just to avoid any confusion.
-
When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.=
Cut out that smut and try and be serious.
How about you cut it out?
I am being serious. The simple chain cannot hold itself together without it pulling itself together.
How in the hell can something pull itself together?
Seriously have a real deep think about it.
-
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTlOWtG.png)
Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.
And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.
So what happened to the one chain link that ripped apart?
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.
Pushed appart from the hands friction gripping a pushing away from each other.
Ok good for THAT part
Whst about the part where the break happened?
Draw a dotted box around just the break.
What is happening at the break point?
The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link..especially at the breaking point.
The more push the more expansion and the more friction and the more, squeeze.
There's nothing in there that pulls. Everything is crush or squeeze or basically, push.
I believe, by this mumbojumbo, we are facing another sceppism where he is purposefully misusing the english language.
It will be another 100pg before he reveals more.
Anyone else?
What is "friction"?
In the sense of the one link that uas ripped appart.
Whsr is expansion?
In the sense of the one link that has ripped appart?
-
Quite simply Sceptimatic, based on logic and nothing else, explain to me explicitly how the day and night cycle and the seasons cannot be explained by a rotating globe orbiting the Sun. I go out into my garden and I see the Sun move across the sky from east to west. In winter summer the Sun is high in the sky, in winter it is low.
What is not explained fully and simply by our current model?
Just answer that question.
How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.
Let's deal with it.
Don't be copy and pasting. I want it nice and simple from you. Remember, I'm a simpleton.
-
What is "friction"?
In the sense of the one link that uas ripped appart.
Compression and vibration of matter.
In terms of the link it means the inner matter of each link to either side of the snapped link is compressing that link and pushing it apart.
Whsr is expansion?
In the sense of the one link that has ripped appart?
As above, at first until the link starts to break. It basically has it matter expand due to the compression and vibration pushing against it. It causes heat which causes expansion of the matter withing and around the link to be broken.
The expansion inside the link is pushing the link apart aided by the push of all links in that chain.
A chain reaction if you want.
I'll make this a bit more simple and understandable.
Remember when I tried to explain the train wheel and steel tyre?
Remember how I said it had to be heated up to expand it to fit.
Expansion has to be a push of molecular matter into each other in that steel tyre, causing it to expand due to massive compression as a result of that expansion.
It's how everything works. How atmosphere works and even water.
There's no gravity pull needed...at all.....ever.
-
How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.
Let's deal with it.
Don't be copy and pasting. I want it nice and simple from you. Remember, I'm a simpleton.
No. You answer my question. I made it clear and simple so even a simpleton like you should be able to understand it.
-
How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.
Let's deal with it.
Don't be copy and pasting. I want it nice and simple from you. Remember, I'm a simpleton.
No. You answer my question. I made it clear and simple so even a simpleton like you should be able to understand it.
You can't answer that question, can you?
You'd have to look it up and copy and paste it because you do not have the ability to explain it in simple terms.
Prove me wrong.
Parroting does not make you smart.
-
I don't need to copy or paste anything. I am told that the Earth is a rotating globe and orbits the Sun 93 million miles away. That fully accounts for everything I observe. You know. The Sun moves across the sky from east to west. You can see that as well as I can. How can you prove it is not the Earth rotating that causes that motion we observe.
If a theory explains satisfactorily what we observe then why should we need any other theory or model? You don't need to be smart. You just need to use your eyes. I don't care how a theory is put together. If it explains what I see then that is enough. Obviously not for you though.
-
How in the hell can something pull itself together?
By the individual parts of it pulling on each other to form a coherent structure.
Now stop dodging and explain it.
Explain how the chain holds itself together without this pulling you hate so much.
Whsr is expansion?
In the sense of the one link that has ripped appart?
As above, at first until the link starts to break. It basically has it matter expand due to the compression
Quite the opposite. It expands due to the tension (i.e. pulling force) it is under. But as this pulling force was too great for it, it snapped.
Quite simply Sceptimatic, based on logic and nothing else, explain to me explicitly how the day and night cycle and the seasons cannot be explained by a rotating globe orbiting the Sun. I go out into my garden and I see the Sun move across the sky from east to west. In winter summer the Sun is high in the sky, in winter it is low.
What is not explained fully and simply by our current model?
Just answer that question.
How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.
And there you go with more dodging.
Can you explain how the current predicts that this shouldn't happen?
If not, you have failed and are just trying to burry your opponents with BS and make them waste their time.
-
The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.
It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.
-
I don't need to copy or paste anything. I am told that the Earth is a rotating globe and orbits the Sun 93 million miles away. That fully accounts for everything I observe.
You do not know what you're observing, so try and be honest.
You are told that this is what you observe. You're told. You were schooled into it and follow that schooling to the letter.
You were told. You do not know what you observe to be the truth.
You know. The Sun moves across the sky from east to west. You can see that as well as I can. How can you prove it is not the Earth rotating that causes that motion we observe.
Easy. Logic.
Masses of water and our own motion senses/sensors.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest we are spinning on a globe. Nothing...except to be told of this nonsensical magic is supposed reality.
You are massively massively indoctrinated. Saturated to all hell in your globe.
Most of us were. Most still are.
Your mindset is stuck (pardon the pun) to what you believe is your globe.
Spinning and wobbling around in a space vacuum.
It absolutely beggars belief that older people don't question this.
If a theory explains satisfactorily what we observe then why should we need any other theory or model?
Because it doesn't explain anything satisfactorily.
It just appears to because the story told is the story mapped to cater for everything we see, even if that story relies on magical reasoning like gravity and vacuums of space and gaseous planets and so on and so on and so on.............etc.
You don't need to be smart. You just need to use your eyes.
Eyes are one excellent sense but it needs a bit of logical smartness to marry up what they see to a potential reality and distinguish it from story told magic.
I don't care how a theory is put together. If it explains what I see then that is enough. Obviously not for you though.
Of course you accept it. It's the easy way.
A nice safety net among your peers who think like you in adherence to what was placed into that thought process.....or else be ridiculed to dare to do any other....like I explained earlier..
-
How in the hell can something pull itself together?
By the individual parts of it pulling on each other to form a coherent structure.
How?
-
The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.
It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.
Axial tilt?
Explain how the axial tilt works for the seasons.
I'll start you off.
A spinning ball going around a massive sun, as we're told.
Ok, so how does the tilt work in this vacuum of space...as we're also told?
-
Well now a geocentric model is a different story than a flat earth. Geocentric models do work, more or less it's just that we like to simplify things and we have no good explanation for the epicycles of planets.
We can make accurate predictions with a heliocentric model but I would agree that claiming we know the sun is 93 million miles away is a bit of a joke.
As for things pulling themselves together, all elastic bands do this, so do magnets but they can push or pull and the science is actually incredibly complicated. We don't really understand how magnets work, like we don't really understand how gravity works. However we observe the effects.
-
The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.
It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.
Axial tilt?
Explain how the axial tilt works for the seasons.
I'll start you off.
A spinning ball going around a massive sun, as we're told.
Ok, so how does the tilt work in this vacuum of space...as we're also told?
Draw a dot on a basketball and hold it next to a light. Then tilt the basketball, the angle of the light in relation to the dot will change. This is very simple stuff.
When the sun is at a 90° angle at noon it causes the most heat. That's why it's hot in summer and why places near the equator are hot and why places near the poles are cold.
I'm not sure what you mean by how does an axial tilt work in a vacuum. The tilt of the earth, or basketball in this situation has nothing to do with a vacuum. Its a purely geometric problem.
-
As for things pulling themselves together, all elastic bands do this, so do magnets but they can push or pull and the science is actually incredibly complicated. We don't really understand how magnets work, like we don't really understand how gravity works. However we observe the effects.
Observing effect does not prove anything.
Observing a ball being dropped is not observing gravity. It's being told it is gravity and that's that.
Magnets are easily proven if the proper thought process went into it.
It's the simple things that can show the potential truth.
As for elastic bands, they are just another chain link of molecules. No pull involved.
-
The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.
It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.
Axial tilt?
Explain how the axial tilt works for the seasons.
I'll start you off.
A spinning ball going around a massive sun, as we're told.
Ok, so how does the tilt work in this vacuum of space...as we're also told?
Draw a dot on a basketball and hold it next to a light. Then tilt the basketball, the angle of the light in relation to the dot will change. This is very simple stuff.
When the sun is at a 90° angle at noon it causes the most heat. That's why it's hot in summer and why places near the equator are hot and why places near the poles are cold.
I'm not sure what you mean by how does an axial tilt work in a vacuum. The tilt of the earth, or basketball in this situation has nothing to do with a vacuum. Its a purely geometric problem.
Why a tilt in the first place, is what I'm saying.
Let me make this clearer.
We are told we have a north pole and a south pole and yet they sit at a supposed 23.5 degree angle and then spin around a central sun.
Why the tilt?
Why not a simple spin like on a basketball players finger around that light bulb?
-
Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.
I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.
Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.
Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.
I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.
-
Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.
I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.
Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.
Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.
I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.
A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.
As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).
I'll make this simple.
Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.
The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.
Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.
Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure outlet.
Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?
Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.
No gravity required in any of this.
Just pressures due to energy friction/vibrational,frequencies.
-
Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.
I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.
Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.
Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.
I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.
A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.
As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).
I'll make this simple.
Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.
The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.
Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.
Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure outlet.
Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?
Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.
So two spinning objects having a relative tilt makes no sense, but a magic, invisible, unfelt atmospheric vortex does?
I mean come on, you aren't even trying here.
-
I don't think it's irrational, we can only observe the world and come to the simplest conclusions that explain what we observe. Of course the change in the angle of the sun during summer and winter could be caused by the sun moving up and down relative to the earth if we are using the heliocentric model. That would also explain our observations but there's no reason, from what we currently understand about our solar system for it to do it.
We also have to understand that the earth doesn't change the direction of it's tilt, that would be irrational and absurd. The currently accepted model says that it keeps the same tilt but as it orbits the sun the tilt relative to the sun is changed based on the position if the earth. Again easily demonstrated with two balls.
The rest of your post is incredibly complex, and interesting, I would add. I admit I will need some time to get my head around it.
One issue that stands out is that if things are pushed down by the atmosphere from my understanding of things your body position would determine your weight.
Like aerodynamics, the atmosphere pushes on things relative to their shape and speed at which they are travelling through it. I'd think that lying down your weight would be much greater than standing up as when you're standing up the atmosphere can only push down on your head and shoulders. Lying down the atmosphere could push on a far greater surface area which should cause an increase in weight. Unless I am missing something.
I don't think this is a joke to you, this was what I was looking for thanks for your responses.
-
Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.
I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.
Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.
Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.
I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.
A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.
As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).
I'll make this simple.
Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.
The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.
Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.
Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure outlet.
Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?
Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.
So two spinning objects having a relative tilt makes no sense, but a magic, invisible, unfelt atmospheric vortex does?
I mean come on, you aren't even trying here.
Hardly unfelt.
The thing is we are well away from the main vortex.
We are moving around towards the middle to outer of the sink and being able to navigate that with our own energies.
Planes do it by using the higher strength of the vortex to sail along on it to reduce fuel and go quicker.
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
-
I don't think it's irrational, we can only observe the world and come to the simplest conclusions that explain what we observe. Of course the change in the angle of the sun during summer and winter could be caused by the sun moving up and down relative to the earth if we are using the heliocentric model. That would also explain our observations but there's no reason, from what we currently understand about our solar system for it to do it.
We also have to understand that the earth doesn't change the direction of it's tilt, that would be irrational and absurd. The currently accepted model says that it keeps the same tilt but as it orbits the sun the tilt relative to the sun is changed based on the position if the earth. Again easily demonstrated with two balls.
On face value it does seem easily demonstrated but when looked at in a realistic way of using the actual ball in rotation around the light as well as affixed to that light in terms of tilt, realistically it would not change.
Get hold of a globe and hold it in your outstretched arms away from a central light.
Now sidestep around that light until you do one full circle, holding that globe in your outstretched arms .
This would depict reality.
Walking around with a globe and turning yourself as you do, is nonsensical. It does not show anything real because it means you are manipulating the globe and space when there is no way to realistically make that work.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XdJdQRN/untitled.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The rest of your post is incredibly complex, and interesting, I would add. I admit I will need some time to get my head around it.
One issue that stands out is that if things are pushed down by the atmosphere from my understanding of things your body position would determine your weight.
I'd think that lying down your weight would be much greater than standing up as when you're standing up the atmosphere can only push down on your head and shoulders. Lying down the atmosphere could push on a far greater surface area which should cause an increase in weight. Unless I am missing something.
No. Your body position does not change your weight. You displace the same atmosphere standing as you would laying down flat.
All you're doing it changing the area configuration.
Basically you are pushing up more compression of atmosphere through your mass by standing, as in height but less area.
By laying down you are pushing much less height into atmosphere but you are pushing more area over your horizontal body mass.
Basically it changes nothing in terms of pressure back onto you. Same measured weight.
I don't think this is a joke to you, this was what I was looking for thanks for your responses.
I have no issue with answering questions from my side.
I'm used to jokes and attempted ridicule off many so I won't panic if there's hidden meaning in your stuff.
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
We certainly feel the force of air pressure.
I've never felt gravity...have you?
If so, tell me how.
-
We feel gravity in terms of weight. You can call the force whatever you like.
I'm interested in your atmospheric compression theory, I'll return when I have time. I don't intend to ridicule you.
Ridiculing ideas is what people do when they are afraid they are not intelligent enough to understand them or debate them honestly.
-
Scepti,
You admit that you cannot prove anything about your model and are just putting it forward as a 'theory'. Yet you insist on us giving you 'proof' that the Earth is a globe etc and in the meantime you can only pass your usual disparaging comments about all the evidence we put to you.
Do you know what the difference is between evidence and proof? If you cannot present 'proof' that your model is correct then don't ask us to prove anything either.
Easy. Logic.
Masses of water and our own motion senses/sensors.
That isn't proof that Earth is not moving is it. That is just your opinion. Just because we cannot feel the Earth moving (rotating) doesn't prove it isn't. Our senses alone are actually quite poor at giving us accurate information.
We certainly feel the force of air pressure.
So what creates the pressure in the first place?
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
We certainly feel the force of air pressure.
I've never felt gravity...have you?
If so, tell me how.
My hair does not press down with the weight of my entire body - so no, you do not feel air pressure holding you down.
Same reason if you swim to the bottom of a deep end of pool, your ears feel the pressure of the water depth, but your hair and your body arent pushed down more.
-
How in the hell can something pull itself together?
By the individual parts of it pulling on each other to form a coherent structure.
How?
Again, this is what you need to explain.
This exercise is not to establish the details of bonding to give you another rabbit hole to flee down.
It is merely to establish the fact that pulling forces DO exist no matter how much you want to pretend they don't.
Now stop dodging.
You have a single link in a chain like in the diagram below.
A force is applied to the link on the right hand side to move it to the right.
How is this force transferred through the rest of the link?
Pulling can explain it easily, with the right side of the link pulling on the left to move it.
But can you explain it without using any pulling force at all?
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
The fundamental difference is that air is quite well understood, and we know it doesn't cause what he claims it does.
Ridiculing ideas is what people do when they are afraid they are not intelligent enough to understand them or debate them honestly.
You mean like Scepti does repeatedly with the RE? Where he calls anyone who supports it indoctrinated?
-
You know. The Sun moves across the sky from east to west. You can see that as well as I can. How can you prove it is not the Earth rotating that causes that motion we observe.
Easy. Logic.
Masses of water and our own motion senses/sensors.
Can you justify that garbage at all?
Because you do not feel motion. I'm not saying that as we don't feel Earth moving, but as we do not have a sense to detect motion.
All you are able to feel is acceleration, but for the rotating round Earth, that merely makes it slightly oblate and changes your apparent weight slightly. It is by an amount that sensitive instruments can easily detect it, but far too little for a human to detect it.
So your "senses" would be useless for determining that Earth is in motion.
Water would be likewise useless, other than by using sensitive equipment to measure the change in weight of a constant mass of a liquid. A simple experiment was done with a gnome and that showed the expected weight variation.
So unless you can explain just how that magically proves Earth is not rotating, you have nothing, like always.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest we are spinning on a globe.
Except all the evidence you choose to dismiss as fake, because you don't like it as it doesn't agree with you.
Guess what? That changes nothing.
What there is no evidence to support is your delusional fantasy.
It absolutely beggars belief that older people don't question this.
No, it doesn't. Because hopefully they actually understand it and don't just dismiss it because they don't like it.
They understand it is supported by plentiful evidence.
Because it doesn't explain anything satisfactorily.
You are yet to provide a single thing that the mainstream model can't explain.
Meanwhile the garbage you try to replace it with explains nothing.
Why a tilt in the first place, is what I'm saying.
No, you were saying why do we have seasons.
Now you are trying to shift that to the formation of Earth.
Why should it spin perfectly aligned with its orbit?
The simple fact is there is an axial tilt. This produces the observed change in elevation angle of the sun at solar noon throughout the year.
but it does not make any rational sense.
You hating it and wanting it to not be real doesn't magically mean it doesn't make sense.
If you want to claim it doesn't make sense you need to explain why, just like I have done repeatedly for your delusional nonsense.
As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).
Any attempt to try to explain magnets needs to also explain their polarity, ferromagnetism, diamagnetism and paramagnetism (i.e. how different materials will react to magnets differently), and how changing the magnetic field, such as by moving a magnet, you create an electrical current, and by how using an electric current, you create a magnetic field.
Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure outlet.
And this now shows your explanation to be nonsense. Notice how when you are in that bath tub, the water carries everything with it? Notice how if you have 2 plugs they don't magically get stuck together away from this vortex, and instead it is only the plug getting stuck in the hole.
This is nothing like magnetism.
What you would need is a vortex where air is rapidly pushed through the magnet itself such that other magnetic things interact with this flowing air.
It needs to flow through to give you the 2 poles that magnets have. Without that you have no directionality and either you magically create air or magically destroy it.
You then need an explanation for why different materials respond different to this field, including why some materials do not react differently to a vortex of air flowing to them or away from them, and why some materials will be drawn towards the source while others will be repelled.
And of course why these vortexes exist in the first place.
No gravity required in any of this.
Why would gravity be required for magnetism?
Stop pretending that everything in the mainstream model is gravity.
Just because you want to pretend everything in your delusional nonsense is air doesn't mean we think everything is gravity.
-
Hardly unfelt.
No, just directly contradicting yourself yet again.
For your FE, this should produce a sideways force. (instead of the normally downwards force you claim air normally provides except when it decides to push up instead)
It clearly needs to be quite significant due to what we observe magnets doing.
So no, this magical vortex of yours is not felt.
Walking around with a globe and turning yourself as you do, is nonsensical. It does not show anything real because it means you are manipulating the globe and space when there is no way to realistically make that work.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XdJdQRN/untitled.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Good job refuting yourself.
Notice how on the right side, the top is pointing to the right, away from the sun which is to the left?
Notice how on the left side, the top is pointing to the right, which it now towards the sun to the right?
And at the front and back you have it tilting perpendicular to the direction to the sun.
This shows what the RE model says.
The tilt remains the same in space, and the change in relative position of the sun changes the tilt relative to the sun.
No. Your body position does not change your weight.
That is the point she was making.
If it was simply air pressure pushing you down, it SHOULD change, but it doesn't.
This shows it is not simply air pressure pushing you down.
But we all know the more fundamental issue is that the air is all around, so there is no reason for it to push you down. Instead, due to the pressure gradient it should push you up.
By laying down you are pushing much less height into atmosphere but you are pushing more area over your horizontal body mass.
Again, why the magical directionally?
Why do you magically only push the air up for it to push you back down?
I have no issue with answering questions from my side.
Until it gets to the point where you can't think of an answer which doesn't make your model look like garabge.
For example, you have massive issues with these questions:
Why is there a pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
Why does the air push an object down, especially for an object on a wall, or ceiling or in mid air?
Why does the air push in a direction opposite the pressure gradient of the atmosphere?
Why does the air then sometimes push an object up, in accordance with the pressure gradient?
Why does the air otherwise push based upon a pressure gradient?
Why is the downwards force proportional to mass, rather than volume or area?
Why does removing air around the object make it heavier?
Why does removing air from inside an object, such that it displaces more air, make it lighter?
How does the air magically push on an object that is covered by another object to create a pressure gradient?
How does a barometer work?
How does a chain link hold itself together without a pulling force?
And that is just for this 1 topic. There is plenty more when you include other topics.
All questions you have serious issues with answering as they attack the fundamental heart of your model/claims.
We certainly feel the force of air pressure.
Yes, such as wind blowing in our face and blowing our hair around, producing a quite noticeable force on the part of your body in the direction that the wind is coming from.
We don't feel this with whatever force makes us go down.
We can even feel this while sky-diving with the air pushing us up and slowing us down, and easily see the effect on parachutes.
But that is more relative motion rather than pressure.
For normal atmospheric pressure, it isn't felt in the sense of producing any kind of sensation.
One thing we certainly don't feel with the air is it magically pushing us down.
I've never felt gravity...have you?
No, but I have felt the force of the ground pushing me up.
A key thing you need to realise is that your senses aren't magic. They don't just magically detect any force.
Instead you detect forces being transmitted through your body.
The air pushes on the outside of your body and then your body transmits that force through your body.
But gravity, in free fall, acts on the entirety of your body and your body doesn't not transmit any significant force.
It is only when you are standing on the ground that you then feel it.
-
Sceptimatic I'm not comfortable posting on a site where posts are deleted at a whim.
Is this the only site you post on or is there another one that allows the free exchange of ideas?
-
You know you are quite bright Jack, you also Sceptimatic. Maybe I will hang around.
-
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.
OK taking that as a definition of logic. How then do you account for how pressure in the atmosphere is created. Or how the holographic images of the Sun and Moon in your model are created? Stripping it down to the basics, what causes these holographic images to circle around in the sky? How do we even see these images?
Explain your reasoning and working behind what you believe. According to your logic of course. Equally explain to me how the global model does not explain day and night or the seasons as we experience them. Not based on your personal preference or belief but based on the logic. In other words forget anything to do with what we are told. Base it purely on what we see. Is it logically possible to explain what we see regardless of our location on Earth by considering that we live on a rotating globe which is huge compared the size of us?
I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless, so I won't bother going that full on route.
What I will do is give you snippets to look at and see where we go from there.
What I mean by this is, what Earth is, is what we see and perceive in everyday life. It's just a case of marrying it all up.
So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.
Have a good look and then come back to me, then we can inch forward.
I understand how a planetarium works it requires a projector, where is this projector located?
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
We certainly feel the force of air pressure.
I've never felt gravity...have you?
If so, tell me how.
My hair does not press down with the weight of my entire body - so no, you do not feel air pressure holding you down.
Same reason if you swim to the bottom of a deep end of pool, your ears feel the pressure of the water depth, but your hair and your body arent pushed down more.
When you attempt to show you understand one little bit, I'll re-engage with you.
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
The fundamental difference is that air is quite well understood, and we know it doesn't cause what he claims it does.
Ridiculing ideas is what people do when they are afraid they are not intelligent enough to understand them or debate them honestly.
You mean like Scepti does repeatedly with the RE? Where he calls anyone who supports it indoctrinated?
We're all massively indoctrinated. Stop taking it as a personal attack. I include myself in this.
-
You know. The Sun moves across the sky from east to west. You can see that as well as I can. How can you prove it is not the Earth rotating that causes that motion we observe.
Easy. Logic.
Masses of water and our own motion senses/sensors.
Can you justify that garbage at all?
Because you do not feel motion. I'm not saying that as we don't feel Earth moving, but as we do not have a sense to detect motion.
I'll leave it at that in this case. Obviously you just want to deny you have a sense for motion.
This is why it's difficult to answer your posts.
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
We certainly feel the force of air pressure.
I've never felt gravity...have you?
If so, tell me how.
My hair does not press down with the weight of my entire body - so no, you do not feel air pressure holding you down.
Same reason if you swim to the bottom of a deep end of pool, your ears feel the pressure of the water depth, but your hair and your body arent pushed down more.
When you attempt to show you understand one little bit, I'll re-engage with you.
Nice way to dodge the very basic observable reality.
You continually insisting that air will go around the hair - because "reasons" - while ignoring all measurable and observable information is astounding
-
Sceptimatic could you please explain why surface area doesn't correlate with weight in your atmospheric compression theory?
I think you're far too interesting to pass up an opportunity to talk to.
If I'm understanding correctly then the atmosphere is pushing us down instead of gravity. Why then wouldn't our body position determine our weight?
Unless and I'm going out on a whim that in your theory it's about how much total atmosphere is displaced so that body position wouldn't determine weight but the total surface area and how much atmosphere is displaced by an object that determines its weight.
If this is the case I have a few more questions. You are certainly making me think.
-
Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.
The fundamental difference is that air is quite well understood, and we know it doesn't cause what he claims it does.
Ridiculing ideas is what people do when they are afraid they are not intelligent enough to understand them or debate them honestly.
You mean like Scepti does repeatedly with the RE? Where he calls anyone who supports it indoctrinated?
We're all massively indoctrinated. Stop taking it as a personal attack. I include myself in this.
Just because it was "spoon fed on a platter" doesnt negate that its wrong and is not a valid argument.
I have no issue turning on a computer that i didnt build myself or driving a car that i didnt build myself.
-
You know. The Sun moves across the sky from east to west. You can see that as well as I can. How can you prove it is not the Earth rotating that causes that motion we observe.
Easy. Logic.
Masses of water and our own motion senses/sensors.
Can you justify that garbage at all?
Because you do not feel motion. I'm not saying that as we don't feel Earth moving, but as we do not have a sense to detect motion.
I'll leave it at that in this case. Obviously you just want to deny you have a sense for motion.
This is why it's difficult to answer your posts.
You feel accelleration.
Try not to confuse velocity with it you disengenuous pos.
-
Sceptimatic could you please explain why surface area doesn't correlate with weight in your atmospheric compression theory?
I think you're far too interesting to pass up an opportunity to talk to.
If I'm understanding correctly then the atmosphere is pushing us down instead of gravity. Why then wouldn't our body position determine our weight?
Unless and I'm going out on a whim that in your theory it's about how much total atmosphere is displaced so that body position wouldn't determine weight but the total surface area and how much atmosphere is displaced by an object that determines its weight.
If this is the case I have a few more questions. You are certainly making me think.
Ohoo i have a feeling where this is going...
Also... im probably going to AR/ banning again.
Haha
-
Walking around with a globe and turning yourself as you do, is nonsensical. It does not show anything real because it means you are manipulating the globe and space when there is no way to realistically make that work.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XdJdQRN/untitled.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Good job refuting yourself.
Notice how on the right side, the top is pointing to the right, away from the sun which is to the left?
None of it is tilted to the right or left, it's tilted away at the top and towards at the bottom...and that's it.
There should be no change from that point except for your so called Earth spin.
The only way to physically see a pole change on that diagram would be to manipulate it to wobble about as it moves.
What force is doing that?
This is the nonsense that is put into stuff like this.
Any rational person can hold a globe with outstretched arms and sidestep around a light/lamp and see for themselves how the globe angle does not change. The spin would change what areas on that globe are illuminated but the top would never move from its angled position away from it and obviously the bottom would stay the same.
Only manipulation changes anything and it's a con job.
-
Sceptimatic could you please explain why surface area doesn't correlate with weight in your atmospheric compression theory?
I think you're far too interesting to pass up an opportunity to talk to.
If I'm understanding correctly then the atmosphere is pushing us down instead of gravity. Why then wouldn't our body position determine our weight?
Unless and I'm going out on a whim that in your theory it's about how much total atmosphere is displaced so that body position wouldn't determine weight but the total surface area and how much atmosphere is displaced by an object that determines its weight.
If this is the case I have a few more questions. You are certainly making me think.
Ohoo i have a feeling where this is going...
That makes one of us, I'm just trying to understand what he believes for now.
-
Well its good because it takes severval (10s of 100s of) reiterating the same question until we get sesnsble tidbits from him.
-
Walking around with a globe and turning yourself as you do, is nonsensical. It does not show anything real because it means you are manipulating the globe and space when there is no way to realistically make that work.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XdJdQRN/untitled.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Good job refuting yourself.
Notice how on the right side, the top is pointing to the right, away from the sun which is to the left?
None of it is tilted to the right or left, it's tilted away at the top and towards at the bottom...and that's it.
There should be no change from that point except for your so called Earth spin.
The only way to physically see a pole change on that diagram would be to manipulate it to wobble about as it moves.
What force is doing that?
Sceptimatic I don't understand this reasoning. A very simple experiment can show that the tilt axis does change relative (relative is very important) to the sun.
An incredibly easy experiment to do would be to hold your right arm out pointing to the right. Then stand at the left side of an object, your right arm will be pointing towards the object. Then stand to the right side of the object, your right arm will be pointing away from the object.
Your body position hasn't changed at all however relative to the object you are pointing towards it in the first instance and away from it in the second instance. This is the same way the earths tilt stays exactly the same but changes relative to another object.
I wholeheartedly agree that the earth wobbling would be absurd. The earths spin doesnt effect the axial tilt. The earth always spins on the same tilt. It's the orbit around the sun which changes it.
According to the heliocentric model which I accept that you believe is false.
-
Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.
I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.
Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.
Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.
I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.
A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.
As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).
I'll make this simple.
Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.
The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.
Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.
Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure outlet.
Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?
Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.
So two spinning objects having a relative tilt makes no sense, but a magic, invisible, unfelt atmospheric vortex does?
I mean come on, you aren't even trying here.
Hardly unfelt.
The thing is we are well away from the main vortex.
We are moving around towards the middle to outer of the sink and being able to navigate that with our own energies.
Planes do it by using the higher strength of the vortex to sail along on it to reduce fuel and go quicker.
So there is some big atomspheric vortex, with its center at the north pole?
And magnets somehow interact with this? How? What happens with two magnets brought near each other?
-
Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.
I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.
Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.
Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.
I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.
A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.
As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).
I'll make this simple.
Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.
The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.
Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.
Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure outlet.
Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?
Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.
So two spinning objects having a relative tilt makes no sense, but a magic, invisible, unfelt atmospheric vortex does?
I mean come on, you aren't even trying here.
Hardly unfelt.
The thing is we are well away from the main vortex.
We are moving around towards the middle to outer of the sink and being able to navigate that with our own energies.
Planes do it by using the higher strength of the vortex to sail along on it to reduce fuel and go quicker.
So there is some big atomspheric vortex, with its center at the north pole?
And magnets somehow interact with this? How? What happens with two magnets brought near each other?
Atmospheric imbalance.
-
Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.
I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.
Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.
Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.
I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.
A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.
As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).
I'll make this simple.
Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.
The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.
Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.
Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure outlet.
Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?
Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.
So two spinning objects having a relative tilt makes no sense, but a magic, invisible, unfelt atmospheric vortex does?
I mean come on, you aren't even trying here.
Hardly unfelt.
The thing is we are well away from the main vortex.
We are moving around towards the middle to outer of the sink and being able to navigate that with our own energies.
Planes do it by using the higher strength of the vortex to sail along on it to reduce fuel and go quicker.
So there is some big atomspheric vortex, with its center at the north pole?
And magnets somehow interact with this? How? What happens with two magnets brought near each other?
Atmospheric imbalance.
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
hmm, can you describe the above with two solid magnets?
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
hmm, can you describe the above with two solid magnets?
The magnets absorb atmosphere like a funnel and as long as there is a way out it creates a high to low pressure difference.
Basically like opening your front door and finding your back door is already slightly ajar.
Except this is an ongoing change whilst the magnet is still acting like a funnel.
This is as basic as I can put it.
There's a lot more to it but I'm giving you a mindset.
Mock it if you want but it may help you to try and understand it so you don;t get left back like kabool regularly does.
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
hmm, can you describe the above with two solid magnets?
The magnets absorb atmosphere like a funnel and as long as there is a way out it creates a high to low pressure difference.
Basically like opening your front door and finding your back door is already slightly ajar.
Except this is an ongoing change whilst the magnet is still acting like a funnel.
This is as basic as I can put it.
There's a lot more to it but I'm giving you a mindset.
Mock it if you want but it may help you to try and understand it so you don;t get left back like kabool regularly does.
wait, still not basic enough, can you clarify?
So atmosphere is funneling through the magnet, like through two doors or through a turbofan, or is it funneling into the magnet, like into a drain?
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
super interesting thought there.
last year you told us it's not possible to suck air out of a box.
-
When you attempt to show you understand one little bit, I'll re-engage with you.
He has demonstrated he is attempting to understand.
By "attempt to show you understand" do you actually mean "accept whatever BS you say without question"?
Because if so, that isn't understanding. That is just you attempting to indoctrinate people.
His argument is quite simple and shows a significant understanding of your BS.
You are claiming you are pushed down by the air pushing you down.
The only place it can do that, is the top of you. That means the air needs to push down with for your entire weight. And that would crush your hair.
We're all massively indoctrinated. Stop taking it as a personal attack. I include myself in this.
No, we aren't.
You being indoctrinated and wanting to indoctrinate others doesn't magically mean everyone is.
It IS a personal attack, which you repeatedly use to insult and dismiss anyone who refutes your BS, to pretend the globe has no explanation for anything.
It has no place in any rational discussion.
Obviously you just want to deny you have a sense for motion.
This is why it's difficult to answer your posts.
Yes, it is quite difficult to answer posts which discuss reality while you keep rejecting reality.
I wouldn't call it denial. Instead it is an understanding of what your body feels combined with plenty of personal experience.
When I am in a car or a bus or a train or a plane, travelling along at decent speeds, I don't feel that motion, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT FEEL MOTION!
Instead, what is felt is a force being transmitted through your body.
For example, if the car accelerates, or turns, I feel that, as it applies a force to one region of my body and my body then transfers it to the rest of my body.
So if all you can do is just outright deny reality to pretend to have a case, you really should just leave it at that and stop posting, as it means you can't justify your lies at all.
Walking around with a globe and turning yourself as you do, is nonsensical. It does not show anything real because it means you are manipulating the globe and space when there is no way to realistically make that work.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XdJdQRN/untitled.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Good job refuting yourself.
Notice how on the right side, the top is pointing to the right, away from the sun which is to the left?
None of it is tilted to the right or left, it's tilted away at the top and towards at the bottom...and that's it.
So you are back to ignoring what simple and obvious diagrams show?
Here is a better diagram for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/Fbuh24O.png)
Notice how the top is always pointing to the right of the diagram?
Notice how the bottom is always pointing to the left?
So when it is on the left, the top points to the sun and the bottom points away from it.
And when it is on the right, the top points away from the sun and the bottom points towards it.
Again, the pole doesn't change direction, the relative direction to the sun does, and that changes if the pole is pointing towards or away from the sun.
Doesn't take a genius to see it.
But it takes wilful ignorance to ignore it to pretend the RE model doesn't work.
What your delusional claims require is for the actual orientation of the axis to change, defying the conservation of angular momentum, such that the top points to the right when to the right of the sun and to the left when to the left of the sun.
And that is pure nonsense.
And of course, you yet again ignore so much that you can't explain.
Your vortex in no way helps to explain magnetism.
Care to address any of the massive flaws with that?
Or will you just ignore them like you ignore so much that shows you are wrong?
The magnets absorb atmosphere like a funnel and as long as there is a way out it creates a high to low pressure difference.
And what magic causes that?
And why does this only effect magnetic materials?
Your bottle example shows the actual effect of the air, where even non-magnetic materials are affected.
Another big issue is that this requires a flow of air, when even air being pushed away from the magnet still manages to attract a magnetic object.
Likewise, another big issue is how 2 magnets interact, where you need 2 of these funnels to repel. Try that with 2 vacuum cleaners. Bring their nozzles together and see if they are repelled or if they get "attracted" to one another.
It is pure nonsense.
If this was the case a magnet would have 2 poles, with 1 pole attracting all materials, and the other repelling all materials.
It doesn't take a genius to see that your claims are pure nonsense with no hope of actually explaining magnets.
But of course, like you so often do, I assume you will just ignore this yet again as you can't explain it and don't want to admit you are wrong.
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
hmm, can you describe the above with two solid magnets?
The magnets absorb atmosphere like a funnel and as long as there is a way out it creates a high to low pressure difference.
Basically like opening your front door and finding your back door is already slightly ajar.
Except this is an ongoing change whilst the magnet is still acting like a funnel.
This is as basic as I can put it.
There's a lot more to it but I'm giving you a mindset.
Mock it if you want but it may help you to try and understand it so you don;t get left back like kabool regularly does.
wait, still not basic enough, can you clarify?
So atmosphere is funneling through the magnet, like through two doors or through a turbofan, or is it funneling into the magnet, like into a drain?
Sort of, yes.
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
super interesting thought there.
last year you told us it's not possible to suck air out of a box.
It's not. And you aren't sucking air out of a bottle, either. So what's your point?
-
Sceptimatic I'd recommended ignoring the people ridiculing you. I'm actually quite interested in your theory and have a few unanswered questions.
-
The magnets absorb atmosphere like a funnel and as long as there is a way out it creates a high to low pressure difference.
And what magic causes that?
And why does this only effect magnetic materials?
Your bottle example shows the actual effect of the air, where even non-magnetic materials are affected.
It's a little more than just wafting air.
It's on a smaller condensed scale.
It affects all materials but most materials have properties that do not allow the funnelling effect to channel the vortex.
Another big issue is that this requires a flow of air, when even air being pushed away from the magnet still manages to attract a magnetic object.
Air being pushed away from your face still attracts atmospheric pressure to your face.
You, just like the magnet, are saturated in pressure.
Likewise, another big issue is how 2 magnets interact, where you need 2 of these funnels to repel. Try that with 2 vacuum cleaners. Bring their nozzles together and see if they are repelled or if they get "attracted" to one another.
Try it with two hair driers.
Try walking around a pool with a few friends and then turning the opposite way and try to walk.
It is pure nonsense.
If this was the case a magnet would have 2 poles, with 1 pole attracting all materials, and the other repelling all materials.
It has a funnel effect. One to take in and the smaller to seep out. It creates a compressive force.
Add one smaller funnel end to the larger funnel top and you have attraction.
Put two smaller funnel ends together and you repel.
It doesn't take a genius to see that your claims are pure nonsense with no hope of actually explaining magnets.
Can you explain magnets?
But of course, like you so often do, I assume you will just ignore this yet again as you can't explain it and don't want to admit you are wrong.
I haven't ignored it.
-
Sceptimatic I'd recommended ignoring the people ridiculing you. I'm actually quite interested in your theory and have a few unanswered questions.
I ignore few. I have no issue with attempted ridicule. I can handle any of it by selective replies.
Ask away.
-
It affects all materials but most materials have properties that do not allow the funnelling effect to channel the vortex.
Your example shows that shouldn't be a problem. You don't need a special material to allow a vacuum cleaner to "suck" it up.
So again, why are only some materials affected?
Another big issue is that this requires a flow of air, when even air being pushed away from the magnet still manages to attract a magnetic object.
Air being pushed away from your face still attracts atmospheric pressure to your face.
And blows your face away. Now care to try to actually address the issue or admit it shows your explanation is nonsense.
Likewise, another big issue is how 2 magnets interact, where you need 2 of these funnels to repel. Try that with 2 vacuum cleaners. Bring their nozzles together and see if they are repelled or if they get "attracted" to one another.
Try it with two hair driers.
No. You ignoring one polarity of the magnet to just focus on another doesn't magically make the problem go away.
The fact you get repulsion with 2 hair driers and not with 2 vacuums shows your claim is nonsense.
It has a funnel effect. One to take in and the smaller to seep out.
And that in no way helps it no longer be nonsense.
The one that takes in should attract everything. The one that "seeps out", which in reality would need to be going at a faster speed due to the smaller area, would repel everything.
You wouldn't have the repulsive side attract anything as magnets are observed to do (as they just have 2 different poles rather than attractive and repulsive), and 2 attractive sides would attract each other, rather than repel like real magnets do.
Can you explain magnets?
Considering you just ignore every other explanation I provide, I see no reason to bother.
You are claiming it is all just magically the air, so the burden is on you to explain it with the air.
I haven't ignored it.
You certainly ignored the key points, or at the very least deflected from them.
They key part you didn't do is actually address these massive issues which show your claim to be nonsense, nor did you admit your explanation was wrong.
-
Sceptimatic I'd recommended ignoring the people ridiculing you. I'm actually quite interested in your theory and have a few unanswered questions.
And I would recommend he stops ridiculing others and the models he hates so much and instead tries to address the arguments raised against his claims or stops making them. Perhaps people will stop ridiculing him when he stops making such ridiculous claims he refuses to justify.
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
hmm, can you describe the above with two solid magnets?
The magnets absorb atmosphere like a funnel and as long as there is a way out it creates a high to low pressure difference.
Basically like opening your front door and finding your back door is already slightly ajar.
Except this is an ongoing change whilst the magnet is still acting like a funnel.
This is as basic as I can put it.
There's a lot more to it but I'm giving you a mindset.
Mock it if you want but it may help you to try and understand it so you don;t get left back like kabool regularly does.
wait, still not basic enough, can you clarify?
So atmosphere is funneling through the magnet, like through two doors or through a turbofan, or is it funneling into the magnet, like into a drain?
Sort of, yes.
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
-
Sceptimatic I'd recommended ignoring the people ridiculing you. I'm actually quite interested in your theory and have a few unanswered questions.
And I would recommend he stops ridiculing others and the models he hates so much and instead tries to address the arguments raised against his claims or stops making them. Perhaps people will stop ridiculing him when he stops making such ridiculous claims he refuses to justify.
Sceppy ego requires a bit of sucking up to.
Once eren has his questions unanswered a few times we ll see a change.
-
This was my question.
Sceptimatic could you please explain why surface area doesn't correlate with weight in your atmospheric compression theory?
I think you're far too interesting to pass up an opportunity to talk to.
If I'm understanding correctly then the atmosphere is pushing us down instead of gravity. Why then wouldn't our body position determine our weight?
Unless and I'm going out on a whim that in your theory it's about how much total atmosphere is displaced so that body position wouldn't determine weight but the total surface area and how much atmosphere is displaced by an object that determines its weight.
If this is the case I have a few more questions. You are certainly making me think.
-
It affects all materials but most materials have properties that do not allow the funnelling effect to channel the vortex.
Your example shows that shouldn't be a problem. You don't need a special material to allow a vacuum cleaner to "suck" it up.
So again, why are only some materials affected?
The right make up of structure.
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
-
This was my question.
Sceptimatic could you please explain why surface area doesn't correlate with weight in your atmospheric compression theory?
I think you're far too interesting to pass up an opportunity to talk to.
If I'm understanding correctly then the atmosphere is pushing us down instead of gravity. Why then wouldn't our body position determine our weight?
Unless and I'm going out on a whim that in your theory it's about how much total atmosphere is displaced so that body position wouldn't determine weight but the total surface area and how much atmosphere is displaced by an object that determines its weight.
If this is the case I have a few more questions. You are certainly making me think.
I answered this question a bit back in the topic when you asked.
I'll explain it a bit more.
Your body or any object displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere, only.
Any atmospheric volume held by any mass, is discarded because it is simply part of the mass, as volume.
An example.
Let's take two rectangular boxes of the same size. One is sort of solid and the other is empty, or filled with air.
The sort of solid box holds a lot of dense mass with little porosity/volume. This box will displace a lot of atmosphere. Basically it creates its very own displacement back onto itself by pushing the atmosphere away.
Some of the atmosphere is withing that structure. In the pores or the porosity throughout the box.
The empty box already has a massive volume of air already inside of it. A lot of volume that does not displace the air, it is part of it.
The displacement of this box against atmosphere is by the actual skin thickness, minus it's own skin porosity, however tiny in that structure.
Ok, so now we've got to that you can see how a scale measure of these boxes will produce different results in terms of resistance to atmospheric pressure upon them by using a scale plate as the foundation/resistance to that push back of atmosphere against displacement of it by the box's own dense mass.
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Great.
You have one magnet sitting on a table, explain what is happening with the atmosphere around it that is different from a non magnet of the same size and mass.
Now bring two magnets together, what happens with the atmosphere around them.
Should be pretty basic there, right?
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Interesting
Everytime we try you stop us...
-
This was my question.
Sceptimatic could you please explain why surface area doesn't correlate with weight in your atmospheric compression theory?
I think you're far too interesting to pass up an opportunity to talk to.
If I'm understanding correctly then the atmosphere is pushing us down instead of gravity. Why then wouldn't our body position determine our weight?
Unless and I'm going out on a whim that in your theory it's about how much total atmosphere is displaced so that body position wouldn't determine weight but the total surface area and how much atmosphere is displaced by an object that determines its weight.
If this is the case I have a few more questions. You are certainly making me think.
I answered this question a bit back in the topic when you asked.
I'll explain it a bit more.
Your body or any object displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere, only.
Any atmospheric volume held by any mass, is discarded because it is simply part of the mass, as volume.
An example.
Let's take two rectangular boxes of the same size. One is sort of solid and the other is empty, or filled with air.
The sort of solid box holds a lot of dense mass with little porosity/volume. This box will displace a lot of atmosphere. Basically it creates its very own displacement back onto itself by pushing the atmosphere away.
Some of the atmosphere is withing that structure. In the pores or the porosity throughout the box.
The empty box already has a massive volume of air already inside of it. A lot of volume that does not displace the air, it is part of it.
The displacement of this box against atmosphere is by the actual skin thickness, minus it's own skin porosity, however tiny in that structure.
Ok, so now we've got to that you can see how a scale measure of these boxes will produce different results in terms of resistance to atmospheric pressure upon them by using a scale plate as the foundation/resistance to that push back of atmosphere against displacement of it by the box's own dense mass.
Ok, good answer. Sorry if I missed it earlier, so density and total size determines weight. That seems plausible it's the same in the theory of gravity. The denser and larger an object is the more it weighs.
What causes the downward force then? In my mind the object being surrounded by atmospheric pressure should feel a push from all directions not just down.
Like a submarine experiences pressure from all sides when it is submerged, it doesn't get pushed down but is pushed from all directions from the water trying to fill the space the submarine is taking up.
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Great.
You have one magnet sitting on a table, explain what is happening with the atmosphere around it that is different from a non magnet of the same size and mass.
Now bring two magnets together, what happens with the atmosphere around them.
Should be pretty basic there, right?
It creates a crashing vortex or spiral if you like.
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Great.
You have one magnet sitting on a table, explain what is happening with the atmosphere around it that is different from a non magnet of the same size and mass.
Now bring two magnets together, what happens with the atmosphere around them.
Should be pretty basic there, right?
It creates a crashing vortex or spiral if you like.
like a tornado?
-
This was my question.
Sceptimatic could you please explain why surface area doesn't correlate with weight in your atmospheric compression theory?
I think you're far too interesting to pass up an opportunity to talk to.
If I'm understanding correctly then the atmosphere is pushing us down instead of gravity. Why then wouldn't our body position determine our weight?
Unless and I'm going out on a whim that in your theory it's about how much total atmosphere is displaced so that body position wouldn't determine weight but the total surface area and how much atmosphere is displaced by an object that determines its weight.
If this is the case I have a few more questions. You are certainly making me think.
I answered this question a bit back in the topic when you asked.
I'll explain it a bit more.
Your body or any object displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere, only.
Any atmospheric volume held by any mass, is discarded because it is simply part of the mass, as volume.
An example.
Let's take two rectangular boxes of the same size. One is sort of solid and the other is empty, or filled with air.
The sort of solid box holds a lot of dense mass with little porosity/volume. This box will displace a lot of atmosphere. Basically it creates its very own displacement back onto itself by pushing the atmosphere away.
Some of the atmosphere is withing that structure. In the pores or the porosity throughout the box.
The empty box already has a massive volume of air already inside of it. A lot of volume that does not displace the air, it is part of it.
The displacement of this box against atmosphere is by the actual skin thickness, minus it's own skin porosity, however tiny in that structure.
Ok, so now we've got to that you can see how a scale measure of these boxes will produce different results in terms of resistance to atmospheric pressure upon them by using a scale plate as the foundation/resistance to that push back of atmosphere against displacement of it by the box's own dense mass.
Ok, good answer. Sorry if I missed it earlier, so density and total size determines weight. That seems plausible it's the same in the theory of gravity. The denser and larger an object is the more it weighs.
What causes the downward force then? In my mind the object being surrounded by atmospheric pressure should feel a push from all directions not just down.
Like a submarine experiences pressure from all sides when it is submerged, it doesn't get pushed down but is pushed from all directions from the water trying to fill the space the submarine is taking up.
Yep, it does get pushed/crushed from all directions and it depends what the dense mass is using as it's leverage against that push from those directions.
Let's take a box.
If we place the box on the ground we can sume the box is being crushed from all sides by the atmosphere, except the underside which is flat against the ground.
Basically nothing can push the box up, except for the absolute minimal stray and tiny available pressures that can seep under it which is almost irrelevant.
What is relevant is the resistance of that box structure in using the ground as the structural resistance to the all round crush back of its own displacement of atmosphere, minus any atmospheric volume it already holds.
If we were to place that same box in water then the water becomes a resistance to the atmospheric push back on the box's displacement of it, meaning the box now also displaces the water by pushing it out of the way and raising it to crush back to arrest that push, unless the atmospheric displacement by the box is such that the water cannot overcome the atmospheric push/crush down.
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Great.
You have one magnet sitting on a table, explain what is happening with the atmosphere around it that is different from a non magnet of the same size and mass.
Now bring two magnets together, what happens with the atmosphere around them.
Should be pretty basic there, right?
It creates a crashing vortex or spiral if you like.
like a tornado?
If you want to look at it that way.
Here's something to think on so you can get an idea.
How do you make an electromagnet work?
Look at the process.
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Great.
You have one magnet sitting on a table, explain what is happening with the atmosphere around it that is different from a non magnet of the same size and mass.
Now bring two magnets together, what happens with the atmosphere around them.
Should be pretty basic there, right?
It creates a crashing vortex or spiral if you like.
like a tornado?
If you want to look at it that way.
so you think every magnet has a spinning tornado of air around it?
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Great.
You have one magnet sitting on a table, explain what is happening with the atmosphere around it that is different from a non magnet of the same size and mass.
Now bring two magnets together, what happens with the atmosphere around them.
Should be pretty basic there, right?
It creates a crashing vortex or spiral if you like.
like a tornado?
If you want to look at it that way.
so you think every magnet has a spinning tornado of air around it?
No.
-
sort of? What does that mean?
If you cant explain your thoughts well enough for someone else to understand them, that's okay, sometimes ideas are just vague unformed thoughts that are difficult to explain.
Is that the case here, or can you explain it more clearly?
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
Great.
You have one magnet sitting on a table, explain what is happening with the atmosphere around it that is different from a non magnet of the same size and mass.
Now bring two magnets together, what happens with the atmosphere around them.
Should be pretty basic there, right?
It creates a crashing vortex or spiral if you like.
like a tornado?
If you want to look at it that way.
so you think every magnet has a spinning tornado of air around it?
No.
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
I think, first of all, look up why an electromagnet works.
Let's make this more easier for you.
You know the magnetic plates the vehicles use at scrap yards?
They pick up metal and then they drop it by use of creating a magnet by electrifying the plate.
Why does tis happen?
Have a look into what's happening and also have a look into how motors work and even how a door bell ding dong mechanism works.
We'll go from there if you'res till interested.
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
Like opening the plug when something is pushed at it.
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
Like opening the plug when something is pushed at it.
Hmm, you haven't got the faintest clue how a magnet works, do you?
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
What do you mean? There is a high pressure gas trapped inside the magnet?
-
Hmm, you haven't got the faintest clue how a magnet works, do you?
That all depends on whether you have a clue how a magnet works, Mr bully boy.
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
What do you mean? There is a high pressure gas trapped inside the magnet?
Not fully trapped, no. On the move from high pressure to low pressure but funnel trapped to a squeeze back into the atmosphere.
Like a battery flowing from terminal back to terminal via something that is placed in the path.
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
What do you mean? There is a high pressure gas trapped inside the magnet?
Not fully trapped, no. On the move from high pressure to low pressure but funnel trapped to a squeeze back into the atmosphere.
So where is the high pressure and where is the low pressure?
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
super interesting thought there.
last year you told us it's not possible to suck air out of a box.
It's not. And you aren't sucking air out of a bottle, either. So what's your point?
really?
i'm pretty sure the lower pressure caused by my lungs is "sucking" (in the traditional definition of the word unless you want to provide am alternate redefinition).
this action is causing the bottled air to evacuate.
the air would not have left the bottle on its own otherwise.
the point is, your previously claimed that nothinginess can't exist because you cna't suck air out of a box.
you tried to use this to wave away how helium balloons sink or how feathers fall at the same rate as bowling balls when air is removed - which directly disproves your need for air to push things down - when there is no air!
-
Hmm, you haven't got the faintest clue how a magnet works, do you?
That all depends on whether you have a clue how a magnet works, Mr bully boy.
Most people do, Mr wimpy kid. If you don't like being ridiculed, perhaps don't be ridiculous?
-
It affects all materials but most materials have properties that do not allow the funnelling effect to channel the vortex.
Your example shows that shouldn't be a problem. You don't need a special material to allow a vacuum cleaner to "suck" it up.
So again, why are only some materials affected?
The right make up of structure.
That is just a bunch of words which explain nothing.
Again, why are only some materials affected?
And again, explain the polarity, as your "explanation" simply does not work.
Again, if your "explanation" was correct, then one side of a magnet would repel everything and the other side would attract everything.
2 attractive sides would attract each other.
(And this is without getting into the more complex aspects of magnetism such as paramagnetic and the behaviour of superconductors, and electromagnetic induction, which further shows your explanation to be garbage)
This in no way matches what is observed for magnets, where only some materials are effected; for magnetic materials which are not magnets, any orientation of a magnet will attract it rather than one side attracting and one repelling; and when you have 2 magnets, the 2 "attractive" sides (which in reality is just one polarity rather than being an attractive side) would repel each other.
They are some of the key things you need to explain.
How do you make an electromagnet work?
Look at the process.
In a fundamentally different way to a fan, showing it has nothing to do with the air.
An electromagnetic works by movement of charged particles, which creates an electromagnetic field which can pull or push.
Normal magnets work based upon the exact same principles, just using the electrons in the material which are already in motion.
There is no air involved, and it even works in a vacuum.
We can also see what happens with 2 electromagnets, where they work just like normal magnets with poles. It is nothing like what you suggest with a magical vortex.
If it was, then putting the 2 attractive sides together would result the magnets attracting one another, and putting the 2 repulsive sides together would cause them to repel.
And you can easily see that by things which actually use the air, like vacuum cleaners, or to set up a pretend electromagnet, a fan in the middle of a tube with lots of air flowing through.
The attraction is greatest with the 2 inlet sides facing each other. It will have a negligible force with an inlet facing an outlet (depending on the strength of the 2 fans). And it has a repulsive force with the 2 outlets facing each other.
Conversely, with electromagnets, it has an attractive force when opposite poles are facing each other (i.e. N faces S), regardless of which way around they are, and a repulsive force when the same pole faces each other (i.e. N faces N or S faces S).
Again, this clearly shows IT IS NOT THE AIR!
Now going to address that, or will you just continue to ignore it or deflect like you do with everything that shows you are wrong.
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
Like opening the plug when something is pushed at it.
Again, this fails to explain how a magnet works.
Maybe you can try drawing a diagram.
Hmm, you haven't got the faintest clue how a magnet works, do you?
That all depends on whether you have a clue how a magnet works
Why?
Why does someone else knowing how a magnet works have any bearing on if you know?
That would be more along the lines of your ability to con someone.
If someone has no idea how a magnet works, it can be relatively easily to con them with a plausible sounding explanation, however if they know how they work, they will see through your BS and likely be able to point out flaws. But that has no bearing on if you know how they work.
So is this your indirect admission that you have no idea how magnets work and are just trying to con us?
-
It's about going down to the basics to gain a better insight.
That's what I'm trying to do.
No, it seems what you are trying to do is discard basically all of actual science, and pretend everything is the air and only ever pushing.
The problem is that when you get down to the basics you see that that idea of it all being the air is pure nonsense.
Just dig further if you feel the need.
At which point you just insult us and claim you have already explained it, or just deflect.
For example, just like you did when we kept digging for:
How air explains inertia,
How there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere,
How the air pushes an object down, in direct defiance of that pressure gradient (and several key things related to your attempt at an explanation, like why an object placed against a wall isn't pushed into the wall by the atmosphere),
How displacing more air causes less weight not more,
How an object in a vacuum chamber (i.e. where their air pressure is reduced) weighs more, rather than less,
How an object immersed in a denser fluid which needs to displace that fluid also weighs less, rather than more as you would expect due to displacing a denser fluid,
How a chain link holds itself together without any pulling force,
Why some materials are magnetic and not others (and that is while still ignoring the finer details of the different possibilities regarding magnetism),
Why magnets have 2 poles, commonly labelled North and South, such that if you bring 2 magnets together with one's N side facing the other's S side, they attract, but 2 N sides facing each other repel and 2 S sides facing each other repel.
It seems the more we dig the more you insult us and dodge.
So again, for you it seems to just be about avoiding reality at all costs.
Ok, so now we've got to that you can see how a scale measure of these boxes will produce different results in terms of resistance to atmospheric pressure upon them by using a scale plate as the foundation/resistance to that push back of atmosphere against displacement of it by the box's own dense mass.
Likewise, we can use an airtight box, and see how pumping out the air causes it to weigh less, not more like your nonsense expects.
This shows that displacement of the atmosphere causes an upwards force, just like the basics would predict based upon the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.
The basics tell us that because the pressure is greater the lower down you are, the atmosphere will apply an upwards force, not a downwards force.
For some reason you keep ignoring these basics because they show you are wrong.
If we place the box on the ground we can sume the box is being crushed from all sides by the atmosphere, except the underside which is flat against the ground.
So if we place it against a wall, the atmosphere will push it into the wall.
If we place it against the ceiling, the atmosphere will push it into the ceiling.
And in mid air, the atmosphere will simply try to crush it.
In fact, when it is against the ceiling, "nothing can push the box down, except for the absolute minimal stray and tiny available pressures that can seep above it which is almost irrelevant.
What is relevant is the resistance of that box structure in using the ceiling as the structural resistance to the all round crush back of its own displacement of atmosphere, minus any atmospheric volume it already holds."
But back in reality, the object is always pushed/pulled down (ignoring effects in addition to weight).
If we were to place that same box in water then the water becomes a resistance to the atmospheric push back on the box's displacement of it, meaning the box now also displaces the water by pushing it out of the way and raising it to crush back to arrest that push, unless the atmospheric displacement by the box is such that the water cannot overcome the atmospheric push/crush down.
Why?
Why should the water push the object up while the air pushes it down?
If we place the box on the floor of a pool we can assume the box is being crushed from all sides by the water, except the underside which is flat against the floor.
Basically nothing can push the box up, except for the absolute minimal stray and tiny available pressures that can seep under it which is almost irrelevant.
What is relevant is the resistance of that box structure in using the floor as the structural resistance to the all round crush back of its own displacement of water, minus any water volume it already holds.
So not only does your explanation fail to match reality, you need to contradict yourself.
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
What do you mean? There is a high pressure gas trapped inside the magnet?
Not fully trapped, no. On the move from high pressure to low pressure but funnel trapped to a squeeze back into the atmosphere.
So where is the high pressure and where is the low pressure?
Think of the front door opening and the back door closed
Now imagine how that pressure is not really felt until the back door or window, is opened.
-
hmm, how does this generate a force between two magnets?
Put your lips over a bottle and evacuate a little bit of air so the air in the bottle becomes less pressurised.
Now your lips are stuck to the bottle top like a magnet...right?
Atmospheric imbalance.
super interesting thought there.
last year you told us it's not possible to suck air out of a box.
It's not. And you aren't sucking air out of a bottle, either. So what's your point?
really?
i'm pretty sure the lower pressure caused by my lungs is "sucking" (in the traditional definition of the word unless you want to provide am alternate redefinition).
Traditionally you know it as, sucking. There's no such thing as suck just as there is no such thing as ,pull...in terms of what they supposedly mean.
It's ok to use the words to explain stuff you physically see and believe but the reality is, they do not show a reality, in my honest opinion. It's all push/crush or basically resistance of matter against matter or molecules against molecules.
this action is causing the bottled air to evacuate.
the air would not have left the bottle on its own otherwise.
It does leave the bottle on its own, as long as a lower pressure is created at the bottle top to allow it to expand out.
the point is, your previously claimed that nothinginess can't exist because you cna't suck air out of a box.
No I didn't.
Don't argue this until you prove it.
you tried to use this to wave away how helium balloons sink or how feathers fall at the same rate as bowling balls when air is removed - which directly disproves your need for air to push things down - when there is no air!
You're getting desperate.
Be clearer in what you're saying and show me what I've said so I can answer it honestly.
-
Hmm, you haven't got the faintest clue how a magnet works, do you?
That all depends on whether you have a clue how a magnet works, Mr bully boy.
Most people do, Mr wimpy kid. If you don't like being ridiculed, perhaps don't be ridiculous?
You aren't capable of ridiculing, Mr internet bully boy. You're just trying to be someone who can't be anyone on a flat Earth forum.
Anyway, aside from you being a little bully, how about you explain how magnets work and then why they work, little bully boy.
-
It affects all materials but most materials have properties that do not allow the funnelling effect to channel the vortex.
Your example shows that shouldn't be a problem. You don't need a special material to allow a vacuum cleaner to "suck" it up.
So again, why are only some materials affected?
The right make up of structure.
That is just a bunch of words which explain nothing.
Again, why are only some materials affected?
And again, explain the polarity, as your "explanation" simply does not work.
Again, if your "explanation" was correct, then one side of a magnet would repel everything and the other side would attract everything.
2 attractive sides would attract each other.
(And this is without getting into the more complex aspects of magnetism such as paramagnetic and the behaviour of superconductors, and electromagnetic induction, which further shows your explanation to be garbage)
This in no way matches what is observed for magnets, where only some materials are effected; for magnetic materials which are not magnets, any orientation of a magnet will attract it rather than one side attracting and one repelling; and when you have 2 magnets, the 2 "attractive" sides (which in reality is just one polarity rather than being an attractive side) would repel each other.
They are some of the key things you need to explain.
How do you make an electromagnet work?
Look at the process.
In a fundamentally different way to a fan, showing it has nothing to do with the air.
An electromagnetic works by movement of charged particles, which creates an electromagnetic field which can pull or push.
Normal magnets work based upon the exact same principles, just using the electrons in the material which are already in motion.
There is no air involved, and it even works in a vacuum.
We can also see what happens with 2 electromagnets, where they work just like normal magnets with poles. It is nothing like what you suggest with a magical vortex.
If it was, then putting the 2 attractive sides together would result the magnets attracting one another, and putting the 2 repulsive sides together would cause them to repel.
And you can easily see that by things which actually use the air, like vacuum cleaners, or to set up a pretend electromagnet, a fan in the middle of a tube with lots of air flowing through.
The attraction is greatest with the 2 inlet sides facing each other. It will have a negligible force with an inlet facing an outlet (depending on the strength of the 2 fans). And it has a repulsive force with the 2 outlets facing each other.
Conversely, with electromagnets, it has an attractive force when opposite poles are facing each other (i.e. N faces S), regardless of which way around they are, and a repulsive force when the same pole faces each other (i.e. N faces N or S faces S).
Again, this clearly shows IT IS NOT THE AIR!
Now going to address that, or will you just continue to ignore it or deflect like you do with everything that shows you are wrong.
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
Like opening the plug when something is pushed at it.
Again, this fails to explain how a magnet works.
Maybe you can try drawing a diagram.
Hmm, you haven't got the faintest clue how a magnet works, do you?
That all depends on whether you have a clue how a magnet works
Why?
Why does someone else knowing how a magnet works have any bearing on if you know?
That would be more along the lines of your ability to con someone.
If someone has no idea how a magnet works, it can be relatively easily to con them with a plausible sounding explanation, however if they know how they work, they will see through your BS and likely be able to point out flaws. But that has no bearing on if you know how they work.
So is this your indirect admission that you have no idea how magnets work and are just trying to con us?
When I give out stuff as factual, then you have a case.
I'm asked how magnets work. I'm trying to explain from my side.
What you take from that is down to you. What anyone takes from it, is down to them.
If people can engage their spidey senses they may take something from it and put pieces in my jigsaw.
If not, as in, people like you, then the discussion becomes bottle necked.
-
Hmmm. So there is a whirling crash of air around the magnets though?
It’s hard to understand. You are being VERY unclear. You always say you want basic and simple, can you do not do that yourself?
I'm trying to give you something easy.
And I can not think of a simpler system than a magnet sitting on a desk.
Basic, no need to bring anything else into it to complicate it, just a magnetic material, calmly sitting there, and the air around it.
In your explanation, what is happening to the magnet and the air around it? Can you not explain such a simple system?
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
What do you mean? There is a high pressure gas trapped inside the magnet?
Not fully trapped, no. On the move from high pressure to low pressure but funnel trapped to a squeeze back into the atmosphere.
So where is the high pressure and where is the low pressure?
Think of the front door opening and the back door closed
Now imagine how that pressure is not really felt until the back door or window, is opened.
So the magnet has doors and windows? And it pressurizes itself inside?
-
Traditionally you know it as, sucking. There's no such thing as suck just as there is no such thing as ,pull...in terms of what they supposedly mean.
It's ok to use the words to explain stuff you physically see and believe but the reality is, they do not show a reality, in my honest opinion. It's all push/crush or basically resistance of matter against matter or molecules against molecules.
you tried to use this to wave away how helium balloons sink or how feathers fall at the same rate as bowling balls when air is removed - which directly disproves your need for air to push things down - when there is no air!
You're getting desperate.
Be clearer in what you're saying and show me what I've said so I can answer it honestly.
the point is, your previously claimed that nothinginess can't exist because you cna't suck air out of a box.
No I didn't.
Don't argue this until you prove it.
i'll give you one - where sucking in terms of push pull - is correct.
The air pushes itself out of the bottle to expand outwards to max out it's "container".
helium balloons has been mentioned to you plenty of times
quit dodging you dodgy MF.
and throughout this thread you denied the feather bowling ball experiment as a dupe.
tehrer's way more to refresh your memory but i just grabbed a quick link
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2219883#msg2219883
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Right
You told us.
And then you gave the analogy of people getting off a bus.
If they canget off the bus, the bus is then empty.
Your analogy.
That contradicts the sponge analogy.
-
So the magnet has doors and windows? And it pressurizes itself inside?
I think this is where we part company.
Make another name and have another go.
-
Traditionally you know it as, sucking. There's no such thing as suck just as there is no such thing as ,pull...in terms of what they supposedly mean.
It's ok to use the words to explain stuff you physically see and believe but the reality is, they do not show a reality, in my honest opinion. It's all push/crush or basically resistance of matter against matter or molecules against molecules.
you tried to use this to wave away how helium balloons sink or how feathers fall at the same rate as bowling balls when air is removed - which directly disproves your need for air to push things down - when there is no air!
You're getting desperate.
Be clearer in what you're saying and show me what I've said so I can answer it honestly.
the point is, your previously claimed that nothinginess can't exist because you cna't suck air out of a box.
No I didn't.
Don't argue this until you prove it.
i'll give you one - where sucking in terms of push pull - is correct.
The air pushes itself out of the bottle to expand outwards to max out it's "container".
helium balloons has been mentioned to you plenty of times
quit dodging you dodgy MF.
and throughout this thread you denied the feather bowling ball experiment as a dupe.
tehrer's way more to refresh your memory but i just grabbed a quick link
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2219883#msg2219883
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Right
You told us.
And then you gave the analogy of people getting off a bus.
If they canget off the bus, the bus is then empty.
Your analogy.
That contradicts the sponge analogy.
What are you trying to show me?
You create your own issues.
Get your head right and come back and have a real conversation if you can.
-
So the magnet has doors and windows? And it pressurizes itself inside?
I think this is where we part company.
Make another name and have another go.
If you don’t want to explain your idea of how magnets work, that’s okay with me. I was just interested if you could explain it clearly and simply, as this is something you request from others.
I have a magnet. Sitting on a table. What is going on with the air and the magnet that is different than the piece of non magnetic material nearby?
About as basic and simple a situation as there is to explain. If you choose to keep your ideas about it obscured though, that’s your choice.
-
It affects all materials but most materials have properties that do not allow the funnelling effect to channel the vortex.
Your example shows that shouldn't be a problem. You don't need a special material to allow a vacuum cleaner to "suck" it up.
So again, why are only some materials affected?
The right make up of structure.
That is just a bunch of words which explain nothing.
Again, why are only some materials affected?
And again, explain the polarity, as your "explanation" simply does not work.
Again, if your "explanation" was correct, then one side of a magnet would repel everything and the other side would attract everything.
2 attractive sides would attract each other.
(And this is without getting into the more complex aspects of magnetism such as paramagnetic and the behaviour of superconductors, and electromagnetic induction, which further shows your explanation to be garbage)
This in no way matches what is observed for magnets, where only some materials are effected; for magnetic materials which are not magnets, any orientation of a magnet will attract it rather than one side attracting and one repelling; and when you have 2 magnets, the 2 "attractive" sides (which in reality is just one polarity rather than being an attractive side) would repel each other.
They are some of the key things you need to explain.
How do you make an electromagnet work?
Look at the process.
In a fundamentally different way to a fan, showing it has nothing to do with the air.
An electromagnetic works by movement of charged particles, which creates an electromagnetic field which can pull or push.
Normal magnets work based upon the exact same principles, just using the electrons in the material which are already in motion.
There is no air involved, and it even works in a vacuum.
We can also see what happens with 2 electromagnets, where they work just like normal magnets with poles. It is nothing like what you suggest with a magical vortex.
If it was, then putting the 2 attractive sides together would result the magnets attracting one another, and putting the 2 repulsive sides together would cause them to repel.
And you can easily see that by things which actually use the air, like vacuum cleaners, or to set up a pretend electromagnet, a fan in the middle of a tube with lots of air flowing through.
The attraction is greatest with the 2 inlet sides facing each other. It will have a negligible force with an inlet facing an outlet (depending on the strength of the 2 fans). And it has a repulsive force with the 2 outlets facing each other.
Conversely, with electromagnets, it has an attractive force when opposite poles are facing each other (i.e. N faces S), regardless of which way around they are, and a repulsive force when the same pole faces each other (i.e. N faces N or S faces S).
Again, this clearly shows IT IS NOT THE AIR!
Now going to address that, or will you just continue to ignore it or deflect like you do with everything that shows you are wrong.
A trapped high v low pressure as it stands.
Like opening the plug when something is pushed at it.
Again, this fails to explain how a magnet works.
Maybe you can try drawing a diagram.
Hmm, you haven't got the faintest clue how a magnet works, do you?
That all depends on whether you have a clue how a magnet works
Why?
Why does someone else knowing how a magnet works have any bearing on if you know?
That would be more along the lines of your ability to con someone.
If someone has no idea how a magnet works, it can be relatively easily to con them with a plausible sounding explanation, however if they know how they work, they will see through your BS and likely be able to point out flaws. But that has no bearing on if you know how they work.
So is this your indirect admission that you have no idea how magnets work and are just trying to con us?
When I give out stuff as factual, then you have a case.
No, I have a case unless you are giving it out as fiction.
i.e. if you are in any way indicating this may explain magnetism in reality, I have a case, as I am clearly showing how your explanation doesn't work.
So are you saying your claims is just delusional ramblings with no connection to reality, or are you claiming what you are providing with vortexes and so on could potentially explains magnetism in reality? (Note that latter doesn't mean you are claiming it is entirely factual, just that it has the potential to be so)
-
No, I have a case unless you are giving it out as fiction.
i.e. if you are in any way indicating this may explain magnetism in reality, I have a case, as I am clearly showing how your explanation doesn't work.
So are you saying your claims is just delusional ramblings with no connection to reality, or are you claiming what you are providing with vortexes and so on could potentially explains magnetism in reality? (Note that latter doesn't mean you are claiming it is entirely factual, just that it has the potential to be so)
I have my own theory as to how magnets work.
Trying to explain them to you is pretty pointless, as anyone can see.
Sobchak was another one that thought it was clever in trying to reel me in to have a dig.
And you think I'm going to try and explain my side to you when all you come back with is the gunk you do?
Carry on wasting your own time.
-
reaching another limit to sceppy's ability to explain?
just a bunch of dismissiveness.
-
No, I have a case unless you are giving it out as fiction.
i.e. if you are in any way indicating this may explain magnetism in reality, I have a case, as I am clearly showing how your explanation doesn't work.
So are you saying your claims is just delusional ramblings with no connection to reality, or are you claiming what you are providing with vortexes and so on could potentially explains magnetism in reality? (Note that latter doesn't mean you are claiming it is entirely factual, just that it has the potential to be so)
I have my own theory as to how magnets work.
No, you simply CLAIM that you have theory. You SAY that you have an explanation of how magnets work.
Yet you can not actually give this explanation.
You are free to make whatever excuses you want, you can blame us if it makes you feel better, and then run off in a huff. Thats fine, people do such things all the time.
What should the rational skeptic think though? Someone claims to have a new theory, and then they can't explain it in any way that makes sense - should someone look at that idea with less or more curiosity than if the person can clearly communicate the concept?
-
No, I have a case unless you are giving it out as fiction.
i.e. if you are in any way indicating this may explain magnetism in reality, I have a case, as I am clearly showing how your explanation doesn't work.
So are you saying your claims is just delusional ramblings with no connection to reality, or are you claiming what you are providing with vortexes and so on could potentially explains magnetism in reality? (Note that latter doesn't mean you are claiming it is entirely factual, just that it has the potential to be so)
I have my own theory as to how magnets work.
And notice how you are claiming that is a theory on how magnets work.
You aren't claiming it is just a fantasy with no connection to reality.
That means I have a case, as you "theory" does not work at all.
Trying to explain them to you is pretty pointless, as anyone can see.
Purely because your theory cannot explain even simple stuff regarding magnets, and I'm not just going to accept BS.
Dismissing what I am saying as "gunk" because you cannot honestly and rationally address it just shows how pathetic and broken your "theory" is.
If it was actually "gunk" then you would be able to refute it, like I refuted your "theory".
Now again, can you account for any of the aspects of magnetism I have highlighted which clearly demonstrate magnetism is not caused by the air?
Try starting with the basics, of how magnets have 2 poles, N and S. If you bring the N pole of one magnet to the S pole of the other, the magnets are attracted to one other.
But if you try to push the N pole of one to the N pole of the other, they 2 magnets repel each other, and likewise if you bring the S pole of one to the S pole of the other, the magnets also repel.
Because that is pretty much the basics of magnetism, and your air has no hope of explaining it.
You can make an attractive vortex with the air, you can make a repulsive one. But you can't set up something so like vortexes repel while opposites attract. The best you get is 2 repulsive vortexes repelling with 2 attractive vortexes attract. But that simply isn't how magnets work.
So going to address the issue yet? Or will you just come up with more excuses and dismissal and insults?
-
reaching another limit to sceppy's ability to explain?
Apparently. It is fine by me, every idea has its limit. I was just hopeful his limit here was more than just saying a magnet on a table is kind of like a house with some open doors and windows that somehow traps pressure and generates a tornado of some sort.
He got awfully touchy about it though, didn't he?
-
No, I have a case unless you are giving it out as fiction.
i.e. if you are in any way indicating this may explain magnetism in reality, I have a case, as I am clearly showing how your explanation doesn't work.
So are you saying your claims is just delusional ramblings with no connection to reality, or are you claiming what you are providing with vortexes and so on could potentially explains magnetism in reality? (Note that latter doesn't mean you are claiming it is entirely factual, just that it has the potential to be so)
I have my own theory as to how magnets work.
Trying to explain them to you is pretty pointless, as anyone can see.
Sobchak was another one that thought it was clever in trying to reel me in to have a dig.
And you think I'm going to try and explain my side to you when all you come back with is the gunk you do?
Carry on wasting your own time.
Sceptimatic, do yourself a favor, buy some magnets and actually DO some practical experiments on magnetism. If you'd like a hand in one what kind of experiments to do, for what purpose, let me know.
Oh, and I'm on night work, so I apologise if I seem like a schizophrenic right now.
-
No, I have a case unless you are giving it out as fiction.
i.e. if you are in any way indicating this may explain magnetism in reality, I have a case, as I am clearly showing how your explanation doesn't work.
So are you saying your claims is just delusional ramblings with no connection to reality, or are you claiming what you are providing with vortexes and so on could potentially explains magnetism in reality? (Note that latter doesn't mean you are claiming it is entirely factual, just that it has the potential to be so)
I have my own theory as to how magnets work.
Trying to explain them to you is pretty pointless, as anyone can see.
Sobchak was another one that thought it was clever in trying to reel me in to have a dig.
And you think I'm going to try and explain my side to you when all you come back with is the gunk you do?
Carry on wasting your own time.
Sceptimatic, do yourself a favor, buy some magnets and actually DO some practical experiments on magnetism. If you'd like a hand in one what kind of experiments to do, for what purpose, let me know.
Oh, and I'm on night work, so I apologise if I seem like a schizophrenic right now.
No need to apologise, you're unimportant to me to be anything. Don't feel the need to play Jeckyll and Hyde and then apologise.
As for magnets. Do you know how they work and why?
-
Can someone summarize why we are talking about magnets?
-
Can someone summarize why we are talking about magnets?
Sorry, probably my fault. Think it stemmed from his claim that all forces can be explained through atmospheric "pushing". I was interested in how he imagined this would work for magnets, and tried (unsuccessfully) to get an explanation. Have apparently derailed the thread even further in the process.
-
No, I have a case unless you are giving it out as fiction.
i.e. if you are in any way indicating this may explain magnetism in reality, I have a case, as I am clearly showing how your explanation doesn't work.
So are you saying your claims is just delusional ramblings with no connection to reality, or are you claiming what you are providing with vortexes and so on could potentially explains magnetism in reality? (Note that latter doesn't mean you are claiming it is entirely factual, just that it has the potential to be so)
I have my own theory as to how magnets work.
Trying to explain them to you is pretty pointless, as anyone can see.
Sobchak was another one that thought it was clever in trying to reel me in to have a dig.
And you think I'm going to try and explain my side to you when all you come back with is the gunk you do?
Carry on wasting your own time.
Sceptimatic, do yourself a favor, buy some magnets and actually DO some practical experiments on magnetism. If you'd like a hand in one what kind of experiments to do, for what purpose, let me know.
Oh, and I'm on night work, so I apologise if I seem like a schizophrenic right now.
No need to apologise, you're unimportant to me to be anything. Don't feel the need to play Jeckyll and Hyde and then apologise.
As for magnets. Do you know how they work and why?
I will apologize if I think I've hurt your tender feelings and you're crying like a newborn baby. To answer your question, yes. Yes, I do know how magnets work and why. I'm doing a physics course at the moment, and magnetism is a chapter I completed long ago.
Unless you can demonstrate you are willing to conduct your own experiments with magnets, instead of theorising in fantasy land as per usual, my dialogue with you on this topic is over. It is not related to gravity.
-
To answer your question, yes. Yes, I do know how magnets work and why. I'm doing a physics course at the moment, and magnetism is a chapter I completed long ago.
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work, unless you just want to just say you do, because.
-
You are the teacher around here aren't you? So really it should be you explaining to us how magnetics work. Whatever we think is likely to be wrong from your point of view so perhaps you could enlighten us before we make fools of ourselves.
I will hazard a guess that you believe it has something to do with pressure. Your explanations usually involve pressure somewhere.
-
To answer your question, yes. Yes, I do know how magnets work and why. I'm doing a physics course at the moment, and magnetism is a chapter I completed long ago.
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work, unless you just want to just say you do, because.
They work because - all matter contains electric charges. Two similar charges repel each other, whereas two different charges will attract each other. Two electrons will repel. Two protons will repel. But an electron and a proton will attract.
Magnetic fields are measured by a unit called a Tesla and a smaller measurement is called a gauss. Ten thousand gauss is equal to one tesla.
Earth's magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the earth causing deep internal currents of electrically charged particles in the liquid outer core.
Earth's magnetic field at the surface is measured at half a gauss.
Just a few facts for you to disprove, sceptimatic, with your own superior theory.
-
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work
Can you tell us how it works?
Can you tell us how anything works?
Because it seems when you get to the point of repeatedly being refuted, that is one trick you love to pull, deflecting by trying to get us to explain, only for you to ignore those explanations.
Perhaps you can go back through the all the explanations you have already been provided and either accept them or explain what is wrong with them.
Or can you just continually make outright false claims which easily fall apart after even basic scrutiny, and insult those who don't just accept your nonsense?
Remember, the only reason we were discussing magnets was because you claim everything magically works without any pulling.
If you want to be able to claim that, then you should be able to explain how magnets work with just pushing, including the polarity, which you seem completely incapable of doing. If you can't, the least you could do is admit you can't, and admit that you cannot explain everything with just pushing.
-
Because it seems when you get to the point of repeatedly being refuted, that is one trick you love to pull, deflecting by trying to get us to explain, only for you to ignore those explanations.
Either ignored or we are told why we are wrong because we make it too 'complicated'. Followed of course by the Sceptimatic alternative explanation since he has got his own explanations for everything. But of course he has never presented anything he believes as 'fact'. Just that we are all wrong. So if we are wrong and (heaven forbid) Sceptimatic is wrong as well.... well what then? But that would never happen would it because Sceptimatic has already done all his own experiments which prove he is right.
-
Because it seems when you get to the point of repeatedly being refuted, that is one trick you love to pull, deflecting by trying to get us to explain, only for you to ignore those explanations.
Either ignored or we are told why we are wrong because we make it too 'complicated'. Followed of course by the Sceptimatic alternative explanation since he has got his own explanations for everything. But of course he has never presented anything he believes as 'fact'. Just that we are all wrong. So if we are wrong and (heaven forbid) Sceptimatic is wrong as well.... well what then? But that would never happen would it because Sceptimatic has already done all his own experiments which prove he is right.
But Scepti’s wrong is more right than your wrong, because his wrong is his own wrong, while your wrong is an indoctrinated wrong.
So even if you can demonstrate your wrong is right with maths and science, it’s still more wrong. Somehow.
-
Because it seems when you get to the point of repeatedly being refuted, that is one trick you love to pull, deflecting by trying to get us to explain, only for you to ignore those explanations.
Either ignored or we are told why we are wrong because we make it too 'complicated'. Followed of course by the Sceptimatic alternative explanation since he has got his own explanations for everything. But of course he has never presented anything he believes as 'fact'. Just that we are all wrong. So if we are wrong and (heaven forbid) Sceptimatic is wrong as well.... well what then? But that would never happen would it because Sceptimatic has already done all his own experiments which prove he is right.
But Scepti’s wrong is more right than your wrong, because his wrong is his own wrong, while your wrong is an indoctrinated wrong.
So even if you can demonstrate your wrong is right with maths and science, it’s still more wrong. Somehow.
If sceptimatic is right, he will have invented an anti-gravity device by now, using magnets. He hasn't and he won't, because his theory has no basis in reality. If it did, we would all be flying around with anti-gravity magnets on our backs.
And no, I won't be strapping magnets to my hands and feet, standing on my two storey roof, and flap my arms about as I jump off, because sceptimatic wants me to prove his theory wrong.
-
You are the teacher around here aren't you? So really it should be you explaining to us how magnetics work. Whatever we think is likely to be wrong from your point of view so perhaps you could enlighten us before we make fools of ourselves.
I will hazard a guess that you believe it has something to do with pressure. Your explanations usually involve pressure somewhere.
Yep, I do think it's pressure.
I'd like you lot to tell me how magnets work, first. I have a totally different mindset, so all I'm asking is for a brief explanation how you lot think magnets work and why.
-
To answer your question, yes. Yes, I do know how magnets work and why. I'm doing a physics course at the moment, and magnetism is a chapter I completed long ago.
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work, unless you just want to just say you do, because.
They work because - all matter contains electric charges. Two similar charges repel each other, whereas two different charges will attract each other. Two electrons will repel. Two protons will repel. But an electron and a proton will attract.
Magnetic fields are measured by a unit called a Tesla and a smaller measurement is called a gauss. Ten thousand gauss is equal to one tesla.
Earth's magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the earth causing deep internal currents of electrically charged particles in the liquid outer core.
Earth's magnetic field at the surface is measured at half a gauss.
Just a few facts for you to disprove, sceptimatic, with your own superior theory.
So basically you have no clue how magnets work and why.
You simply think it's the magnetic core of a global Earth.
My regurgitator and parrot. Don't come at me with your smug attitude when you can't even sort out your own thought process.
-
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work
Can you tell us how it works?
Can you tell us how anything works?
Probably not you, no.
I could tell people who can piece a jigsaw together how it may work from my point of view, but that's about it.
That fact that you don't know how they work, gives you no factual knowledge on the matter, nor against what I say.
You are free to spend all your time calling names and telling me I'm a liar...etc....etc...etc but it doesn't make anything you say, correct.
Get that into your head before you move on.
-
Because it seems when you get to the point of repeatedly being refuted, that is one trick you love to pull, deflecting by trying to get us to explain, only for you to ignore those explanations.
Either ignored or we are told why we are wrong because we make it too 'complicated'. Followed of course by the Sceptimatic alternative explanation since he has got his own explanations for everything. But of course he has never presented anything he believes as 'fact'. Just that we are all wrong. So if we are wrong and (heaven forbid) Sceptimatic is wrong as well.... well what then? But that would never happen would it because Sceptimatic has already done all his own experiments which prove he is right.
You waste too much time having digs.
-
Because it seems when you get to the point of repeatedly being refuted, that is one trick you love to pull, deflecting by trying to get us to explain, only for you to ignore those explanations.
Either ignored or we are told why we are wrong because we make it too 'complicated'. Followed of course by the Sceptimatic alternative explanation since he has got his own explanations for everything. But of course he has never presented anything he believes as 'fact'. Just that we are all wrong. So if we are wrong and (heaven forbid) Sceptimatic is wrong as well.... well what then? But that would never happen would it because Sceptimatic has already done all his own experiments which prove he is right.
But Scepti’s wrong is more right than your wrong, because his wrong is his own wrong, while your wrong is an indoctrinated wrong.
So even if you can demonstrate your wrong is right with maths and science, it’s still more wrong. Somehow.
I like that.
-
Because it seems when you get to the point of repeatedly being refuted, that is one trick you love to pull, deflecting by trying to get us to explain, only for you to ignore those explanations.
Either ignored or we are told why we are wrong because we make it too 'complicated'. Followed of course by the Sceptimatic alternative explanation since he has got his own explanations for everything. But of course he has never presented anything he believes as 'fact'. Just that we are all wrong. So if we are wrong and (heaven forbid) Sceptimatic is wrong as well.... well what then? But that would never happen would it because Sceptimatic has already done all his own experiments which prove he is right.
But Scepti’s wrong is more right than your wrong, because his wrong is his own wrong, while your wrong is an indoctrinated wrong.
So even if you can demonstrate your wrong is right with maths and science, it’s still more wrong. Somehow.
If sceptimatic is right, he will have invented an anti-gravity device by now, using magnets. He hasn't and he won't, because his theory has no basis in reality. If it did, we would all be flying around with anti-gravity magnets on our backs.
And no, I won't be strapping magnets to my hands and feet, standing on my two storey roof, and flap my arms about as I jump off, because sceptimatic wants me to prove his theory wrong.
Pressures.
-
I have a better understanding of the rules here now. It seems that we are allowed to personally attack actual flat earthers but not people who pretend they believe the earth is flat.
Are you the only flat earther on the flat earth society Sceptimatic? You make it much more interesting. I hope the members and mods don't bully you into leaving.
This is by far the strangest conspiracy site I have ever visited. Usually it works the other way where the mods ban people insulting the conspiracy theorists.
I apologize if you don't like the term but I think it's fair to call a flat earth website a conspiracy site.
I'll read back and find your post to make a thought out response.
-
Yep, I do think it's pressure.
Do you mean air pressure?
Then explain how pressure causes the observed phenomenon, because I see no way for air pressure to explain it, as already demonstrated repeatedly.
I'd like you lot to tell me how magnets work
And I'm sure we would all like you to stop deflecting, especially with your dishonest requests for explanations when you just ignore or dismiss any that are given to you.
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work
Can you tell us how it works?
Can you tell us how anything works?
Probably not you, no.
So you can only tell those who will accept without thinking about it?
That fact that you don't know how they work, gives you no factual knowledge on the matter, nor against what I say.
There you go with your baseless assumptions again.
I never said I don't know how they work.
But guess what? Even with that, your logic is still completely wrong.
I don't need to know how magnets work to know that your attempt at an explanation cannot work.
I have clearly explained why your explanation cannot work. You need to address that massive problem, or else it stands no chance of ever working.
Again, a key feature of magnets you refuse to address is the polarity.
Magnets have 2 poles, N and S.
Opposite poles attract. Like poles repel.
Easily demonstrate this fact with 3 simple bar magnets.
Note: While I am using N and S to label the magnets, that is just to make the comparisons easier. Hypothetically N1 could be N or S, and likewise, S2 could be N or S.
Label 1 end of the first magnet N1.
Now get magnet 2 and bring it to the first magnet such that it is attracted to it and one of the ends attaches to N1. Label the end attached to N1 as S2.
Now turn magnet 2 around 180 degrees and try to force it to N1, and notice that it repels. Label this end N2.
Now do the same with magnet 3 and label that with S3 and N3.
Now turn magnet 1 around and label its other end as S1.
Now try the interactions of N2, N3, S2 and S3 with S1.
You will find that N2 and N3 are attracted to it and S2 and S3 are repelled.
N2 and S3 must be different, as one was attracted to N1 while the other was repelled by it (and likewise for S1). Bring them together and you find that they are attracted to one another.
The same applies to N3 and S2.
S2 and S3 are most likely alike, as they were both attracted to N1 and both repelled by S1.
Now try bringing S2 and S3 together and observe that they repel.
Likewise, N2 and N3 are most likely alike, as they were both attracted to S1 and both repelled by N1, and like S2 and S3, they repel one another.
This now means we can divide the ends into a N set and a S set.
Each N pole behaves the same, being attracted to any S pole and repelled by any N pole.
Each S pole behaves the same, being attracted to any N pole and repelled by any S pole.
You can even bring in extra magnets and see the same still applies, it has a N end and a S end which behaves just like the others.
This is what you need to explain, and what you cannot explain with air pressure.
If it was simple air pressure pushing things together, there is no reason for them to repel.
If it was a funnel of air, then there should be an attractive side and a repulsive side. Bringing 2 attractive sides together should result in a strong attraction. Bringing 2 repulsive sides together should result in a strong repulsion. Bringing one of each together should result in a force which depends on if the attraction or repulsion is stronger.
This means your explanation does not match reality.
I don't need to have any idea of the explanation of how magnets work to know your explanation doesn't work.
All I need to know is that magnets have 2 poles, and opposites attract while like repels.
-
All roads lead to conspiracy.
-
To answer your question, yes. Yes, I do know how magnets work and why. I'm doing a physics course at the moment, and magnetism is a chapter I completed long ago.
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work, unless you just want to just say you do, because.
They work because - all matter contains electric charges. Two similar charges repel each other, whereas two different charges will attract each other. Two electrons will repel. Two protons will repel. But an electron and a proton will attract.
Magnetic fields are measured by a unit called a Tesla and a smaller measurement is called a gauss. Ten thousand gauss is equal to one tesla.
Earth's magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the earth causing deep internal currents of electrically charged particles in the liquid outer core.
Earth's magnetic field at the surface is measured at half a gauss.
Just a few facts for you to disprove, sceptimatic, with your own superior theory.
So basically you have no clue how magnets work and why.
You simply think it's the magnetic core of a global Earth.
My regurgitator and parrot. Don't come at me with your smug attitude when you can't even sort out your own thought process.
Sceptimatic, I was looking forward to a lame brained regurgitated response from you, and you didn't disappoint. Do you have a copyright on your parrot replies?
I'm actually genuinely surprised you don't have a phobia towards magnets, and can even type the word "magnet", without having a grand mal seizure.
Given the tin foil hat you have superglued to your head, any magnets too close to you, could become dangerous life threatening projectiles.
Yeah, I do think earths magnetic field extends from earths magnetic core......and?
So tell me two things. Which decade of the 20th century did you study physics, and what failing grade did you get for it?
-
Hold up.
Does sceppy not think compasses work?
Does he have a model that predicts how a compass will behave?
What do you think ships, boy scouts of america, and army are doing when looking at spinning needles?
-
So basically you have no clue how magnets work and why.
So when Scepti says anything along the lines of 'you have no clue' what that really means is that he has already decided how he believes how magnets (or anything else for that matter) work and so no other explanation can possibly be right. If we think any differently to Scepti (which is usually the case) then we are wrong and have no clue. There is absolutely no possibility that he could actually be wrong in his view.
Yep, I do think it's pressure.
OK what creates the pressure in the first place. First principles. What is the source of the pressure?
-
I have a better understanding of the rules here now. It seems that we are allowed to personally attack actual flat earthers but not people who pretend they believe the earth is flat.
Are you the only flat earther on the flat earth society Sceptimatic? You make it much more interesting. I hope the members and mods don't bully you into leaving.
This is by far the strangest conspiracy site I have ever visited. Usually it works the other way where the mods ban people insulting the conspiracy theorists.
I apologize if you don't like the term but I think it's fair to call a flat earth website a conspiracy site.
I'll read back and find your post to make a thought out response.
The mods are absolutely fine with me. They may think I'm nuts or silly or backward or whatever...but, they are fair if you don't go overboard and flout the rules...which....to be fair, they have to keep up or everything goes to hell.
There's a multitude of people arguing different theories/musings or whatever and also people who come on just to simply upset the applecart and change names as and when they see fit.
I have no issue with the mods and no real issue with those arguing a globe or those attacking me.
My thought process is simple. If someone takes an interest in what I'm trying to say and perseveres with trying to understand it as I do from my mindset...those i have better time for.
The Jackblack's and the kabools and bullies like smokey, do not possess the mindset. They want the fight.
They just want to argue black and blue for the globe, regardless.
That's all fine by me but I don't see any benefit for someone coming to a flat Earth forum just to sit and say "it's a globe you imbeciles, you're all nuts and you know you're wrong and we are right because there's many of us and we read books and watch films and see all kinds of pictures to prove anything we want. And so on.
There's plenty of all kinds of stuff on here and it's all about sorting the wheat from the chaff, kind of thing, in terms of people....but, the main thing is to respect alternative theories to the global one.
-
Yep, I do think it's pressure.
Do you mean air pressure?
Not in the way you're thinking, no.
-
To answer your question, yes. Yes, I do know how magnets work and why. I'm doing a physics course at the moment, and magnetism is a chapter I completed long ago.
Ok then you can tell me how and why they work, unless you just want to just say you do, because.
They work because - all matter contains electric charges. Two similar charges repel each other, whereas two different charges will attract each other. Two electrons will repel. Two protons will repel. But an electron and a proton will attract.
Magnetic fields are measured by a unit called a Tesla and a smaller measurement is called a gauss. Ten thousand gauss is equal to one tesla.
Earth's magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the earth causing deep internal currents of electrically charged particles in the liquid outer core.
Earth's magnetic field at the surface is measured at half a gauss.
Just a few facts for you to disprove, sceptimatic, with your own superior theory.
So basically you have no clue how magnets work and why.
You simply think it's the magnetic core of a global Earth.
My regurgitator and parrot. Don't come at me with your smug attitude when you can't even sort out your own thought process.
Sceptimatic, I was looking forward to a lame brained regurgitated response from you, and you didn't disappoint. Do you have a copyright on your parrot replies?
I'm actually genuinely surprised you don't have a phobia towards magnets, and can even type the word "magnet", without having a grand mal seizure.
Given the tin foil hat you have superglued to your head, any magnets too close to you, could become dangerous life threatening projectiles.
Yeah, I do think earths magnetic field extends from earths magnetic core......and?
And...you believe it all because someone told you or you read it in a book and saw diagrams and CGI of it all...plus likely watched films and such.
Basically you have no clue as to what is at the centre of Earth...not a clue.
So tell me two things. Which decade of the 20th century did you study physics, and what failing grade did you get for it?
What decade did Eratosthenes apparently study it?
What decade did Newton and such, study it?
-
Hold up.
Does sceppy not think compasses work?
Yep.
Does he have a model that predicts how a compass will behave?
Yep.
What do you think ships, boy scouts of america, and army are doing when looking at spinning needles?
Navigating towards the centre of the vortex at north on the needle pointer.
-
So basically you have no clue how magnets work and why.
So when Scepti says anything along the lines of 'you have no clue' what that really means is that he has already decided how he believes how magnets (or anything else for that matter) work and so no other explanation can possibly be right. If we think any differently to Scepti (which is usually the case) then we are wrong and have no clue. There is absolutely no possibility that he could actually be wrong in his view.
I'm being honest in that yu don;t have a clue what makes magnets work. You may have a clue as to what you see and what it does by sight but not the reasons for it.
Admit that.
Yep, I do think it's pressure.
OK what creates the pressure in the first place. First principles. What is the source of the pressure?
The internal energy, what is known as, the sun.
From what?
Decay.
-
My thought process is simple. If someone takes an interest in what I'm trying to say and perseveres with trying to understand it as I do from my mindset...those i have better time for.
The Jackblack's and the kabools and bullies like smokey, do not possess the mindset. They want the fight.
No, I want the truth.
That is the big difference between us.
I care about the truth.
I care about explanations which actually work in reality. (Or hypothetical ones which are clearly made as not explaining reality).
That doesn't mean I don't want to understand, and that is something you really need to get over.
Me not accepting your BS because it doesn't work and because you refuse to justify it does not mean I don't understand or don't try to or want to.
All it means is that your model/"explanation" does not match reality.
If you don't care about your model and explanation matching reality, that is your problem, not mine.
Even now, you still don't address these massive issues with your "explanation" and instead you chose to insult me and others.
So if anyone here is just here for a fight, it is you.
They just want to argue black and blue for the globe, regardless.
Is that why I have pointed out flaws in arguments for the RE and against the FE plenty of times on these fora?
I don't see any benefit for someone coming to a flat Earth forum just to sit and say "it's a globe you imbeciles...
Which is why I clearly explain why things are wrong, presenting logical arguments for my position and to refute those of others, even providing evidence that is easily found or obtained, and why other REers provide evidence.
This is quite unlike you, were you just spout unsubstantiated claims and insult those who don't blindly accept them, calling those who question them indoctrinated, just like you dismiss the RE and explanation of it is indoctrinated nonsense. Any time you ask for an explantion, once it is provided you just dismiss it as nonsense, without being able to show any fault with it, or just entirely ignore it.
So why are you on this forum when you basically just sit and say "it's flat you indoctrinated fools"?
but, the main thing is to respect alternative theories
And in your case, that means respecting the global model, rather than repeatedly dismissing it as nonsense.
Perhaps once you start respecting the globe model, and the explanations provided for it, rather than repeatedly dismissing it as nonsense and dismissing anyone who promotes it as indoctrinated, you will get more respect for your model. The other way to try to get more respect for your model is to start defending it (with rational arguments and evidence rather than just insulting those who question it).
Yep, I do think it's pressure.
Do you mean air pressure?
Not in the way you're thinking, no.
So not in the way of air pushing it? Because that is all that air pressure can be.
But again, there you go avoiding the question.
It was really quite simple. Perhaps this one will be easier for you:
Do you think air creates the phenomenon known as magnetism?
If so, can you explain the observed polarity of magnets and the behaviour of those poles, because that quite clearly indicates it is NOT the air.
I'm being honest in that yu don;t have a clue what makes magnets work.
No you aren't. You are assuming that with no basis at all.
That is not being honest.
And you aren't being honest in plenty of things.
For example, you pretend you have a clue and an explanation, yet refuse to defend it.
So how about before demanding others admit they have no clue, you admit you have no clue first.
OK what creates the pressure in the first place. First principles. What is the source of the pressure?
The internal energy, what is known as, the sun.
So you are saying the sun creates the pressure in the magnet to force magnets together?
-
So not in the way of air pushing it? Because that is all that air pressure can be.
There's a lot more to air pressure. It starts a different dense scales of matter to become atmospheric from ground up.
Do you call helium, air?
What about hydrogen?
What about nitrogen?
And so on and so on and so on.
Pressures.
If you were patient enough and took the time to grasp stuff you wouldn't get yourself into a nasty frenzy of abuse which sets you right back to square one.
OK what creates the pressure in the first place. First principles. What is the source of the pressure?
The internal energy, what is known as, the sun.
So you are saying the sun creates the pressure in the magnet to force magnets together?
The energy creates the pressures related to how everything works, including magnets.
Try and understand how the Magdeburg hemispheres work and you may get a clue how magnets actually work.
-
So not in the way of air pushing it? Because that is all that air pressure can be.
There's a lot more to air pressure.
Which doesn't mean it doesn't involve air pushing something.
For the purpose of air-pressure this can include other gases as well.
If you were patient enough and took the time to grasp stuff you wouldn't get yourself into a nasty frenzy of abuse which sets you right back to square one.
I'm not the one always going back to square one. That would you, who refuses to leave it by actually explaining anything.
If you actually tried to explain things, rather than continually dodge or insult I would be more patient with you.
As for grasping things, I seem to grasp quite a lot, regardless of how much you want to pretend I haven't. Me being able to clearly explain why you are wrong, and you having no response than repeated insults or deflection shows that I do grasp it.
The fact that I have so clearly explained how magnets have a specific polarity, and how your "explanations" predicts fundamentally different results to reality, and you just continue to ignore or deflect, shows that I do grasp it.
For example, how I clearly said that with your explanation the 2 poles requires one side drawing in air and the other side expelling it, and how that fails to explain how 2 like poles repel one another, due to one orientation being like 2 vacuum cleaners "sucking" towards each other, you completely deflecting by appealing to hair driers.
So if you honestly think I don't grasp it, then try to explain it for once.
Explain the polarity clearly and easily and repeatedly observed with magnets.
-
So not in the way of air pushing it? Because that is all that air pressure can be.
There's a lot more to air pressure.
For the purpose of air-pressure this can include other gases as well.
Yes.
The fact that I have so clearly explained how magnets have a specific polarity, and how your "explanations" predicts fundamentally different results to reality, and you just continue to ignore or deflect, shows that I do grasp it.
Explain how they work with this polarity.
Nice and simple.
For example, how I clearly said that with your explanation the 2 poles requires one side drawing in air and the other side expelling it, and how that fails to explain how 2 like poles repel one another, due to one orientation being like 2 vacuum cleaners "sucking" towards each other, you completely deflecting by appealing to hair driers.
It's pressure differences.
It's like the plug hole scenario.
Picture you under the plug trying to push it and think of your twin on the other side trying to push it upen. Always a fight.
So if you honestly think I don't grasp it, then try to explain it for once.
Explain the polarity clearly and easily and repeatedly observed with magnets.
Think of it like lock gates.
-
The internal energy, what is known as, the sun.
From what?
Decay.
Ah right. So we are getting onto solar energy now. My specialist topic. So what produces energy inside the Sun then. Let's see how much you think you know about that. And please... let's not play the 'indoctrinated' card this time.. just tell me how you think solar energy is produced.
-
The internal energy, what is known as, the sun.
From what?
Decay.
Ah right. So we are getting onto solar energy now. My specialist topic. So what produces energy inside the Sun then. Let's see how much you think you know about that. And please... let's not play the 'indoctrinated' card this time.. just tell me how you think solar energy is produced.
First of all don't pretend you know what the sun is made up of. Remember, your sun is supposedly in outer space sitting in a supposed vacuum.
As soon as you get your smug clever head off we can get down to it.
-
First of all don't pretend you know what the sun is made up of.
I don't need to pretend anything. What is 'your' Sun made of? Or to put it another way what do you believe the Sun is made of and why?
As soon as you get your smug clever head off we can get down to it.
I will assume you typed this in error since it certainly doesn't apply to me. If you don't want to tell me what you think the Sun is made up of because you don't actually know then of course I will understand and leave you to your thoughts.
What I do know is that you hold a deep-seated distrust of all those involved professionally and academically in science based on your inability to understand it. I think that distrust has been born out jealousy to an extent because you simply cannot entertain the idea that others know more about something than you do. So rather than try to engage with scientific theory and understand it you simply bury your head in the sand and take on a denial mindset instead. Parallel to that you have taken it upon yourself to 're-invent' a different version of science instead which is based around what you think is true. In the meantime you accuse everyone else of being 'indoctrinated' by what we have made an effort to learn throughout our lives.
That's fine. But have you ever stopped to consider whether everything we have been 'indoctrinated' with might actually be true? Just because you don't like something, understand something or don't believe something doesn't mean it is all wrong. It just means you are.
-
Hold up.
Does sceppy not think compasses work?
Yep.
Does he have a model that predicts how a compass will behave?
Yep.
What do you think ships, boy scouts of america, and army are doing when looking at spinning needles?
Navigating towards the centre of the vortex at north on the needle pointer.
Great
Lets see a diagram of it.
-
If you don't want to tell me what you think the Sun is made up of because you don't actually know then of course I will understand and leave you to your thoughts.
I'd like you to tell me what your sun is made up of and how you know this.
What I do know is that you hold a deep-seated distrust of all those involved professionally and academically in science based on your inability to understand it.
Absolutely not.
I have no issue with a lot of science. I do have issue with a lot of stuff that is told to me as being scientific but hidden behind a massive cloak.
Basically no real proof equals massive sceptical mindset from me and a refusal to accept.
All you are doing is taking the side which has mass adherence when related to unprovable storylines.
You may deny this but if you think about it honestly, you'll know it's true.
I think that distrust has been born out jealousy to an extent because you simply cannot entertain the idea that others know more about something than you do.
I'm in no way jealous of any scientist. I'm in awe of many.
Don't mix up real science with pseudo-science.
So rather than try to engage with scientific theory and understand it you simply bury your head in the sand and take on a denial mindset instead.
Or I simply sit back and ask for real proof.
Parallel to that you have taken it upon yourself to 're-invent' a different version of science instead which is based around what you think is true.
It's based around what I think could be a potential for some truth. I never hand it out as factual. All you have to do is, remember that.
In the meantime you accuse everyone else of being 'indoctrinated' by what we have made an effort to learn throughout our lives.
I'm telling the truth.
I accuse myself in with that so don't take it personal.
What we are arguing in here is in debate as to whether we learned a truth or a fiction, in many aspects.
That's fine. But have you ever stopped to consider whether everything we have been 'indoctrinated' with might actually be true?
Have you ever considered that some of it may be wrong?
Just because you don't like something, understand something or don't believe something doesn't mean it is all wrong. It just means you are.
Ditto.
-
[/quote]
Yeah, I do think earths magnetic field extends from earths magnetic core......and?
And...you believe it all because someone told you or you read it in a book and saw diagrams and CGI of it all...plus likely watched films and such.
Basically you have no clue as to what is at the centre of Earth...not a clue.
So tell me two things. Which decade of the 20th century did you study physics, and what failing grade did you get for it?
What decade did Eratosthenes apparently study it?
What decade did Newton and such, study it?
[/quote]
No, sceptimatic. If you were to actually formally study physics, you do the practical experiments that go with it, like using real magnets and making electromagnetic fields. That's how one of us is clueless and the other one is not.
As to what's at the centre of the earth, if you lived through an earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, or worked as a miner underground, you would know something about the centre of the earth.
When are you going to face your demons and then live a little? Whatever happened to you must have been a doosy!
-
The fact that I have so clearly explained how magnets have a specific polarity, and how your "explanations" predicts fundamentally different results to reality, and you just continue to ignore or deflect, shows that I do grasp it.
Explain how they work with this polarity.
Do you mean what the polarity does? If so, I already have, a brief summary is that opposite poles repel and like poles attract.
If you mean explain how that works, NO! Stop deflecting.
You are the one claiming you can explain it all with the air and pushing, so the burden is on you to explain it.
Don't try to continually deflect from your inability to explain by demanding others explain, especially when you just ignore or dismiss explanations given to you.
For example, how I clearly said that with your explanation the 2 poles requires one side drawing in air and the other side expelling it, and how that fails to explain how 2 like poles repel one another, due to one orientation being like 2 vacuum cleaners "sucking" towards each other, you completely deflecting by appealing to hair driers.
It's pressure differences.
It's like the plug hole scenario.
Picture you under the plug trying to push it and think of your twin on the other side trying to push it upen. Always a fight.
Now picture 2 plugs back to back, they would be pushed together, not repelled.
You are still refusing to address the massive problem with pretending it is air.
You need to be able to explain how 2 magnets interact, including both repulsion and attraction.
Can you actually explain it at all, or just offer vague statements which explain nothing?
First of all don't pretend you know what the sun is made up of.
No need to pretend. Just because you choose to be wilfully ignorant doesn't mean everyone does.
What I do know is that you hold a deep-seated distrust of all those involved professionally and academically in science based on your inability to understand it.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely so. Anything associated with the RE you discard out of hand as nonsense.
You discard Earth being round, despite the abundant evidence to support it and continually dismiss it as nonsense.
Due to how rockets have been sent into space and satellites have taken photos of Earth, you discard the very basics of motion, continually ridiculing it with no rational refutation.
Due to how gravity so easily explains so many things for a RE and would indicate Earth is round, you reject it as well, and reject the very idea of a force which can pull. Again, with no rational basis at all.
And now, with magnets showing a "pulling" force, you reject that as well.
You reject all of science which is in any way connected to the RE, and have no justification for that rejection at all.
You may deny this but if you think about it honestly, you'll know it's true.
There you go projecting again.
It's based around what I think could be a potential for some truth. I never hand it out as factual.
You repeatedly hand out your claims as factual and ignore things which clearly show they are not.
The fact you continue to spout the same nonsense when it has clearly be shown to be false shows it has nothing to do with a potential for truth.
It is entirely about rejecting the RE.
In the meantime you accuse everyone else of being 'indoctrinated' by what we have made an effort to learn throughout our lives.
I'm telling the truth.
No you are not.
You are lying and insulting those who object to your claims to dismiss valid refutations of your nonsense and explanations of things you don't like so you can pretend there is no explanation.
Now again, can you explain the polarity of magnets with your air?
If not, perhaps you would like to get back to the more familiar grounds of your pressure gradient? Have you figured out how to explain that without appealing to gravity yet?
Or have you figured out how to explain why the air pushes things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?
Or why displacing more air results in less "weight" and why being submersed in a denser fluid results in less "weight"?
Or how the air magically manages to push through objects to make a pressure gradient rather than applying all force at the top?
-
I'd like you to tell me what your sun is made up of and how you know this.
I don't personally have a Sun. What about you? I have a pretty good idea of what powers the Sun though. How about you? I'd like to know where your deep-seated distrust comes from. I mean.. at some points in our lives, well at most points in our lives actually we have to learn something or other. Now how do most of us learn? We go on courses. We read books. We use the internet. Etc etc. In other words we obtain new information from other people. We have to place our trust in people to tell us stuff. 99.9% of people don't seem to have a hard time doing that.
You on the other hand seem to have a massive belief that whenever people tell you something they are lying. Why? What would they stand to gain by lying? If I want to know why the sky is blue or why the Sun shines, why the stars are just points of light in the sky or why volcanoes erupt then I will go and read a book about it. I can pick up up 100 different books written by 100 different people and they will all give me the same information. Why? Because people have researched the answer and provided that information. Then Sceptimatic comes along and decides he doesn't accept any of that and that we are all being 'indoctrinated'? So he goes and invents his own answers. What does 'indoctrinated' mean to you? Basically it seems anyone who tells anyone anything other than what you believe seems to come under the heading of 'indoctrination' to you. We don't live long enough to find out everything for ourselves from first principles so at times we have to rely on others to tell us don't we.
You ridicule the fundamental points of science such as gravity which has been very well documented over the centuries, shove it all aside and produce your weird stories about 'pressure' for which you can produce absolutely no evidence at all and then you go on about how you are 'in awe' of scientists.
Sorry mate... doesn't compute! You can't be in awe of something with one hand and then dismiss it all as silly nonsense with the other.
-
Hold up.
Does sceppy not think compasses work?
Yep.
Does he have a model that predicts how a compass will behave?
Yep.
What do you think ships, boy scouts of america, and army are doing when looking at spinning needles?
Navigating towards the centre of the vortex at north on the needle pointer.
Can you draw a vortex?
Get a map of the world and draw this vortex over top.
-
No, sceptimatic. If you were to actually formally study physics, you do the practical experiments that go with it, like using real magnets and making electromagnetic fields. That's how one of us is clueless and the other one is not.
How about you explain how you make an electromagnetic field. Nice and brief, just explain what's required.
As to what's at the centre of the earth, if you lived through an earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, or worked as a miner underground, you would know something about the centre of the earth.
How do you know what's at the centre of your Earth.
Never mind mining or tsunami's or Earthquakes or volcanic eruptions...etc. Explain how you know about the centre of the Earth.
-
The fact that I have so clearly explained how magnets have a specific polarity, and how your "explanations" predicts fundamentally different results to reality, and you just continue to ignore or deflect, shows that I do grasp it.
Explain how they work with this polarity.
Do you mean what the polarity does? If so, I already have, a brief summary is that opposite poles repel and like poles attract.
If you mean explain how that works, NO! Stop deflecting.
The thing is, you're wanting me to explain from my side which I'm trying to do, yet you think you can argue it by not being able to explain your side.
Up your game.
-
How about you explain how you make an electromagnetic field. Nice and brief, just explain what's required.
A moving charge.
-
The thing is, you're wanting me to explain from my side which I'm trying to do.
Try harder, no one understands your explanation. Clear communication is a hallmark of well formed ideas.
-
I'd like you to tell me what your sun is made up of and how you know this.
I don't personally have a Sun. What about you? I have a pretty good idea of what powers the Sun though.
Yeah, I asked you about it and haven't had your answer.
How about you?
I have a (my own) theory about how it all works. It may not be fact but it's my thought process by my ability to see what's going on around us, like we all have but many choose to stop there.
I'd like to know where your deep-seated distrust comes from. I mean.. at some points in our lives, well at most points in our lives actually we have to learn something or other. Now how do most of us learn? We go on courses. We read books. We use the internet. Etc etc. In other words we obtain new information from other people. We have to place our trust in people to tell us stuff. 99.9% of people don't seem to have a hard time doing that.
When I was young I was taught to think but I didn't have tome to think of everything and certainly not the time to question the theoreticals of a lot of Earth stuff. I accepted them for that time being.
I've been taught many things. I've been taught to think of problem solving and it's where my ability to invent stuff was nurtured out of me.
You on the other hand seem to have a massive belief that whenever people tell you something they are lying.
No. I do question a lot of stuff by people who do not come across as just garnering my trust for free.
Why? What would they stand to gain by lying?
That depends on what they're lying about.
What does a salesperson have to gain by lying to you about buying a product for a lot more than you can get it somewhere else?
If I want to know why the sky is blue or why the Sun shines, why the stars are just points of light in the sky or why volcanoes erupt then I will go and read a book about it. I can pick up up 100 different books written by 100 different people and they will all give me the same information.
Why? Because people have researched the answer and provided that information.
Yep, you can look in books.
When a story has been worked and reworked many times, you will have ... If it is popular, people will be clamouring for another just like it.
So, what are people researching?
Are they picking a book of fiction from the non fiction shelf or a book of non fiction from the fiction shelf. Or are they choosing a book that mixes both into one story and many stories like it by different authors?
How do you clarify a story without proof?
Then Sceptimatic comes along and decides he doesn't accept any of that and that we are all being 'indoctrinated'?
I don't...or try not to.... accept anything that doesn't ring true. If it turns out to be true, then fair enough, I will accept it as that.
What I'm arguing against has no proof of facts. They are theoretical stories that refuse to show physical truth's.
So he goes and invents his own answers.
Yep. It's called thinking outside of the box to try and solve a potential infinite puzzle by trying to find the simplest pieces that can create a foundation for a better picture to the potential truth whilst also taking out the pieces of that jigsaw that were pieced in to places that seemed to fit but on closer inspection were wholly inadequate for a continuous part of a picture.
What does 'indoctrinated' mean to you?
Being told to follow a curriculum and being examined on following that, unconditionally.
We were all coaxed/bullied into following that set of rules.
Those who didn't were pushed aside and punished or ridiculed, whether it was refusal to be indoctrinated or inability to understand what the curriculum portrayed to them.
You're taking it to heart because you don't like the word...but you know what I'm saying, is the truth.
Basically it seems anyone who tells anyone anything other than what you believe seems to come under the heading of 'indoctrination' to you.
Absolutely not. You are feeling a little bitter towards me because your mind is that you've been almost scorned by my thought process for which you believe I'm trying to get you to follow.
You are under no pressure to do anything you don't want to do, unless someone holds a gun or stick ot emotional distress upon you for which you feel compelled to follow under a fear of consequence.
We don't live long enough to find out everything for ourselves from first principles so at times we have to rely on others to tell us don't we.
I agree, absolutely.
You're simply tying everything in with me simply refusing to accept anything.
This is your issue, not mine.
You ridicule the fundamental points of science such as gravity which has been very well documented over the centuries, shove it all aside and produce your weird stories about 'pressure' for which you can produce absolutely no evidence at all and then you go on about how you are 'in awe' of scientists.
Scientist(s) is the word that we all are, if we are capable of trying to understand what is around us and what we are part of.
Real scientists will deal with real things and try and make assumptions on them based on experience over time of what it is they deal with, to come to a conclusion.
Then you have the theoretical scientists that are dealing with potentials, which mean, they may be real but cannot be verified until physically put into practice.
And then we have pseudo science. I can be labelled into this category just as much as anyone.
I can also be labelled into the tin foil hat nut job, idiotic backward category by people who have set notions.
It depends who accepts stuff without physical proof. It also depends on who unconditionally believes stuff without physical proof.
Sorry mate... doesn't compute!
I don't expect it to given the fact we think entirely differently on what it is we may be dealing with.
You can't be in awe of something with one hand and then dismiss it all as silly nonsense with the other.
I don't dismiss something I'm in awe of. I will accept it for what it is or portrays.
-
How about you explain how you make an electromagnetic field. Nice and brief, just explain what's required.
A moving charge.
A moving charge?
Explain it. Explain what's happening to create what we see and feel.
-
The thing is, you're wanting me to explain from my side which I'm trying to do.
Try harder, no one understands your explanation. Clear communication is a hallmark of well formed ideas.
You mean like you people are supposedly doing and doing nothing.
Moving charge, eh?
-
How about you explain how you make an electromagnetic field. Nice and brief, just explain what's required.
A moving charge.
A moving charge?
Explain it. Explain what's happening to create what we see and feel.
Sure. Take a charged particle (for example, an electron).
move it.
A magnetic field is created while the charge is in motion.
This is the basic observation that our conceptualization of electomagnetism is based on.
We use these conceptualizations to design electromagnetic systems and predict their behavior. It is pervasive through all science and engineering. If it is incorrect, it is nothing short of a miracle that our machines and devices work as they do.
-
The thing is, you're wanting me to explain from my side which I'm trying to do.
Try harder, no one understands your explanation. Clear communication is a hallmark of well formed ideas.
You mean like you people are supposedly doing and doing nothing.
Moving charge, eh?
Blaming your failures on the perceived shortcomings of others?
-
How about you explain how you make an electromagnetic field. Nice and brief, just explain what's required.
A moving charge.
A moving charge?
Explain it. Explain what's happening to create what we see and feel.
Sure. Take a charged particle (for example, an electron).
move it.
A magnetic field is created while the charge is in motion.
This is the basic observation that our conceptualization of electomagnetism is based on.
We use these conceptualizations to design electromagnetic systems and predict their behavior. It is pervasive through all science and engineering. If it is incorrect, it is nothing short of a miracle that our machines and devices work as they do.
Move it, how?
-
The fact that I have so clearly explained how magnets have a specific polarity, and how your "explanations" predicts fundamentally different results to reality, and you just continue to ignore or deflect, shows that I do grasp it.
Explain how they work with this polarity.
Do you mean what the polarity does? If so, I already have, a brief summary is that opposite poles repel and like poles attract.
If you mean explain how that works, NO! Stop deflecting.
The thing is, you're wanting me to explain from my side which I'm trying to do
No you aren't.
You are doing whatever you can to avoid an explanation.
I gave you the example of a vacuum cleaner, clearly pointing out how in your system it should result in them attracting each other, while in reality, the 2 magnets repel, and you just deflected by appealing to hair dryers instead.
If anything, it seems clear that you have no idea how to explain magnets but want to pretend you do. So you claim you can explain it and have been doing so, while you do whatever you can to avoid having to explain it.
Stop trying to get anyone else to explain magnetism unless you can either explain it yourself or you can admit you can't.
And then once you finish with that we can get back to the fact that reality requires pulling or attractive forces.
-
How about you explain how you make an electromagnetic field. Nice and brief, just explain what's required.
A moving charge.
A moving charge?
Explain it. Explain what's happening to create what we see and feel.
Sure. Take a charged particle (for example, an electron).
move it.
A magnetic field is created while the charge is in motion.
This is the basic observation that our conceptualization of electomagnetism is based on.
We use these conceptualizations to design electromagnetic systems and predict their behavior. It is pervasive through all science and engineering. If it is incorrect, it is nothing short of a miracle that our machines and devices work as they do.
Move it, how?
Electrostatics is one way.
-
Yeah, I asked you about it and haven't had your answer.
The thing is with you Sceptimatic, I know you have your own way of seeing the world and how it works. A way which is clearly very different to a lot of people. Now I could (believe me I could) provide you with a very detailed explanation about how solar energy is generated but it would be completely wasted on you because you wouldn't accept it for all the usual reasons that we get from you. It's what I've been told, it's been indoctrinated into me blah blah blah.
So no I don't answer every single demand from you for an explanation for everything because it would be a waste of time be typing it all out. The same applies to everyone else who you ask to explain this and explain that. You are just looking for opportunities to say how wrong we are because we happen to have a different account for everything compared to you.
You don't have any trust or belief in astronomy and that's fine. I'm not going to waste my time trying to change your views on anything that you don't want to believe and neither would I expect you to try and change mine. Because I am as happy with my position as you are with yours. Equally I won't ridicule your thoughts on everything and so equally I won't expect you to ridicule mine.
You have your own personal view on how the Universe works and if that works for you then I have no qualms with that. I am more interested to know why you think everyone in the world is lying to you. Why would they want to do that?
-
Hold up.
Does sceppy not think compasses work?
Yep.
Does he have a model that predicts how a compass will behave?
Yep.
What do you think ships, boy scouts of america, and army are doing when looking at spinning needles?
Navigating towards the centre of the vortex at north on the needle pointer.
Can you draw a vortex?
Get a map of the world and draw this vortex over top.
-
The fact that I have so clearly explained how magnets have a specific polarity, and how your "explanations" predicts fundamentally different results to reality, and you just continue to ignore or deflect, shows that I do grasp it.
Explain how they work with this polarity.
Do you mean what the polarity does? If so, I already have, a brief summary is that opposite poles repel and like poles attract.
If you mean explain how that works, NO! Stop deflecting.
The thing is, you're wanting me to explain from my side which I'm trying to do
No you aren't.
You are doing whatever you can to avoid an explanation.
I gave you the example of a vacuum cleaner, clearly pointing out how in your system it should result in them attracting each other, while in reality, the 2 magnets repel, and you just deflected by appealing to hair dryers instead.
If anything, it seems clear that you have no idea how to explain magnets but want to pretend you do. So you claim you can explain it and have been doing so, while you do whatever you can to avoid having to explain it.
Stop trying to get anyone else to explain magnetism unless you can either explain it yourself or you can admit you can't.
And then once you finish with that we can get back to the fact that reality requires pulling or attractive forces.
Put 2 hair dryers nozzle to nozzle and see what happens.
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
-
Yeah, I asked you about it and haven't had your answer.
The thing is with you Sceptimatic, I know you have your own way of seeing the world and how it works. A way which is clearly very different to a lot of people. Now I could (believe me I could) provide you with a very detailed explanation about how solar energy is generated but it would be completely wasted on you because you wouldn't accept it for all the usual reasons that we get from you. It's what I've been told, it's been indoctrinated into me blah blah blah.
So no I don't answer every single demand from you for an explanation for everything because it would be a waste of time be typing it all out. The same applies to everyone else who you ask to explain this and explain that. You are just looking for opportunities to say how wrong we are because we happen to have a different account for everything compared to you.
I'm not demanding. If you can't answer it simply, then don't bother.
Clearly you can't seem to simplify it.
I know I know....it's just too complicated for ordinary people to understand and can't be simplified......right?
It seems to be the case with much of these global theoreticals.
You don't have any trust or belief in astronomy and that's fine.
Not in the way we've been told, no. As in, outer space in a so called vacuum and such.
I'm not going to waste my time trying to change your views on anything that you don't want to believe and neither would I expect you to try and change mine.
What you decide to do with your thoughts is entirely up to you. I won't try and change your mind. I'll simply give my thoughts and answer to those who are interested. No more than that.
Because I am as happy with my position as you are with yours. Equally I won't ridicule your thoughts on everything and so equally I won't expect you to ridicule mine.
It depends on what you think ridicule is. You've done your bit and you can carry on. As for me, I actually think I'm fairly mild in my retorts.
You have your own personal view on how the Universe works and if that works for you then I have no qualms with that. I am more interested to know why you think everyone in the world is lying to you. Why would they want to do that?
I don't think everyone in the world is lying to me, so why even bother saying it?
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
What specifically would you like explained?
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
I understood it. I think you're blaming the wrong person for your not being able to understand.
You asked him to simplify it, he did. Quit asking for people to tell you things if you won't make an effort to understand them.
-
No, sceptimatic. If you were to actually formally study physics, you do the practical experiments that go with it, like using real magnets and making electromagnetic fields. That's how one of us is clueless and the other one is not.
How about you explain how you make an electromagnetic field. Nice and brief, just explain what's required.
As to what's at the centre of the earth, if you lived through an earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, or worked as a miner underground, you would know something about the centre of the earth.
How do you know what's at the centre of your Earth.
Never mind mining or tsunami's or Earthquakes or volcanic eruptions...etc. Explain how you know about the centre of the Earth.
You can make an electromagnetic field by wrapping copper wire around and iron nail and attaching one end of the wire to the positive terminal of a battery and the other to the negative terminal.
So, you just want me to conveniently ignore that molten lava comes out of erupting volcanoes, and earthquakes happen along well known tectonic plate fault lines? You also want me to ignore when I've been down mine shafts and it gets hotter the deeper you go......as you get closer to earth's molten core.....
The big question, sceptimatic, is how do you know what's at the centre of your earth? Given your propensity for science fiction, I assume you believe what Jules Verne wrote about the centre of the earth in his novel.
I don't operate on anything less than proof. You know I don't. Isn't it about time you faced whatever painful reality you're running away from?
-
I'm not demanding. If you can't answer it simply, then don't bother.
You demand people explain everything they say. Then you dismiss it because they can't provide you with 'proof' to your satisfaction. But then you can't prove anything you claim either so pointless exercise there. I can explain anything you care to mention to the best of my knowledge. But that won't match up with what you believe so again pointless exercise there as well.
Give me your version of what the energy source is of the Sun and then I will give you mine. Just out of interest how long do you think the Sun has existed in its current form? Whether star or reflected holographic image or whatever you think it is. Either way it exists so how long has it existed for do you think?
I know I know....it's just too complicated for ordinary people to understand
What is too complicated and who are these ordinary people you are talking about?
Not in the way we've been told, no. As in, outer space in a so called vacuum and such.
What is so hard to accept about space being a vacuum? Go to the top of Everest and the air is much, much thinner than at ground level. Continue going higher and the trend continues until air density becomes negligible and hey presto you have your vacuum.
What you decide to do with your thoughts is entirely up to you. I won't try and change your mind. I'll simply give my thoughts and answer to those who are interested. No more than that.
What are your thoughts based on?
I don't think everyone in the world is lying to me, so why even bother saying it?
So why do you live in a constant state of denial?
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
Neither are you.
Draw your vortex on a map.
-
The fact that I have so clearly explained how magnets have a specific polarity, and how your "explanations" predicts fundamentally different results to reality, and you just continue to ignore or deflect, shows that I do grasp it.
Explain how they work with this polarity.
Do you mean what the polarity does? If so, I already have, a brief summary is that opposite poles repel and like poles attract.
If you mean explain how that works, NO! Stop deflecting.
The thing is, you're wanting me to explain from my side which I'm trying to do
No you aren't.
You are doing whatever you can to avoid an explanation.
I gave you the example of a vacuum cleaner, clearly pointing out how in your system it should result in them attracting each other, while in reality, the 2 magnets repel, and you just deflected by appealing to hair dryers instead.
If anything, it seems clear that you have no idea how to explain magnets but want to pretend you do. So you claim you can explain it and have been doing so, while you do whatever you can to avoid having to explain it.
Stop trying to get anyone else to explain magnetism unless you can either explain it yourself or you can admit you can't.
And then once you finish with that we can get back to the fact that reality requires pulling or attractive forces.
Put 2 hair dryers nozzle to nozzle and see what happens.
And there you go ignoring the point of how polarity works and deflecting rather than trying any attempt at an explanation.
I fully understand how the 2 outward flowing streams of air would interact to cause a repulsive force. The problem for you is that if you were to turn both magnets around 180 degrees, they still repel, but under your model it would be like putting the nozzles of 2 vacuum cleaners together.
At that point they don't repel, they attract and stick together.
That is what you need to explain and what you keep on dodging.
So can you explain the polarity of magnets with your vortex of air, without just ignoring the orientation which causes the problem?
I know I know....it's just too complicated for ordinary people to understand and can't be simplified......right?
No, it is simple enough for most ordinary people to understand. You just aren't an ordinary person. You reject anything you don't like as nonsense without being able to provide any fault with it.
It depends on what you think ridicule is. You've done your bit and you can carry on. As for me, I actually think I'm fairly mild in my retorts.
You're not.
You continually dismiss the RE model as nonsense with no justification at all and pretend anyone who tries to defend it is indoctrinated. That is not being fairly mild. That isn't being mild at all.
-
To Sceptimatic I would ask simply this. If your belief that the Moon is simply a holographic reflection and therefore not a solid physical object then why is it that we see stars disappear behind that part of the Moon which is not illuminated. For example the waxing crescent Moon? How is it that we often see the unilluminated part of the Moons surface faintly illuminated so we can see the outline of the full Moons disk?
-
To Sceptimatic I would ask simply this. If your belief that the Moon is simply a holographic reflection and therefore not a solid physical object then why is it that we see stars disappear behind that part of the Moon which is not illuminated. For example the waxing crescent Moon? How is it that we often see the unilluminated part of the Moons surface faintly illuminated so we can see the outline of the full Moons disk?
Science has an answer for everything. Unfortunately, flat earthers do not. Sceptimatic us a case in point. I mean, what does he think controls all the tides in the world? A little satellite called the moon? Tides are controlled by the moon's gravitational pull exerting on the earth. What's sceptimatic's fanciful explanation this week? Moon magnetism?
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
I understood it. I think you're blaming the wrong person for your not being able to understand.
You asked him to simplify it, he did. Quit asking for people to tell you things if you won't make an effort to understand them.
What did you understand?
-
You can make an electromagnetic field by wrapping copper wire around and iron nail and attaching one end of the wire to the positive terminal of a battery and the other to the negative terminal.
So you looked it up and came to that conclusion.
Ok, fair enough. Now have a real think about that coil and the nail and think what's happening.
So, you just want me to conveniently ignore that molten lava comes out of erupting volcanoes, and earthquakes happen along well known tectonic plate fault lines? You also want me to ignore when I've been down mine shafts and it gets hotter the deeper you go......as you get closer to earth's molten core.....
Explain what's happening and why.
The big question, sceptimatic, is how do you know what's at the centre of your earth?
I don't, I can only make assumptions/best guesses. The same as you and the same as all scientists who try to think what's deep down.
Given your propensity for science fiction, I assume you believe what Jules Verne wrote about the centre of the earth in his novel.
You are free to assume what you wish.
I don't operate on anything less than proof.
You know I don't.
Clearly you do operate on much less than proof. You don't have any for what you're making out.
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
What specifically would you like explained?
What and why it happens.
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
What specifically would you like explained?
What and why it happens.
You can do your own google searches on how this all works. But we can't do the same for how your vortex works because your stuff doesn't exist for us to research - You're the only sources. So the easiest path would be for you to describe simply and explicitly how your stuff works and you can look up anything you don't understand from the mainstream perspective.
-
I fully understand how the 2 outward flowing streams of air would interact to cause a repulsive force. The problem for you is that if you were to turn both magnets around 180 degrees, they still repel, but under your model it would be like putting the nozzles of 2 vacuum cleaners together.
At that point they don't repel, they attract and stick together.
Try it.
-
What is so hard to accept about space being a vacuum? Go to the top of Everest and the air is much, much thinner than at ground level. Continue going higher and the trend continues until air density becomes negligible and hey presto you have your vacuum.
No you don't.
Can you explain how gravity works in your so called vacuum?
-
To Sceptimatic I would ask simply this. If your belief that the Moon is simply a holographic reflection and therefore not a solid physical object then why is it that we see stars disappear behind that part of the Moon which is not illuminated. For example the waxing crescent Moon? How is it that we often see the unilluminated part of the Moons surface faintly illuminated so we can see the outline of the full Moons disk?
Wash out.
-
To Sceptimatic I would ask simply this. If your belief that the Moon is simply a holographic reflection and therefore not a solid physical object then why is it that we see stars disappear behind that part of the Moon which is not illuminated. For example the waxing crescent Moon? How is it that we often see the unilluminated part of the Moons surface faintly illuminated so we can see the outline of the full Moons disk?
Science has an answer for everything. Unfortunately, flat earthers do not. Sceptimatic us a case in point. I mean, what does he think controls all the tides in the world? A little satellite called the moon? Tides are controlled by the moon's gravitational pull exerting on the earth. What's sceptimatic's fanciful explanation this week? Moon magnetism?
Explain how it works then.
One minute Earth pulls on the moon and the next the moon pulls on the Earth. It's massively mental and laughable.
Any chance you can explain what's happening without using magical mysteries?
Let's see you use your own brain.
-
You can do your own google searches on how this all works.
Course I could. I often look up what I'm arguing against. This is why I see the stupidity of a lot of it and ask you people to explain in your own words to simplify it. You lot struggle to do that and I know perfectly well, why.
But we can't do the same for how your vortex works because your stuff doesn't exist for us to research - You're the only sources.
That's right. It's not there. Because I use my own brain in its simple ways to see past the skulduggery of a lot of the stuff given out, in my opinion.
So the easiest path would be for you to describe simply and explicitly how your stuff works and you can look up anything you don't understand from the mainstream perspective.
I do but you people start going into a frenzy.
-
Wash out.
What does that even mean? The question was why do stars disappear behind the Moon as it moves eastwards relative to them. And the reappear on the opposite side of the Moons disk? If the Moon was just a holographic reflection it would not be solid and therefore the stars would still be visible. Explain that using 'your' Moon.
No you don't.
No you don't what?
One minute Earth pulls on the moon and the next the moon pulls on the Earth.
No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time. Not during alternate minutes.
-
You can do your own google searches on how this all works.
Course I could. I often look up what I'm arguing against. This is why I see the stupidity of a lot of it and ask you people to explain in your own words to simplify it. You lot struggle to do that and I know perfectly well, why.
But we can't do the same for how your vortex works because your stuff doesn't exist for us to research - You're the only sources.
That's right. It's not there. Because I use my own brain in its simple ways to see past the skulduggery of a lot of the stuff given out, in my opinion.
So the easiest path would be for you to describe simply and explicitly how your stuff works and you can look up anything you don't understand from the mainstream perspective.
I do but you people start going into a frenzy.
Then explain your vortex magnification whatchyamacallit thing in its entirety, simply so that it makes some logical evidentiary and observable sense.
-
What is so hard to accept about space being a vacuum? Go to the top of Everest and the air is much, much thinner than at ground level. Continue going higher and the trend continues until air density becomes negligible and hey presto you have your vacuum.
No you don't.
Can you explain how gravity works in your so called vacuum?
Explain beyond the limits of the commbined all knowledge of phsycists?
No
But observable observed observation - yes - it shows air, literal air in the conventional definition, the air we breathe, is not pushing things down.
So if you care to go beyond crush-on-crush then maybe we can all learn more about your denP.
Also
Show us a diagram of your magnetic vortex on a map.
I notice this keeps being avoided.
-
To Sceptimatic I would ask simply this. If your belief that the Moon is simply a holographic reflection and therefore not a solid physical object then why is it that we see stars disappear behind that part of the Moon which is not illuminated. For example the waxing crescent Moon? How is it that we often see the unilluminated part of the Moons surface faintly illuminated so we can see the outline of the full Moons disk?
Science has an answer for everything. Unfortunately, flat earthers do not. Sceptimatic us a case in point. I mean, what does he think controls all the tides in the world? A little satellite called the moon? Tides are controlled by the moon's gravitational pull exerting on the earth. What's sceptimatic's fanciful explanation this week? Moon magnetism?
Explain how it works then.
One minute Earth pulls on the moon and the next the moon pulls on the Earth. It's massively mental and laughable.
Any chance you can explain what's happening without using magical mysteries?
Let's see you use your own brain.
No. There's nothing I could day that would satisfy your sick agenda. Why don't you make yourself a scaled down model of the earth and moon according to the heliocentric model, to start with, and get to know your enemy?
But I want to see you use your brain for the first time, and explain with your model, what causes Earth's tides. The scientific explanation is a laughable magical mystery to you, so, I'm keen to hear you deliver your far superior explanation. Keep in mind - the tide is low and the moon is high.
-
I fully understand how the 2 outward flowing streams of air would interact to cause a repulsive force. The problem for you is that if you were to turn both magnets around 180 degrees, they still repel, but under your model it would be like putting the nozzles of 2 vacuum cleaners together.
At that point they don't repel, they attract and stick together.
Try it.
Try putting 2 vacuum cleaners together?
What are you now trying to claim that they magically repel?
You already appealed to the Magdeburg hemispheres which is basically the same issue.
So how about instead of dodging you try to explain it or admit your explanation doesn't work.
Ok, fair enough. Now have a real think about that coil and the nail and think what's happening.
Well it doesn't seem to be caused by any air flow.
Can you explain how gravity works in your so called vacuum?
This is just a problem of your mindset.
You want everything to be based upon the air, so when you don't have air you then think nothing can work.
The air has no impact on the ability for gravity to work.
This means it doesn't matter if it is a vacuum or not.
This means your question makes no sense at all.
And again with more deflection. Why don't YOU explain your claims.
Trying to explain anything to you like that is pointless because dismiss anything that uses anything which appears to be a pulling force.
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
What specifically would you like explained?
What and why it happens.
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
As to why it happens -
I don't know why a moving charge creates a reproducible, predictable, magnetic field. Physicists have shown that it falls out nicely from special relativity and fundamental electromagnetism, which would suggest it is emergent behavior from the basic properties of energy and space time. That said, that's still not an answer to 'why', and I think the only honest answer I can give is I don't know.
-
There is no point us trying to explain anything to Sceptimatic because of one simple reason. He doesn't want to belief anything other than his own deluded model. So whatever we explain and whatever we 'try' it would be thrown back in our face. We will never be able to explain or prove anything to him outside of his own belief system.
And that's why (to him) he will always be the winner. Another delusion. If someone wants to believe passionately in a particular line of thought then they see whatever evidence is available as supporting that particular line of thought. Equally they will regard anyone elses explanation as simply wrong or a deliberate attempt to mislead them. The term 'anyone' else in this case could be an individual or a group, regardless of how large.
So that's why Sceptimatic shows such contempt for Earth being a globe. Or gravity. If any other explanation other than his own is put to him he will immediately dismiss it as silly nonsense since it does not fit in with his belief framework. People of this type of mindset will regard all of us as being led through any other belief system as having minds like sheep. That's where the 'indoctrination' term comes from. As scientists we build a model to fit the evidence, modifying the model as necessary along the way as new evidence comes to light. Those like Sceptimatic in contrast start off with a model and then change their interpretation of the evidence until they can make it fit their model.
-
There is no point us trying to explain anything to Sceptimatic because of one simple reason. He doesn't want to belief anything other than his own deluded model. So whatever we explain and whatever we 'try' it would be thrown back in our face. We will never be able to explain or prove anything to him outside of his own belief system.
And that's why (to him) he will always be the winner. Another delusion.
I agree with the sentiments. Still, never hurts to explain things to the best of your ability when directly asked.
As for ‘winning’, his concepts, if true, could be demonstrated conclusively in a short afternoon of work. Instead, he has been arguing for years with strangers. If he wants to consider that ‘winning’, he is welcome to, but opinions on that would obviously vary.
-
No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time. Not during alternate minutes.
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
So don't be giving me the moon supposedly pulling on Earth.
You know it makes no sense.
-
Alternative theories to big questions are nothing new. Back in the 20th century we had the Big Bang v Steady State. One stated the Universe had a beginning while the other stated it didn't and new matter formed galaxies spontaneously as the Universe expanded. Effectively filling in the gaps.
Between the 1920s and the 1960s both seemed plausible in their own way and when Sir Fred Hoyle came to support the Steady State in the 1940s, it really gave it a boost in the acceptance stakes. But then in the 1960s the CMB was discovered. Not for the first time in physics more or less by accident. The discovery of the CMB, which had been predicted by the Big Bang theory wiped the Steady State off the map.
Now having an alternative theory to the shape of the Earth would be definitely a significant achievement and put ones name in the history books. If only someone could find such a theory that was in any way remotely viable!
You know it makes no sense.
No you've got that completely wrong. I know it makes complete sense. So do you really.
-
But observable observed observation - yes - it shows air, literal air in the conventional definition, the air we breathe, is not pushing things down.
So if you care to go beyond crush-on-crush then maybe we can all learn more about your denP.
Denying barometers is what you're doing.
It amazes me how you don't think we are being crushed by atmospheric pressure.
-
I fully understand how the 2 outward flowing streams of air would interact to cause a repulsive force. The problem for you is that if you were to turn both magnets around 180 degrees, they still repel, but under your model it would be like putting the nozzles of 2 vacuum cleaners together.
At that point they don't repel, they attract and stick together.
Try it.
Try putting 2 vacuum cleaners together?
What are you now trying to claim that they magically repel?
You already appealed to the Magdeburg hemispheres which is basically the same issue.
Try it instead of waffling.
-
No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time. Not during alternate minutes.
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
So don't be giving me the moon supposedly pulling on Earth.
You know it makes no sense.
A tug of war does not involve orbital mechanics.
The moon is in orbit around the earth due to earths greater gravitational pull on the moon. Your mind is closed to orbital mechanics and all things science, so ofcourse the moon orbiting around earth will make no sense to you.
It's like you were held back in pre-school for the last 56 years, destined to repeat your kindergarten lessons over and over til the day you die. All because you refuse to address what happened to you.
You're always welcome to PM me if you want a confidential chat.
-
But observable observed observation - yes - it shows air, literal air in the conventional definition, the air we breathe, is not pushing things down.
So if you care to go beyond crush-on-crush then maybe we can all learn more about your denP.
Denying barometers is what you're doing.
It amazes me how you don't think we are being crushed by atmospheric pressure.
in regards to talking about magnets at this point.
which you are also yet to provide your vortex lines on a map.
-
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
It depends on how you look at that situation. For an alternative thinker, you are not doing very well are you. There is more than one way to consider that scenario.
-
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.
As to why it happens -
I don't know why a moving charge creates a reproducible, predictable, magnetic field.
Well there you go. This is what I asked.
Physicists have shown that it falls out nicely from special relativity
What exactly is special relativity?
Nice and simple.
and fundamental electromagnetism, which would suggest it is emergent behavior from the basic properties of energy and space time.
Tell me about this spacetime.
That said, that's still not an answer to 'why', and I think the only honest answer I can give is I don't know.
I respect you for saying that.
-
No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time. Not during alternate minutes.
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
So don't be giving me the moon supposedly pulling on Earth.
You know it makes no sense.
A tug of war does not involve orbital mechanics.
The moon is in orbit around the earth due to earths greater gravitational pull on the moon. Your mind is closed to orbital mechanics and all things science, so ofcourse the moon orbiting around earth will make no sense to you.
It's like you were held back in pre-school for the last 56 years, destined to repeat your kindergarten lessons over and over til the day you die. All because you refuse to address what happened to you.
You're always welcome to PM me if you want a confidential chat.
How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.
-
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
It depends on how you look at that situation. For an alternative thinker, you are not doing very well are you. There is more than one way to consider that scenario.
Enlighten me and show me the realism as you see it.
-
Electrostatics is one way.
Explain what's happening.
Like charges repel, opposites attract.
You're not explaining anything.
I understood it. I think you're blaming the wrong person for your not being able to understand.
You asked him to simplify it, he did. Quit asking for people to tell you things if you won't make an effort to understand them.
What did you understand?
His explanation. You asked for something simplified and he did a good job of boiling it down to the basics.
What confuses you about it?
-
His explanation. You asked for something simplified and he did a good job of boiling it down to the basics.
What confuses you about it?
You worry about you. I'm sure sobchak doesn't require babysitting.
-
Enlighten me and show me the realism as you see it.
Use a bit of imagination I'm sure you can figure it out.
-
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
It depends on how you look at that situation. For an alternative thinker, you are not doing very well are you. There is more than one way to consider that scenario.
Enlighten me and show me the realism as you see it.
Ugggh
Observations are welll documented.
The specific how and why are up to the physicists.
How abut you catch up and meet us even at our level.
You have a diagram and a working model?
So far all we got from you is "crush on crush" and isndisputed as soon as a depressurized chamber is introduced.
Wheres your vortex map?
Wheres your photo of a crosshairtu-tube with VERTICAL plumb string?
-
His explanation. You asked for something simplified and he did a good job of boiling it down to the basics.
What confuses you about it?
You worry about you. I'm sure sobchak doesn't require babysitting.
It's not sobchak who I'm trying to help here. He doesn't need it. You on the other hand, clearly do.
If you can't even articulate what confuses you, perhaps you should try and puzzle it out more before just claiming confusion and giving up.
-
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.
Then give your argument. What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?
Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table.
Explain it.
Physicists have shown that it falls out nicely from special relativity
What exactly is special relativity?
Nice and simple.
and fundamental electromagnetism, which would suggest it is emergent behavior from the basic properties of energy and space time.
Tell me about this spacetime.
As I understand it, 'spacetime' is at the most basic level the conceptual model that time and space are linked instead of independent. Events can be described to occur on a 4 dimensional manifold with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. It is a useful concept for mathematically describing the topology of the universe as it is understood.
Special relativity is meanwhile the conceptual framework that attempts to describe and predict how events in this 4 dimension continuum are differentially observed from different frames of reference.
-
How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.
OK how's this. I don't know if you are aware but every year since 1979 (apart from last year for obvious reasons) a significant event in the amateur astronomy calendar is the Texas Star Party. It is held near Fort Davis in western Texas during the late spring. Amateur and professional astronomers from around the world convene for a few days of observing, imaging and presentations under some of the best skies in the world. I visited myself with a few friends in 1989.
Now ever year an excursion is offered to those attending the TSP to the nearby MacDonald Observatory situated in the Davis Mountains. This observatory includes a telescope which is equipped with a laser system which for many years was used to aim at some mirrors that were placed on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions. Yes I know.. you believe the Moon is just a holograph but bear with me OK.
The mirrors are able to reflect light from the laser back to Earth and so make it possible to determine the precise distance of the Moon. During my visit the Moon as visible in the sky and so as they had done during previous years the astronomer staff on duty at the time provided us with a demonstration of this experiment. The observatory has software which allows the astronomers to aim the telescope precisely so that when the laser is activated it hits the mirrors and the reflected beam is detected and recorded just under 3 seconds later. Because the party that I was with had travelled the furthest distance to the TSP that year we were honoured with the job of firing the laser.
One lined up we were given the OK and the laser was fired. A few moments later the reflected beam was detected by the camera attached to the telescope and the distance of the Moon came up on the screen. We were then shown all the measurements from previous years on a graph which showed how the Moon has been receding from Earth by about 2cm per year. Since the laser can tell us the distance of the Moon and we know its period of orbit around the Earth (by observing its position on the sky) we can work out its mass. That in turn leads us to another method of calculating the Earths mass. But you will of course deny all that won't you. Easier just to deny what you don't understand than try to learn it eh.
You will probably dismiss all of this as the astronomers trying to trick us or deliberately deceive us. If so then they would have been guilty of deceiving a lot of people through all the previous years when visitors have attended the observatory and seen the same experiment being performed.
The question is why would they do that? What would they stand to gain by such deliberate deception? They are simply performing an experiment to determine the distance to the Moon. There is a theory that the Moon was created by a collision between the Earth and another forming planetesimal and the Moon formed from the debris from this collision. This is what caused the tilt of the Earths axis, the spinning of the Earth among other things. Through geological records the spin of the Earth is known to have been more rapid (shorter days and nights) in the past and so the Earth spin rate is slowing down. Exactly what we would expect from such a collision long ago in the past. The Moon is moving away from us. Again exactly what you would expect if it was involved in a collision with Earth in the past. The same effects are observed with snooker balls after a collision. In science you see we don't just 'make things up'. We observe re-produceable, similar conditions and watch what happens. Not just once but many times.
Lots of aspects of science seem to tie in together and support this model. The planetesimal involved with the collision with Earth missed the iron rich core of the Earth which is how the Earth managed to survive. The outer layers of Earth have less iron content than the core and that explains why lunar rock samples were also found to contain less iron content than terrestrial rock samples do. In short the evidence from multiple branches of science link together to help build this model. And through the experiment I became part of all that.
You might also be aware of the Earths precession or polar wobble. That is something that takes place over a 26,000 year period. In short it means different stars have in the past been where Polaris is now. Precession is not directly noticeable over a human life time but star charts have to be updated every few years to account for a tiny amount of this wobble. If you look at a star chart you will see what epoch it is plotted for. Epoch 1950, Epoch 2000 and so on. This polar wobble is more evidence of the collision that happened in the past. If you watch snooker balls in slow motion you will notice that they also wobble around a particular axis following a collision with another ball.
How much evidence is there to support your alternative belief that the Sun and Earth are both holographic projections, reflected off an up to now, undetected dome? Well when you find some beyond the confines of what goes on in your head then be sure to let us know.
One last question I would put to you. What is the difference between what we are told, and what we are taught?
-
I fully understand how the 2 outward flowing streams of air would interact to cause a repulsive force. The problem for you is that if you were to turn both magnets around 180 degrees, they still repel, but under your model it would be like putting the nozzles of 2 vacuum cleaners together.
At that point they don't repel, they attract and stick together.
Try it.
Try putting 2 vacuum cleaners together?
What are you now trying to claim that they magically repel?
You already appealed to the Magdeburg hemispheres which is basically the same issue.
Try it instead of waffling.
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
And again, you have already appealed to the Magdeburg hemispheres. Are you now going to change your claim to these hemispheres magically repelling each other?
If you think they are going to repel, explain HOW!
If you can't, admit you have no explanation.
No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time. Not during alternate minutes.
A tug of war
A tug of war has nothing to do with it.
Think of it more like a rope being used to hold an object up.
You know it makes no sense.
You mean you have no rational objection to it so you need to dismiss it by falsely claiming it makes no sense.
But observable observed observation - yes - it shows air, literal air in the conventional definition, the air we breathe, is not pushing things down.
So if you care to go beyond crush-on-crush then maybe we can all learn more about your denP.
Denying barometers is what you're doing.
No, that is clearly you.
Simple barometers like a mercury tube barometer clearly demonstrate that gravity (the thing that makes things fall and have weight) is separate to air pressure, as does plenty of other things.
It amazes me how you don't think we are being crushed by atmospheric pressure.
No one here is denying that the atmosphere applies a force to people.
The only thing we dismiss as pure nonsense (and have explained why) is your fantasy that the air magically pushes things down.
We know the air applies a force to everything in it.
We know the force is proportional to the pressure and the area.
We know that predominately, this is a force which merely tries to crush things, rather than push in any particular direction.
We know that in order to have directionality you need a pressure gradient.
We know that for something like the atmosphere, with a pressure gradient, this results in the atmosphere applying a stronger push from the high pressure side of the gradient towards the low pressure side.
We know that for something like the atmosphere, with a pressure gradient which has the pressure increase as you get lower, this will result in an upwards force on the object.
Meanwhile, you outright deny this and instead claim that the air somehow magically pushes things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, that it magically pushes down with a force that is proportional to mass, rather than proportional to the area and pressure, or area and pressure gradient (which effectively means volume and density OF THE AIR).
So no, you are the one in denial, not us.
How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.
As that relies upon gravity that would be an entirely useless exercise. You will dismiss it simply for not using your magic air.
And again, STOP DODGING AND DEMANDING EXPLANTIONS FROM OTHERS AND START PROVIDING YOUR OWN!
YOU are the one claiming EVERYTHING is the result of pushing forces with no need for any pull.
YOU are the one claiming air can magically push everything down in direct defiance of the known laws of how gasses work.
YOU are the one claiming to be able to explain magnets by a vortex of air.
So stop deflecting and either explain or admit you can't.
-
No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time. Not during alternate minutes.
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
So don't be giving me the moon supposedly pulling on Earth.
You know it makes no sense.
A tug of war does not involve orbital mechanics.
The moon is in orbit around the earth due to earths greater gravitational pull on the moon. Your mind is closed to orbital mechanics and all things science, so ofcourse the moon orbiting around earth will make no sense to you.
It's like you were held back in pre-school for the last 56 years, destined to repeat your kindergarten lessons over and over til the day you die. All because you refuse to address what happened to you.
You're always welcome to PM me if you want a confidential chat.
How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.
I have a better idea. ;D Why don't you explain orbital mechanics to me, nice and simple.
Anything I type, you will announce I read it somewhere, and quoted, which is intolerable to you. So, instead of going around in circles, how about you do the work?
Meanwhile, my offer still stands. I've counselled many people in my line of work, as you might well imagine.
-
As I understand it, 'spacetime' is at the most basic level the conceptual model that time and space are linked instead of independent.
What is spacetime in terms of time and space being linked.
Give me a nice easy analogy. Nice and simple for my child like mind.
Events can be described to occur on a 4 dimensional manifold with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension.
A 4 dimensional manifold?.....3 spatial dimensions?......one time dimension?.......Can you explain what this is all about, nice and simple for my child like mind. A simple analogy.
It is a useful concept for mathematically describing the topology of the universe as it is understood.
Topology of the universe? What does this mean?
Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner. A simple analogy for my child like mind.
Special relativity is meanwhile the conceptual framework that attempts to describe and predict how events in this 4 dimension continuum are differentially observed from different frames of reference.
What exactly is special relativity in it's simplest term. A simple analogy will suffice. Something that makes sense.
Also can you explain in simple terms, the 4 dimension continuum.
Serious questions and an appeal for absolute simplistic analogies in with the answers, thanks.
-
Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner.
Can you explain anything? Anything at all?
Because you have yet again deflected from your complete inability to explain your model, your complete inability to explain why things fall (and why some things don't), or how magnets magically work based upon a vortex of air?
-
How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.
OK how's this. I don't know if you are aware but every year since 1979 (apart from last year for obvious reasons) a significant event in the amateur astronomy calendar is the Texas Star Party. It is held near Fort Davis in western Texas during the late spring. Amateur and professional astronomers from around the world convene for a few days of observing, imaging and presentations under some of the best skies in the world. I visited myself with a few friends in 1989.
Now ever year an excursion is offered to those attending the TSP to the nearby MacDonald Observatory situated in the Davis Mountains. This observatory includes a telescope which is equipped with a laser system which for many years was used to aim at some mirrors that were placed on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions. Yes I know.. you believe the Moon is just a holograph but bear with me OK.
The mirrors are able to reflect light from the laser back to Earth and so make it possible to determine the precise distance of the Moon. During my visit the Moon as visible in the sky and so as they had done during previous years the astronomer staff on duty at the time provided us with a demonstration of this experiment. The observatory has software which allows the astronomers to aim the telescope precisely so that when the laser is activated it hits the mirrors and the reflected beam is detected and recorded just under 3 seconds later. Because the party that I was with had travelled the furthest distance to the TSP that year we were honoured with the job of firing the laser.
One lined up we were given the OK and the laser was fired. A few moments later the reflected beam was detected by the camera attached to the telescope and the distance of the Moon came up on the screen. We were then shown all the measurements from previous years on a graph which showed how the Moon has been receding from Earth by about 2cm per year. Since the laser can tell us the distance of the Moon and we know its period of orbit around the Earth (by observing its position on the sky) we can work out its mass. That in turn leads us to another method of calculating the Earths mass. But you will of course deny all that won't you. Easier just to deny what you don't understand than try to learn it eh.
You will probably dismiss all of this as the astronomers trying to trick us or deliberately deceive us. If so then they would have been guilty of deceiving a lot of people through all the previous years when visitors have attended the observatory and seen the same experiment being performed.
The question is why would they do that? What would they stand to gain by such deliberate deception? They are simply performing an experiment to determine the distance to the Moon.
I have no issues with reflections or bouncing lasers from something.
Just not distant so called moons and such.
I've been through this before about firing so called lasers at a moon that is supposedly spinning at 10 mph n the opposite direction to what Earth spins at, as we're told, with Earth spinning at 1000 mph, give or take depending on where you are on it, as we're told.
Firing a laser in that set up and getting the rebound back to the scope is silly in the extreme.
Rebounding a signal on a stationary Earth and getting it back is extremely feasible.
There is a theory that the Moon was created by a collision between the Earth and another forming planetesimal and the Moon formed from the debris from this collision. This is what caused the tilt of the Earths axis, the spinning of the Earth among other things.
There's a story that a massive spaceship was built that went warp speed, etc and had a massive crew on it that could visit planets by beaming up and onto them.
It's a good story.
Maybe they can make that story you believe, into a film.
-
Through geological records the spin of the Earth is known to have been more rapid (shorter days and nights) in the past and so the Earth spin rate is slowing down.
In the past there were big dinosaurs roaming about, around 65 million years ago which is very very early compared to the story of Earth's 4.5 billion years of age, so called spinning planet.
The stories are pretty good but they should really be on the best guess shelf of the library.
Exactly what we would expect from such a collision long ago in the past.
Yep. I expected (when I was a kid) the famous five to solve the mysteries in the books. They never disappointed me.
Julian, Dick and Ann, George and timmmmmmmy the dorhorhog.
The Moon is moving away from us.
As a hologram, maybe.
Again exactly what you would expect if it was involved in a collision with Earth in the past.
Nothing. I don't expect anything because it's all a complete load of flannel, in my absolute honest opinion.
The same effects are observed with snooker balls after a collision.
Are you trying to make it a bit more believable?
In science you see we don't just 'make things up'.
In science, no. In explanations pertaining to it, told by people who pretend to be scientists in this so called field of story telling....yes they do.
We observe re-produceable, similar conditions and watch what happens. Not just once but many times.
Clearly you do not.
If you did you would observe the most simplest form which is sea level and understand it kills the nonsense of gravity and global spins...etc.
Lots of aspects of science seem to tie in together and support this model.
Absolutely none of it.
Lots of fictional storylines and story telling support the fictional model.
The planetesimal involved with the collision with Earth missed the iron rich core of the Earth which is how the Earth managed to survive.
Of course. I mean, this is why we're luckily here, right?
If you want to believe this utter garbage then feel free. Feel free.
I should tell a story how the bin man fell in my wheelie bin and went down to Earth's core and was pushed out of the other side with a cork hat on, riding a kangaroo into the back yard of a woman called Sheila and promptly tipped into her wheelie bin, only to come right back through the Earth and end up coming back out of his neighbours bin down the street.
The outer layers of Earth have less iron content than the core and that explains why lunar rock samples were also found to contain less iron content than terrestrial rock samples do.
Hmmm, how convenient.
In short the evidence from multiple branches of science link together to help build this model.
You mean the collaborated fictional stories aid to create a picture or a reality to the naive paupers of the world..
And through the experiment I became part of all that.
You became duped. In my opinion. Assuming you are telling the truth in the first place.
You might also be aware of the Earths precession or polar wobble.
I've heard a little about it.
That is something that takes place over a 26,000 year period.
Give or take a few days, eh?
In short it means different stars have in the past been where Polaris is now.
And you're absolutely sure of this, right?
Precession is not directly noticeable over a human life time but star charts have to be updated every few years to account for a tiny amount of this wobble.
Updated by who?
If you look at a star chart you will see what epoch it is plotted for. Epoch 1950, Epoch 2000 and so on. This polar wobble is more evidence of the collision that happened in the past.
There's no evidence and you know it.
If you watch snooker balls in slow motion you will notice that they also wobble around a particular axis following a collision with another ball.
Are you adding this in as a convincer?
How much evidence is there to support your alternative belief that the Sun and Earth are both holographic projections, reflected off an up to now, undetected dome?
To me, plenty. To you...none. This is just how it is because you have no desire to understand from my side because you head is crammed full of odd balls tuff from the side you follow.
Well when you find some beyond the confines of what goes on in your head then be sure to let us know.
You'll just have to tag along, as and when I have my say....or don't.The choice is entirely yours.
One last question I would put to you. What is the difference between what we are told, and what we are taught?
It depends on who is telling you and who is teaching you.
-
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.
-
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.
You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.
Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens.
Again, it is the same as the hemispheres you already appealed to.
Now stop with the pathetic dodging and explain how it magically causes repulsion, or admit your model fails to match reality.
I have no issues with reflections or bouncing lasers from something.
Just not distant so called moons and such.
Of course, you only have a problem when it shows you are wrong.
If it doesn't show you are wrong, then you are happy to accept it.
I've been through this before about firing so called lasers at a moon that is supposedly spinning at 10 mph n the opposite direction to what Earth spins at, as we're told, with Earth spinning at 1000 mph, give or take depending on where you are on it, as we're told.
Firing a laser in that set up and getting the rebound back to the scope is silly in the extreme.
Why?
Just what part is silly?
Can you point out anything at all actually wrong with it, or can you only repeatedly assert it is silly/nonsense?
Because the latter is all you seem to be capable of doing.
-
No the Earth and Moon both pull on each other all the time. Not during alternate minutes.
A tug of war between rugby players verses kids (Earth and moon) will go one way, never the other.
So don't be giving me the moon supposedly pulling on Earth.
You know it makes no sense.
A tug of war does not involve orbital mechanics.
The moon is in orbit around the earth due to earths greater gravitational pull on the moon. Your mind is closed to orbital mechanics and all things science, so ofcourse the moon orbiting around earth will make no sense to you.
It's like you were held back in pre-school for the last 56 years, destined to repeat your kindergarten lessons over and over til the day you die. All because you refuse to address what happened to you.
You're always welcome to PM me if you want a confidential chat.
How about explaining orbital mechanics, nice and simple.
I have a better idea. ;D Why don't you explain orbital mechanics to me, nice and simple.
I have absolutely no idea what orbital mechanics are in real life.
Can you give me a proof of orbital mechanics so I can see it in action in real time?
Or at least simply explain it.
If you can't then don't worry about it.
Anything I type, you will announce I read it somewhere, and quoted, which is intolerable to you. So, instead of going around in circles, how about you do the work?
You did, didn't you?
However, you seem to know it's a reality, so show me or explain it nice and simple.
Meanwhile, my offer still stands. I've counselled many people in my line of work, as you might well imagine.
I don't need anything from you so go about your business however you choose and with whatever fantasy you go with.
-
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.
You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.
There is no sucking of air through, so try again.
And clearly you have not performed this two cleaner experiment.
-
Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner.
Can you explain anything? Anything at all?
Because you have yet again deflected from your complete inability to explain your model, your complete inability to explain why things fall (and why some things don't), or how magnets magically work based upon a vortex of air?
I honestly don't think anything can ever be explained to you that goes against your grain. Seriously.
-
As I understand it, 'spacetime' is at the most basic level the conceptual model that time and space are linked instead of independent.
What is spacetime in terms of time and space being linked.
Give me a nice easy analogy. Nice and simple for my child like mind.
Events can be described to occur on a 4 dimensional manifold with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension.
A 4 dimensional manifold?.....3 spatial dimensions?......one time dimension?.......Can you explain what this is all about, nice and simple for my child like mind. A simple analogy.
It is a useful concept for mathematically describing the topology of the universe as it is understood.
Topology of the universe? What does this mean?
Can you explain this in a very simplistic manner. A simple analogy for my child like mind.
Special relativity is meanwhile the conceptual framework that attempts to describe and predict how events in this 4 dimension continuum are differentially observed from different frames of reference.
What exactly is special relativity in it's simplest term. A simple analogy will suffice. Something that makes sense.
Also can you explain in simple terms, the 4 dimension continuum.
Serious questions and an appeal for absolute simplistic analogies in with the answers, thanks.
I can try, but please keep in mind these are simply conceptual frameworks we use to generalize observations and make quantitative predictions. And the geometric topology that is used in these conceptual frameworks, while incredibly interesting, is a devilish complex subject. To truly understand the concepts you really do have to at some level understand the mathematics that are being used in their construction.
This unfortunately means that if you only find arguments compelling if you FULLY understand them, I imagine relativity will forever be out of your reach. That's okay, there is no need to ‘believe’ in it, and you can dismiss it as incomprehensible if you would like, OR, perhaps a more open minded approach, you could be agnostic to it, and neither say it is nonsense, NOR believe it is a good approximation of the world around us.
Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired -
You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler. It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent. Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock.
So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by? Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position. If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph. Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph.
This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference.
The theory of special relativity mathematically builds such predictive frameworks, creating quantitative mathematical formulations for how things look from other points of view. It adds a special constraint though. It stipulates that the speed of light is constant no matter what your frame of reference is. And when you add this constraint to the underlying mathematics, you end up building some new and incredibly interesting predictions about what you should observe.
In the context of our example above, special relativity PREDICTS that if you watched the clock in the other train with incredible precision, you would find that it moved at a very slighter slower rate than the one next to you was running, and if you could somehow measure his ruler with an incredible degree of precision, you would also be PREDICTED to find it was ever so slightly shorter than yours.
This is one of the main predictions of the theory, that observations of both space and time are dependent upon relative frames of reference.
‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.
-
Any chance you want to answer this -
Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer. If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.
Then give your argument. What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?
Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table.
Explain it.
-
Thanks once again for the sentence by sentence analysis of my post Sceptimatic. I didn't expect you to believe any of it since it is a bit beyond you I know.
I really posted it because I thought the others might find it interesting. I won't find it offensive that you can't bring yourself to believe any of what I've said I'm used to that kind of thing from you now.
If there is so much evidence available to support your version of things where is it? You demand explanations of everything from us yet you cannot explain anything at all from your side. Where is the evidence? And don't just say its all been explained already because you know damn well it hasn't. That just your poor excuse for dodging the question. So where is your evidence?
You became duped. In my opinion. Assuming you are telling the truth in the first place.
Why wouldn't I be telling the truth? Why are you so obsessed with people lying all the time. I asked you this before but you denied it as usual. What would I or anyone else stand to gain by lying all the time about everything that you personally don't believe?
-
Thanks once again for the sentence by sentence analysis of my post Sceptimatic. I didn't expect you to believe any of it since it is a bit beyond you I know.
I really posted it because I thought the others might find it interesting. I won't find it offensive that you can't bring yourself to believe any of what I've said I'm used to that kind of thing from you now.
If there is so much evidence available to support your version of things where is it? You demand explanations of everything from us yet you cannot explain anything at all from your side. Where is the evidence? And don't just say its all been explained already because you know damn well it hasn't. That just your poor excuse for dodging the question. So where is your evidence?
Just saying I thought it was interesting, thanks for sharing. The moon range-finding experiment especially was really cool to read about, must have been fun to see that.
Obviously Sceptimatic doesnt believe it and all, and that's fine, but I struggle to even understand what he thinks actually happened there? Does he think you are lying about it? Was it a giant scam by the worldwide conspiracy? It is just such a bizarre thing to so blatantly fake or lie about, isn't it?
I can get the alternative thinking, and imaging your own solutions to problems, but what I struggle with are when these MASSIVE conspiracy theories are required to make something feasible.
-
Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired -
You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler. It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent. Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock.
So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by? Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position. If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph. Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph.
This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference.
Ok, so, If I knew my train was travelling at 100 mph and the other train was moving in the same direction at 1 mph, I'd know it was moving at 1mph in the same direction by using this ruler and clock thing and decide that my train is going 99mph?
But the reality is, I'm travelling at 100mph, regardless. and the other train is travelling at 1mph, regardless.
Is this the premise?
The theory of special relativity mathematically builds such predictive frameworks, creating quantitative mathematical formulations for how things look from other points of view. It adds a special constraint though. It stipulates that the speed of light is constant no matter what your frame of reference is. And when you add this constraint to the underlying mathematics, you end up building some new and incredibly interesting predictions about what you should observe.
Predictions for what though?
They are predictions for reality from one person's reference point, just a trick of the mind as to what appears to stand out.
In the context of our example above, special relativity PREDICTS that if you watched the clock in the other train with incredible precision, you would find that it moved at a very slighter slower rate than the one next to you was running, and if you could somehow measure his ruler with an incredible degree of precision, you would also be PREDICTED to find it was ever so slightly shorter than yours.
You could argue that the person you see wobbling that pencil is just bending it by optical illusion but the reality is, it's a straight pencil being manipulated to your vision.
This is one of the main predictions of the theory, that observations of both space and time are dependent upon relative frames of reference.
Yes but the frames of reference do not give out real usable answers for anything physical.
‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.
So it's all just a concept. It poses to physical reality...right?
Basically there are no facts and yet I'm almost having to accept it even if I do so in a sort of agnostic mindset, rather than just tell it for what I see it as.
Anyone can make this stuff up because there's no proof to it.
That's not any issue too me. Plenty of things d get made up and are/can be intriguing. I'd just rather be told they're not backed up by any real facts and are told as a story of perceivement.
Do you agree?
-
Any chance you want to answer this -
Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer. If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.
Then give your argument. What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?
Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table.
Explain it.
Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?
-
Thanks once again for the sentence by sentence analysis of my post Sceptimatic. I didn't expect you to believe any of it since it is a bit beyond you I know.
I really posted it because I thought the others might find it interesting. I won't find it offensive that you can't bring yourself to believe any of what I've said I'm used to that kind of thing from you now.
If there is so much evidence available to support your version of things where is it?
Some has been given. Some is firmly with me.
You demand explanations of everything from us yet you cannot explain anything at all from your side.
I demand nothing from you. You are free to disengage at any time. You are also free to say what you want (within forum rules) when you want.
I ask of you. The rest is up to you.
Where is the evidence? And don't just say its all been explained already because you know damn well it hasn't.
All of it hasn't. Some of it has. Most of it you and other refuse to even think on which sets you back to square one. That's down to you.
Try being yourself for once.
That just your poor excuse for dodging the question. So where is your evidence?
I try not to dodge anything but find explaining certain things to be a waste of time with some of you people.
You became duped. In my opinion. Assuming you are telling the truth in the first place.
Why wouldn't I be telling the truth?
You may think you are. I'm saying you are duped. I'm not calling you a liar. You are insinuating that I am. That's down to you.
Why are you so obsessed with people lying all the time.
I'm not obsessed but I simply do not trsut people easily and I have a mindset of, believe nothing and question everything....until....I get enough evidence that gives me food for thought and channels my thinking into acceptance of whatever is set out.
As simple as that.
I asked you this before but you denied it as usual. What would I or anyone else stand to gain by lying all the time about everything that you personally don't believe?
I'm not saying you are lying all of the time. I say you are indoctrinated massively and are almost unconditional to mainstream ideals.
Basically follow by en masse peer pressure, because it's much easier to get along.
-
Any chance you want to answer this -
Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer. If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.
Then give your argument. What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?
Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table.
Explain it.
Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?
I dont have an electromagnet in front of me. I have a small permanent magnet on my desk. Im putting my hand around it, feeling for vortexes or spirals of air. I put a light piece of paper next to it to see if it was fluttering in some slight unfelt wave of air.
Nothing.
What is going on with it? Can you explain a permanent magnet or not?
It is okay to say you can't if you actually can not.
-
Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired -
You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler. It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent. Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock.
So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by? Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position. If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph. Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph.
This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference.
Ok, so, If I knew my train was travelling at 100 mph and the other train was moving in the same direction at 1 mph, I'd know it was moving at 1mph in the same direction by using this ruler and clock thing and decide that my train is going 99mph?
But the reality is, I'm travelling at 100mph, regardless. and the other train is travelling at 1mph, regardless.
Is this the premise?
In the framework of relativity, ALL motion is relative and there is no absolute reference point to use for motion. You are moving 100 mph RELATIVE to the ground. The other train is moving at 1 mph RELATIVE to the ground. If you are moving in the same direction, you are moving 99 mph RELATIVE to each other. If you are moving in opposite directions, you are moving at 101 mph RELATIVE to each other.
‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.
So it's all just a concept. It poses to physical reality...right?
Basically there are no facts and yet I'm almost having to accept it even if I do so in a sort of agnostic mindset, rather than just tell it for what I see it as.
Anyone can make this stuff up because there's no proof to it.
That's not any issue too me. Plenty of things d get made up and are/can be intriguing. I'd just rather be told they're not backed up by any real facts and are told as a story of perceivement.
Do you agree?
Anyone can make anything up and those made up ideas can be intriguing, I completely agree. You for example make up all sorts of stuff, no?
My question though is always whether what is made up is a good representation of reality of not.
Do you also agree?
-
I demand nothing from you. You are free to disengage at any time
What I meant was you are always demanding people explain things to you. yet we get precise little explanations from you about anything. Any 'explanations' we get from you are so vague that they mean nothing.
You ask us to explain things to you which some people here do to the best of their knowledge and then you just dismiss it as nonsense.. You can claim anything you like but you cannot qualify any of it with actual evidence.
-
Any chance you want to answer this -
Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer. If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.
Then give your argument. What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?
Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table.
Explain it.
Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?
I dont have an electromagnet in front of me. I have a small permanent magnet on my desk. Im putting my hand around it, feeling for vortexes or spirals of air. I put a light piece of paper next to it to see if it was fluttering in some slight unfelt wave of air.
Nothing.
What is going on with it? Can you explain a permanent magnet or not?
It is okay to say you can't if you actually can not.
It's not what's happening or felt outside, It's what is happening through it to create what is around it.
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
-
Regardless though, here is my attempt at a simple description of relativity and spacetime using an analogy, others can contribute, correct, or complain as desired -
You are sitting on a train, looking at a clock while for some reason holding a ruler. It is completely dark outside, and the train is almost totally silent. Suddenly, another train goes by in the opposite direction, and you pass by a lit window where someone else is sitting with an identical ruler in their hands next to an identical clock.
So how fast did the other train appear to YOU to go by? Well, if you took some high speed photography, and measured the distance the ruler moved in a set amount of time, you could calculate his APPARENT speed to your position. If your train was going at 100 kph, and the other train was going at 50 kph, it would APPEAR to YOU that the other train went by you at 150 mph. Same for the guy on the other train, it would appear to HIM that you went by at 150 mph.
This is the core of relativity, which is a framework for generalizing such observations and making predictions about how events APPEAR in other moving frames of reference.
Ok, so, If I knew my train was travelling at 100 mph and the other train was moving in the same direction at 1 mph, I'd know it was moving at 1mph in the same direction by using this ruler and clock thing and decide that my train is going 99mph?
But the reality is, I'm travelling at 100mph, regardless. and the other train is travelling at 1mph, regardless.
Is this the premise?
In the framework of relativity, ALL motion is relative and there is no absolute reference point to use for motion. You are moving 100 mph RELATIVE to the ground. The other train is moving at 1 mph RELATIVE to the ground. If you are moving in the same direction, you are moving 99 mph RELATIVE to each other. If you are moving in opposite directions, you are moving at 101 mph RELATIVE to each other.
Yeah, I understand it but it's still not a reality from both parties. It's perceived as making one thing marry up with another which may be massively different.
For instance, the person in the 1mph train may perceive his train to be doing 99mph and he is way way out. There's no reality, only intriguing thoughts, as you say.
‘Spacetime’ then, is simply this concept; the intertwining of space and time into a single mathematical description that can be used to make quantitative predictions.
So it's all just a concept. It poses to physical reality...right?
Basically there are no facts and yet I'm almost having to accept it even if I do so in a sort of agnostic mindset, rather than just tell it for what I see it as.
Anyone can make this stuff up because there's no proof to it.
That's not any issue too me. Plenty of things d get made up and are/can be intriguing. I'd just rather be told they're not backed up by any real facts and are told as a story of perceivement.
Do you agree?
Anyone can make anything up and those made up ideas can be intriguing, I completely agree. You for example make up all sorts of stuff, no?
I do. I have many many thoughts/musings on many things. I don't pass them off as factual unless I can actually physically prove them to be so.
I've never hidden from this and neither should you lot.
My question though is always whether what is made up is a good representation of reality of not.
Do you also agree?
It actually depends on who is looking at it.
Reality can be changed by force of numbers of people who are coaxed into a different thought process. Do you agree?
-
I demand nothing from you. You are free to disengage at any time
What I meant was you are always demanding people explain things to you. yet we get precise little explanations from you about anything.
I demand nothing. I ask and leave it up to you people to decide what you want to do.
Any 'explanations' we get from you are so vague that they mean nothing.
Yep but you have to understand you are having to see it from my point. The onus is on you to ask the questions in a way that can get me to piece answers to you, like throwing pieces of a jigsaw for you to assemble.
The problem is you people start to become bitter and spend an awful lot of time having a dig at anything I say. This just sets you back to square one and your frustration into accelerated mode.
You ask us to explain things to you which some people here do to the best of their knowledge and then you just dismiss it as nonsense..
If the explanation means nothing then I will dismiss it. Your mindset should be simplifying it as much as required for a simple person like me to grasp.
Merely telling me it's too complicated for me does not help your case, it just means that I think you have no clue as to the reality of anything you say but are happy to eat anything, unconditionally off the platter that is served to you.
You can claim anything you like but you cannot qualify any of it with actual evidence.
Correct. If I can't then I can't. This goes massively against you. You have no proof except reliance on storylines and diagrams that are physically showing nothing.
-
Any chance you want to answer this -
Remember, "I dont know" is a totally acceptable answer. If you cant explain something it is better to just admit it than pretend otherwise, no?
What happens -
When a charge moves, a magnetic field is generated. Repeatedly, quantitatively, and predictably.
This is the fundamental basis used to design and engineer incredibly advanced electromagnetic machines and equipment. Everything is built from this simple observation, and we have used it to progress from making metals stick to a wire when a current is passed through, to MRI machines that can volumetrically image the structures of tissues by using incredibly strong magnets to control the spin on water molecules inside your body!
Have a think about that one. How could such a machine even exist if we are so completely and fundamentally off in our understanding of magnetism?
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing how it starts.
Then give your argument. What do you think is happening that is different than the traditional interpretation of electromagnetism?
Start with the magnetized piece of metal sitting on my table.
Explain it.
Do you agree that to create an electromagnet you have to create a winding.
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?
I dont have an electromagnet in front of me. I have a small permanent magnet on my desk. Im putting my hand around it, feeling for vortexes or spirals of air. I put a light piece of paper next to it to see if it was fluttering in some slight unfelt wave of air.
Nothing.
What is going on with it? Can you explain a permanent magnet or not?
It is okay to say you can't if you actually can not.
It's not what's happening or felt outside, It's what is happening through it to create what is around it.
Which is what exactly? WHAT is happening through it to create WHAT around it?
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
The vortex is acted upon by the atmosphere. It always attempts to equalise the pressure.
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
The vortex is acted upon by the atmosphere. It always attempts to equalise the pressure.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
-
I never knew you were an expert in astronomy. Why didn't you tell me? You seem to have decided on a lot of topics about what there is and isn't evidence for. Maybe I should ask you some more questions on the subject as you are such an authority.
Perhaps for example you could explain why stars disappear behind the Moon on the unlit side of it (eastern side during waxing) and then reappear on the western limb a while later. This would seem to evidence that something is blocking the light from the star behind from reaching the eye of the observer. Such as solid rock for example. Unless you have any alternative explanations for how the light of a hologram can block light from a different source?
As for the wobble of the Earths axis. This is observable in tiny amounts so that the authors of star charts have to state the epoch for which the star positions are plotted. You know what observable means yes? We can see it. We can measure it. Is that simple and clear enough for you to understand or shall I just use words of one syllable for you?
Mock astronomy as much as you like but ignorance of the facts won't make them go away.
-
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.
You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.
There is no sucking of air through, so try again.
And clearly you have not performed this two cleaner experiment.
Semantics.
You know what is meant by "sucking the air through".
Now stop deflecting.
If you think I haven't done the experiment and that you would get a different result, provide it here.
Because even if someone hasn't done the experiment, simple logic shows you are wrong.
There is no way for those 2 sides to repel one another.
The "vortex of air" would cause them to move towards one another.
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and either provide an explanation for what causes 2 magnets in this orientation to repel, or admit your model/"explanation" is pure BS which does not explain how magnets work.
I honestly don't think anything can ever be explained to you that goes against your grain. Seriously.
And as already established, what you "think" is quite often wrong.
The problem is if your explanation actually makes sense and matches reality.
And that includes the logical consequences of your explanation that you want to hide from because it shows your explanation is wrong.
I rejected your explanation of magnets because of a massive problem with it. A problem you continually wish to ignore and try whatever you can to deflect from it.
Perhaps if you tried to explain things in a manner which is consistent with reality, I wouldn't repeatedly show the flaws with those explanations which show it doesn't explain the phenomenon.
Another simple examples, where the problem is entirely you, is your claim that everything is magically pushing and that there is no pull, where to try to explain how a chain works, you appeal to the few locations where a pushing force exists, and ignore the locations where a pulling force exists, doing whatever you can to avoid them. Even when it gets stripped down to the basics to clearly show where the pulling force is.
The issue is not me not accepting an explanation that goes against "my grain". It is you ignoring everything that shows your "explanation" is wrong and thus doesn't actually explain it.
So rather than insults and deflection, do you have an explanation?
Do you accept that the winding will create a sort of vortex. a spiral?
Of charges (electrons) flowing through it, yes. I would say a helix.
Note that these charges follow the coils. They don't magically leave it and start hitting/pushing the material attracted by the magnet.
Of air, NO!
There is no vortex of air formed at all.
The most you get is the coil heating up causing the air to start convection currents, where the hot air rises.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
If the water is just sitting in the sink, we don't feel it.
When it is draining, we do.
What you are suggesting now, is akin to suggesting we shouldn't feel the wind.
I'll let you think on it.
Because you obviously wont do any thinking on it. Not when it shows you are wrong.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
It certainly does move.
The only way for it to not move is to not have the water move.
Once you start getting bulk motion of the water you end up with motion of the cork/water.
Again, what you are claiming would require no vortex of air outside the magnet and thus no ability for it to move anything outside of itself.
I don't pass them off as factual unless I can actually physically prove them to be so.
Stop lying.
You repeatedly pass your claims off as factual when you have absolutely no justification for them at all.
Such as your repeated claim that pulling forces do not exist, that the RE is nonsense, that gravity is fictional, and so on.
They are claims you are putting out as factual, with no justification at all.
Yep but you have to understand you are having to see it from my point. The onus is on you to ask the questions in a way that can get me to piece answers to you
The problem is that whenever the question shows you are wrong, you typically dodge however you can rather than even attempting an explanation.
When you do decide to give an "answer" you typically still ignore the problem.
So we have met that onus. So the onus is on you to start providing answers.
The problem is you people start to become bitter
Because you continually deflect and throw out insults.
Can you give me a proof of orbital mechanics so I can see it in action in real time?
That would be the relative position of the planets.
Go find where the planets are predicted to be in the sky based upon orbital mechanics, and then go look for them.
Another proof would be the analemma, but that intrinsically cannot be real time, as it requires observing the changes in the apparent position of the sun over the period of a year, taking a note of the position every 24 hours exactly.
-
But the reality is, I'm travelling at 100mph, regardless. and the other train is travelling at 1mph, regardless.
No, the reality is that all motion is relative.
As a simple example, consider you are on a train moving at 100 miles per hour. You have no view to the outside world at all, you can use whatever instruments you want, but again, they have no connection to the outside world. You can only measure things on the train. How fast are you going, and how do you determine this?
The point is you cannot determine how fast you are going.
There is no absolute frame.
But that is just basic relativity.
Special relativity brings in light.
Regardless of how fast you are going, the speed of light is the same.
Even if you are travelling at 90 % of the speed of light, if someone shines a light at you, you will still measure that light as going at the speed of light.
They are predictions for reality from one person's reference point, just a trick of the mind as to what appears to stand out.
No, not a trick of the mind.
A prediction of how reality will appear to any particular reference frame.
Yes but the frames of reference do not give out real usable answers for anything physical.
How?
They sure seem to give our real usable answers.
Do you just not like them because it is all relative rather than absolute?
Anyone can make this stuff up because there's no proof to it.
Except the measured time dilation and things like that.
There is plenty of "proof".
You not liking it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Some has been given. Some is firmly with me.
Where has any of your evidence been given?
Most of it you and other refuse to even think on which sets you back to square one. That's down to you.
No, the problem for you is that we DO think on it. This means instead of just blindly accepting whatever garbage you say, we think on it and realise it either makes no sense or causes massive problems.
For example, your claim about magnets superficially appears to work, until you actually bother thinking about it and realise that fails to actually explain the observed polarity of magnets and thus fails to explain magnets.
Likewise, your claim about everything being a push may superficially appear to work, until you actually bother thinking about it and realise that the links themselves need a pulling force to hold themselves together, and thus your claim of everything being a push fails to explain how a chain works.
Likewise, your claim of the atmosphere above causing the air below to be compressed to create a pressure gradient superficially appears to work (and does actually work when you accept gravity), but when you think about it and realise that it is meant to be the air and this pressure gradient that pushes things down in the first place in your model and thus there is no reason for the air to push down in the first place, and no explanation for the force increasing.
Likewise, your claim of the atmosphere pushing things down may superficially appear to work, until you actually think about it and realise the air is pushing from all directions and thus shouldn't push down. Instead the only force from the air would come from a pressure gradient, but that pressure gradient would push us up, not down, as the pressure is greater below.
Likewise, your claim that the air above and lack of air below causing the air to push the object down, for an object sitting on the ground superficially appears to work, until you actually think and realise that if that was the case, the force would be proportional to area, not mass, and that this should also work if you put an object against a wall or a ceiling, as observed with suction cups, but don't with the vast majority of objects, and thus fails to actually work.
And so on.
So the problem is we DO think, and that thinking shows your model doesn't work, so you try running back to square one to pretend it works.
So that's down to you and your models failing to match reality.
We are not the problem.
Why don't you at least honestly state what you really want?
For us to not think at all and just blindly accept what you say, ignoring any contradictions in what you say and just pretending it all works.
Because it seems that that is the only way to move on from square one with your nonsense, to blindly accept whatever nonsense you spout, without thinking at all.
believe nothing and question everything....until
Until you get to your own claims, where it switches to believe everything, question nothing.
But we all know it isn't real "question" everything. It is outright deny and ignore everything.
You don't question things that show you are wrong, you dismiss it as fake or ignore it
-
I demand nothing
Rubbish.. you are always asking people to 'explain' things to you. And then if when they explain things better than you can refute them or better than you can understand them, you simply dismiss them. Is it a growing trend with you.
I still don't understand where this statement that you are 'in awe' of most scientists. How can you be in such contempt of everything scientists put forward as evidence and be in awe of them at the same time?!? Opposite ends of the spectrum.
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
The cork or paper will move eventually, if you wait.
So, where are these magnets, if this is what's happening in earth's atmosphere?
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
The vortex is acted upon by the atmosphere. It always attempts to equalise the pressure.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
Something has to create the pressure difference.
Just like the plug in your sink. If it's left in then the sink full of water stays consistent. If there is a slight bleed from the plug then your water starts to move and change in pressure, slightly.
Add a force to that plug to push it open a little bit more and you gain a pressure change much stronger as create a vortex within that centre.
Now then, here's where we have to assume the water in that sink is the air we are in. The more the water is draining from the sink the more water is added. Or, if you think of atmosphere, the more the atmosphere fills the lower pressure.
The higher pressure is pushing out of the pipe and back into the atmosphere to equalise pressure. It's a loop.
We are in a consistent vortex on Earth starting from the extreme mild to the extreme severe towards the centre...like the sink and plug hole.
No gravity is needed. Just pressures created by different molecular set ups and breakdowns.
-
I never knew you were an expert in astronomy. Why didn't you tell me? You seem to have decided on a lot of topics about what there is and isn't evidence for. Maybe I should ask you some more questions on the subject as you are such an authority.
Perhaps for example you could explain why stars disappear behind the Moon on the unlit side of it (eastern side during waxing) and then reappear on the western limb a while later. This would seem to evidence that something is blocking the light from the star behind from reaching the eye of the observer. Such as solid rock for example. Unless you have any alternative explanations for how the light of a hologram can block light from a different source?
As for the wobble of the Earths axis. This is observable in tiny amounts so that the authors of star charts have to state the epoch for which the star positions are plotted. You know what observable means yes? We can see it. We can measure it. Is that simple and clear enough for you to understand or shall I just use words of one syllable for you?
Mock astronomy as much as you like but ignorance of the facts won't make them go away.
Washout.
-
When the air is removed, what then?
You are argueing very easily verifiably demonstratably repeatably observations.
Seriously.
These arent abstract concepts that rely on phd "indoctrinated" physcists to explain.
You could do the experiments yourself to see the results.
Try it.
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
The vortex is acted upon by the atmosphere. It always attempts to equalise the pressure.
Okay, so my magnet is sitting on the table now. Around it, air is swirling, but swirling so slowly it can not even push a feather. Inside the solid metal magnet though, the atmosphere flows and the pressure drops, and the swirling intensifies into a vortex of atmosphere inside the magnet.
Is that right? If so, where does the vortex of atmosphere go? The kitchen sink leads to a lower pressure exit, what is the equivalent here?
Something has to create the pressure difference.
Just like the plug in your sink. If it's left in then the sink full of water stays consistent. If there is a slight bleed from the plug then your water starts to move and change in pressure, slightly.
Add a force to that plug to push it open a little bit more and you gain a pressure change much stronger as create a vortex within that centre.
Now then, here's where we have to assume the water in that sink is the air we are in. The more the water is draining from the sink the more water is added. Or, if you think of atmosphere, the more the atmosphere fills the lower pressure.
The higher pressure is pushing out of the pipe and back into the atmosphere to equalise pressure. It's a loop.
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
-
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.
You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.
There is no sucking of air through, so try again.
And clearly you have not performed this two cleaner experiment.
Semantics.
You know what is meant by "sucking the air through".
Now stop deflecting.
If you think I haven't done the experiment and that you would get a different result, provide it here.
Because even if someone hasn't done the experiment, simple logic shows you are wrong.
There is no way for those 2 sides to repel one another.
The "vortex of air" would cause them to move towards one another.
And try it, I have.
I have two near identical cordless cleaners.
Instead of you going into raptures...you try it.
-
I demand nothing
Rubbish.. you are always asking people to 'explain' things to you. And then if when they explain things better than you can refute them or better than you can understand them, you simply dismiss them. Is it a growing trend with you.
I still don't understand where this statement that you are 'in awe' of most scientists. How can you be in such contempt of everything scientists put forward as evidence and be in awe of them at the same time?!? Opposite ends of the spectrum.
Calm yourself down and stop the bitterness, Mr nasty.
-
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
The cork or paper will move eventually, if you wait.
So, where are these magnets, if this is what's happening in earth's atmosphere?
They will only move if there is an outlet open for them to move. As in, the plug being slightly released.
This is what is happening consistently with magnets, imo....but it's a trickle flow until something changes it.
-
When the air is removed, what then?
You are argueing very easily verifiably demonstratably repeatably observations.
Seriously.
These arent abstract concepts that rely on phd "indoctrinated" physcists to explain.
You could do the experiments yourself to see the results.
Try it.
Atmosphere is never ever removed.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
-
When the air is removed, what then?
You are argueing very easily verifiably demonstratably repeatably observations.
Seriously.
These arent abstract concepts that rely on phd "indoctrinated" physcists to explain.
You could do the experiments yourself to see the results.
Try it.
Atmosphere is never ever removed.
What if it is removed to an insignificant amount?
Are you saying that this cant be done?
Because youve already previously agreeed to this.
And if its there in a minor minor amount, what inherent mechanism is there that allows it to operate regardless of amount?
Becuase a compass or magnet will spin regardless of how much air pressure (in the traditional sense) is acting upon it.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
-
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it?
But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Ok, you have to remember that the sink is the analogy as in terms of atmosphere.
You have to remember that the sink never empties. It's always filling as it empties. Action/reaction in equal terms.
-
When the air is removed, what then?
You are argueing very easily verifiably demonstratably repeatably observations.
Seriously.
These arent abstract concepts that rely on phd "indoctrinated" physcists to explain.
You could do the experiments yourself to see the results.
Try it.
Atmosphere is never ever removed.
What if it is removed to an insignificant amount?
Are you saying that this cant be done?
Because youve already previously agreeed to this.
And if its there in a minor minor amount, what inherent mechanism is there that allows it to operate regardless of amount?
Becuase a compass or magnet will spin regardless of how much air pressure (in the traditional sense) is acting upon it.
Atmosphere as in all matter can not be free. It all has to be connected.
You can lower the pressure but you can not separate it to become free space.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
-
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it?
But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Ok, you have to remember that the sink is the analogy as in terms of atmosphere.
You have to remember that the sink never empties. It's always filling as it empties. Action/reaction in equal terms.
Yeah, you are losing me here. You use the sink as a description, but then it is not like a sink after all.
The best thing you could do is clearly and simply state what the atmosphere is doing around / in my little magnet on my desk. All I can sort of understand is that air is somehow continually being pulled into the solid metal into some sort of vortex at the center. But since it is continually being pulled into the magnet, it seems like it has to go somewhere, but I don't understand where it goes. You say it pours back into the magnet, but it still hasn't left the magnet at this point, so this doesnt make any sense to me.
Can you state what is happening with the flow of air and its relationship to the magnet on the table more clearly? Where does it enter the metal? Does it exit? Does it go from high to low pressure going into the magnet, then from low to high as it exits?
I am really struggling to form a cohesive view of how you imagine this is happening. Can you clarify further or is communicating your ideas not really possible at the moment?
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
I cant understand what you think is happening from looking a diagram of a magnet. Would need your help here, and is in fact the only question I have been asking for the past few pages - how does your view of how my little magnet in front of me differ from the conventional model.
-
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it?
But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Ok, you have to remember that the sink is the analogy as in terms of atmosphere.
You have to remember that the sink never empties. It's always filling as it empties. Action/reaction in equal terms.
Yeah, you are losing me here. You use the sink as a description, but then it is not like a sink after all.
The best thing you could do is clearly and simply state what the atmosphere is doing around / in my little magnet on my desk. All I can sort of understand is that air is somehow continually being pulled into the solid metal into some sort of vortex at the center. But since it is continually being pulled into the magnet, it seems like it has to go somewhere, but I don't understand where it goes. You say it pours back into the magnet, but it still hasn't left the magnet at this point, so this doesnt make any sense to me.
Can you state what is happening with the flow of air and its relationship to the magnet on the table more clearly? Where does it enter the metal? Does it exit? Does it go from high to low pressure going into the magnet, then from low to high as it exits?
I am really struggling to form a cohesive view of how you imagine this is happening. Can you clarify further or is communicating your ideas not really possible at the moment?
You're getting mixed up.
I'm trying to give you an idea of it but you're not grasping it. It could be due to how I'm explaining but that's something you may need to work hard at in understanding.
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
-
I cant understand what you think is happening from looking a diagram of a magnet. Would need your help here, and is in fact the only question I have been asking for the past few pages - how does your view of how my little magnet in front of me differ from the conventional model.
How does the conventional model work and what makes it work? Let's see where we go from that.
Can you simply explain it?
-
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it?
But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Ok, you have to remember that the sink is the analogy as in terms of atmosphere.
You have to remember that the sink never empties. It's always filling as it empties. Action/reaction in equal terms.
Yeah, you are losing me here. You use the sink as a description, but then it is not like a sink after all.
The best thing you could do is clearly and simply state what the atmosphere is doing around / in my little magnet on my desk. All I can sort of understand is that air is somehow continually being pulled into the solid metal into some sort of vortex at the center. But since it is continually being pulled into the magnet, it seems like it has to go somewhere, but I don't understand where it goes. You say it pours back into the magnet, but it still hasn't left the magnet at this point, so this doesnt make any sense to me.
Can you state what is happening with the flow of air and its relationship to the magnet on the table more clearly? Where does it enter the metal? Does it exit? Does it go from high to low pressure going into the magnet, then from low to high as it exits?
I am really struggling to form a cohesive view of how you imagine this is happening. Can you clarify further or is communicating your ideas not really possible at the moment?
You're getting mixed up.
I'm trying to give you an idea of it but you're not grasping it. It could be due to how I'm explaining but that's something you may need to work hard at in understanding.
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
Then unmix me. I am reading every word you write with an open mind, trying my hardest to understand the concept you are trying to get across. Yet at this point, Im still not able to reach a core understanding. I go back and reread what you wrote, trying to parse it down to its basics, I think about the conceptualization in my free time. What more can I do?
Why is your concept, if it is so simple to you, so incredibly difficult to pass on clearly to others?
-
I cant understand what you think is happening from looking a diagram of a magnet. Would need your help here, and is in fact the only question I have been asking for the past few pages - how does your view of how my little magnet in front of me differ from the conventional model.
How does the conventional model work and what makes it work? Let's see where we go from that.
Can you simply explain it?
Sure.
Moving charges create a magnetic field.
In all materials there are moving charges (electrons)
In materials with specific configurations of electrons, the movement of electrons can be aligned to create a net magnetic field that results from this aligned movement of electrons.
-
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
You said that last time for how air pushes down.
Still yet to see anything.
Keep dodging.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
I'm confused. Looking at some magnet diagrams, are you saying that it's the air that is traveling along all the different directions of arrows?
Here's one diagram:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/scientific-magnetic-field-electromagnetism-vector-illustration-scheme-electric-current-poles-earth-diagram-educational-physics-112145906.jpg)
-
Then unmix me. I am reading every word you write with an open mind, trying my hardest to understand the concept you are trying to get across. Yet at this point, Im still not able to reach a core understanding. I go back and reread what you wrote, trying to parse it down to its basics, I think about the conceptualization in my free time. What more can I do?
Why is your concept, if it is so simple to you, so incredibly difficult to pass on clearly to others?
I don't believe it's difficult.
I think people like yourself get confused because your mindset is looking at things totally differently.
-
I cant understand what you think is happening from looking a diagram of a magnet. Would need your help here, and is in fact the only question I have been asking for the past few pages - how does your view of how my little magnet in front of me differ from the conventional model.
How does the conventional model work and what makes it work? Let's see where we go from that.
Can you simply explain it?
Sure.
Moving charges create a magnetic field.
In all materials there are moving charges (electrons)
In materials with specific configurations of electrons, the movement of electrons can be aligned to create a net magnetic field that results from this aligned movement of electrons.
That doesn't explain anything to me other than moving electrons being aligned.
What are these moving electrons and how are they aligned to create this magnetic field that creates your attraction and repelling?.
-
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
You said that last time for how air pushes down.
Still yet to see anything.
Keep dodging.
I explained and I used diagrams and you simply go into this mode. You're not worth the effort.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
I'm confused. Looking at some magnet diagrams, are you saying that it's the air that is traveling along all the different directions of arrows?
Here's one diagram:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/scientific-magnetic-field-electromagnetism-vector-illustration-scheme-electric-current-poles-earth-diagram-educational-physics-112145906.jpg)
Yep but in pressure terms not in a wind term.
-
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
You said that last time for how air pushes down.
Still yet to see anything.
Keep dodging.
I explained and I used diagrams and you simply go into this mode. You're not worth the effort.
Those afflicted by dunning and kruger tend to think things are simple.
Yet... on the other hand you have a real difficult time performing and documenting your experiemtns or drawing diagrams.
Keep at it.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
I'm confused. Looking at some magnet diagrams, are you saying that it's the air that is traveling along all the different directions of arrows?
Here's one diagram:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/scientific-magnetic-field-electromagnetism-vector-illustration-scheme-electric-current-poles-earth-diagram-educational-physics-112145906.jpg)
Yep but in pressure terms not in a wind term.
Pressure in terms where you say they originate from air.....
Maybe its time you define pressure because its not how everyone else uses that very well defined and understood word.
-
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
You said that last time for how air pushes down.
Still yet to see anything.
Keep dodging.
I explained and I used diagrams and you simply go into this mode. You're not worth the effort.
Those afflicted by dunning and kruger tend to think things are simple.
Yet... on the other hand you have a real difficult time performing and documenting your experiemtns or drawing diagrams.
Keep at it.
Things are simple. They only become complicated for two reasons.
1. When a finished product is shown to a newbie and not stripped down to the bare bones to show the make up.
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
Let's make this clear.
To build anything you require many pieces but you require one piece at a time to build.
If the jigsaw can be seen it can also be reverse engineered to become the simple thing it started out as.
-
Pressure in terms where you say they originate from air.....
Maybe its time you define pressure because its not how everyone else uses that very well defined and understood word.
Start to absorb stuff instead of playing games and having digs. You may understand a bit instead of going backwards like you normally do.
-
I cant understand what you think is happening from looking a diagram of a magnet. Would need your help here, and is in fact the only question I have been asking for the past few pages - how does your view of how my little magnet in front of me differ from the conventional model.
How does the conventional model work and what makes it work? Let's see where we go from that.
Can you simply explain it?
Sure.
Moving charges create a magnetic field.
In all materials there are moving charges (electrons)
In materials with specific configurations of electrons, the movement of electrons can be aligned to create a net magnetic field that results from this aligned movement of electrons.
That doesn't explain anything to me other than moving electrons being aligned.
Excellent! You understood perfectly.
Moving charges create a magnetic field. The aligned movement of electrons within a material causes its magnetic field.
Im glad you understood this simple concept. You don't have to agree with it, you can ask more questions about it, but you understood it enough to move on.
However, I'm still totally lost about your basic concept though, can you please try to explain so I can understand?
As to your other questions, happy to give the current understanding as I comprehend it at least.
What are these moving electrons and how are they aligned to create this magnetic field that creates your attraction and repelling?
Electrons are understood to be subatomic particles with a negative charge, they appear to orbit the nucleus of atoms with predictable behavior, they have measurable angular velocity (they spin), and are responsible for the bonds between individual atoms.
The alignment of their orbital motion can be done in a number of ways, but the most common way is to use an externally generated magnetic field to "magnetize" them. How a material behaves in an externally applied magnetic field depends on the temperature and the electron configuration in the material, and can range from inducing an opposite magnetic field (diamagnetic materials), a transient magnetic field aligned in the same orientation of the external field (paramagnetic materials), and a permanent magnetic field aligned in the same orientation of the external field (ferromagnetic materials).
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
I'm confused. Looking at some magnet diagrams, are you saying that it's the air that is traveling along all the different directions of arrows?
Here's one diagram:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/scientific-magnetic-field-electromagnetism-vector-illustration-scheme-electric-current-poles-earth-diagram-educational-physics-112145906.jpg)
Yep but in pressure terms not in a wind term.
Yeah, got it regarding pressure versus wind.
How does the pressure know to circle back around and follow the arrows? Regardless of orientation of the magnet? What if I put a magnet in low pressure vacuum, does it de-magnetize?
-
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
That's hilarious. You literally just described denpressure except you don't even have any simple equations to back it up.
Denpressure:
- Made up so called theory, CHECK
- Unprovable physical set ups, CHECK
-
Then unmix me. I am reading every word you write with an open mind, trying my hardest to understand the concept you are trying to get across. Yet at this point, Im still not able to reach a core understanding. I go back and reread what you wrote, trying to parse it down to its basics, I think about the conceptualization in my free time. What more can I do?
Why is your concept, if it is so simple to you, so incredibly difficult to pass on clearly to others?
I don't believe it's difficult.
I think people like yourself get confused because your mindset is looking at things totally differently.
Sure, you can blame me for not understanding your concepts. I certainly could be the one failing here, and your ideas are simple, and I am failing to understand because I just cant think in the proper way.
I personally don't think so, Im happy to entertain any notions at all here, and I'm just trying to understand your model. Right now I dont understand, so here I am, asking again and again for simple descriptions.
And what I would like to do is be able to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else to your satisfaction. That I think is the ultimate test of communication and what I am striving for here.
If I can do that I will be pleased. I might not agree with it, I might think it is a silly concept, but at least I want to understand the concept itself before making any judgements about it.
Isn't this why you are here, to communicate and talk with people regarding your thoughts and ideas? If you cant communicate your idea to a willing recipient though, what can you hope to accomplish besides just petty sniping and bickering?
-
I agree entirely with Sobchak here. I would also like to know more about your model. I don't agree with many things but that doesn't stop me respecting those ideas or the reasons why others do follow or believe in them.
Alternative ideas are healthy and how we make progress. So I stand with Sobchak on the points he raises. But up to now we simply don't know.
-
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.
You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.
There is no sucking of air through, so try again.
And clearly you have not performed this two cleaner experiment.
Semantics.
You know what is meant by "sucking the air through".
Now stop deflecting.
If you think I haven't done the experiment and that you would get a different result, provide it here.
Because even if someone hasn't done the experiment, simple logic shows you are wrong.
There is no way for those 2 sides to repel one another.
The "vortex of air" would cause them to move towards one another.
And try it, I have.
I have two near identical cordless cleaners.
Instead of you going into raptures...you try it.
Then you should easily be able to provide a video clearly showing the "suction" of both and joining them together without any cut to show how they repel one another.
Can you?
If not, explain why magnets should repel.
Stop dodging and either show the impossible, or explain the impossible.
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
The cork or paper will move eventually, if you wait.
So, where are these magnets, if this is what's happening in earth's atmosphere?
They will only move if there is an outlet open for them to move. As in, the plug being slightly released.
This is what is happening consistently with magnets, imo....but it's a trickle flow until something changes it.
Which shows that your prior comment about it is pure garabge.
Yes, they move when there is that "vortex" to make things move, which means the same should be happening with the magnet, yet there is no flow of air around a magnet.
Something has to create the pressure difference.
So what does it for your magnet?
No gravity is needed.
Why do you need to continually pretend that in real science gravity is involved in everything?
Real science isn't your delusional nonsense where everything is the result of air.
Real science doesn't have gravity involved in magnetism at all.
Stop acting like gravity not being needed is in any way significant to magnetism.
Ok, you have to remember that the sink is the analogy as in terms of atmosphere.
You have to remember that the sink never empties. It's always filling as it empties. Action/reaction in equal terms.
That is not action/reaction.
Something more akin to action/reaction here is the water leaves the sink and ends up somewhere else.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
There is no diagram of a magnet that I know of that uses a magical vortex of air like you are claiming.
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
Of course you can't, because once a diagram is provided you get somewhat pinned down by it, which allows people to refute your claims by pointing out massive errors with it.
Yep but in pressure terms not in a wind term.
So which is the higher pressure, N or S?
And then your back to the same problem you have been continually dodging, while you can explain the 2 high pressure poles repelling, you can't explain 2 low pressure poles repelling.
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
There is no need to invoke equations there. And without that little caveat, it certainly fits what you are doing, where you are doing your best to obscure reality.
Start to absorb stuff
So no more thinking? Just soak everything up like a dumb sponge?
-
Pressure in terms where you say they originate from air.....
Maybe its time you define pressure because its not how everyone else uses that very well defined and understood word.
Start to absorb stuff instead of playing games and having digs. You may understand a bit instead of going backwards like you normally do.
Absorb what?
You havent said anything of substance
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
I'm confused. Looking at some magnet diagrams, are you saying that it's the air that is traveling along all the different directions of arrows?
Here's one diagram:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/scientific-magnetic-field-electromagnetism-vector-illustration-scheme-electric-current-poles-earth-diagram-educational-physics-112145906.jpg)
Yep but in pressure terms not in a wind term.
Yeah, got it regarding pressure versus wind.
How does the pressure know to circle back around and follow the arrows? Regardless of orientation of the magnet? What if I put a magnet in low pressure vacuum, does it de-magnetize?
Back to the sinik analogy.
A consistently filling sink. Never emptying, even if the plug is pushed out a little, or a lot, depending.
Put that thought into atmosphere and understand that what is pushed in is also pushed out....but as it's pushed out it compresses to push back in.
It creates a vibration of atmosphere in the scenario and causes a velcro like interconnection between high and low pressure molecules by the process of compression and decompression.
-
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
That's hilarious. You literally just described denpressure except you don't even have any simple equations to back it up.
Denpressure:
- Made up so called theory, CHECK
- Unprovable physical set ups, CHECK
It's provable but people like you will never get it because your brains are on some kind of spectrum, in my opinion.
-
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
That's hilarious. You literally just described denpressure except you don't even have any simple equations to back it up.
Denpressure:
- Made up so called theory, CHECK
- Unprovable physical set ups, CHECK
It's provable but people like you will never get it because your brains are on some kind of spectrum, in my opinion.
No, it is provable that it is wrong due to the internal contradictions.
What certainly isn't provable are any of your claims.
Every brain is on a spectrum.
The spectrum in question is how much you care about the truth, and things making sense and matching reality.
We are firmly on the end of caring. I care about my beliefs matching reality and making sense and being the truth.
You are firmly on the other end, not caring about the truth at all, being quite happy to spout pure nonsense which makes no sense at all.
Nonsense like claiming there are no pulling forces and everything is actually push, even though you can't even explain something as simple as a chain link, and pure nonsense like magnets are actually the air pushing things, even though you have no explanation at all for the polarity of magnets which directly contradicts your explanation and thus proves it wrong.
-
Sure, you can blame me for not understanding your concepts. I certainly could be the one failing here, and your ideas are simple, and I am failing to understand because I just cant think in the proper way.
I don't blame you. I accept it's difficult for people to grasp my set up and thoughts. After all it is me coming out with stuff that is basically off the chart with how you have been taught/brought up with.
Bear in mind that I'm hit from all angles by many people and I'm just me.
Too many people skew everything into their favour, which is fine but takes some dealing with en masse.
It's the reason why I counteract the questions and throw them back. You people argue against what I say by using your own mindset on what you were taught. I ask for proof.
Proof cannot be given in many aspects because even those at the top don't seem to know many things.
It comes down to understanding the thought process and why.
You can't understand mine but I seriously cannot understand the stuff you follow. Not because I refuse to understand, it's because a lot of it makes no sense. It really makes no sense.
It does not marry up with reality unless magical mysteries are added in.
I've argued this so it's pointless going down that path.
I personally don't think so, Im happy to entertain any notions at all here, and I'm just trying to understand your model. Right now I dont understand, so here I am, asking again and again for simple descriptions.
And what I would like to do is be able to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else to your satisfaction. That I think is the ultimate test of communication and what I am striving for here.
If I can do that I will be pleased. I might not agree with it, I might think it is a silly concept, but at least I want to understand the concept itself before making any judgements about it.
If you want to understand my model you must first push the served up on a platter model that you've adhered to for best part of your life, otherwise you will simply reference and discard and set yourself back to square one like kabool does and Jacky.
Isn't this why you are here, to communicate and talk with people regarding your thoughts and ideas? If you cant communicate your idea to a willing recipient though, what can you hope to accomplish besides just petty sniping and bickering?
I'm here to give out my thoughts.
I'm here for the layperson.
I'm also here to read alternate thoughts.
I'm not here to see people copy and paste global nonsense but I fully understand why so many people gang up to shut down alternate thoughts.
I class these people as cagey and dishonest in many aspects.
The very second en masse attempted intimidation ensues from my posts, then I know I'm dealing with people who have no other issues, other than to waste their time back patting each other like a tag team.
It makes me more determined and stronger in that respect but it also muddies the water for any legitimate people who want to look at alternates.
I know how I appear. I know how my stuff is made to look and how many people will refuse to see it from y side.
I also know that my explanations to many people will not come through as there piece of a jigsaw.
The thing is I sometimes think I'm dealing with a lot of people who are on some kind of spectrum. Basically a mind focused on one specific and that's that.
Those who focus on the gobbledygook complicated and cannot decipher simple basics.
Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think...just as many may think I'm a stark raving lunatic who wears a tin foil hat and stained vest and Y front underpants in the basement of some house.
I've went right off on a tangent there but I like to let off some steam (bennet) now and again. :P
-
I agree entirely with Sobchak here. I would also like to know more about your model. I don't agree with many things but that doesn't stop me respecting those ideas or the reasons why others do follow or believe in them.
Alternative ideas are healthy and how we make progress. So I stand with Sobchak on the points he raises. But up to now we simply don't know.
Ok, keep that thought process and do not let bullies dictate the way you go about it.
-
Explain it instead of dodging.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen.
Try it and then explain what happens.
I can clearly see you haven't tried it.
You mean you are clearly using whatever excuse you can to avoid the issue.
The 2 nozzles are drawn towards each other (just like the dust is) and basically latch onto each other. Then the vacuum cleaner starts making a different noise as it is no longer sucking the air through.
There is no sucking of air through, so try again.
And clearly you have not performed this two cleaner experiment.
Semantics.
You know what is meant by "sucking the air through".
Now stop deflecting.
If you think I haven't done the experiment and that you would get a different result, provide it here.
Because even if someone hasn't done the experiment, simple logic shows you are wrong.
There is no way for those 2 sides to repel one another.
The "vortex of air" would cause them to move towards one another.
And try it, I have.
I have two near identical cordless cleaners.
Instead of you going into raptures...you try it.
Then you should easily be able to provide a video clearly showing the "suction" of both and joining them together without any cut to show how they repel one another.
Can you?
If not, explain why magnets should repel.
Stop dodging and either show the impossible, or explain the impossible.
It's not like there's some tornado going on outside.
So no external swirling vortex of atmosphere?
Yes, a slow swirl that creates a larger vortex in the magnet which creates a pressure difference. A high to low pressure difference.
Do you feel the water in a full sink, vortex or do you only feel it when the water is about to go?
Well, in atmosphere you are always in the full sink.
I'll let you think on it.
You only feel the water's movement when it actually moves. So if I think about what you say, you are suggesting as I can not feel any movement, it means the atmosphere isn't moving through or around the magnet. Correct?
No.
If you fill your sink to the top and then place a cork or tiny piece of paper, etc on that surface then take the plug out, the vortex is created towards that plug hole but your cork or paper does not move, hardly, on that surface.
The cork or paper will move eventually, if you wait.
So, where are these magnets, if this is what's happening in earth's atmosphere?
They will only move if there is an outlet open for them to move. As in, the plug being slightly released.
This is what is happening consistently with magnets, imo....but it's a trickle flow until something changes it.
Which shows that your prior comment about it is pure garabge.
Yes, they move when there is that "vortex" to make things move, which means the same should be happening with the magnet, yet there is no flow of air around a magnet.
Something has to create the pressure difference.
So what does it for your magnet?
No gravity is needed.
Why do you need to continually pretend that in real science gravity is involved in everything?
Real science isn't your delusional nonsense where everything is the result of air.
Real science doesn't have gravity involved in magnetism at all.
Stop acting like gravity not being needed is in any way significant to magnetism.
Ok, you have to remember that the sink is the analogy as in terms of atmosphere.
You have to remember that the sink never empties. It's always filling as it empties. Action/reaction in equal terms.
That is not action/reaction.
Something more akin to action/reaction here is the water leaves the sink and ends up somewhere else.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
There is no diagram of a magnet that I know of that uses a magical vortex of air like you are claiming.
I can try and help with a diagram but not just yet.
Of course you can't, because once a diagram is provided you get somewhat pinned down by it, which allows people to refute your claims by pointing out massive errors with it.
Yep but in pressure terms not in a wind term.
So which is the higher pressure, N or S?
And then your back to the same problem you have been continually dodging, while you can explain the 2 high pressure poles repelling, you can't explain 2 low pressure poles repelling.
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
There is no need to invoke equations there. And without that little caveat, it certainly fits what you are doing, where you are doing your best to obscure reality.
Start to absorb stuff
So no more thinking? Just soak everything up like a dumb sponge?
I honestly don't feel my answers to you, compute. I'm beginning to question your reality. Seriously.
I just see nasty.
-
Pressure in terms where you say they originate from air.....
Maybe its time you define pressure because its not how everyone else uses that very well defined and understood word.
Start to absorb stuff instead of playing games and having digs. You may understand a bit instead of going backwards like you normally do.
Absorb what?
You havent said anything of substance
Put some real effort in and stop tugging on Jacky's coat tails, for crying out loud.
Try and be yourself and you may get somewhere. Don't spend your life being a sokarul, nasty horrible git.
-
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
That's hilarious. You literally just described denpressure except you don't even have any simple equations to back it up.
Denpressure:
- Made up so called theory, CHECK
- Unprovable physical set ups, CHECK
It's provable but people like you will never get it because your brains are on some kind of spectrum, in my opinion.
No, it is provable that it is wrong due to the internal contradictions.
What certainly isn't provable are any of your claims.
Every brain is on a spectrum.
The spectrum in question is how much you care about the truth, and things making sense and matching reality.
We are firmly on the end of caring. I care about my beliefs matching reality and making sense and being the truth.
You are firmly on the other end, not caring about the truth at all, being quite happy to spout pure nonsense which makes no sense at all.
Nonsense like claiming there are no pulling forces and everything is actually push, even though you can't even explain something as simple as a chain link, and pure nonsense like magnets are actually the air pushing things, even though you have no explanation at all for the polarity of magnets which directly contradicts your explanation and thus proves it wrong.
When you can get down to one thing at a time I will happily deal with you.
When you come back with copy and paste, I will overlook it all. I'm just letting you know.
-
Sure, you can blame me for not understanding your concepts. I certainly could be the one failing here, and your ideas are simple, and I am failing to understand because I just cant think in the proper way.
I don't blame you. I accept it's difficult for people to grasp my set up and thoughts. After all it is me coming out with stuff that is basically off the chart with how you have been taught/brought up with.
Bear in mind that I'm hit from all angles by many people and I'm just me.
Too many people skew everything into their favour, which is fine but takes some dealing with en masse.
It's the reason why I counteract the questions and throw them back. You people argue against what I say by using your own mindset on what you were taught. I ask for proof.
Proof cannot be given in many aspects because even those at the top don't seem to know many things.
It comes down to understanding the thought process and why.
You can't understand mine but I seriously cannot understand the stuff you follow. Not because I refuse to understand, it's because a lot of it makes no sense. It really makes no sense.
It does not marry up with reality unless magical mysteries are added in.
I've argued this so it's pointless going down that path.
I personally don't think so, Im happy to entertain any notions at all here, and I'm just trying to understand your model. Right now I dont understand, so here I am, asking again and again for simple descriptions.
And what I would like to do is be able to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else to your satisfaction. That I think is the ultimate test of communication and what I am striving for here.
If I can do that I will be pleased. I might not agree with it, I might think it is a silly concept, but at least I want to understand the concept itself before making any judgements about it.
If you want to understand my model you must first push the served up on a platter model that you've adhered to for best part of your life, otherwise you will simply reference and discard and set yourself back to square one like kabool does and Jacky.
Isn't this why you are here, to communicate and talk with people regarding your thoughts and ideas? If you cant communicate your idea to a willing recipient though, what can you hope to accomplish besides just petty sniping and bickering?
I'm here to give out my thoughts.
I'm here for the layperson.
I'm also here to read alternate thoughts.
I'm not here to see people copy and paste global nonsense but I fully understand why so many people gang up to shut down alternate thoughts.
I class these people as cagey and dishonest in many aspects.
The very second en masse attempted intimidation ensues from my posts, then I know I'm dealing with people who have no other issues, other than to waste their time back patting each other like a tag team.
It makes me more determined and stronger in that respect but it also muddies the water for any legitimate people who want to look at alternates.
I know how I appear. I know how my stuff is made to look and how many people will refuse to see it from y side.
I also know that my explanations to many people will not come through as there piece of a jigsaw.
The thing is I sometimes think I'm dealing with a lot of people who are on some kind of spectrum. Basically a mind focused on one specific and that's that.
Those who focus on the gobbledygook complicated and cannot decipher simple basics.
Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think...just as many may think I'm a stark raving lunatic who wears a tin foil hat and stained vest and Y front underpants in the basement of some house.
I've went right off on a tangent there but I like to let off some steam (bennet) now and again. :P
lol.
Of course you can let off some steam now and again (but hopefully not in that way!). I fully understand you are responding to many people at the same time in multiple threads, and trying to balance a number or ideas in the responses. I would find that completely exhausting, but you seem to enjoy it, so keep going as long as it gives you happiness in your life.
In this tangent though, I would ask why you respond to everyone? You have just said you dont understand the concepts the way other people do, and clearly other people do not understand your ideas, so isn't it just bickering over things the each side doesnt understand? You are telling people that the concepts that you do not understand are nonsense, and vice versa? If you are just interested in sharing your alternative thoughts and reading others, why the endless back and forth over your opinions? What do you gain? If you are really interested in developing your ideas, why dont you take the afternoon off posting, go buy a small vacuum pump and chamber, and try to show how magnetism and downward forces have some proportionality to air pressure? It seems to me (unless I am mistaken) that these are some central predictions of your concepts, why not show them demonstratively in reality rather than bicker endlessly about them? Wouldnt this be a better way of exploring the concepts you have thought up?
Back to the topic at hand - if you think it is hopeless explaining your concept of magnetism to me for whatever reason, I will give up trying to get you to explain it simply and clearly. In this case, please know though that I did try to understand it, I just couldn't get there from the words you were giving me.
Still, I would hope though that you would want to share your concepts, and if so, to try think about them a bit more, and find a way to express them in simple terms that clearly express the idea in your mind.
My little magnet on the desk waits hopefully.
-
I accept it's difficult for people to grasp my set up and thoughts.
I find it fairly easy, and just realise it is wrong.
Too many people skew everything into their favour
You mean they accurately represent it to clearly show that you are wrong, which you don't like.
It's the reason why I counteract the questions and throw them back.
So I was right, they show you are wrong, you don't like being wrong and have no honest, rational answer to the question, so you use whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss it.
You can't understand mine but I seriously cannot understand the stuff you follow. Not because I refuse to understand, it's because a lot of it makes no sense.
Yet all you can do is repeatedly dismiss it as nonsense and claim it makes no sense when you can't point anything wrong with it.
It is quite difficult to believe it isn't deliberate because I don't know anyone who is actually stupid enough to not be able to understand it.
You even show it isn't the case that you don't understand when you clearly show that you do, to try to make one point, but then directly contradict that and pretend to not understand what that same issue shows you are wrong.
I've argued this so it's pointless going down that path.
You mean you have repeatedly asserted it with the only attempt at justifications being outright lies.
That is not arguing it.
If you want to understand my model you must first push the served up on a platter model that you've adhered to for best part of your life, otherwise you will simply reference and discard and set yourself back to square one like kabool does and Jacky.
I use your own model and simple observations from reality and simple logic to show that you are wrong. I don't use the mainstream model which actually works to explain reality for that as it simply isn't needed.
Like I have said before, I don't need to know exactly how things work to be able to realise that your "explanation" is pure nonsense.
I class these people as cagey and dishonest in many aspects.
The cagey and dishonest ones are the ones that need to use whatever dishonest BS they can to avoid simple questions, that ones that look for any excuse at all to dismiss a post.
I know how I appear. I know how my stuff is made to look and how many people will refuse to see it from y side.
It isn't how it is made to look, it is simply how it looks for anyone who bothers to actually think about it.
The thing is I sometimes think I'm dealing with a lot of people who are on some kind of spectrum. Basically a mind focused on one specific and that's that.
Yes, the TRUTH, the ability for a model/explanation to actually explain reality, something you seem to hate.
Perhaps you should try focusing on it some time rather than continually focusing on the complicated gobbledygook you continually spout.
I just see nasty.
Of course you would, because I'm the mean nasty "Jacky" that keeps showing you are wrong, and you don't like that, so you use whatever dishonest BS you can to deflect.
Have you figured out how to explain the polarity of magnets with air yet?
Have you figured out how to "attractive" vortexes are magically repelled?
When you can get down to one thing at a time I will happily deal with you.
When you come back with copy and paste, I will overlook it all. I'm just letting you know.
And there you go lying yet again.
You are not happy to deal with when whenever I show you are wrong.
You use whatever dishonest BS you can, including BS like that to try to ignore everything I say that shows you are wrong.
I have given you plenty of chances to engage with one thing at a time, and every time you have fled or deflected from it.
Once you even later refused to engage with me and instead told to go find someone else, when I tried sticking to that one thing rather than running off on a tangent.
So like I have told you before, if you want me to stick to just one thing, then you start answering the question.
In this case, you start explaining one of the issues that have been raised and stop with the deflections and 50 different topics.
Because really, I know why you want to focus on only 1 thing at a time. If you do that, you can then jump between several different things to pretend you have a case and pretend you haven't been refuted, yet again.
So again, have you figured out how 2 vacuum cleaners magically repel each other?
If not, have you figured out what magic causes the pressure gradient in your atmosphere without gravity?
Have you figured out why your air then directly defies this pressure gradient and pushes things down rather than up?
Have you figured out why the air sometimes doesn't defy this pressure gradient and instead pushes things up?
Have you figured out why displacing more air reduces weight?
-
In this tangent though, I would ask why you respond to everyone? You have just said you dont understand the concepts the way other people do, and clearly other people do not understand your ideas, so isn't it just bickering over things the each side doesnt understand? You are telling people that the concepts that you do not understand are nonsense, and vice versa? If you are just interested in sharing your alternative thoughts and reading others, why the endless back and forth over your opinions? What do you gain? If you are really interested in developing your ideas, why dont you take the afternoon off posting, go buy a small vacuum pump and chamber, and try to show how magnetism and downward forces have some proportionality to air pressure? It seems to me (unless I am mistaken) that these are some central predictions of your concepts, why not show them demonstratively in reality rather than bicker endlessly about them? Wouldnt this be a better way of exploring the concepts you have thought up?
It is quite simple. By deflecting to back and forth, including his repeated insults and requests for explanations from others, or just telling them to try it, he can deflect from his complete inability to explain reality using his models and his inability to answer simple questions.
If he just stuck to describing his model and addressing issues with it, he would very quickly run out of "explanations" and need to admit he is wrong, or flee, as he eventually does with every thread after being refuted enough, just to bring up the same refuted nonsense later in another thread.
As for why he doesn't get evidence himself, likely because he knows the evidence would not support him.
He has already rejected the idea of weight being tied to air pressure, such that at lower pressure things weigh less, because in reality that isn't the case. That is yet another issue his model cannot explain.
-
Okay, so we are in a fluid like in a sink. I have a little magnet on my desk. This fluid that we are in (the air) is draining through a vortex in my little magnet on the desk?
Where does it drain to? If we use a sink as a analogy, it doesnt drain back into itself, right?
It drains right back into the magnet.
I dont follow. We are imagining it is like a sink with a hole, right? The water flows out of the hole and goes somewhere else, it doesnt flow back into the hole does it? But somehow in the magnet case, the magnet pulls atmosphere though it like a drain, but then air drains back into the magnet?
This is really hard to follow. I hope you realize that. It might seem clear in your mind, but you are not communicating it clearly to others. I am trying as hard as I can to understand the idea you have thought up but I am really struggling to grasp it.
Maube sceppy could draw this vortex on a map-map.
A diagram of any sorts would be incredibly useful.
Just take a look at the diagram of a magnet and it will give you a better clue.
I'm confused. Looking at some magnet diagrams, are you saying that it's the air that is traveling along all the different directions of arrows?
Here's one diagram:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/scientific-magnetic-field-electromagnetism-vector-illustration-scheme-electric-current-poles-earth-diagram-educational-physics-112145906.jpg)
Yep but in pressure terms not in a wind term.
Yeah, got it regarding pressure versus wind.
How does the pressure know to circle back around and follow the arrows? Regardless of orientation of the magnet? What if I put a magnet in low pressure vacuum, does it de-magnetize?
Back to the sinik analogy.
A consistently filling sink. Never emptying, even if the plug is pushed out a little, or a lot, depending.
Put that thought into atmosphere and understand that what is pushed in is also pushed out....but as it's pushed out it compresses to push back in.
It creates a vibration of atmosphere in the scenario and causes a velcro like interconnection between high and low pressure molecules by the process of compression and decompression.
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
And you didn't directly address my questions:
- How does the pressure know to circle back around and follow the arrows? Regardless of orientation of the magnet? With the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) goes where the drain pipe directs it. How is the atmosphere "directed" back around and knows where to go "push"?
- What if I put a magnet in low pressure vacuum, does it de-magnetize? In other words, do magnets work in a vacuum? And if they do, how does the vortex theory work if there's little to no atmosphere to swirl around and do the pushing?
-
2.When people deliberately make up so called theories with unprovable physical set ups except for equations that only explain obscure concepts.
That's hilarious. You literally just described denpressure except you don't even have any simple equations to back it up.
Denpressure:
- Made up so called theory, CHECK
- Unprovable physical set ups, CHECK
It's provable but people like you will never get it because your brains are on some kind of spectrum, in my opinion.
What's provable? What's provable about the carbonite crystal projecting holographic images of the Sun, Moon, & Stars onto a breathing dome that covers the earth?
It's clearly not a matter of me "getting it", or getting anything. What's to get? Have you offered any proof before that I just didn't "get"? If so, my apologies. Can you repost your proof and I promise I'll keep an open mind and stay off the spectrum I'm apparently on?
In other words, what's the proof you have provided that I have failed to get?
-
In this tangent though, I would ask why you respond to everyone? You have just said you dont understand the concepts the way other people do, and clearly other people do not understand your ideas, so isn't it just bickering over things the each side doesnt understand? You are telling people that the concepts that you do not understand are nonsense, and vice versa? If you are just interested in sharing your alternative thoughts and reading others, why the endless back and forth over your opinions? What do you gain? If you are really interested in developing your ideas, why dont you take the afternoon off posting, go buy a small vacuum pump and chamber, and try to show how magnetism and downward forces have some proportionality to air pressure? It seems to me (unless I am mistaken) that these are some central predictions of your concepts, why not show them demonstratively in reality rather than bicker endlessly about them? Wouldnt this be a better way of exploring the concepts you have thought up?
It is quite simple. By deflecting to back and forth, including his repeated insults and requests for explanations from others, or just telling them to try it, he can deflect from his complete inability to explain reality using his models and his inability to answer simple questions.
If he just stuck to describing his model and addressing issues with it, he would very quickly run out of "explanations" and need to admit he is wrong, or flee, as he eventually does with every thread after being refuted enough, just to bring up the same refuted nonsense later in another thread.
As for why he doesn't get evidence himself, likely because he knows the evidence would not support him.
He has already rejected the idea of weight being tied to air pressure, such that at lower pressure things weigh less, because in reality that isn't the case. That is yet another issue his model cannot explain.
So in your opinion, is it just bickering and trolling from his side? If so, to what end?
-
In this tangent though, I would ask why you respond to everyone? You have just said you dont understand the concepts the way other people do, and clearly other people do not understand your ideas, so isn't it just bickering over things the each side doesnt understand? You are telling people that the concepts that you do not understand are nonsense, and vice versa? If you are just interested in sharing your alternative thoughts and reading others, why the endless back and forth over your opinions? What do you gain? If you are really interested in developing your ideas, why dont you take the afternoon off posting, go buy a small vacuum pump and chamber, and try to show how magnetism and downward forces have some proportionality to air pressure? It seems to me (unless I am mistaken) that these are some central predictions of your concepts, why not show them demonstratively in reality rather than bicker endlessly about them? Wouldnt this be a better way of exploring the concepts you have thought up?
It is quite simple. By deflecting to back and forth, including his repeated insults and requests for explanations from others, or just telling them to try it, he can deflect from his complete inability to explain reality using his models and his inability to answer simple questions.
If he just stuck to describing his model and addressing issues with it, he would very quickly run out of "explanations" and need to admit he is wrong, or flee, as he eventually does with every thread after being refuted enough, just to bring up the same refuted nonsense later in another thread.
As for why he doesn't get evidence himself, likely because he knows the evidence would not support him.
He has already rejected the idea of weight being tied to air pressure, such that at lower pressure things weigh less, because in reality that isn't the case. That is yet another issue his model cannot explain.
So in your opinion, is it just bickering and trolling from his side? If so, to what end?
Not necessarily trolling.
There is still the possibility of extreme cognitive dissonance. As to why, who knows.
If it is extreme cognitive dissonance it is doing whatever he can to pretend the globe is wrong and his fantasy is correct.
If it is trolling, it could be for anything.
-
Sure, you can blame me for not understanding your concepts. I certainly could be the one failing here, and your ideas are simple, and I am failing to understand because I just cant think in the proper way.
I don't blame you. I accept it's difficult for people to grasp my set up and thoughts. After all it is me coming out with stuff that is basically off the chart with how you have been taught/brought up with.
Bear in mind that I'm hit from all angles by many people and I'm just me.
Too many people skew everything into their favour, which is fine but takes some dealing with en masse.
It's the reason why I counteract the questions and throw them back. You people argue against what I say by using your own mindset on what you were taught. I ask for proof.
Proof cannot be given in many aspects because even those at the top don't seem to know many things.
It comes down to understanding the thought process and why.
You can't understand mine but I seriously cannot understand the stuff you follow. Not because I refuse to understand, it's because a lot of it makes no sense. It really makes no sense.
It does not marry up with reality unless magical mysteries are added in.
I've argued this so it's pointless going down that path.
I personally don't think so, Im happy to entertain any notions at all here, and I'm just trying to understand your model. Right now I dont understand, so here I am, asking again and again for simple descriptions.
And what I would like to do is be able to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else to your satisfaction. That I think is the ultimate test of communication and what I am striving for here.
If I can do that I will be pleased. I might not agree with it, I might think it is a silly concept, but at least I want to understand the concept itself before making any judgements about it.
If you want to understand my model you must first push the served up on a platter model that you've adhered to for best part of your life, otherwise you will simply reference and discard and set yourself back to square one like kabool does and Jacky.
Isn't this why you are here, to communicate and talk with people regarding your thoughts and ideas? If you cant communicate your idea to a willing recipient though, what can you hope to accomplish besides just petty sniping and bickering?
I'm here to give out my thoughts.
I'm here for the layperson.
I'm also here to read alternate thoughts.
I'm not here to see people copy and paste global nonsense but I fully understand why so many people gang up to shut down alternate thoughts.
I class these people as cagey and dishonest in many aspects.
The very second en masse attempted intimidation ensues from my posts, then I know I'm dealing with people who have no other issues, other than to waste their time back patting each other like a tag team.
It makes me more determined and stronger in that respect but it also muddies the water for any legitimate people who want to look at alternates.
I know how I appear. I know how my stuff is made to look and how many people will refuse to see it from y side.
I also know that my explanations to many people will not come through as there piece of a jigsaw.
The thing is I sometimes think I'm dealing with a lot of people who are on some kind of spectrum. Basically a mind focused on one specific and that's that.
Those who focus on the gobbledygook complicated and cannot decipher simple basics.
Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think...just as many may think I'm a stark raving lunatic who wears a tin foil hat and stained vest and Y front underpants in the basement of some house.
I've went right off on a tangent there but I like to let off some steam (bennet) now and again. :P
lol.
Of course you can let off some steam now and again (but hopefully not in that way!). I fully understand you are responding to many people at the same time in multiple threads, and trying to balance a number or ideas in the responses. I would find that completely exhausting, but you seem to enjoy it, so keep going as long as it gives you happiness in your life.
In this tangent though, I would ask why you respond to everyone? You have just said you dont understand the concepts the way other people do, and clearly other people do not understand your ideas, so isn't it just bickering over things the each side doesnt understand? You are telling people that the concepts that you do not understand are nonsense, and vice versa?
My stance is primarily against the severe indoctrination I got and grew up with, pertaining to a globe and all things said to be part of it...including so called space.
Yes, I once believed it all and yes, I would look at anyone in a funny way if they mentioned flat or whatever.
However, I had the time to question it all in the last 15 years or so and I quite quickly came to the realisation that it is absolute utter nonsense in the absolute extreme. I kid you not.
Based on that I tried (and still do) to come to alternatives to it. Potentials. Musings.
I believe I am much closer to reality by a mile than the global stuff put out.
I've gave simple reasons and they are rejected by people who decide it's better to try and ridicule me rather than take their time to understand alternate theories/musings.
This is why I play that game with them.
I'm handing nothing on a plate. People need to work for it. Basically show they can power down to the basics and try and see it from my side....if, they want to understand my thoughts.
-
If you are just interested in sharing your alternative thoughts and reading others, why the endless back and forth over your opinions? What do you gain?
Nobody is asked to share my opinions. Nobody is asked to even look at them. Most people avoid them.
Some people decide they want to be clever and have a few digs.
All of it is fine in a discussion forum for whatever reasons people feel.
The bigger question is, why would people spend all their time wanting to have a dig and push a global model with a nutcase like me for years on end?
If you are really interested in developing your ideas, why dont you take the afternoon off posting, go buy a small vacuum pump and chamber, and try to show how magnetism and downward forces have some proportionality to air pressure? It seems to me (unless I am mistaken) that these are some central predictions of your concepts, why not show them demonstratively in reality rather than bicker endlessly about them? Wouldn't this be a better way of exploring the concepts you have thought up?
I'm fine with how I'm going. If you are genuine and want to try and understand the simplicity of it from my side, you're welcome to ask me anything you like.
I'll try and explain but remember that my explanations come in the form of a lot of analogies which must be taken for that and not twisted to mean exactly what is said.
It's about getting your head around it from my side. Probe it in bits till you gain my mindset. It may take a wjhile but it can be done without distractions which most who argue with me, are full of.
Back to the topic at hand - if you think it is hopeless explaining your concept of magnetism to me for whatever reason, I will give up trying to get you to explain it simply and clearly. In this case, please know though that I did try to understand it, I just couldn't get there from the words you were giving me.
It depends on how you wish to see it. As it stands you think air pressure like a wind just wafts through a magnet. Think about the analogies and probe from that.
Just remember there's many a split of matter and gases to form different set ups.
If I thought magnets were just simple walk about air pushing into them then I'd be stumped as to how.
It's about the make up of the magnet and the make up of what is taken from the atmosphere. Atmosphere is not just simple air pressure in one form.
Still, I would hope though that you would want to share your concepts, and if so, to try think about them a bit more, and find a way to express them in simple terms that clearly express the idea in your mind.
I do think about them. I honestly think people need to as well by pushing aside the global concept and trying to see the alternatives.
My little magnet on the desk waits hopefully.
Keep it there and look at it just sitting. Now wonder why it does what it does from that stance.
There a few things to think about.
-
I accept it's difficult for people to grasp my set up and thoughts.
I find it fairly easy, and just realise it is wrong.
Not by what I see, you don't.
-
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
I don't think you're quite getting it.
Let's change it up.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
The magnet is the same type of loop.
And you didn't directly address my questions:
- How does the pressure know to circle back around and follow the arrows?
Regardless of orientation of the magnet? With the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) goes where the drain pipe directs it. How is the atmosphere "directed" back around and knows where to go "push"?
Pressure equalisation.
- What if I put a magnet in low pressure vacuum, does it de-magnetize?
If the low pressure was sufficient, yes.
In other words, do magnets work in a vacuum?
No.
And if they do, how does the vortex theory work if there's little to no atmosphere to swirl around and do the pushing?
The vortex does not work in a vacuum. It works directly by attempted equalisation of pressures.
-
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
I don't think you're quite getting it.
Let's change it up.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
The magnet is the same type of loop.
You could also make a loop with a sink, if you connected the outlet back to the top and used a pump to push the water back up.
This would be like the battery, where electricity flows in one direction and then is pumped back up by the gas powered generator in the car.
Both of these loops have something moving (water in the former, electricity in the latter), and have an external form of energy to sustain the loop (a pump in the former and a gas powered generator in the latter).
What is happening similarly in the magnet. What is flowing and what is the external source of energy sustaining the loop?
Or is it actually not like these systems at all?
-
It's the reason why I counteract the questions and throw them back. You people argue against what I say by using your own mindset on what you were taught. I ask for proof.
Proof cannot be given in many aspects because even those at the top don't seem to know many things.
What is proof? At what point can we say something has been proved? The general definition of proof could be to present evidence which puts the validity of a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. But we all have different perceptions of what qualifies as evidence and what qualifies as beyond reasonable doubt. Often those perceptions will be influenced by what we choose to accept as evidence.
I wouldn't blame any individual groups particularly but you probably would.
-
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
I don't think you're quite getting it.
Let's change it up.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
The magnet is the same type of loop.
You could also make a loop with a sink, if you connected the outlet back to the top and used a pump to push the water back up.
This would be like the battery, where electricity flows in one direction and then is pumped back up by the gas powered generator in the car.
Both of these loops have something moving (water in the former, electricity in the latter), and have an external form of energy to sustain the loop (a pump in the former and a gas powered generator in the latter).
What is happening similarly in the magnet. What is flowing and what is the external source of energy sustaining the loop?
Or is it actually not like these systems at all?
Same thing but flow is only evident when it's activated.
-
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
I don't think you're quite getting it.
Let's change it up.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
The magnet is the same type of loop.
You could also make a loop with a sink, if you connected the outlet back to the top and used a pump to push the water back up.
This would be like the battery, where electricity flows in one direction and then is pumped back up by the gas powered generator in the car.
Both of these loops have something moving (water in the former, electricity in the latter), and have an external form of energy to sustain the loop (a pump in the former and a gas powered generator in the latter).
What is happening similarly in the magnet. What is flowing and what is the external source of energy sustaining the loop?
Or is it actually not like these systems at all?
Same thing but flow is only evident when it's activated.
So when activated, what is flowing?
And what is the external source of energy sustaining the flow?
-
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
I don't think you're quite getting it.
Let's change it up.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
The magnet is the same type of loop.
Ok, that makes sense. But the "loop" is created by cables and such that direct the charge output and input to very specific places in the loop. With magnets, what is telling the charge to be directed out one end, so to speak, and swoop back around charge into the other end? How does the atmospheric charge know to go in one end, out the other and back around again? Are the ends somehow different from one another?
And you didn't directly address my questions:
- How does the pressure know to circle back around and follow the arrows?
Regardless of orientation of the magnet? With the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) goes where the drain pipe directs it. How is the atmosphere "directed" back around and knows where to go "push"?
Pressure equalisation.
- What if I put a magnet in low pressure vacuum, does it de-magnetize?
If the low pressure was sufficient, yes.
So one would suspect that with a much lower pressure chamber, the magnet would have less magnetic power inside of it as opposed to being outside the chamber in regular atmosphere, right?
In other words, do magnets work in a vacuum?
No.
And if they do, how does the vortex theory work if there's little to no atmosphere to swirl around and do the pushing?
The vortex does not work in a vacuum. It works directly by attempted equalisation of pressures.
I've seen experiments with magnets in a vacuum chamber and they worked the same as outside the chamber. Why is that? They should not work as well inside.
-
I accept it's difficult for people to grasp my set up and thoughts.
I find it fairly easy, and just realise it is wrong.
Not by what I see, you don't.
Of course you don't, because you don't want to see that you are wrong, so anyone who shows you are wrong you need to dismiss as indoctrinated and unable to grasp your thoughts.
But your inability and refusal to address simple questions show this is not the case.
Again, can you explain how the polarity of magnets work, including how 2 attractive vortexes manage to repel one another in complete defiance of all basic logic?
If not, can you explain any of the countless issues that have been brought up with your nonsense?
If not, stop pretending we don't grasp your claims.
Again, can you explain something simple like the polarity of magnets?
Or do I fully grasp your "set up and thoughts" and correctly realise that your "explanation" does not work to explain magnets because it predicts results which are contradicted by reality?
My stance is primarily against the severe indoctrination I got and grew up with
Yet rather than try to learn about it and find the evidence for it, you just dismiss it all as nonsenes.
However, I had the time to question it all in the last 15 years or so and I quite quickly came to the realisation that it is absolute utter nonsense in the absolute extreme.
A claim you continually assert, yet you are completely incapable of justifying.
I've gave simple reasons and they are rejected by people who decide it's better to try and ridicule me rather than take their time to understand alternate theories/musings.
There you go projecting again.
You have been provided with simple reasons and they are rejected/dismissed by you, with those putting them forwards ridiculed by you as you have no actual refutation for them.
You have put forward plenty of claims, but those claims have been refuted.
The bigger question is, why would people spend all their time wanting to have a dig and push a global model with a nutcase like me for years on end?
Because they care about reality and object to people spouting pure BS about it.
This means they object to you continually spouting BS about the RE.
They explain what is wrong with your arguments and sometimes even provide evidence clearly showing that you are wrong, only for you to dismiss it as a con-job.
All it takes for stupidity to triumph is for intelligent to remain silent.
If you are genuine and want to try and understand the simplicity of it from my side, you're welcome to ask me anything you like. I'll try and explain
Until you get to the point where it is clear your "explanations" don't match reality, at which point you will do whatever you can to dodge, even extremely simple questions which clearly show you are wrong.
it can be done without distractions which most who argue with me, are full of.
You are the one continually providing distractions from your complete inability to explain anything.
A recent example is how I pointed out how based your claims of how magnets working, you would need 2 vacuum cleaners to repel one another.
Rather than address that issue, you deflected by bringing in a distraction of 2 hair dryers.
That is because with that distraction you can easily pretend your explanation works, but without it, focusing on the actual situation presented, you have no way to explain how your "explanation" matches reality, because it simply doesn't.
Likewise, in a thread asking about seeing things with your naked eye, and entire FOV, you attempt to bring in a massive distraction of a magical level tube which limits your FOV to 0.
Or one from a while ago, when asked to explain how the air pushes an object down, regardless of if it is against a wall, a ceiling or in mid air, but in all cases not on the ground, you instead try explaining how an object sitting on the ground is pushed down.
So no, you are the one full of distractions, not us.
You need these distractions to pretend you are correct.
Without them, all your claims fall apart.
I honestly think people need to as well by pushing aside the global concept and trying to see the alternatives.
Again, the global has nothing to do with what is wrong with your model and claims. We do not need Earth to be a globe, or anything like that to show you are wrong.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
No, not really.
The battery has a charge, in the sense of electrochemical potential energy.
But if left doing nothing it will not have that charge.
When you start the car, the battery feeds the starter motor, causing the engine to start.
The engine now runs by itself, using fuel and oxygen to continue rotating.
This rotation is transferred to an alternator to generate electricity which then feeds back to the battery.
It is not a cycle like you claim. What comes out is not necessarily replaced.
If you would like an even better example, consider an electric car.
Now the battery simply feeds an electric motor, causing the battery to discharge as you drive it.
It only starts filling back up with charge when you plug it in to charge.
You need an external power source to drive the loop.
Unless you were referrring to the individual electrons, in which case they happily flow through, losing energy in the process, and thus the flow stops, again needing an external power source to keep it going.
What replacing the engine and fuel in your battery.
Pressure equalisation.
That would stop the motion, not keep it going.
- What if I put a magnet in low pressure vacuum, does it de-magnetize?
If the low pressure was sufficient, yes.
In other words, do magnets work in a vacuum?
No.
Just how low a pressure do you need?
Do you have any evidence of this at all?
(I ask if you have evidence because you have made it clear that you are unwilling to accept evidence from anyone, so asking us for evidence is an exercise is dishonesty, and us providing any evidence to show you are wrong is an exercise in futility as you will simply dismiss it as a conjob.)
-
My stance is primarily against the severe indoctrination I got and grew up with
If you check the meaning of the word indoctrination you will find that it is defined as follows:
"the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."
My experience of science and of learning about science has never been to accept any beliefs uncritically. Quite the opposite. I have spent the majority of my life with education right up to university level and at no point have I ever been asked to accept anything uncritically.
You have chosen to use the word 'indoctrination' to describe your opinion and your own contempt of science. I shudder to think where we would be if everyone had the same attitude as you. Much better off is your own answer to that question I'm sure.
You are obviously just one of those people in life who is very self-opinionated to the point where it is impossible for you to even contemplate the possibility that you are sometimes wrong. I'm sure in your mind we are as guilty of that as you are but in the opposite direction. If I wasn't open minded to alternatives then why would I have even looked twice at a flat Earth website? Opinions are based ultimately on evidence in my mind and so far in my opinion the evidence (as well as our everyday experiences) point overwhelmingly to Earth being a globe. You will never share that opinion I accept and that's fine. However much as I don't agree with whatever you believe I don't ridicule your beliefs as nonsense. I don't believe that disagreeing with the beliefs of others give you an excuse to ridicule them. You do it seems.
-
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
I don't think you're quite getting it.
Let's change it up.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
The magnet is the same type of loop.
You could also make a loop with a sink, if you connected the outlet back to the top and used a pump to push the water back up.
This would be like the battery, where electricity flows in one direction and then is pumped back up by the gas powered generator in the car.
Both of these loops have something moving (water in the former, electricity in the latter), and have an external form of energy to sustain the loop (a pump in the former and a gas powered generator in the latter).
What is happening similarly in the magnet. What is flowing and what is the external source of energy sustaining the loop?
Or is it actually not like these systems at all?
Same thing but flow is only evident when it's activated.
So when activated, what is flowing?
And what is the external source of energy sustaining the flow?
Atmospheric pressure in broken down molecules or to be more specific, hydrogen and such separation from molecules that get stored /pushed into the super structured pores of the metals.
From that point on it's a consistent capacitor like discharge away from the push. Like diode. A non return internal valve, if you like, or mass of them.
Basically back to the sink plug hole analogy.
It creates a sort of siphon due to the mass coverage of atmosphere above.
-
Ok, that makes sense. But the "loop" is created by cables and such that direct the charge output and input to very specific places in the loop. With magnets, what is telling the charge to be directed out one end, so to speak, and swoop back around charge into the other end? How does the atmospheric charge know to go in one end, out the other and back around again? Are the ends somehow different from one another?
Yes. The ends are like a funnelled sieve.
I've seen experiments with magnets in a vacuum chamber and they worked the same as outside the chamber. Why is that? They should not work as well inside.
They don't.
-
My stance is primarily against the severe indoctrination I got and grew up with
If you check the meaning of the word indoctrination you will find that it is defined as follows:
"the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."
My experience of science and of learning about science has never been to accept any beliefs uncritically.
You followed a curriculum. You were marked on how well you followed that curriculum.
Do not try and tell me that you could think for yourself against it, because you could not.
You could come out with all kinds of views, obviously but you were shot down for them if they didn't follow the pattern set out.
If you want to argue that then go ahead but you know I'm right.
Your problem is, you don't want to believe it...and fair enough.
Any normal person will back me up.
-
Atmospheric pressure in broken down molecules or to be more specific, hydrogen and such separation from molecules that get stored /pushed into the super structured pores of the metals.
From that point on it's a consistent capacitor like discharge away from the push. Like diode. A non return internal valve, if you like, or mass of them.
Basically back to the sink plug hole analogy.
It creates a sort of siphon due to the mass coverage of atmosphere above.
And how do these "siphons" cause a repulsion?
I've seen experiments with magnets in a vacuum chamber and they worked the same as outside the chamber. Why is that? They should not work as well inside.
They don't.
Again, do you have evidence of this?
Do not try and tell me that you could think for yourself against it, because you could not.
Thinking for yourself doesn't mean rejecting anything anyone tells you. That is being just as uncritical as blindly accepting.
Thinking critically means actually thinking about the claims and evaluating how likely they are to be correct.
And a key part of any decent education is understanding why the things you are taught is correct.
You could come out with all kinds of views, obviously but you were shot down for them
You mean like your views are repeatedly shot down because they don't match reality?
Any normal person will back me up.
Only if they had a really crappy teacher.
-
Atmospheric pressure in broken down molecules or to be more specific, hydrogen and such separation from molecules that get stored /pushed into the super structured pores of the metals.
From that point on it's a consistent capacitor like discharge away from the push. Like diode. A non return internal valve, if you like, or mass of them.
Basically back to the sink plug hole analogy.
It creates a sort of siphon due to the mass coverage of atmosphere above.
And how do these "siphons" cause a repulsion?
Same reason as going against the flow.
Try and run at a high pressure hose.
Try circling in water then turn the other way.
To siphon is to take a higher pressure and push it into lower pressure resistance which creates an equal and opposite push/compression.
-
Right, but with the sink analogy, the water (atmosphere) is running out of the sink causing the vortex. Are you saying that the end or side of a magnet where the arrows are running out of it is basically where the analogous "plug" is?
I don't think you're quite getting it.
Let's change it up.
Let's look at a car battery.
The battery holds a charge...right?
It will keep hold of a charge as long as it's being fed. Basically in a car the battery discharges and feeds the car parts, including the alternator/dynamo or whatever you want to call it..and back to the battery again. A loop.
A drain. But what comes out must be replaced, equally. A cycle.
The magnet is the same type of loop.
You could also make a loop with a sink, if you connected the outlet back to the top and used a pump to push the water back up.
This would be like the battery, where electricity flows in one direction and then is pumped back up by the gas powered generator in the car.
Both of these loops have something moving (water in the former, electricity in the latter), and have an external form of energy to sustain the loop (a pump in the former and a gas powered generator in the latter).
What is happening similarly in the magnet. What is flowing and what is the external source of energy sustaining the loop?
Or is it actually not like these systems at all?
Same thing but flow is only evident when it's activated.
So when activated, what is flowing?
And what is the external source of energy sustaining the flow?
Atmospheric pressure in broken down molecules or to be more specific, hydrogen and such separation from molecules that get stored /pushed into the super structured pores of the metals.
From that point on it's a consistent capacitor like discharge away from the push. Like diode. A non return internal valve, if you like, or mass of them.
Basically back to the sink plug hole analogy.
It creates a sort of siphon due to the mass coverage of atmosphere above.
So pressure gets broken down into hydrogen which then flows through the porous metal of the magnet?
-
Ok, that makes sense. But the "loop" is created by cables and such that direct the charge output and input to very specific places in the loop. With magnets, what is telling the charge to be directed out one end, so to speak, and swoop back around charge into the other end? How does the atmospheric charge know to go in one end, out the other and back around again? Are the ends somehow different from one another?
Yes. The ends are like a funnelled sieve.
I've seen experiments with magnets in a vacuum chamber and they worked the same as outside the chamber. Why is that? They should not work as well inside.
They don't.
What's your evidence? Or are you just saying they don't because that wouldn't fit with your theory?
-
So pressure gets broken down into hydrogen which then flows through the porous metal of the magnet?
Sort of, yes.
-
Ok, that makes sense. But the "loop" is created by cables and such that direct the charge output and input to very specific places in the loop. With magnets, what is telling the charge to be directed out one end, so to speak, and swoop back around charge into the other end? How does the atmospheric charge know to go in one end, out the other and back around again? Are the ends somehow different from one another?
Yes. The ends are like a funnelled sieve.
I've seen experiments with magnets in a vacuum chamber and they worked the same as outside the chamber. Why is that? They should not work as well inside.
They don't.
What's your evidence? Or are you just saying they don't because that wouldn't fit with your theory?
Are you saying they do because you've witnessed a vacuum?
-
Ok, that makes sense. But the "loop" is created by cables and such that direct the charge output and input to very specific places in the loop. With magnets, what is telling the charge to be directed out one end, so to speak, and swoop back around charge into the other end? How does the atmospheric charge know to go in one end, out the other and back around again? Are the ends somehow different from one another?
Yes. The ends are like a funnelled sieve.
I've seen experiments with magnets in a vacuum chamber and they worked the same as outside the chamber. Why is that? They should not work as well inside.
They don't.
What's your evidence? Or are you just saying they don't because that wouldn't fit with your theory?
Are you saying they do because you've witnessed a vacuum?
I'm asking you what is your evidence that magnets don't work in a vacuum, or, more succinctly, that they don't work as well in a very low pressure, near vacuum as they do outside in normal atmosphere? What's your evidence for that?
Or if you have no evidence, is it just your theory that they don't?
-
Ok, that makes sense. But the "loop" is created by cables and such that direct the charge output and input to very specific places in the loop. With magnets, what is telling the charge to be directed out one end, so to speak, and swoop back around charge into the other end? How does the atmospheric charge know to go in one end, out the other and back around again? Are the ends somehow different from one another?
Yes. The ends are like a funnelled sieve.
I've seen experiments with magnets in a vacuum chamber and they worked the same as outside the chamber. Why is that? They should not work as well inside.
They don't.
What's your evidence? Or are you just saying they don't because that wouldn't fit with your theory?
Are you saying they do because you've witnessed a vacuum?
try not to get too hypocritical now.
-
So pressure gets broken down into hydrogen which then flows through the porous metal of the magnet?
Sort of, yes.
Hmm, can you clarify so it is not "sort of"?
This is how I see it from your explanation. Please correct for clarity -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right?
-
Atmospheric pressure in broken down molecules or to be more specific, hydrogen and such separation from molecules that get stored /pushed into the super structured pores of the metals.
From that point on it's a consistent capacitor like discharge away from the push. Like diode. A non return internal valve, if you like, or mass of them.
Basically back to the sink plug hole analogy.
It creates a sort of siphon due to the mass coverage of atmosphere above.
And how do these "siphons" cause a repulsion?
Same reason as going against the flow.
Try and run at a high pressure hose.
Try circling in water then turn the other way.
To siphon is to take a higher pressure and push it into lower pressure resistance which creates an equal and opposite push/compression.
They are fundamentally different phenomenon and thus couldn't simply be the same reason, and yet again you dodge the issue.
We aren't talking about running at a high pressure hose, we are talking about the other side, where the water is being "drawn" in.
This is running towards the low pressure region with the high pressure pushing you towards it.
-
I'm asking you what is your evidence that magnets don't work in a vacuum, or, more succinctly, that they don't work as well in a very low pressure, near vacuum as they do outside in normal atmosphere? What's your evidence for that?
Or if you have no evidence, is it just your theory that they don't?
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
-
So pressure gets broken down into hydrogen which then flows through the porous metal of the magnet?
Sort of, yes.
Hmm, can you clarify so it is not "sort of"?
This is how I see it from your explanation. Please correct for clarity -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right?
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from tehre.
-
They are fundamentally different phenomenon and thus couldn't simply be the same reason, and yet again you dodge the issue.
We aren't talking about running at a high pressure hose, we are talking about the other side, where the water is being "drawn" in.
This is running towards the low pressure region with the high pressure pushing you towards it.
If you create a low pressure and trap it...how do you release it?
-
I'm asking you what is your evidence that magnets don't work in a vacuum, or, more succinctly, that they don't work as well in a very low pressure, near vacuum as they do outside in normal atmosphere? What's your evidence for that?
Or if you have no evidence, is it just your theory that they don't?
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
possibly - what about well documented other people?
are all other people out to get you?
are they all fakers?
better add another layer of tinfoil just in case.
-
So pressure gets broken down into hydrogen which then flows through the porous metal of the magnet?
Sort of, yes.
Hmm, can you clarify so it is not "sort of"?
This is how I see it from your explanation. Please correct for clarity -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right?
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from tehre.
draw magnet vortex on a map
-
They are fundamentally different phenomenon and thus couldn't simply be the same reason, and yet again you dodge the issue.
We aren't talking about running at a high pressure hose, we are talking about the other side, where the water is being "drawn" in.
This is running towards the low pressure region with the high pressure pushing you towards it.
If you create a low pressure and trap it...how do you release it?
Again, I refer you to the Magdeburg hemispheres YOU brought up earlier.
I also refer you to your earlier statements about pressure.
You don't trap a low pressure, you don't release it.
Instead you remove pressure (note: not all pressure needs to be removed), and keep it out.
To return to equilibrium, you need to let the high pressure in.
With the hemispheres, without any way to let the high pressure air in, the hemispheres are crushed together by that high pressure air around them.
So why doesn't that happen with the magnets? Why do they repel instead?
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
And there you go playing semantics again. A vacuum doesn't need to be perfect to be a vacuum, and Stash is clearly talking about the kind of vacuum in vacuum chambers, which is not perfect.
Unless you weren't playing semantics and are just admitting you have no evidence and lying about people "experiencing" a vacuum.
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from tehre.
And yet more deflection.
You are meant to be providing your explanation for how magnets work. Just what does what he thinks have to do with YOUR explanation.
-
I'm asking you what is your evidence that magnets don't work in a vacuum, or, more succinctly, that they don't work as well in a very low pressure, near vacuum as they do outside in normal atmosphere? What's your evidence for that?
Or if you have no evidence, is it just your theory that they don't?
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
possibly - what about well documented other people?
are all other people out to get you?
are they all fakers?
better add another layer of tinfoil just in case.
Come back when you have a vacuum.
-
They are fundamentally different phenomenon and thus couldn't simply be the same reason, and yet again you dodge the issue.
We aren't talking about running at a high pressure hose, we are talking about the other side, where the water is being "drawn" in.
This is running towards the low pressure region with the high pressure pushing you towards it.
If you create a low pressure and trap it...how do you release it?
Again, I refer you to the Magdeburg hemispheres YOU brought up earlier.
I also refer you to your earlier statements about pressure.
You don't trap a low pressure, you don't release it.
Instead you remove pressure (note: not all pressure needs to be removed), and keep it out.
You are contradicting yourself.
To return to equilibrium, you need to let the high pressure in.
Correct.
-
So pressure gets broken down into hydrogen which then flows through the porous metal of the magnet?
Sort of, yes.
Hmm, can you clarify so it is not "sort of"?
This is how I see it from your explanation. Please correct for clarity -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right?
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from tehre.
Hey, it’s your idea I’m trying to understand. Maybe you tell me instead what you think is happening to help in getting it across?
If you don’t know though, that’s okay.
-
Hey, it’s your idea I’m trying to understand. Maybe you tell me instead what you think is happening to help in getting it across?
If you don’t know though, that’s okay.
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from there.
-
Hey, it’s your idea I’m trying to understand. Maybe you tell me instead what you think is happening to help in getting it across?
If you don’t know though, that’s okay.
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from there.
It’s placed in a an external magnetic field.
-
Hey, it’s your idea I’m trying to understand. Maybe you tell me instead what you think is happening to help in getting it across?
If you don’t know though, that’s okay.
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from there.
It’s placed in a an external magnetic field.
Ok. Your magnet is on your table, as you say.
What is making it be the magnet that you know it is?
-
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
Uh, I've seen and worked with vacuums before. I've got a vacuum pump right here in my house I can use if I want to work with a vacuum.
I've experienced a vacuum on parts of my body, literally touching a vacuum.
What are you going on about? Do you really think it's impossible to do such things? You really have such a tiny, closed mind, unable to grasp anything not literally in your hand.
-
Hey, it’s your idea I’m trying to understand. Maybe you tell me instead what you think is happening to help in getting it across?
If you don’t know though, that’s okay.
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from there.
It’s placed in a an external magnetic field.
Ok. Your magnet is on your table, as you say.
What is making it be the magnet that you know it is?
Exactly!
What is happening in your opinion?
Is my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
-
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
Uh, I've seen and worked with vacuums before. I've got a vacuum pump right here in my house I can use if I want to work with a vacuum.
I've experienced a vacuum on parts of my body, literally touching a vacuum.
What are you going on about? Do you really think it's impossible to do such things? You really have such a tiny, closed mind, unable to grasp anything not literally in your hand.
You've never dealt with a vacuum, no matter how much you try to push that line.
-
I'm asking you what is your evidence that magnets don't work in a vacuum, or, more succinctly, that they don't work as well in a very low pressure, near vacuum as they do outside in normal atmosphere? What's your evidence for that?
Or if you have no evidence, is it just your theory that they don't?
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
Not a perfect vacuum. But I've definitely had some experience with vacuum chambers.
And what these vacuum chambers do, to varying degrees, is remove atmosphere from the container and super low pressure environments are created as a result.
Now, one would suspect that with your theory, the lower the pressure, a magnet wouldn't be as strong as it would be in our normal atmospheric environment.
In one video, the Action Lab guy (He does a lot of interesting stuff with vacuum chambers) does an experiment to see if the hovering magnetized object will spin for a different duration in a vacuum chamber as opposed to in our atmosphere.
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber before any pressure is removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3lgJjv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber right after he has sealed it in and started the vacuum pump:
(https://i.imgur.com/RjCp3Uv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber after a great deal of pressure has been removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/QRe0zdq.png)
The object is magnetically hovering at exactly the same strength/height in both scenarios. How can it do that in a significantly lower pressure environment?
-
Not a perfect vacuum. But I've definitely had some experience with vacuum chambers.
And what these vacuum chambers do, to varying degrees, is remove atmosphere from the container and super low pressure environments are created as a result.
How do they remover atmosphere from the container. I'd like you to simply explain this.
Now, one would suspect that with your theory, the lower the pressure, a magnet wouldn't be as strong as it would be in our normal atmospheric environment.
Is it as strong?
Lowering pressure kills off electromagnetic fields. Why would that be?
In one video, the Action Lab guy (He does a lot of interesting stuff with vacuum chambers) does an experiment to see if the hovering magnetized object will spin for a different duration in a vacuum chamber as opposed to in our atmosphere.
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber before any pressure is removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3lgJjv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber right after he has sealed it in and started the vacuum pump:
(https://i.imgur.com/RjCp3Uv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber after a great deal of pressure has been removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/QRe0zdq.png)
The object is magnetically hovering at exactly the same strength/height in both scenarios. How can it do that in a significantly lower pressure environment?
Because it's not a vacuum or even close to proper lower pressure.
-
Not a perfect vacuum. But I've definitely had some experience with vacuum chambers.
And what these vacuum chambers do, to varying degrees, is remove atmosphere from the container and super low pressure environments are created as a result.
How do they remover atmosphere from the container. I'd like you to simply explain this.
With a pump.
Now, one would suspect that with your theory, the lower the pressure, a magnet wouldn't be as strong as it would be in our normal atmospheric environment.
Is it as strong?
Lowering pressure kills off electromagnetic fields. Why would that be?
Oh, maybe an assumption I had about your theory is wrong. What causes some magnets to be stronger than others is probably the better question?
In one video, the Action Lab guy (He does a lot of interesting stuff with vacuum chambers) does an experiment to see if the hovering magnetized object will spin for a different duration in a vacuum chamber as opposed to in our atmosphere.
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber before any pressure is removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3lgJjv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber right after he has sealed it in and started the vacuum pump:
(https://i.imgur.com/RjCp3Uv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber after a great deal of pressure has been removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/QRe0zdq.png)
The object is magnetically hovering at exactly the same strength/height in both scenarios. How can it do that in a significantly lower pressure environment?
Because it's not a vacuum or even close to proper lower pressure.
Look at the dial. It's at least half lower that when it started. The chamber interface kind of blocks the end result of the dial. But in all of his other vacuum experiments I'v seen, he stops the pump when the dial needle rotates all the way around counter-clockwise till its a few ticks above zero, at about the 12:04 mark usually.
I'm confused, do you believe that we can not create lower pressure environments?
-
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
Uh, I've seen and worked with vacuums before. I've got a vacuum pump right here in my house I can use if I want to work with a vacuum.
I've experienced a vacuum on parts of my body, literally touching a vacuum.
What are you going on about? Do you really think it's impossible to do such things? You really have such a tiny, closed mind, unable to grasp anything not literally in your hand.
You've never dealt with a vacuum, no matter how much you try to push that line.
LOL.
So you're claiming I have never operated a vacuum pump and never created a vacuum to work with?
Because it doesn't exist? What ever reason can you have to be so convinced I've never worked with one?
-
They are fundamentally different phenomenon and thus couldn't simply be the same reason, and yet again you dodge the issue.
We aren't talking about running at a high pressure hose, we are talking about the other side, where the water is being "drawn" in.
This is running towards the low pressure region with the high pressure pushing you towards it.
If you create a low pressure and trap it...how do you release it?
Again, I refer you to the Magdeburg hemispheres YOU brought up earlier.
I also refer you to your earlier statements about pressure.
You don't trap a low pressure, you don't release it.
Instead you remove pressure (note: not all pressure needs to be removed), and keep [high pressure] out.
You are contradicting yourself.
No, that would be you.
You are the one who makes a big deal about it always being high pressure going in.
That means you don't trap low pressure, you keep high pressure out.
It means you release low pressure, you let higher pressure in to equalise it.
If you need a simple analogy to understand it, imagine a room full of people. Now you force all of the people out of the room and close the door.
You haven't trapped emptiness in the room, you have merely kept people out of it.
When you open the door to let the people back in, you aren't letting the emptiness out, you are letting people back in.
There is no contradiction on my part.
However yet again, you have avoided the issue.
Again, this describes the interaction with the 2 attractive vortexes/flow/whatever you want to call it, for your model of how magnets work.
This should cause the magnets to come together and be quite strongly held together, just like the Magdeburg hemispheres.
And continuing with your model, if you then turned both magnets around so the repulsive vortexes face each other, they should repel.
But back in reality, if you turn both magnets around from a position where they attract one another, they still attract one another. If you turn both around from a position where they repel one another, they still repel.
Again, your model fails to explain the observed polarity of magnets.
You need to explain how either 2 attractive vortexes manages to repel one another, or how 2 repulsive vortexes manage to attract one another.
Lowering pressure kills off electromagnetic fields. Why would that be?
That is your baseless claim you are yet to substantiate in any way.
So have you considered that that isn't the case, and that lowering pressure does nothing to electromagnetic fields?
-
Not a perfect vacuum. But I've definitely had some experience with vacuum chambers.
And what these vacuum chambers do, to varying degrees, is remove atmosphere from the container and super low pressure environments are created as a result.
How do they remover atmosphere from the container. I'd like you to simply explain this.
With a pump.
Explain to me nice and simply how this pump works to enable the container to become lower pressure.
Now, one would suspect that with your theory, the lower the pressure, a magnet wouldn't be as strong as it would be in our normal atmospheric environment.
Is it as strong?
Lowering pressure kills off electromagnetic fields. Why would that be?
Oh, maybe an assumption I had about your theory is wrong. What causes some magnets to be stronger than others is probably the better question?
What is put into them, is the answer.
In one video, the Action Lab guy (He does a lot of interesting stuff with vacuum chambers) does an experiment to see if the hovering magnetized object will spin for a different duration in a vacuum chamber as opposed to in our atmosphere.
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber before any pressure is removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3lgJjv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber right after he has sealed it in and started the vacuum pump:
(https://i.imgur.com/RjCp3Uv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber after a great deal of pressure has been removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/QRe0zdq.png)
The object is magnetically hovering at exactly the same strength/height in both scenarios. How can it do that in a significantly lower pressure environment?
Because it's not a vacuum or even close to proper lower pressure.
Look at the dial. It's at least half lower that when it started. The chamber interface kind of blocks the end result of the dial. But in all of his other vacuum experiments I'v seen, he stops the pump when the dial needle rotates all the way around counter-clockwise till its a few ticks above zero, at about the 12:04 mark usually.
I'm confused, do you believe that we can not create lower pressure environments?
We can create lower pressure environments but that's all it is.
The so called near vacuum stuff is far from it.
All you're doing is cutting down on the pressurised vibration of matter inside the container by allowing it to expand out.
How you think it comes out and how I think it comes out, are two entirely different things.
-
I have no evidence because I've never seen or experienced a vacuum...and neither have you. And nor will you ever.
Uh, I've seen and worked with vacuums before. I've got a vacuum pump right here in my house I can use if I want to work with a vacuum.
I've experienced a vacuum on parts of my body, literally touching a vacuum.
What are you going on about? Do you really think it's impossible to do such things? You really have such a tiny, closed mind, unable to grasp anything not literally in your hand.
You've never dealt with a vacuum, no matter how much you try to push that line.
LOL.
So you're claiming I have never operated a vacuum pump and never created a vacuum to work with?
Because it doesn't exist? What ever reason can you have to be so convinced I've never worked with one?
A vacuum is impossible.
You may have worked with lower pressure. Many people do, even without their knowledge.
-
No, that would be you.
You are the one who makes a big deal about it always being high pressure going in.
That means you don't trap low pressure, you keep high pressure out.
It means you release low pressure, you let higher pressure in to equalise it.
If you need a simple analogy to understand it, imagine a room full of people. Now you force all of the people out of the room and close the door.
You haven't trapped emptiness in the room, you have merely kept people out of it.
When you open the door to let the people back in, you aren't letting the emptiness out, you are letting people back in.
The room isn't empty so the people left inside are trapped inside and are expanded so less fill the room.
Outside the more compressed people are locked out.
There is no emptiness and never will be.
-
What is put into them, is the answer.
Wow that is really helpful... any chance you could be a bit more specific than that? Preferably so I can use you as my primary source of information and knowledge about the world rather than having to 'Google' stuff or look it up in books. Because that after all is relying on the nonsense I am told according to you.
I would much prefer a more trustworthy source of reference such as yourself but just giving 'what is put into them' as an answer to a perfectly reasonable question is not really helping me understand anything. As you keep pointing out we don't have a clue about anything so if we cannot rely on books or the Internet to feed our knowledge then I guess we will just have to trust and rely on you...
-
What is put into them, is the answer.
Wow that is really helpful... any chance you could be a bit more specific than that? Preferably so I can use you as my primary source of information and knowledge about the world rather than having to 'Google' stuff or look it up in books. Because that after all is relying on the nonsense I am told according to you.
I would much prefer a more trustworthy source of reference such as yourself but just giving 'what is put into them' as an answer to a perfectly reasonable question is not really helping me understand anything. As you keep pointing out we don't have a clue about anything so if we cannot rely on books or the Internet to feed our knowledge then I guess we will just have to trust and rely on you...
Carry on with this guff if you feel better but don't play good cop bad cop, silly.
-
The room isn't empty so the people left inside are trapped inside and are expanded so less fill the room.
Outside the more compressed people are locked out.
Appealing to people in the room wont save you.
The people inside don't want to leave. They are not trapped.
It is those outside that are trying to get in, which are prevented from doing so.
When you open the door, you don't let the people inside get out, you let the people outside get in.
That is how it works with pressure and you have made it clear that you know that. So don't try pretending now.
Now again, can you explain the polarity of magnets? What causes either the attractive vortexes to repel one another or the repulsive vortexes to attract one another?
-
Carry on with this guff if you feel better but don't play good cop bad cop, silly.
The question was what makes one magnet stronger than another. Your answer was
What is put into them, is the answer.
Now I am asking you - the all wise, all knowing Sceptimatic exactly what that means because I can't learn anything from what you have said up to now. You couldn't provide a more vague and meaningless answer if you tried. So if we are to take all other sources of information as nonsense as you say, then what are we lest with? We have to take guidance from you since you know everything and you are always right. Except of course when you claim to be a dummy and simpleton.
I don't know what makes one magnet stronger than another so I am looking to you to tell me. And I'm afraid I need a bit more than just what is put in them. So please explain.
Another question I have for you is this. You claim that the Moon and Sun are holographic reflections off a dome surrounding the Earth. OK so when we aim a laser or a radio pulse at the Moon we get a return (reflected) signal just under 3 seconds after. All good. Must be reflecting off the dome yes? So why is it then that if we aim the laser or the radio pulse to the region of sky near to the Moon but not directly at it (say a few degrees away) we get no returned signal. Or if we aim the laser or radio pulse directly at the Sun we get no return signal either. One would think if there was some sort of dome surrounding the Earth we would get a returned or reflected signal regardless of which direction we aim the laser of radio pulse.
One possible explanation for both is that the signal has not intercepted any surface as such that would otherwise cause a reflection of the beam and the Sun is much, much further away from us than the Moon.
-
Not a perfect vacuum. But I've definitely had some experience with vacuum chambers.
And what these vacuum chambers do, to varying degrees, is remove atmosphere from the container and super low pressure environments are created as a result.
How do they remover atmosphere from the container. I'd like you to simply explain this.
With a pump.
Explain to me nice and simply how this pump works to enable the container to become lower pressure.
The vacuum pump functions by removing the molecules of air and other gases from the vacuum chamber. This results in a low-pressure environment within the chamber, commonly referred to as a vacuum.
Now, one would suspect that with your theory, the lower the pressure, a magnet wouldn't be as strong as it would be in our normal atmospheric environment.
Is it as strong?
Lowering pressure kills off electromagnetic fields. Why would that be?
Oh, maybe an assumption I had about your theory is wrong. What causes some magnets to be stronger than others is probably the better question?
What is put into them, is the answer.
I have no idea what that means? What's the what? Why so obtuse?
Does a lower pressure environment make a magnet weaker? That is my assumption from your theory. Is that assumption correct of incorrect?
In one video, the Action Lab guy (He does a lot of interesting stuff with vacuum chambers) does an experiment to see if the hovering magnetized object will spin for a different duration in a vacuum chamber as opposed to in our atmosphere.
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber before any pressure is removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/H3lgJjv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber right after he has sealed it in and started the vacuum pump:
(https://i.imgur.com/RjCp3Uv.png)
Here is the object magnetically hovering in the chamber after a great deal of pressure has been removed:
(https://i.imgur.com/QRe0zdq.png)
The object is magnetically hovering at exactly the same strength/height in both scenarios. How can it do that in a significantly lower pressure environment?
Because it's not a vacuum or even close to proper lower pressure.
Look at the dial. It's at least half lower that when it started. The chamber interface kind of blocks the end result of the dial. But in all of his other vacuum experiments I'v seen, he stops the pump when the dial needle rotates all the way around counter-clockwise till its a few ticks above zero, at about the 12:04 mark usually.
I'm confused, do you believe that we can not create lower pressure environments?
We can create lower pressure environments but that's all it is.
The so called near vacuum stuff is far from it.
All you're doing is cutting down on the pressurised vibration of matter inside the container by allowing it to expand out.
How you think it comes out and how I think it comes out, are two entirely different things.
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
Does cutting down on the pressurized vibration of matter inside the container make a magnet weaker?
-
Hey, it’s your idea I’m trying to understand. Maybe you tell me instead what you think is happening to help in getting it across?
If you don’t know though, that’s okay.
First of all let me know how you think a magnet comes about to be a magnet on your table and then we'll go on from there.
It’s placed in a an external magnetic field.
Ok. Your magnet is on your table, as you say.
What is making it be the magnet that you know it is?
Exactly!
What is happening in your opinion?
Is my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
-
The room isn't empty so the people left inside are trapped inside and are expanded so less fill the room.
Outside the more compressed people are locked out.
Appealing to people in the room wont save you.
The people inside don't want to leave. They are not trapped.
The people inside can't leave.
It is those outside that are trying to get in, which are prevented from doing so.
Only by the door.
When you open the door, you don't let the people inside get out, you let the people outside get in.
Yep. You let the people back in who you let out in the first place. It's called equalisation.
That is how it works with pressure and you have made it clear that you know that. So don't try pretending now.
Yep, it is how it works.
The problem you have is what you said at first. The room being empty and you know the room cannot be empty of people in this scenario of pressure analogy.
-
It can be empty if evrey person inside is randomly walking about a d rheres a doorman grabbing them as they come by and throws them out.
Given long enough, doorman will eventually grab all the people.
-
Now I am asking you - the all wise, all knowing Sceptimatic exactly what that means because I can't learn anything from what you have said up to now.
Is this charade for your internet buddies?
Are you after a pat on the back?
-
The vacuum pump functions by removing the molecules of air and other gases from the vacuum chamber. This results in a low-pressure environment within the chamber, commonly referred to as a vacuum.
Explain too me using any analogy that will fit for you how this pump works in removing molecules from the chamber, as you say.
Don't veer away from this, let's get it answered.
I know how it works from my side, I just want you to show that you know it from your side and why.
-
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
I'm not sure I can so people will understand it.
People don't seem to know how magnets work or are made to be magnets in terms of what this attraction and repelling is.
-
It can be empty if evrey person inside is randomly walking about a d rheres a doorman grabbing them as they come by and throws them out.
Given long enough, doorman will eventually grab all the people.
Nobody can randomly walk about. They have to be attached with no free space.
-
So the person is not a person but an ever expanding sponge limited only by the resistive crush of the container?
So how are sponges being removed?
Are sponges being removed and not merely just smaller?
Or if removed, how does a really big sponge of dimension XYZ compare to manymany little sponges equalling rhe size of XYZ?
If oxcupying he same space, why is the resistance lessened?
-
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
I'm not sure I can so people will understand it.
Im sorry. It must be frustrating to think you have new solutions but not be able to communicate them.
Do you ever think about this? That you seem to consistently have problems communicating your ideas effectively?
I know you think that it is because we are all indoctrinated and are mentally incapable of conceptualizing radically new ideas about the world, but do you also consider that it might be that the ideas themself are not well formed, not consistent enough to express clearly?
You always want things explained simply, brought down to their basics. You ask again and again for this and say that if someone cant do it, it means they dont understand it, and that an idea that can not be simply and clearly expressed is not worth anything.
And yet, your ideas can not be explained simply and clearly. Does this give you pause?
-
People don't seem to know how magnets work or are made to be magnets in terms of what this attraction and repelling is.
Is it a case of people not knowing or is it a case of you not accepting the explanations given? It is to do with the polarity and alignment of the atoms making up the magnet. You will probably say that is what I've been told but if you can explain it better and produce your evidence then be my guest.
Magnetism only occurs with certain materials so it must be something to do with the atoms making up those materials. Mostly magnetism is related to ferrous (iron based) materials.
-
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
I'm not sure I can so people will understand it.
Try a picture.
Pictures worth a 1000 words.
Words that you cant skew the meaning of.
-
The vacuum pump functions by removing the molecules of air and other gases from the vacuum chamber. This results in a low-pressure environment within the chamber, commonly referred to as a vacuum.
Explain too me using any analogy that will fit for you how this pump works in removing molecules from the chamber, as you say.
Don't veer away from this, let's get it answered.
I know how it works from my side, I just want you to show that you know it from your side and why.
I need answers to these questions first:
Oh, maybe an assumption I had about your theory is wrong. What causes some magnets to be stronger than others is probably the better question?
What is put into them, is the answer.
I have no idea what that means? What's the what? Why so obtuse?
Does a lower pressure environment make a magnet weaker? That is my assumption from your theory. Is that assumption correct of incorrect?
We can create lower pressure environments but that's all it is.
The so called near vacuum stuff is far from it.
All you're doing is cutting down on the pressurised vibration of matter inside the container by allowing it to expand out.
How you think it comes out and how I think it comes out, are two entirely different things.
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
Does cutting down on the pressurized vibration of matter inside the container make a magnet weaker?
-
Yep, it is how it works.
Good, now stop with the deflection and address the issue.
How do 2 attractive vortexes repel, or how do 2 repulsive vortexes attract?
-
People don't seem to know how magnets work or are made to be magnets in terms of what this attraction and repelling is.
I just spent 20 seconds to type in 'how do magnets work' into Google and got over 87.6 million results. I'm pretty sure that if you did the same you would also get a similar figure. So it seems like people do have an idea how magnets work. Rather than declaring flatly on here that people don't seem to know how magnets work why don't you spend a few minutes doing your own research to answer your own question.
Or when you say people don't seem to know how magnets work do you really mean that people don't seem to understand how you believe magnets work? You live in denial of conventional scientific explanations for it seems everything so obviously you need to have your own explanations. What it seems to me is that no one else seems to understand your explanations.
-
So the person is not a person but an ever expanding sponge limited only by the resistive crush of the container?
Are sponges being removed and not merely just smaller?
They remove themselves by expanding into others to push them out...as long as there is a lower pressure created for them to do so, which is where the pump comes in..
-
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
I'm not sure I can so people will understand it.
Im sorry. It must be frustrating to think you have new solutions but not be able to communicate them.
Do you ever think about this? That you seem to consistently have problems communicating your ideas effectively?
I know you think that it is because we are all indoctrinated and are mentally incapable of conceptualizing radically new ideas about the world, but do you also consider that it might be that the ideas themself are not well formed, not consistent enough to express clearly?
You always want things explained simply, brought down to their basics. You ask again and again for this and say that if someone cant do it, it means they dont understand it, and that an idea that can not be simply and clearly expressed is not worth anything.
And yet, your ideas can not be explained simply and clearly. Does this give you pause?
Don't worry about it.
-
People don't seem to know how magnets work or are made to be magnets in terms of what this attraction and repelling is.
Is it a case of people not knowing or is it a case of you not accepting the explanations given? It is to do with the polarity and alignment of the atoms making up the magnet. You will probably say that is what I've been told but if you can explain it better and produce your evidence then be my guest.
Magnetism only occurs with certain materials so it must be something to do with the atoms making up those materials. Mostly magnetism is related to ferrous (iron based) materials.
Explain the polarity alignment. Tell me what it is and why it happens.
Explain to me how a magnet holds what it holds to does what it does.
-
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
I'm not sure I can so people will understand it.
Im sorry. It must be frustrating to think you have new solutions but not be able to communicate them.
Do you ever think about this? That you seem to consistently have problems communicating your ideas effectively?
I know you think that it is because we are all indoctrinated and are mentally incapable of conceptualizing radically new ideas about the world, but do you also consider that it might be that the ideas themself are not well formed, not consistent enough to express clearly?
You always want things explained simply, brought down to their basics. You ask again and again for this and say that if someone cant do it, it means they dont understand it, and that an idea that can not be simply and clearly expressed is not worth anything.
And yet, your ideas can not be explained simply and clearly. Does this give you pause?
Don't worry about it.
I won’t. It’s okay. Just know it could feel bad to think you have such great ideas, but that you just can’t explain them clearly for others.
It doesn’t bother you though? How do you think other people see it? Where you say again and again to explain simply, and if soneone can’t it’s not a worthwhile concept, and then you can’t even do it for your own concepts?
Do you think this turns people off to your musings?
-
People don't seem to know how magnets work or are made to be magnets in terms of what this attraction and repelling is.
Is it a case of people not knowing or is it a case of you not accepting the explanations given? It is to do with the polarity and alignment of the atoms making up the magnet. You will probably say that is what I've been told but if you can explain it better and produce your evidence then be my guest.
Magnetism only occurs with certain materials so it must be something to do with the atoms making up those materials. Mostly magnetism is related to ferrous (iron based) materials.
Explain the polarity alignment. Tell me what it is and why it happens.
Explain to me how a magnet holds what it holds to does what it does.
Explain why the hypocrasy of your request goes as unaddressed as the many many basic questions you have yet to address?
-
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
I don't.
Extreme low pressure is the best I can describe.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.
Does cutting down on the pressurized vibration of matter inside the container make a magnet weaker?
If it's extreme....yes.
-
I just spent 20 seconds to type in 'how do magnets work' into Google and got over 87.6 million results.
Why did you need to do it? I thought you knew it all about magnets.
If you know nothing then you have no argument with me.
-
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
I'm not sure I can so people will understand it.
Im sorry. It must be frustrating to think you have new solutions but not be able to communicate them.
Do you ever think about this? That you seem to consistently have problems communicating your ideas effectively?
I know you think that it is because we are all indoctrinated and are mentally incapable of conceptualizing radically new ideas about the world, but do you also consider that it might be that the ideas themself are not well formed, not consistent enough to express clearly?
You always want things explained simply, brought down to their basics. You ask again and again for this and say that if someone cant do it, it means they dont understand it, and that an idea that can not be simply and clearly expressed is not worth anything.
And yet, your ideas can not be explained simply and clearly. Does this give you pause?
Don't worry about it.
I won’t. It’s okay. Just know it could feel bad to think you have such great ideas, but that you just can’t explain them clearly for others.
It doesn’t bother you though? How do you think other people see it? Where you say again and again to explain simply, and if soneone can’t it’s not a worthwhile concept, and then you can’t even do it for your own concepts?
Do you think this turns people off to your musings?
I'm not bothered if people are turned off. It's those that try to do the jigsaw who are worth my time.
-
So the person is not a person but an ever expanding sponge limited only by the resistive crush of the container?
Are sponges being removed and not merely just smaller?
They remove themselves by expanding into others to push them out...as long as there is a lower pressure created for them to do so, which is where the pump comes in..
So why cant the pump pull the last sponge out?
Can the sponge be cut into smaller chunks?
-
So the person is not a person but an ever expanding sponge limited only by the resistive crush of the container?
Are sponges being removed and not merely just smaller?
They remove themselves by expanding into others to push them out...as long as there is a lower pressure created for them to do so, which is where the pump comes in..
So why cant the pump pull the last sponge out?
Can the sponge be cut into smaller chunks?
It isn't a case of last sponge but a chamber full of expanded sponges that are incapable of pushing out any further against each other with any significance.
The less push the less vibration and sound and energy.
And the pump does not pull anything out.
The chamber empties itself of pressure as long as the external exit becomes a lower pressure channel.
The pump creates this by pushing external atmosphere away.
-
Ok
No arguments there.
So if the outside is all pushed away then the inside will continue to expand.
Sponged could be heated to add the lack of energy.
Yes no?
-
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
I don't.
Extreme low pressure is the best I can describe.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.
Does cutting down on the pressurized vibration of matter inside the container make a magnet weaker?
If it's extreme....yes.
What would you define as "extreme"? Given what normal at say sea level atmospheric pressure is, about 1 mbar, what would be the point where a magnet would weaken?
-
Why did you need to do it? I thought you knew it all about magnets.
I didn't. But obviously you can type so what is stopping you from spending 20 seconds of your life to type questions into Google and then doing some research of your own? Instead you just seem to rely on us to tell you everything. And we obviously have no clue about anything as you keep pointing out. So if we are that clueless why keep asking us to explain things to you? Do it yourself.
-
Explain the polarity alignment. Tell me what it is and why it happens.
Explain to me how a magnet holds what it holds to does what it does.
That is what you are meant to be doing.
Stop deflecting.
If you want an explanation from others, how about you admit your explanation doesn't work?
After all, you are the one who started out claiming to be able to explain them all using air.
Again, can you explain the observed polarity? Can you explain why if you take 2 magnets in an orientation that repel, turning both magnets around still results in them repelling; and if you take 2 magnets in an orientation that attract, turning both magnets around still results in them attracting?
Because with your "explanation" so far, that simply doesn't work.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.
As has been repeatedly explained to you, that is not the case AT ALL!
What you are describing is known as a perfect vacuum, or ideal vacuum, which simply doesn't exist.
But in general, a vacuum does not need to be perfect.
A vacuum is simply significantly lower pressure than 1 atmosphere.
This includes a low vacuum, which goes from roughly 100th of a vacuum up to basically 1 atm.
It also includes things like UHV, which is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of an atmosphere.
-
Scepti makes up his own definitions as he goes along. Then he asks us to explain or define things which are obviously going to be different to ours. That means he can then dismiss whatever we say as nonsense which further feeds his already over-inflated and deluded ego.
-
So if we are that clueless why keep asking us to explain things to you? Do it yourself.
There is no source to query for your knowledge but you!
I think scepti is asking for you to explain your knowledge, to verify that you in fact have it (most don't, especially not internally/implicitly) and to make more clear / tease out the differences (potential paradoxes etc.) between your understanding and theirs.
It isn't something a google search can accomplish.
-
Is there a reason you don’t want to try to clarify your model so others can understand it?
Why the reluctance?
I'm not sure I can so people will understand it.
Im sorry. It must be frustrating to think you have new solutions but not be able to communicate them.
Do you ever think about this? That you seem to consistently have problems communicating your ideas effectively?
I know you think that it is because we are all indoctrinated and are mentally incapable of conceptualizing radically new ideas about the world, but do you also consider that it might be that the ideas themself are not well formed, not consistent enough to express clearly?
You always want things explained simply, brought down to their basics. You ask again and again for this and say that if someone cant do it, it means they dont understand it, and that an idea that can not be simply and clearly expressed is not worth anything.
And yet, your ideas can not be explained simply and clearly. Does this give you pause?
Don't worry about it.
I won’t. It’s okay. Just know it could feel bad to think you have such great ideas, but that you just can’t explain them clearly for others.
It doesn’t bother you though? How do you think other people see it? Where you say again and again to explain simply, and if soneone can’t it’s not a worthwhile concept, and then you can’t even do it for your own concepts?
Do you think this turns people off to your musings?
I'm not bothered if people are turned off. It's those that try to do the jigsaw who are worth my time.
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
On one hand if people can not explain something simply and clearly then they do not comprehend it.
On the other hand you can not explain your own ideas simply and clearly.
Is this not a problem for you?
-
So if we are that clueless why keep asking us to explain things to you? Do it yourself.
There is no source to query for your knowledge but you!
I think scepti is asking for you to explain your knowledge, to verify that you in fact have it (most don't, especially not internally/implicitly) and to make more clear / tease out the differences (potential paradoxes etc.) between your understanding and theirs.
It isn't something a google search can accomplish.
Why not? You don't need to be some paragon expert in whatever field to have an understanding of how something works.
"How do magnets work?" or most any other subject is something anyone with internet access can ask and there are plenty of sources that can easily explain it to you. You can agree or disagree based on whatever source you're looking at but your missing the point. Scepti isn't trying to collaborate his knowledge with anyone else's. His tactics are that if anyone isn't an complete expert on (insert subject here) that they have no platform on which to explain anything to him so he can completely disregard it. It's an argument from authority and is used by those who can't back up whatever claim they are making.
-
Ok
No arguments there.
So if the outside is all pushed away then the inside will continue to expand.
Sponged could be heated to add the lack of energy.
Yes no?
No.
The opposite happens. There is much less agitation and pressure, meaning the friction is minimal.
-
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
I don't.
Extreme low pressure is the best I can describe.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.
Does cutting down on the pressurized vibration of matter inside the container make a magnet weaker?
If it's extreme....yes.
What would you define as "extreme"? Given what normal at say sea level atmospheric pressure is, about 1 mbar, what would be the point where a magnet would weaken?
When pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation.
-
Why did you need to do it? I thought you knew it all about magnets.
I didn't. But obviously you can type so what is stopping you from spending 20 seconds of your life to type questions into Google and then doing some research of your own? Instead you just seem to rely on us to tell you everything. And we obviously have no clue about anything as you keep pointing out. So if we are that clueless why keep asking us to explain things to you? Do it yourself.
Take a back seat.
-
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
What inconsistencies?
-
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
What inconsistencies?
The one he pointed out and you ignored.
If others cannot explain something "simply" then you dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot explain your nonsense "simply", but still accept it.
For example, can you explain (simply) the polarity of magnets? If not, why don't you dismiss your claims as nonsense?
-
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
What inconsistencies?
The one he pointed out and you ignored.
If others cannot explain something "simply" then you dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot explain your nonsense "simply", but still accept it.
For example, can you explain (simply) the polarity of magnets? If not, why don't you dismiss your claims as nonsense?
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
Very few people have even got close.
Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.
People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to carry that on but you create your own issues by doing it and you learn little to nothing about my set up.
-
You sre dishonest until you start drawibg some pictures and takinh photos of your tu-tube experiment
-
You sre dishonest until you start drawibg some pictures and takinh photos of your tu-tube experiment
You stick to that and you're welcome to that thought.
-
Dodgdgodge.
The dodge ball champion continues his reign.
-
Regardless of what we do or don't believe, we all experience the same things. If hold a pebble in my hand and let it go it falls. How I explain that and how anyone else (including Sceptimatic) explains it is really irrelevant. Things do what they do and that is really all that is important I think.
So if Scepti wants to dismiss gravity as silly nonsense and attribute what we experience as gravity to some sort of atmospheric pressure then that's his prerogative. As long as he understands his own explanations and they help him to understand the world better for him then what is the harm in that?
I once had difficulty understanding the photoelectric effect until a physics tutor I had at the time said think of it in terms of your pay slip. Net pay (the energy of the photon released) = Gross pay (the incident photon energy) minus tax (the energy coefficient of the material concerned).
-
Things fall at a predictable rate.
I used this instead of gravity because he doesnt like the word.
However
The last few months (yes months) have been getting him to understand basic geometry.
Triangles and circles.
-
Absolutely they do. And I agree atmospheric pressure is a bit more random and locally variable. So if things falling were due to atmospheric pressure then I'm pretty sure the weight of things would vary considerably more across different parts of the world. And even more local variations at the same height. Also our weight would vary from day to day as atmospheric pressure varies.
-
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.
People who simply think of wind blowing or walking in a breeze, will always struggle like hell to understand it.
The same reason people don't understand what is happening in a so called vacuum chamber.
-
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
I don't.
Extreme low pressure is the best I can describe.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.
Does cutting down on the pressurized vibration of matter inside the container make a magnet weaker?
If it's extreme....yes.
What would you define as "extreme"? Given what normal at say sea level atmospheric pressure is, about 1 mbar, what would be the point where a magnet would weaken?
When pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation.
Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?
-
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure
What causes pressure in the atmosphere do you think? I would say gravity but obviously you deny gravity exists so what's your alternative?
You like simple explanations.. suitable for kids. So here is an example that I found.
https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/atmospheric-pressure/604037
Reading through this you will see mention of another of your favourite words. Compression. So what do you think is causing the compression. I'll give you a clue. It begins with g.
-
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
What inconsistencies?
The one he pointed out and you ignored.
If others cannot explain something "simply" then you dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot explain your nonsense "simply", but still accept it.
For example, can you explain (simply) the polarity of magnets? If not, why don't you dismiss your claims as nonsense?
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
Yes, you definitely need a way of simply and clearly explaining your ideas if you ever want anyone to grasp them.
What do you think is stopping you from presenting it in a simple and clear manner?
-
Like a drawing.
-
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
I don't.
Extreme low pressure is the best I can describe.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.
You are telling people who have worked with vacuums that they don't exist.
It's not the craziest thing you have claimed, but it's certainly up there. If you can't understand it, it's not real, is that it?
-
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
I have, the problem is that it is full of so many internal contradictions and has no chance of matching reality. But I still let you try to show that that is wrong by explaining these problems.
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.
The main distinction between me and Jane is that Jane didn't point out all the problems.
She knew it didn't have any chance of matching reality due to all the problems with it, including how it contradicts reality and itself. But she just wanted to know everything your model had, rather than wanting a model to match reality.
People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
No, I notice a key part of your model not matching reality.
I call your continual avoidance of that issue dishonest and pathetic and all the rest. For your model, it simply means it is wrong.
There are plenty of examples of this. The polarity of magnets is just the most recent.
Any time there is a problem with your model where it fails to match reality you do whatever you can to dodge this issue, even when it shows your model must be fundamentally wrong.
One tactic you use is to try to switch between different topics.
Yet you then tell me and others to just stick to one.
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.
Understand the pressure gradient and you understand that the atmosphere pushes things up, not down, as well as trying to crush it inwards, not down.
-
Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?
The strength of the chamber is one thing. The ability to push against the external atmosphere with a pump to allow natural decompression of matter inside the chamber is also massively key.
We can simulate a very low pressure but not what you see inside a simple bell jar. That's not even close.
You need something that can create the pressures that are closer to the dome ceiling.
Super fluids/gases.
-
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure
What causes pressure in the atmosphere do you think? I would say gravity but obviously you deny gravity exists so what's your alternative?
You like simple explanations.. suitable for kids. So here is an example that I found.
https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/atmospheric-pressure/604037
Reading through this you will see mention of another of your favourite words. Compression. So what do you think is causing the compression. I'll give you a clue. It begins with g.
How about you explain how gravity causes pressure.
Just explain it in your own words...nice and simple.
Don't go off on a frenzied dig at me, just explain what's going on.
-
Yes, you definitely need a way of simply and clearly explaining your ideas if you ever want anyone to grasp them.
What do you think is stopping you from presenting it in a simple and clear manner?
I think I am presenting it in a simple and clear manner. The issue is in people piecing a little bit of the jigsaw from my side and to hold that piece in position to then add to it.
What I see is, people do that then discard it and go off on a tangent, then come right back to the first piece again.
I lose interest in those people and interest in further explanations.
I need to see a person grasp stuff and then we can move on.
A person grasping a little and then going into a big dig of " you're lying, you don't know sheet" and all the rest of it, then come back at me with, read up on it .
It just becomes pointless.
I await a person who is willing to actually go past the silver platter explanations of mainstream ideal, handed out by so called officials/authority...and go into alternate mode. That's the best way of understanding.
Anyone who hangs onto gravity without actually knowing what it is but accepts it for ease of life journey, will likely not legitimately try to understand alternates to that mindset.
I've come across many like you who make out you are trying to grasp stuff and then join the little play ground crowd of bullies who then go into nah nah frenzy.
Maybe you're the same, maybe you're not.
Let's see what you've got as well.
It has to work both ways and your mindset of " oh well, if you don't want to, it;'s up to you" carry on, gets you nowhere with me.
If you're genuine then ask the right questions and stick to it before you move on. Do it for you, not for anyone else.
-
You are telling people who have worked with vacuums that they don't exist.
It's not the craziest thing you have claimed, but it's certainly up there. If you can't understand it, it's not real, is that it?
They don't exist.
If you want to re-engage then deal with low pressure and tell me how it works from your side.
Can you do that?
Explain it from start to finish and let's see what you have.
I'll question you on it.
By all means do your usual of " oh here we go, he wants us to do all the work" carry on...and if so, just take a back seat with me.
-
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
I have, the problem is that it is full of so many internal contradictions and has no chance of matching reality. But I still let you try to show that that is wrong by explaining these problems.
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.
The main distinction between me and Jane is that Jane didn't point out all the problems.
She knew it didn't have any chance of matching reality due to all the problems with it, including how it contradicts reality and itself. But she just wanted to know everything your model had, rather than wanting a model to match reality.
People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
No, I notice a key part of your model not matching reality.
I call your continual avoidance of that issue dishonest and pathetic and all the rest. For your model, it simply means it is wrong.
There are plenty of examples of this. The polarity of magnets is just the most recent.
Any time there is a problem with your model where it fails to match reality you do whatever you can to dodge this issue, even when it shows your model must be fundamentally wrong.
One tactic you use is to try to switch between different topics.
Yet you then tell me and others to just stick to one.
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.
Understand the pressure gradient and you understand that the atmosphere pushes things up, not down, as well as trying to crush it inwards, not down.
Break that down into one thing at a time and I'll deal with it.
-
How about you explain how gravity causes pressure.
Just explain it in your own words...nice and simple.
Sure. Molecules making up the atmosphere are pulled down towards Earth surface by gravity. That is why atmosphere is more dense at surface level. Because upper layers are pushing down on lower levels creating more pressure at the surface.
Prove me wrong.
-
How about you explain how gravity causes pressure.
Just explain it in your own words...nice and simple.
Sure. Molecules making up the atmosphere are pulled down towards Earth surface by gravity.
Explain the pull down towards Earth.
If it's gravity then explain what the gravity pull is.
That is why atmosphere is more dense at surface level.
More dense due to a pull?
Because upper layers are pushing down on lower levels creating more pressure at the surface.
Prove me wrong.
How are upper layers pushing down on lower layers to create more pressure?
If it's gravity then show me how and why it works to now become a push, whereas is was a pull, previous, by your reckoning.
-
While you wait for a response why not explain how an atom, which is measured in the nanometer range, can expand to be meters in size.
-
At ground level there is more atmosphere above us than there is below us. All of that air is being pulled down towards the Earths core (and centre of gravity) so we experience more pressure at surface level than we would in the stratosphere.
Imagine lying down and having one person lying on top of you. You would feel the weight of that person lying on top of you as pressure. Now imagine ten people lying on top of you. How much pressure do you feel compared to people higher up the pile.
Now think of divers. Divers experience greater pressures the deeper they dive because they have more water above them being pulled down by gravity.
-
Yes, you definitely need a way of simply and clearly explaining your ideas if you ever want anyone to grasp them.
What do you think is stopping you from presenting it in a simple and clear manner?
I think I am presenting it in a simple and clear manner. The issue is in people piecing a little bit of the jigsaw from my side and to hold that piece in position to then add to it.
What I see is, people do that then discard it and go off on a tangent, then come right back to the first piece again.
I lose interest in those people and interest in further explanations.
I need to see a person grasp stuff and then we can move on.
A person grasping a little and then going into a big dig of " you're lying, you don't know sheet" and all the rest of it, then come back at me with, read up on it .
It just becomes pointless.
I await a person who is willing to actually go past the silver platter explanations of mainstream ideal, handed out by so called officials/authority...and go into alternate mode. That's the best way of understanding.
Anyone who hangs onto gravity without actually knowing what it is but accepts it for ease of life journey, will likely not legitimately try to understand alternates to that mindset.
I've come across many like you who make out you are trying to grasp stuff and then join the little play ground crowd of bullies who then go into nah nah frenzy.
Maybe you're the same, maybe you're not.
Let's see what you've got as well.
It has to work both ways and your mindset of " oh well, if you don't want to, it;'s up to you" carry on, gets you nowhere with me.
If you're genuine then ask the right questions and stick to it before you move on. Do it for you, not for anyone else.
Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!
I read carefully everything you said, and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
-
While you wait for a response why not explain how an atom, which is measured in the nanometer range, can expand to be meters in size.
It can't.
-
At ground level there is more atmosphere above us than there is below us. All of that air is being pulled down towards the Earths core (and centre of gravity) so we experience more pressure at surface level than we would in the stratosphere.
Imagine lying down and having one person lying on top of you. You would feel the weight of that person lying on top of you as pressure. Now imagine ten people lying on top of you. How much pressure do you feel compared to people higher up the pile.
Now think of divers. Divers experience greater pressures the deeper they dive because they have more water above them being pulled down by gravity.
Is gravity a pull? Or is it a push, as far as you're concerned?
You say push and pull, so explain the pull and push.
-
As far as I'm concerned gravity is a pull. I am standing on the Earth because the centre of gravity (centre of the Earth) is pulling me towards it. However the surface of the Earth itself is pushing back against that with equal magnitude. So there is no resultant force and so I go nowhere. A state or equilibrium exists.
If a sink hole was to suddenly open up beneath me I would fall into it. The equilibrium would be broken so I would be pulled nearer to the centre of gravity. I would continue to fall until I reached another solid surface (bottom of the hole for example). Further I fall the faster I will fall.
The rate of acceleration due to gravity is always the same regardless of where you are on Earth. How would you explain that using atmospheric pressure because the pressure of the atmosphere varies with both height and locally. Hence we have wind and weather. Isobars are regions of equal air pressure. So according to you as air pressure varies so too would our weight.
Gravity, in our experience up to now is only ever an attractive force though. A an attractive force which exists between two masses.
-
Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!
I read carefully everything you said, and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Sort of, yes.
-
As far as I'm concerned gravity is a pull. I am standing on the Earth because the centre of gravity (centre of the Earth) is pulling me towards it. However the surface of the Earth itself is pushing back against that with equal magnitude. So there is no resultant force and so I go nowhere.
Gravity, in our experience up to now is only ever an attractive force though.
Ok, so you get pulled down but you're also pushed up in equal measure.
Is this what you're saying?
-
Yep. That is Newtons 3rd law is not? For every action force there is an equal but opposite reaction force.
If two forces of equal magnitude but opposite direction (force is a vector quantity) then the resultant force (net force) will be zero because they cancel each other out.
-
Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!
I read carefully everything you said, and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Sort of, yes.
Only sort of? What is wrong and what is right? Can you say simply and clearly so I dont only have a partial understanding?
-
Yep. That is Newtons 3rd law is not? For every action force there is an equal but opposite reaction force.
If two forces of equal magnitude but opposite direction (force is a vector quantity) then the resultant force (net force) will be zero because they cancel each other out.
Ok. Now let's bring your moon into the equation.
what is it? One sixth gravity of Earth's as we're told.
Ok, so let's see how the moon pulls up the sea.
Any idea?
I'd also like to know how the inner Earth pulls everything towards the centre.
-
Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!
I read carefully everything you said, and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Sort of, yes.
Only sort of? What is wrong and what is right? Can you say simply and clearly so I dont only have a partial understanding?
I said you're sort of on the right path.
Just go along with that.
-
Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?
The strength of the chamber is one thing. The ability to push against the external atmosphere with a pump to allow natural decompression of matter inside the chamber is also massively key.
We can simulate a very low pressure but not what you see inside a simple bell jar. That's not even close.
You need something that can create the pressures that are closer to the dome ceiling.
Super fluids/gases.
Is it incorrect to say that in your theory, the lower the atmospheric pressure, the weaker the magnet?
-
You are telling people who have worked with vacuums that they don't exist.
It's not the craziest thing you have claimed, but it's certainly up there. If you can't understand it, it's not real, is that it?
They don't exist.
If you want to re-engage then deal with low pressure and tell me how it works from your side.
Can you do that?
Explain it from start to finish and let's see what you have.
I'll question you on it.
By all means do your usual of " oh here we go, he wants us to do all the work" carry on...and if so, just take a back seat with me.
What do you expect when you make wild claims, then demand people explain concepts you should be able to figure out for yourself? And if anyone tries, you completely ignore it, fail to understand anything about it, and dismiss it all as lies.
So yes, do your own homework. Learn how things are supposed to function, then show us where you think it's wrong. Learn the theory.
But you don't do that, you just claim nothing works, nothing is real, all conspiracies and lies.
-
Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!
I read carefully everything you said, and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Sort of, yes.
Only sort of? What is wrong and what is right? Can you say simply and clearly so I dont only have a partial understanding?
I said you're sort of on the right path.
Just go along with that.
Okay. So there is a flow of broken down atmospheric molecules through the solid metal magnet, in one side and out the other and looping back around. What does this do to give my little magnet its interesting properties?
-
Ok. Now let's bring your moon into the equation.
what is it? One sixth gravity of Earth's as we're told.
Yep that's we are told. Obviously that's wrong isn't it because as we (..sorry you) know the Moon is actually a holographic projection/reflection.
I'd also like to know how the inner Earth pulls everything towards the centre.
So what are you going to do then to find out the answer to that question? Why is the sky blue? Why does the Sun look yellow? Why are some stars brighter than others and some show different colours? Why does toast always land butter side down? Life is full of questions isn't it! How do we find out the answers to those questions? Well we could look them up if we accept everything we are told or read. Or we could make them up if we prefer to question everything we are told or read. What other choice do we have? How do we get to know anything?
-
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
I have, the problem is that it is full of so many internal contradictions and has no chance of matching reality. But I still let you try to show that that is wrong by explaining these problems.
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.
The main distinction between me and Jane is that Jane didn't point out all the problems.
She knew it didn't have any chance of matching reality due to all the problems with it, including how it contradicts reality and itself. But she just wanted to know everything your model had, rather than wanting a model to match reality.
People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
No, I notice a key part of your model not matching reality.
I call your continual avoidance of that issue dishonest and pathetic and all the rest. For your model, it simply means it is wrong.
There are plenty of examples of this. The polarity of magnets is just the most recent.
Any time there is a problem with your model where it fails to match reality you do whatever you can to dodge this issue, even when it shows your model must be fundamentally wrong.
One tactic you use is to try to switch between different topics.
Yet you then tell me and others to just stick to one.
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.
Understand the pressure gradient and you understand that the atmosphere pushes things up, not down, as well as trying to crush it inwards, not down.
Break that down into one thing at a time and I'll deal with it.
No, you wont.
When it is one thing at a time you deflect from the issue, play dumb, insult me by claiming I'm twisting what you say, or if it isn't up to the problem yet, you just go along until it shows a massive problem and then do one of the other options.
This post shows an understanding of your claim about magnets and why it cannot match reality.
Read it and tell me what part you think is wrong.
If you like, start at the top, and just go through one part at a time.
Because I have no interest in your useless back and forth of trying to get you to accept 1 point at a time, where you do whatever you can to avoid any part that shows you are wrong.
So go read, start from the top, and tell me when you find something that you think is wrong, and explain why it is wrong.
If you can't, stop pretending you can explain anything with your garbage models.
-
The issue is in people piecing a little bit of the jigsaw from my side and to hold that piece in position to then add to it.
What I see is, people do that then discard it and go off on a tangent, then come right back to the first piece again.
That is actually what you do so often it isn't funny.
You provide one piece to try to explain one thing, but then throw it away and make a new piece to try to describe another thing, even though they directly contradict each other.
You hate it when people like me then keep the first piece and show how it contradicts the second piece or that the second piece simply doesn't fit in with it.
The above is a quite simple example of that.
I keep the pieces of your jigsaw, assemble it and show that it doesn't match reality.
But because that so clearly shows that your claims don't match reality, you object and refuse to deal with it.
You want us to only ever focus on a single piece at a time, that way you can pretend that single piece is perfect with no fault and ignore all the problems that it causes. And you do this with basically everything.
I await a person who is willing to actually go past the silver platter explanations of mainstream ideal, handed out by so called officials/authority...and go into alternate mode. That's the best way of understanding.
You mean you await a person who is willing to just accept whatever BS you spout without thinking at all. That is not a way of understanding at all.
That is a way of indoctrinating people.
I've come across many like you who make out you are trying to grasp stuff and then join the little play ground crowd of bullies who then go into nah nah frenzy.
Have you considered that perhaps you and your claims are the problem?
That these people make a genuine attempt to grasp stuff, realise it doesn't match reality and try to bring up these problems, only for you to repeatedly ignore these faults and insult people who bring them up?
Have you considered that perhaps you are the bully who goes into a "nah nah frenzy" with your irrational hatred of the globe and repeatedly calling it nonsense even though you can find no fault with it at all?
If you're genuine then ask the right questions and stick to it before you move on. Do it for you, not for anyone else.
The problem is that with you, the "right questions" only include those you think you can answer without showing you are wrong.
If it is a legitimate question which someone who is actually trying to understand your model would ask, but it shows your model is wrong, you reject it.
-
It was the same response to wehn he was given a clear video of a 3d simulation and he dismisses it away by requesting a specific time point for discusssion.
He had no relevant point to dismiss the video and instead chose to deflect by asking us to describe a point on the video.
-
Yep. That is Newtons 3rd law is not? For every action force there is an equal but opposite reaction force.
If two forces of equal magnitude but opposite direction (force is a vector quantity) then the resultant force (net force) will be zero because they cancel each other out.
I wouldn't say that part is Newton's third law.
Newton's third law says that the Earth is being pulled towards you with the same force.
It is then a separate interaction between you and the surface of Earth, where you are pushing down into Earth and Earth is pushing you up.
The equal and opposite reaction apply on different objects, one on you and one on Earth.
Only sort of? What is wrong and what is right? Can you say simply and clearly so I dont only have a partial understanding?
No, he can't. Because if he did then you would have him pinned down with clear claims about how his model works, which you can then use to show that his model doesn't actually work, because predictions from the model don't match reality.
He needs to keep it vague, so anytime his model fails to match reality, he can pretend that it is all your fault for not understanding it, rather than his fault and the fault of his model for not matching reality.
-
Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?
The strength of the chamber is one thing. The ability to push against the external atmosphere with a pump to allow natural decompression of matter inside the chamber is also massively key.
We can simulate a very low pressure but not what you see inside a simple bell jar. That's not even close.
You need something that can create the pressures that are closer to the dome ceiling.
Super fluids/gases.
Is it incorrect to say that in your theory, the lower the atmospheric pressure, the weaker the magnet?
No.
-
Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!
I read carefully everything you said, and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Sort of, yes.
Only sort of? What is wrong and what is right? Can you say simply and clearly so I dont only have a partial understanding?
I said you're sort of on the right path.
Just go along with that.
Okay. So there is a flow of broken down atmospheric molecules through the solid metal magnet, in one side and out the other and looping back around. What does this do to give my little magnet its interesting properties?
It creates pressure differences through friction/vibration.
-
Ok. Now let's bring your moon into the equation.
what is it? One sixth gravity of Earth's as we're told.
Yep that's we are told. Obviously that's wrong isn't it because as we (..sorry you) know the Moon is actually a holographic projection/reflection.
I'd also like to know how the inner Earth pulls everything towards the centre.
So what are you going to do then to find out the answer to that question? Why is the sky blue? Why does the Sun look yellow? Why are some stars brighter than others and some show different colours? Why does toast always land butter side down? Life is full of questions isn't it! How do we find out the answers to those questions? Well we could look them up if we accept everything we are told or read. Or we could make them up if we prefer to question everything we are told or read. What other choice do we have? How do we get to know anything?
At least you admit you cannot answer it.
-
There you go ignoring reality yet again.
Once more, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE OBSERVED POLARITY OF MAGNETS?
All logical thought shows that what you claim about magnets should produce fundamentally different results to what is observed in reality.
Your continued refusal to engage with this issue shows you likely know you are spouting pure garbage.
Why do you continue to pretend you have any idea at all of how magnets work when you continually refuse to address this fundamental issue with your model?
Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?
The strength of the chamber is one thing. The ability to push against the external atmosphere with a pump to allow natural decompression of matter inside the chamber is also massively key.
We can simulate a very low pressure but not what you see inside a simple bell jar. That's not even close.
You need something that can create the pressures that are closer to the dome ceiling.
Super fluids/gases.
Is it incorrect to say that in your theory, the lower the atmospheric pressure, the weaker the magnet?
No.
Why?
How does the magnet keep the same strength with a lower pressure if it is using the air around it?
-
Why?
How does the magnet keep the same strength with a lower pressure if it is using the air around it?
It doesn't.
-
At least you admit you cannot answer it.
Did I admit that I cannot answer those questions? If someone asked you why the sky is blue what would you tell them?
It doesn't.
Why not? Have you personally tested that to verify it? If so how? What property of air pressure causes magnetism? If air pressures and magnetism are related then why are only certain materials magnetic? If I get a magnet and also two screws, one made of iron the other of brass why does the magnet only attract the iron screw and not the brass one? Both are subject to the same air pressure around them.
This simple experiment provides evidence that the effect of magnetism is related to different materials. Specifically ferrous materials. It provides no evidence that it is related to air pressure.
If you take a magnet and then rub another magnet against it, the magnetic property is strengthened. If you bash it against another, non-magnetic material the magnetic effect is weakened. The air pressure in the room never changes. This again provides evidence that the magnetic properties of the magnet are related to the material it is made of and nothing to do with air pressure or indeed any property of the air itself.
-
And yet again avoid the issue of polarity which shows your model is garbage.
Why do you need to continually hide from this issue?
Is it because you know it kills your garbage?
Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?
The strength of the chamber is one thing. The ability to push against the external atmosphere with a pump to allow natural decompression of matter inside the chamber is also massively key.
We can simulate a very low pressure but not what you see inside a simple bell jar. That's not even close.
You need something that can create the pressures that are closer to the dome ceiling.
Super fluids/gases.
Is it incorrect to say that in your theory, the lower the atmospheric pressure, the weaker the magnet?
No.
Why?
How does the magnet keep the same strength with a lower pressure if it is using the air around it?
It doesn't.
Good job contradicting yourself yet again.
You now claim it doesn't keep the same strength, but lowering the atmospheric pressure doesn't make it weaker.
You can't get much more contradictory than that.
-
Perhaps Sceptimatic thinks that air pressure must have something to do with what we recognise as a magnetic effect because there is no physical contact necessary between two magnets for them to attract or repel each other. The only thing that apparently links them is the air between them.
But that just means that magnetic fields can exist in air. We cannot see a magnetic field any more than we can see an electrical field. But not being able to see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If we turn around one of the magnets the magnetic attraction becomes a magnetic repulsion because are altering the position of the magnetic poles. Dissimilar poles attract, similar poles repel. It's the same for electrical fields because there are two types (-ve and +ve) of charge. There is nothing changing in the air itself so that would have no bearing on the magnetic force itself. A magnet doesn't care whether it is surrounded by air or not.
The magnetic flux lines will be closer together nearer the magnet and further spaced further away. So distance between the magnets will affect the strength of the magnetic effect. We call it the magnetic flux intensity.
-
Did I admit that I cannot answer those questions?
Yep.
-
And yet again avoid the issue of polarity which shows your model is garbage.
Do you even know what polarity is?
-
Perhaps Sceptimatic thinks that air pressure must have something to do with what we recognise as a magnetic effect because there is no physical contact necessary between two magnets for them to attract or repel each other. The only thing that apparently links them is the air between them.
Pay more attention instead of getting into a frenzy.
Get your head around ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE rather than the air pressure you go with.
-
Get your head around atmosphere - what i means and what its made up of.
-
Get your head around atmosphere - what i means and what its made up of.
Maybe you should start again.
-
While you wait for a response why not explain how an atom, which is measured in the nanometer range, can expand to be meters in size.
It can't.
Glad you gave up on that stupid idea. Imagine atoms having to expand to fill in all gaps. Just stupid.
-
ATMO
SPHERE
The spherical shell comprised of gases that surrounds a planet.
-
Get your head around ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE rather than the air pressure you go with.
I am not getting into a 'frenzy'. I am simply trying to explain basic physics to you.
The atmosphere is made of air is it not? So atmospheric pressure is air pressure is it not?
That is true no matter how much you want to play around with HTML tags. See I can do it as well :)
Imagine atoms having to expand to fill in all gaps. Just stupid
A gas expands to fill the available volume. You don't find a small corner of your living room with no air in it do you?!? As a (fixed mass of) gas expands to fill the available volume it becomes less dense. What does that tell you about the gaps between the atoms? Also what happens to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules as it expands?
Maybe you should start again.
Atmosphere = air = gas. So air pressure = atmospheric pressure. Not hard to grasp is it?
The spherical shell comprised of gases that surrounds a planet.
Correct. Mars is only about a quarter the mass of Earth (as we are told) so no surprises that it has a lot less atmosphere than Earth. The PULL of Martian GRAVITY is less than that of Earth so the martian atmosphere has effectively floated off into space over time. Only the heavier molecules are left which is why the martian atmospheric is mostly made up of carbon dioxide. CO2 = 12 + 16 +16 = Molecular mass 44 by my reckoning. 1x C12 and 2x O16.
The Moon is a lot less massive than Earth and so all of its atmosphere has also floated off into space. Again as Sceptimatic would say 'so we are told'. And why have we been told that?
-
Maybe define atmospherec pressure vs air pressure
You appear to be using different words again
-
Sceptimatic goes on and on about how when we say we know something we mean we are 'accepting' what we are told rather than working it out for ourselves. But the volume of knowledge we have as human beings now is way beyond what one person can find out for themselves during an average lifetime.
So if we take on the 'I am not going to simply accept everything we are told' mindset then how are we supposed to learn what we cannot find out for ourselves? For example we are told that mountains are geological features that form over millions of years. I cannot prove that to myself so am I simply supposed to conclude that it is impossible to find out how mountains form? Am I supposed to conclude that my teacher has just made it up and the person that explained it to him made it up and the person who told them also made it all up?
Mountains we are told are a product of plate tectonics. The movement of the geological plates that make up the Earth. Mountains are produced when these plates rub up against each other. One of the driving forces behind plate tectonics is gravity. But gravity doesn't exist according to Sceptimatic so he will have to re-invent the whole process so mountains can form without gravity.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-causes-tectonic-plates-to-move.html
-
Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!
I read carefully everything you said, and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -
There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet. Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet. They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop.
Is this right? If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Sort of, yes.
Only sort of? What is wrong and what is right? Can you say simply and clearly so I dont only have a partial understanding?
I said you're sort of on the right path.
Just go along with that.
Okay. So there is a flow of broken down atmospheric molecules through the solid metal magnet, in one side and out the other and looping back around. What does this do to give my little magnet its interesting properties?
It creates pressure differences through friction/vibration.
So one side of the magnet has high pressure and the other has low pressure?
-
It creates pressure differences through friction/vibration.
So why do only certain materials create the effect that we describe as magnetism while others do not?
-
While you wait for a response why not explain how an atom, which is measured in the nanometer range, can expand to be meters in size.
It can't.
Glad you gave up on that stupid idea. Imagine atoms having to expand to fill in all gaps. Just stupid.
Yep, no molecule is going to expand to a metre.
-
ATMO
SPHERE
The spherical shell comprised of gases that surrounds a planet.
Gases.
There's a whole host of gases.
-
Maybe define atmospherec pressure vs air pressure
You appear to be using different words again
Is hydrogen in the atmosphere?
What about a host of other gases which are broken down?
Electrolysis.
I don't need to go on.
-
Sceptimatic goes on and on about how when we say we know something we mean we are 'accepting' what we are told rather than working it out for ourselves. But the volume of knowledge we have as human beings now is way beyond what one person can find out for themselves during an average lifetime.
So if we take on the 'I am not going to simply accept everything we are told' mindset then how are we supposed to learn what we cannot find out for ourselves? For example we are told that mountains are geological features that form over millions of years. I cannot prove that to myself so am I simply supposed to conclude that it is impossible to find out how mountains form? Am I supposed to conclude that my teacher has just made it up and the person that explained it to him made it up and the person who told them also made it all up?
Mountains we are told are a product of plate tectonics. The movement of the geological plates that make up the Earth. Mountains are produced when these plates rub up against each other. One of the driving forces behind plate tectonics is gravity. But gravity doesn't exist according to Sceptimatic so he will have to re-invent the whole process so mountains can form without gravity.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-causes-tectonic-plates-to-move.html
Your Earthquakes are decaying movement.
-
So one side of the magnet has high pressure and the other has low pressure?
Yes.
-
It creates pressure differences through friction/vibration.
So why do only certain materials create the effect that we describe as magnetism while others do not?
The material that makes them up.
Why does a tube allow the same liquid through at the same pace?
Why does a funnel take in a lot of water but channels it out slower?
Why does a sieve hold a lot of stuff going in but takes time to release it?
Have a think on it.
-
So one side of the magnet has high pressure and the other has low pressure?
Yes.
Great, thanks for clarifying. Can you explain a little more how these high and low pressures interact with other objects around them?
Also, so in your model, atmosphere can flow from low to high pressure?
-
The material that makes them up.
What about it? That doesn't explain anything about why some materials are magnetic while others are not. What is different about the structure of the material that is magnetic compared to that which isn't?
Why does a funnel take in a lot of water but channels it out slower?
Wide aperture in, narrow aperture out. Affects the flow rate per unit time.
Your Earthquakes are decaying movement.
What is causing the decay?
Electrolysis.
And how does that happen in the atmosphere then? Explain. How does electrolysis happen naturally?
Is hydrogen in the atmosphere?
Well is it?
-
And yet again avoid the issue of polarity which shows your model is garbage.
Do you even know what polarity is?
Yes, as clearly explained in the below quoted post that you continue to ignore as it shows your model simply cannot match reality as air cannot explain the polarity of magnets.
Again, the simple version is that magnets have 2 poles, N and S. Like poles repel, opposite poles attract.
But your air nonsense instead requires an attractive pole and a repulsive pole, where attractive poles attract and repulsive poles repel.
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Now care to stop avoiding this issue and either explain how the polarity works with air/atmosphere, or admit air/atmosphere can't explain it?
-
@solarwind
And how does that happen in the atmosphere then? Explain. How does electrolysis happen naturally?
The same way. Most often it is presumed to be photolysis, but electrolysis undoubtedly occurs as well.
-
How then is photolysis related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others?
Why not the alignment of certain (iron like) atoms?
-
How then is photolysis related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others?
Why not the alignment of certain (iron like) atoms?
And why also non-metallic materials (ceramics)?
And if it is photolysis, why call it electrolysis?
-
Atoms have different electron configurations which gives them unique properties. So it is entirely reasonable that the electron configurations of certain materials like iron for example, when aligned correctly can produce an effect such as that we recognise as magnetism. other types of atoms cannot be aligned in the same way and so do not produce the effect. This matches with real world experience.
Also you can get permanent and non-permanent magnets such as electromagnetics. How is that related to the decay of molecules by light? You just need a flow of current in a coil to produce the magnetic effect. The current causes the alignment of the atoms. Electricity and magnetism are linked. Nothing to do with light.
-
So one side of the magnet has high pressure and the other has low pressure?
Yes.
Great, thanks for clarifying. Can you explain a little more how these high and low pressures interact with other objects around them?
Also, so in your model, atmosphere can flow from low to high pressure?
Atmosphere doesn't flow in low to high pressure. For that to happen you need to add energy to a lower pressure to push it into higher pressure.
Low pressure is the result of equalised pressure having an energy push which creates a trailing low pressure which is followed by a high pressure push to equalise...and so on.
-
How then is photolysis related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others?
Why not the alignment of certain (iron like) atoms?
Why does a magic sponge clean stuff much much better than a showering sponge?
-
Are sponges in any way magnetic? None that I've ever come across. Mind you imagine how useful that would be in the shower when you drop the soap!
Now back to the topic of magnetism to avoid another classis Sceptimatic deflection when he doesn't know the answers to the questions posted. To be more accurate when he cannot back up any of his claims with any explanations or evidence. In other words it is just what he believes or wants to believe.
-
Are sponges in any way magnetic? None that I've ever come across. Mind you imagine how useful that would be in the shower when you drop the soap!
When you start to learn how to put little pieces of jigsaw into the puzzle, you might start understanding how it works.
Hammering them in and thinking they fit is not the way forward and just shows up the inept child like ways of you.
Get back to me when you grow a little.
-
How then is photolysis related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others?
Why not the alignment of certain (iron like) atoms?
Why does a magic sponge clean stuff much much better than a showering sponge?
Why do you need to continue with so many pathetic deflections rather than being honest and just admitting you have no idea how magnets work or why some materials are magnetic?
When you start to learn how to put little pieces of jigsaw into the puzzle, you might start understanding how it works.
Hammering them in and thinking they fit is not the way forward and just shows up the inept child like ways of you.
I did, and showed quite clearly that the pieces don't fit together, that it doesn't work at all.
Your model fails to match reality.
So how about you stop with the hammering and either figure out a way to make it fit without trying to force it in, or you admit that it doesn't fit and that your model and claims don't match reality?
Again, a simple understanding of how you claim magnets work will result in the polarity of magnets being fundamentally different to how they are observed to be in reality.
Until you can address that issue and stop with your childish deflection, no better than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming crap, don't bother telling others to grow up, because you have a lot of growing up to do.
-
Are sponges in any way magnetic? None that I've ever come across. Mind you imagine how useful that would be in the shower when you drop the soap!
When you start to learn how to put little pieces of jigsaw into the puzzle, you might start understanding how it works.
Hammering them in and thinking they fit is not the way forward and just shows up the inept child like ways of you.
Get back to me when you grow a little.
Funny you acurately use jigsaw puzzle to describe it.
Each piece is so intricately different that if you tried force a piece in the wrong place, as soon as you start connecting others it obviously fails.
A piece on its own possibly works, but not together.
Youre trying to jam a middle piece where edges go and it stands out like a sore thumb.
Yes, both may be blue, but one is clearly not an edge piece.
Air is a very tangible thing and people have been doing experiemnts with it for 100s of years.
Very well documented experiments
-
When you start to learn how to put little pieces of jigsaw into the puzzle, you might start understanding how it works.
I have been doing that all through my life and if you want to use jigsaws as an analogy then the one I have based on conventional scientific models seems to fit together very nicely. It is your jigsaw I am struggling with and as your jigsaw seems to be unique you then are the only one who can help us see the bigger picture. That picture seems to be continuously changing though which must be very confusing for anyone else trying to learn it. So rather than explaining things you just carry on having your little digs as in the comment above which helps no one understand what your jigsaw looks like.
I have yet to understand how air pressure can cause magnetism. Because everything is surrounded by air, yet only certain materials appear to be magnetic. How does that work? What I describe as gravity you also attribute to air pressure. Air pressure varies from place to place and from time to time. Yet we don't seem to experience the same variations in what I attribute to gravity. Enlighten me....
Someone need to do some growing but it ain't me.
-
So one side of the magnet has high pressure and the other has low pressure?
Yes.
Great, thanks for clarifying. Can you explain a little more how these high and low pressures interact with other objects around them?
Also, so in your model, atmosphere can flow from low to high pressure?
Atmosphere doesn't flow in low to high pressure. For that to happen you need to add energy to a lower pressure to push it into higher pressure.
Doesn’t your model have atmospheric flow through the magnet, from high pressure on the ‘inlet’ side to low pressure on the ‘outlet’ side?
If not can you clarify?
-
How then is photolysis related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others?
Why not the alignment of certain (iron like) atoms?
Why does a magic sponge clean stuff much much better than a showering sponge?
Why do you need to continue with so many pathetic deflections rather than being honest and just admitting you have no idea how magnets work or why some materials are magnetic?
When you start to learn how to put little pieces of jigsaw into the puzzle, you might start understanding how it works.
Hammering them in and thinking they fit is not the way forward and just shows up the inept child like ways of you.
I did, and showed quite clearly that the pieces don't fit together
What showed you, what?
-
I have yet to understand how air pressure can cause magnetism.
You won't until you understand how atmospheric pressure causes magnetism and all of the means in which it works because of.
You think a bit of wind is your way of arguing. You'll get nowhere with that mindset.
-
So one side of the magnet has high pressure and the other has low pressure?
Yes.
Great, thanks for clarifying. Can you explain a little more how these high and low pressures interact with other objects around them?
Also, so in your model, atmosphere can flow from low to high pressure?
Atmosphere doesn't flow in low to high pressure. For that to happen you need to add energy to a lower pressure to push it into higher pressure.
Doesn’t your model have atmospheric flow through the magnet, from high pressure on the ‘inlet’ side to low pressure on the ‘outlet’ side?
If not can you clarify?
It's a pressure flow, yes.
Not an air flow as we perceive wind.
-
So one side of the magnet has high pressure and the other has low pressure?
Yes.
Great, thanks for clarifying. Can you explain a little more how these high and low pressures interact with other objects around them?
Also, so in your model, atmosphere can flow from low to high pressure?
Atmosphere doesn't flow in low to high pressure. For that to happen you need to add energy to a lower pressure to push it into higher pressure.
Doesn’t your model have atmospheric flow through the magnet, from high pressure on the ‘inlet’ side to low pressure on the ‘outlet’ side?
If not can you clarify?
It's a pressure flow, yes.
Not an air flow as we perceive wind.
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
-
You won't until you understand how atmospheric pressure causes magnetism and all of the means in which it works because of.
You think a bit of wind is your way of arguing. You'll get nowhere with that mindset.
Well that will take a long time because in conventional physics magnetism and atmospheric pressure are not in any way related. Changes in air pressure is what causes the wind. It has nothing to do with magnetism.
So you had better start explaining how and why there is a connection between atmospheric pressure and magnetism. Why does magnetism only relate to certain metals if it is caused by atmospheric pressure?
When some magnets are subject to immense pressure geologically that can have an effect on the magnetic field but that is not pressure due to atmospheric pressure.
So I will never understand how atmospheric pressure causes magnetism unless you explain because you are the first person I know of ever to make the connection. That leads me to suspect one of two outcomes. Either you are a total genius or you are totally wrong.
-
Super interesting and easily and experimentally testable properties
Air has static pressure (barometric) and dynamic pressure (wind).
Are you intro ing a new pressure property?
E Motors generate magnetic fields when electricty is passed - is electrcity a property of air?
What about air and electricity requires a it in copper but in rare earth metals nothing?
-
A full explanation usually takes more than one sentence made up of a few words. Which is about as much as we ever get from Sceptimatic. So if he would like us to start believing he had better start explaining a bit more than he has so far.
-
What showed you, what?
Stop playing dumb.
You know exactly what.
By honestly and logically trying to piece together your jigsaw, I arrived at things which in no way match reality, such as the polarity of magnets.
You won't until you understand how atmospheric pressure causes magnetism and all of the means in which it works because of.
And we wont understand that until you can explain how atmospheric pressure can cause the observed polarity of magnets.
But you wont, because it is impossible to get it to do so, so you wont even try to address it. Instead you will do whatever you can to avoid it.
What you need to understand is that not everything is caused by your magic air.
Doesn’t your model have atmospheric flow through the magnet, from high pressure on the ‘inlet’ side to low pressure on the ‘outlet’ side?
I assumed his model has the magnets act like a tube with a pump in the middle.
This pump moves the air to create a region of low pressure on the inlet side and to expel the air out to create a region of high pressure on the outlet side.
This air then flows around the magnet in a cycle.
-
@solarwind
How then is photolysis related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others?
Scepti is (or seems to be) describing how air pressure differential is the cause of magnetism.
My interpretation of what they are saying is that the magnets function relies on pressure differential - not just of the gas that is "expected" in the room, but also smaller (more permeable) things that those gasses break into via processes such as electrolysis/magnetolysis/photolysis etc.
As for your second question, I think it is supposed due to the structure of the substance itself (much like in the presumptive view, where atomic/molecular alignment is presumed to cause magnetism in ways we plainly do not understand) - but this is really a question only Scepti can answer.
I am very much trying, along with you, to understand it myself.
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
-
You won't until you understand how atmospheric pressure causes magnetism and all of the means in which it works because of.
You think a bit of wind is your way of arguing. You'll get nowhere with that mindset.
Well that will take a long time because in conventional physics magnetism and atmospheric pressure are not in any way related. Changes in air pressure is what causes the wind. It has nothing to do with magnetism.
So you had better start explaining how and why there is a connection between atmospheric pressure and magnetism. Why does magnetism only relate to certain metals if it is caused by atmospheric pressure?
When some magnets are subject to immense pressure geologically that can have an effect on the magnetic field but that is not pressure due to atmospheric pressure.
So I will never understand how atmospheric pressure causes magnetism unless you explain because you are the first person I know of ever to make the connection. That leads me to suspect one of two outcomes. Either you are a total genius or you are totally wrong.
Like I told you. Get your head on and start thinking and then start your jigsaw.
-
Super interesting and easily and experimentally testable properties
Air has static pressure (barometric) and dynamic pressure (wind).
Are you intro ing a new pressure property?
E Motors generate magnetic fields when electricty is passed - is electrcity a property of air?
What about air and electricity requires a it in copper but in rare earth metals nothing?
Now you're thinking.
Have a word with solarwind and show him the small piece you've put in.
-
What showed you, what?
Stop playing dumb.
You know exactly what.
By honestly and logically trying to piece together your jigsaw, I arrived at things which in no way match reality, such as the polarity of magnets.
You won't until you understand how atmospheric pressure causes magnetism and all of the means in which it works because of.
And we wont understand that until you can explain how atmospheric pressure can cause the observed polarity of magnets.
But you wont, because it is impossible to get it to do so, so you wont even try to address it. Instead you will do whatever you can to avoid it.
What you need to understand is that not everything is caused by your magic air.
Doesn’t your model have atmospheric flow through the magnet, from high pressure on the ‘inlet’ side to low pressure on the ‘outlet’ side?
I assumed his model has the magnets act like a tube with a pump in the middle.
This pump moves the air to create a region of low pressure on the inlet side and to expel the air out to create a region of high pressure on the outlet side.
This air then flows around the magnet in a cycle.
I do have some admiration for you.
-
@solarwind
How then is photolysis related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others?
Scepti is (or seems to be) describing how air pressure differential is the cause of magnetism.
My interpretation of what they are saying is that the magnets function relies on pressure differential - not just of the gas that is "expected" in the room, but also smaller (more permeable) things that those gasses break into via processes such as electrolysis/magnetolysis/photolysis etc.
As for your second question, I think it is supposed due to the structure of the substance itself (much like in the presumptive view, where atomic/molecular alignment is presumed to cause magnetism in ways we plainly do not understand) - but this is really a question only Scepti can answer.
I am very much trying, along with you, to understand it myself.
Bravo. At least you are trying and doing a decent job of it.
-
Super interesting and easily and experimentally testable properties
Air has static pressure (barometric) and dynamic pressure (wind).
Are you intro ing a new pressure property?
E Motors generate magnetic fields when electricty is passed - is electrcity a property of air?
What about air and electricity requires a it in copper but in rare earth metals nothing?
Now you're thinking.
Have a word with solarwind and show him the small piece you've put in.
it was a question back to you.
answer it.
-
Like I told you. Get your head on and start thinking and then start your jigsaw.
Like I asked you... explain how magnetism and air/atmospheric pressure are related. Instead of making pointless comments like this why don't you give me some information about your alternative theory about how magnetism works. I understand how it works in the conventional sense but that involves the atomic configuration of the material itself. That provides a logical explanation for why only some materials are magnetic and not others.
However since everything is surrounded by air, then if your theory is correct then all materials should show a magnetic effect? But they don't. Why not? For example out of my window I can see a wooden fence with a public path alongside. If magnetism is caused by air/atmospheric pressure why aren't the passers by pulled to and anchored to the fence by the change in air pressure as they walk by? As time goes by the air pressure outside is changing all the time but I have never noticed the fence gain or lose any magnetic effects.
If you would prefer to keep this and all other aspects of your theory to yourself as your little secret then fine but if you are going to propose to others that the Earth is not a globe and all of physics is wrong then that is pretty profound and you had better be prepared for a lot of questions coming your way because come they will!
it was a question back to you.
answer it.
On the one hand Sceptimatic accuses us of just accepting what we are told (being indoctrinated) and never questioning anything and then when we do ask questions to him we never get any answers! Go figure! I interpret that as never accept anything that we are told from the 'silly nonsense globalists' but it is OK to accept everything we are told by him because Sceptimatic of course is always right.
-
Like I told you. Get your head on and start thinking and then start your jigsaw.
Like I asked you... explain how magnetism and air/atmospheric pressure are related. Instead of making pointless comments like this why don't you give me some information about your alternative theory about how magnetism works. I understand how it works in the conventional sense but that involves the atomic configuration of the material itself. That provides a logical explanation for why only some materials are magnetic and not others.
However since everything is surrounded by air, then if your theory is correct then all materials should show a magnetic effect? But they don't. Why not? For example out of my window I can see a wooden fence with a public path alongside. If magnetism is caused by air/atmospheric pressure why aren't the passers by pulled to and anchored to the fence by the change in air pressure as they walk by? As time goes by the air pressure outside is changing all the time but I have never noticed the fence gain or lose any magnetic effects.
If you would prefer to keep this and all other aspects of your theory to yourself as your little secret then fine but if you are going to propose to others that the Earth is not a globe and all of physics is wrong then that is pretty profound and you had better be prepared for a lot of questions coming your way because come they will!
it was a question back to you.
answer it.
On the one hand Sceptimatic accuses us of just accepting what we are told (being indoctrinated) and never questioning anything and then when we do ask questions to him we never get any answers! Go figure! I interpret that as never accept anything that we are told from the 'silly nonsense globalists' but it is OK to accept everything we are told by him because Sceptimatic of course is always right.
I'm not always right but thanks for the pick me up.
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
The simple way to explain electricity is by the movement of charge by electrons.
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
I still don’t understand what a ‘pressure flow’ is in your thoughts.
Can you explain it better?
-
Scepti is (or seems to be) describing how air pressure differential is the cause of magnetism.
So why do we not get a magnetic field wherever there is a difference in air pressure? The alignment - or more precisely spin of electrons in types of atoms is the cause of magnetism.
Bravo. At least you are trying and doing a decent job of it.
AKA you agree with me so you must be right.
I'm not always right but thanks for the pick me up.
You're welcome. Now how about you respond to my other request about you explaining how air/atmospheric pressure is related to magnetism.
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Really. Flow of what exactly and where does the pressure come from? How would you measure this pressure?
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
While you could hypothetically describe it as pressure, it is not atmospheric pressure and it is certainly not friction/vibration.
That hampers the flow of electricity, which is why the conductivity of metals decrease with increasing temperature.
This shows it is fundamentally different to friction/vibration.
Now again, care to explain the polarity of magnets in your model, or admit you can't?
-
Well
If air makes magnets mag, then there must be a testable inherent property that can be isolated as a variable.
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Strange how Sceptimatic always maintains he doesn't put over anything he believes in as factual and yet this statement seems to imply factual to me.
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
The simple way to explain electricity is by the movement of charge by electrons.
Now you have to understand why movement occurs to become what you see as a charge.
Can you go through it?
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
I still don’t understand what a ‘pressure flow’ is in your thoughts.
Can you explain it better?
Imagine a sponge ball in a tunnel. A perfect fit. Now imagine sponge balls behind that and all pushing into each other to an outlet where the compression into each other is always there but minimal due to the exit point at the tunnel end and a wider area in which to expand.
Now imagine shutting that exit off but the feed to the tunnel from the other end is consistent.
You create a bigger compression throughout the tunnel to the end.
The compression will eventually stay consistent if the energy applied is consistent from the feed end.
Open the exit and you have a surge of pressure at both ends. One that's pushed to the front and the other that is backed up from the energy applied. A potential energy.
-
This movement of electrons which creates a flow of electric charge is achieved through electromotive force. Electromotive means motion of electrons. The EMF is created from a potential difference but I cannot find anywhere which uses explicitly the word pressure to explain how this potential difference is driven. So perhaps you could explain your take on that?
You have said it is a pressure flow. But how?
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Really. Flow of what exactly and where does the pressure come from? How would you measure this pressure?
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Basically you strip the molecules of their once gobstopper like status to bring out the super compressed centres of those atmospheric molecular skin bubbles (if you like) to super expand and be recompressed by their absolute masses into a squeeze into whatever material can hold them without much escape.
Hence, you have a build up of electricity and magnetism as a result.
-
Your tunnel and sponge ball analogy is interesting and would work a bit like a 'jack in a box'. But the main topic of this discussion at the moment is magnetism and how that is created by air/atmospheric pressure.
How have we suddenly found ourselves squashing sponge balls into a tunnel?
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Basically you strip the molecules of their once gobstopper like status to bring out the super compressed centres of those atmospheric molecular skin bubbles (if you like) to super expand and be recompressed by their absolute masses into a squeeze into whatever material can hold them without much escape.
Hence, you have a build up of electricity and magnetism as a result.
OK fair enough. You are still introducing different forms of energy into this without explaining where that energy is coming from. For example what your talking about would work over very short periods of time but then the whole process would have to be recreated somehow so it happened all over again in a continuous cycle. I cannot see what mechanism in your explanation would do that.
Conventional physics uses chemical changes in a battery for example to create and sustain the EMF. Why is that not good enough for you as an explanation? Seems a lot simpler to me.
A permanent magnet has nothing to do with pressure or electrical energy as such.
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
While you could hypothetically describe it as pressure, it is not atmospheric pressure and it is certainly not friction/vibration.
That hampers the flow of electricity, which is why the conductivity of metals decrease with increasing temperature.
This shows it is fundamentally different to friction/vibration.
Now again, care to explain the polarity of magnets in your model, or admit you can't?
Take a bit of notice why your lights work and why resistors work.
The more you hamper high energy flow the more friction/vibration/frequency is created as a result.
-
Well
If air makes magnets mag, then there must be a testable inherent property that can be isolated as a variable.
Keeping air as your dig in just keeps you in your shell...unless you do it deliberately.
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Strange how Sceptimatic always maintains he doesn't put over anything he believes in as factual and yet this statement seems to imply factual to me.
It's my thought process by my own experiments.
You take that as you want to take it.
When I state things as 100% fact and you can prove different with your own facts, then you have a legitimate argument.
My theories and thoughts by experiments are exactly that. I will give them out as and when and by how little or much is requires for people to get a grip of.
This doesn't really apply to you because you bitterness hampers you.
-
This movement of electrons which creates a flow of electric charge is achieved through electromotive force. Electromotive means motion of electrons. The EMF is created from a potential difference but I cannot find anywhere which uses explicitly the word pressure to explain how this potential difference is driven. So perhaps you could explain your take on that?
You have said it is a pressure flow. But how?
How does water flow through pipes?
-
When I state things as 100% fact
But you already have remember..
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
I read that as you stating something as a fact. Not I think....electricity is a pressure flow
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Really. Flow of what exactly and where does the pressure come from? How would you measure this pressure?
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Basically you strip the molecules of their once gobstopper like status to bring out the super compressed centres of those atmospheric molecular skin bubbles (if you like) to super expand and be recompressed by their absolute masses into a squeeze into whatever material can hold them without much escape.
Hence, you have a build up of electricity and magnetism as a result.
Previously it was mention air has known properties of static pressure and dynamic pressure.
You tried to jump on and hint you know of other pressure properties but like always, failed to expand or complete the thought.
Unless youre willing to say what this new pressurr property is, adding heat only changes the static pressure.
Guess what -
Super conductors
-
Well
If air makes magnets mag, then there must be a testable inherent property that can be isolated as a variable.
Keeping air as your dig in just keeps you in your shell...unless you do it deliberately.
No
Thats how the scientific method works.
Hypothesis
Isolate and Test Variables
Review observations and conclude
H - air pressure causes magnetism
TV - removal of air doesnt change magnetic flux.
TV - changing air pressure doesnt change mag flux.
TV - changing electrical current/ material while keeping air same does changes mag flux.
R - air is not a variable that affects magnetism.
Now unless you have something to say or add, other than sponges, feel free.
But so far its been dodgedgodge.
You are reverso-Sando who spamspamspam.
-
Hey guys is it just me or is nothing ever clear and consistent with Sceptimatic? One minute he is talking about sponge balls in a tunnel, the next he is talking about water flowing through pipes.
My head is aching just trying to understand his logic with all this which is never a good sign. At least everything I read in my A level physics textbooks made sense and seems to reflect my real world experience.
I am trying to understand his version of it all but so far none of it is making any sense. Sure pressure exists in many forms but that pressure has to be created by something in the first place and he doesn't seem to explain what that something is.
If you read about how solar energy is produced in the core of the Sun as gamma rays and eventually get released into space as visible light it makes sense. But all that would be lost on Sceptimatic because of his belief system.
-
Your tunnel and sponge ball analogy is interesting and would work a bit like a 'jack in a box'. But the main topic of this discussion at the moment is magnetism and how that is created by air/atmospheric pressure.
How have we suddenly found ourselves squashing sponge balls into a tunnel?
Because analogies, for those who can and want to fit jigsaw pieces, are a good way to give insight.
The key to it is to store the info and start the jigsaw and not to let bias scupper that process.
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Basically you strip the molecules of their once gobstopper like status to bring out the super compressed centres of those atmospheric molecular skin bubbles (if you like) to super expand and be recompressed by their absolute masses into a squeeze into whatever material can hold them without much escape.
Hence, you have a build up of electricity and magnetism as a result.
OK fair enough. You are still introducing different forms of energy into this without explaining where that energy is coming from. For example what your talking about would work over very short periods of time but then the whole process would have to be recreated somehow so it happened all over again in a continuous cycle. I cannot see what mechanism in your explanation would do that.
Yep, magnetism will diminish over time but you have to drain it without replenishment.
Just sticking a magnet to a fridge does no drain .
It's like having a car battery attached to your car. The flow is there but little to no activation by anything allowing that flow to move and be wasted as heat.
Conventional physics uses chemical changes in a battery for example to create and sustain the EMF. Why is that not good enough for you as an explanation? Seems a lot simpler to me.
You have to ask yourself what those changes are because when you do you'll get a better understanding of what I'm trying to convey.
A permanent magnet has nothing to do with pressure or electrical energy as such.
That you think.
You don't know what happens so you think nobody has any theory.
You know a clamp can be stuck to a wall/window...etc and you know it's a change of pressure that allows it.
That clamp will stay on the wall/window for as long as that pressure holds enough to overcome the mass of the object....but over time it can lose small amount of pressure and over a long time it can lose enough to become so weak as to not be able to hold the mass of the object.
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
-
When I state things as 100% fact
But you already have remember..
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
I read that as you stating something as a fact. Not I think....electricity is a pressure flow
It's my belief and talk of it from that point of view.
When I ask you to take it as fact then you have something to whine about.
You waste too much time being an nasty, to be fair.
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Really. Flow of what exactly and where does the pressure come from? How would you measure this pressure?
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Basically you strip the molecules of their once gobstopper like status to bring out the super compressed centres of those atmospheric molecular skin bubbles (if you like) to super expand and be recompressed by their absolute masses into a squeeze into whatever material can hold them without much escape.
Hence, you have a build up of electricity and magnetism as a result.
Previously it was mention air has known properties of static pressure and dynamic pressure.
You tried to jump on and hint you know of other pressure properties but like always, failed to expand or complete the thought.
Unless youre willing to say what this new pressurr property is, adding heat only changes the static pressure.
Guess what -
Super conductors
How about you go through what you're trying to use as an argument.
Superconductors. Take your time and piece by piece tell me what you're getting at and why you use superconductors.
-
Hey guys is it just me or is nothing ever clear and consistent with Sceptimatic? One minute he is talking about sponge balls in a tunnel, the next he is talking about water flowing through pipes.
My head is aching just trying to understand his logic with all this which is never a good sign. At least everything I read in my A level physics textbooks made sense and seems to reflect my real world experience.
I am trying to understand his version of it all but so far none of it is making any sense. Sure pressure exists in many forms but that pressure has to be created by something in the first place and he doesn't seem to explain what that something is.
If you read about how solar energy is produced in the core of the Sun as gamma rays and eventually get released into space as visible light it makes sense. But all that would be lost on Sceptimatic because of his belief system.
In all honesty all I see with you is, you ask a few questions and then go into raptures about the answers not being to your liking.
Then you have a few posts digging at me by using the forum posters as your invisible audience to convey that message about me and then you ask me another question and carry on the role. Then you spend another post or two trying to tell everyone you don't understand why I change stuff up.
I do it for those who have the ability to do the jigsaw by logic. It's never meant for you. It channels through you because you ask.
You could just deck out but you're getting off on thinking you have your audience and it keeps you going.
Weak.
-
Your tunnel and sponge ball analogy is interesting and would work a bit like a 'jack in a box'. But the main topic of this discussion at the moment is magnetism and how that is created by air/atmospheric pressure.
How have we suddenly found ourselves squashing sponge balls into a tunnel?
Because analogies, for those who can and want to fit jigsaw pieces, are a good way to give insight.
The key to it is to store the info and start the jigsaw and not to let bias scupper that process.
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Basically you strip the molecules of their once gobstopper like status to bring out the super compressed centres of those atmospheric molecular skin bubbles (if you like) to super expand and be recompressed by their absolute masses into a squeeze into whatever material can hold them without much escape.
Hence, you have a build up of electricity and magnetism as a result.
OK fair enough. You are still introducing different forms of energy into this without explaining where that energy is coming from. For example what your talking about would work over very short periods of time but then the whole process would have to be recreated somehow so it happened all over again in a continuous cycle. I cannot see what mechanism in your explanation would do that.
Yep, magnetism will diminish over time but you have to drain it without replenishment.
Just sticking a magnet to a fridge does no drain .
It's like having a car battery attached to your car. The flow is there but little to no activation by anything allowing that flow to move and be wasted as heat.
Conventional physics uses chemical changes in a battery for example to create and sustain the EMF. Why is that not good enough for you as an explanation? Seems a lot simpler to me.
You have to ask yourself what those changes are because when you do you'll get a better understanding of what I'm trying to convey.
A permanent magnet has nothing to do with pressure or electrical energy as such.
That you think.
You don't know what happens so you think nobody has any theory.
You know a clamp can be stuck to a wall/window...etc and you know it's a change of pressure that allows it.
That clamp will stay on the wall/window for as long as that pressure holds enough to overcome the mass of the object....but over time it can lose small amount of pressure and over a long time it can lose enough to become so weak as to not be able to hold the mass of the object.
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
You keep teling us we dont know, yet funny enough, provide no answers yourself or even why we are weong - other than "indoctrination".
"Because indotrination" is not a reason the same as "denp is worng because anti indoctrination" is not a reason.
Denp is wrong because reason1, 2, 3 as evident of X, Y, Z
Why dont you try it.
Round earth is wrong because reason AAA as evident of BBB.
Fill in the blanks.
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Really. Flow of what exactly and where does the pressure come from? How would you measure this pressure?
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Basically you strip the molecules of their once gobstopper like status to bring out the super compressed centres of those atmospheric molecular skin bubbles (if you like) to super expand and be recompressed by their absolute masses into a squeeze into whatever material can hold them without much escape.
Hence, you have a build up of electricity and magnetism as a result.
Previously it was mention air has known properties of static pressure and dynamic pressure.
You tried to jump on and hint you know of other pressure properties but like always, failed to expand or complete the thought.
Unless youre willing to say what this new pressurr property is, adding heat only changes the static pressure.
Guess what -
Super conductors
How about you go through what you're trying to use as an argument.
Superconductors. Take your time and piece by piece tell me what you're getting at and why you use superconductors.
You said heated air causes magnetism.
This repeatable testable video evidence of superconductor COOLED with liquid nitrogen says otherwise.
Its very clear.
If yoy cant follow your own theory maybe you should stop.
See above in bold
-
You keep teling us we dont know, yet funny enough, provide no answers yourself or even why we are weong - other than "indoctrination".
"Because indotrination" is not a reason the same as "denp is worng because anti indoctrination" is not a reason.
Denp is wrong because reason1, 2, 3 as evident of X, Y, Z
Why dont you try it.
Round earth is wrong because reason AAA as evident of BBB.
Fill in the blanks.
Already done it but you chose to ignore it and pretend it never happened.
-
You said heated air causes magnetism.
No I din't.
You do yourself no favours. Hopefully you're doing it deliberately because you get a kick out of it. I hope that's teh case.
This repeatable testable video evidence of superconductor COOLED with liquid nitrogen says otherwise.
Its very clear.
Says otherwise...what?
What is it saying against what I'm saying?
Explain yourself.
If yoy cant follow your own theory maybe you should stop.
See above in bold
I can but you can't or refuse to.
Buck your ideas up.
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Really. Flow of what exactly and where does the pressure come from? How would you measure this pressure?
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Alright ill give you a bit of benefit of thw dpubt here.
In the context of magnetism, the discussion point here is electromagnetism.
Maybe clarify what your point is.
-
You keep teling us we dont know, yet funny enough, provide no answers yourself or even why we are weong - other than "indoctrination".
"Because indotrination" is not a reason the same as "denp is worng because anti indoctrination" is not a reason.
Denp is wrong because reason1, 2, 3 as evident of X, Y, Z
Why dont you try it.
Round earth is wrong because reason AAA as evident of BBB.
Fill in the blanks.
Already done it but you chose to ignore it and pretend it never happened.
No
You repeatanly stated it doesnt exist because sceppy doesnt believe it. - that is not a reason.
-
In all honesty all I see with you is, you ask a few questions and then go into raptures about the answers not being to your liking.
Well if your answers made the slightest bit of sense then perhaps I wouldn't have to go into raptures.
-
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
Really. Flow of what exactly and where does the pressure come from? How would you measure this pressure?
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
Alright ill give you a bit of benefit of thw dpubt here.
In the context of magnetism, the discussion point here is electromagnetism.
Maybe clarify what your point is.
I gave my point. What are you trying to say?
-
In all honesty all I see with you is, you ask a few questions and then go into raptures about the answers not being to your liking.
Well if your answers made the slightest bit of sense then perhaps I wouldn't have to go into raptures.
Don't worry about it.
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
The simple way to explain electricity is by the movement of charge by electrons.
Now you have to understand why movement occurs to become what you see as a charge.
Can you go through it?
Charge is the property of electrons and protons. The movement does not create charge out of nothing. Electron flow moves slowly in wires.
-
Don't worry about it.
O believe me I am not worried in the slightest by it. I just want to know these things. Remember how you say we should question things. So I am doing just that.
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
The simple way to explain electricity is by the movement of charge by electrons.
Now you have to understand why movement occurs to become what you see as a charge.
Can you go through it?
Charge is the property of electrons and protons. The movement does not create charge out of nothing. Electron flow moves slowly in wires.
You're not really saying anything.
-
@themightykabool
Thats how the scientific method works.
I agree with the spirit of your statement, but you left out the most important and critical step in the scientific method in your description: Rigorous validation/invalidation of hypothesis by experiment (no, "thought experiments" are not experiments - those are merely musings/speculations/imaginings)
Here is the actual scientific method (the one that produces knowledge of manifest value to humanity) :
Observation : Magnets attract and repel one another.
Hypothesis (Scepti may need to adjust this) : Magnets are attracted and repelled due to pressure differential.
IV: Pressure differential around the magnet(s).
DV: Magnetic attraction/repulsion amplitude.
Experiment : TBD
Experiment will not be possible in this case until we understand the precise nature of that hypothesized pressure differential (in order to manipulate and measure it). If it is air pressure, then the experimental setups should be pretty straightforward.
But so far its been dodgedgodge.
You are reverso-Sando who spamspamspam.
Interesting distillation, and certainly possible. I think more research is required for scepti (using the dialectic is not "dodging" by default) and sando may well not be deliberately doing as you interpret/observe from your perspective.
-
Bravo. At least you are trying and doing a decent job of it.
AKA you agree with me so you must be right.
You presume this. You'd be hard pressed to show support for it from statements given. I am earnestly trying to understand, as we all ought to be (unless one has concluded that Scepti is simply wasting our time, in which case one should stop engaging entirely).
Currently I am a monopolist. Shit, that came out wrong. I propose/suspect a magnetic monopole, and I am not alone (scientifically speaking)!
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
-
I propose/suspect a magnetic monopole,
On what evidence are you proposing your magnetic monopole?
-
Test was mentioned...
Whatever.
Point is.
Sceppy isnt doing anything beyond hypothsis.
-
You presume this. You'd be hard pressed to show support for it from statements given. I am earnestly trying to understand, as we all ought to be (unless one has concluded that Scepti is simply wasting our time, in which case one should stop engaging entirely).
If others have got an alternative view of how science and nature works then I am also willing to give it consideration. After all we can never say we 'know' anything can we. We simply try to build models of how we think nature works based on the evidence we can gather. Now Scepti would say that we are building our globe model based on what we are told but where did the evidence for 'what we are told' come from in the first place? The hypothesis that the Earth is a globe can be traced right back to the ancient Greeks if not before.
If I climb to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa for example, hold out an apple then I can predict with high confidence that it will fall towards the ground when I release it. I would attribute that to gravity which is related to the mass of the Earth below me. Scepti would say 'rubbish' because in his view gravity does not exist. So he has to find an alternative reason why the apple falls to the ground. He seems to believe that is because of air or atmospheric pressure.
If I repeat that experiment at different times of the year I can again predict with high confidence that it will always fall towards the ground. It won't suddenly on one occasion randomly fly upwards into the air above me. So there must be something acting on the apple that causes it to fall to the ground every time I let go of it. I can also time how long it takes the apple to reach the ground I will find it is the same each time. But the air pressure at Pisa will vary during the year so if the apple is falling due to atmospheric pressure then you would expect the time it takes for the apple to fall to vary as well. The mass of the Earth though will always be the same.
So which is the more reliable explanation for why the apple falls. Which hypothesis is more consistent with observed results? Do you base your conclusion purely on what you observe or purely what you believe?
-
@solarwind
I am interested in addressing your further questions for your edification - however it is important to recognize my point first.
You claimed that Scepti responded the way they did, somewhat/partially confirming my interpretation of their statements so far, simply because I agreed with them. This is a claim that you would be hard pressed to support citing statements made by either/both of us.
I haven't been "agreeing" (nor disagreeing) with them - I've been earnestly trying to understand them!
So far as I understand it there may be direct/irreconcilable differences in our two views on magnetism.
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
-
In terms of 'edification', I don't really see this website as a means of improving myself or my intellect of anything.
My questions are simply a tool to try and find out how far those who present their 'alternative' ideas about the Earth have actually researched them. There is a huge difference between simply making a claim (that the Sun and Moon are holographic projections for example) and being able to produce real and verifiable evidence that those claims are actually correct.
If you can find any posts by Sceptimatic where he actually and explicitly admits he is wrong about anything he claims then please point me to them. His consistent 'get out' clause is that he only presents his ideas as what he believes in and doesn't make them out to be factual and real.
So if someone asked you for a clear and precise definition of magnetism and what causes it, what would you say to them?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
How? What creates the pressure?
If I place a piece of brass or copper on the outside of the plastic box then move it around near the magnet inside the box it does not move. Why not?
It forms a pressure circuit.
Surely what you call a 'pressure circuit' is basically what I would call a magnetic field. Yes?
-
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
How? What creates the pressure?
Atmospheric friction/vibration and trapped molecular change from breakdown.
If I place a piece of brass or copper on the outside of the plastic box then move it around near the magnet inside the box it does not move. Why not?
No structural capacity for storage of molecular breakdown.
It forms a pressure circuit.
Surely what you call a 'pressure circuit' is basically what I would call a magnetic field. Yes?
Absolutely. It's just knowing what creates it and why.
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
How does it form a "pressure circuit" through the wall of the sealed container?
-
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
If this nonsense was true, it would mean no metal would be air tight.
The fact that metals are air tight show it is pure nonsense.
Also, this would mean merely blowing air near a conductor should result in a flow of electricity.
It also has no explanation for why a battery or generator is required.
Do you think batteries store air under pressure?
You should really stop pretending your magic air does everything.
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
While you could hypothetically describe it as pressure, it is not atmospheric pressure and it is certainly not friction/vibration.
That hampers the flow of electricity, which is why the conductivity of metals decrease with increasing temperature.
This shows it is fundamentally different to friction/vibration.
Now again, care to explain the polarity of magnets in your model, or admit you can't?
Take a bit of notice why your lights work and why resistors work.
The more you hamper high energy flow the more friction/vibration/frequency is created as a result.
Or, you can take notice of the actual implication of it.
The fact that friction/vibration hampers the flow of electrons shows that is not the cause of it, and like so often, you are completely wrong.
My theories and thoughts by experiments are exactly that. I will give them out as and when and by how little or much is requires for people to get a grip of.
No, you repeatedly give them out as unquestionable facts and only pretend that you are giving them out as your opinion when your extremely dishonest double standard is pointed out and it is pointed out that you cannot justify your infantile nonsense at all.
Your tunnel and sponge ball analogy is interesting and would work a bit like a 'jack in a box'. But the main topic of this discussion at the moment is magnetism and how that is created by air/atmospheric pressure.
How have we suddenly found ourselves squashing sponge balls into a tunnel?
Because analogies, for those who can and want to fit jigsaw pieces, are a good way to give insight.
The key to it is to store the info and start the jigsaw and not to let bias scupper that process.
And that is a basic task you cannot do.
Instead you always let your bias that the RE and the mainstream scientific community are completely wrong, and that everything is explained by your magic air pushing show; with this bias resulting in you continually dismissing reality, with you doing whatever you can to dodge simple arguments.
Your jigsaw simply doesn't fit together, and anyone without your extreme bias and hatred can clearly see that.
Air simply doesn't fit with magnetism. Stop pretending it does.
If you do, the very first thing you should try to do is explain the observed nature of the polarity of magnets.
I have shown quite clearly how trying to use air results in fundamentally different results to those observed in reality.
Unless you have a solution for that, it is quite clear that air doesn't fit.
Until you can start actually addressing issues, stop pretending everyone else is the problem just because we can see the problems with your claims.
It forms a pressure circuit.
Surely what you call a 'pressure circuit' is basically what I would call a magnetic field. Yes?
Absolutely. It's just knowing what creates it and why.
The observed polarity of magnets shows that is a load of crap.
The fact you keep on avoiding this issue shows you know your claims are a load of crap.
-
@themightykabool
Thats how the scientific method works.
I agree with the spirit of your statement, but you left out the most important and critical step in the scientific method in your description: Rigorous validation/invalidation of hypothesis by experiment (no, "thought experiments" are not experiments - those are merely musings/speculations/imaginings)
Here is the actual scientific method (the one that produces knowledge of manifest value to humanity) :
Observation : Magnets attract and repel one another.
Hypothesis (Scepti may need to adjust this) : Magnets are attracted and repelled due to pressure differential.
IV: Pressure differential around the magnet(s).
DV: Magnetic attraction/repulsion amplitude.
Experiment : TBD
Experiment will not be possible in this case until we understand the precise nature of that hypothesized pressure differential (in order to manipulate and measure it). If it is air pressure, then the experimental setups should be pretty straightforward.
And he has already been provided with examples of experiments, where the results are already known from prior studies on the behaviour of magnets. They show he is wrong.
-
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
How? What creates the pressure?
Atmospheric friction/vibration and trapped molecular change from breakdown.
If I place a piece of brass or copper on the outside of the plastic box then move it around near the magnet inside the box it does not move. Why not?
No structural capacity for storage of molecular breakdown.
Isnt that the same as what he used for in lieu of gracity?
-
Test was mentioned...
Whatever.
Point is.
Sceppy isnt doing anything beyond hypothsis.
Possibly, however I wasn't just "giving you the business" or being pedantic (for no reason, anyhow).
The point may be minor/pedantic, but it is important to science (and practicing it).
Test variables (beyond IV(s) and DV(s)) are not a thing in the scientific method, nor did you mention any procedure for testing them if they were presented as such. I expect this was simply to save time, and you are not actually confused about experiment being the only way to validate/invalidate hypothesis in science (but many others are, sadly)
The only evaluation possible (and the sole function) of hypothesis is done through rigorous experiment alone. Other "tests" are outside of the scientific method (i.e. not science/scientific).
-
In terms of 'edification', I don't really see this website as a means of improving myself or my intellect of anything.
Fair enough. Perhaps you would have had less reaction/resistance had I used the word "clarification" instead of edification. In any case, the reasons to engage in a site like this is precisely that, edification, in my view (about many things, and generally minimally to do with the true shape of the world)
My questions are simply a tool to try and find out how far those who present their 'alternative' ideas about the Earth have actually researched them. There is a huge difference between simply making a claim (that the Sun and Moon are holographic projections for example) and being able to produce real and verifiable evidence that those claims are actually correct.
Agreed. However, getting clarification on those claims by asking your questions will (ideally) lead to edification (even if that edifying is that Scepti cannot justify/support their claims adequately in your view)
If you can find any posts by Sceptimatic where he actually and explicitly admits he is wrong about anything he claims then please point me to them.
I can't speak to that, and I agree that the inability to be humble (required for objectivity and to recognize and address one's mistakes) is a major shortcoming. I'm sure that Scepti has as much experience being wrong as the rest of us, and I hope that they would not delude themselves to deny that (to themselves or anyone else).
His consistent 'get out' clause is that he only presents his ideas as what he believes in and doesn't make them out to be factual and real.
That is a fine out, however of course it is not science. Through mere discussion and imagination all things are possible/conceivable. When you test those possibilities/conceptions against reality by experiment is when it begins to be science, and not before.
So if someone asked you for a clear and precise definition of magnetism and what causes it, what would you say to them?
I would say that honestly we don't know, but there are some conceptions that are popular and useful. In one of my, admittedly speculative, conceptions of it the magnetic "force" comes from infinitesimal sized magnetic monopoles inside and surrounding the magnet. Much like einstein towards the end of his life, I have come to the conclusion that "fields" are not a thing in reality (only equation). Everything is discrete, as the quantumnists have found/demonstrated.
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
How? What creates the pressure?
This is a question for Scepti. My stab at their potential response would be that the pressure is created by preferential absorption or expulsion (perhaps by the shape or structure of the magnetic material) of very fine / permeable things in and/or related to our air.
If I place a piece of brass or copper on the outside of the plastic box then move it around near the magnet inside the box it does not move. Why not?
Again, a question for Scepti. I presume it will once again come down to the material itself being perhaps already saturated with, or maybe resistant to, the small things responsible for the magnetic effect and pressure thereof.
Are you certain the magnet will not move? We can certainly cause the magnets motion to be altered by simple proximity to copper (lenz's law) - so I would not be surprised to find a minor motion in the reverse (in fact, I would be surprised if it was completely absent)
It forms a pressure circuit.
Surely what you call a 'pressure circuit' is basically what I would call a magnetic field. Yes?
Again for Scepti.
So I take it we are in agreement then that your claim (that Scepti partially confirmed my interpretation of their statements merely because I agree with them) was in error?
-
What is a pressure flow, as compared to an airflow?
Don’t really understand this part, is it possible to explain the difference in your model clearly and simply?
Electricity is a pressure flow. It's a friction/vibration.
The simple way to explain electricity is by the movement of charge by electrons.
Now you have to understand why movement occurs to become what you see as a charge.
Can you go through it?
Charge is the property of electrons and protons. The movement does not create charge out of nothing. Electron flow moves slowly in wires.
You're not really saying anything.
For someone of your level of intelligence I’m not. Doesn’t matter though. You can never back up anything you claim.
Electricity is well understood.
-
@jack44556677
I follow the approach that science has always taken. I am guided entirely by the evidence available and form conclusions on that basis and nothing else. Nothing is impossible until it is proven to be so.
Scepti doesn't follow this line in the sense that he flatly (couldn't avoid that one!) refuses to accept that the Earth is a globe. However the same evidence is available to him as is available to anyone else. So what do you conclude from that?
Physics so far has identified three basic types of fields. Magnetic, gravitational and electric. A field being defined as a region within which a particular effect (force if you will) can be felt. A gravitational field is created by mass, an electric field is created by a charged particle or particles and a magnetic field is created by the alignment of electrons associated with certain types of atoms. Chiefly and most noticeably iron atoms.
A field is normally completely invisible to us and the effects can travel through both air and certain types of materials. We can however make a magnetic field visible by scattering iron filings around a magnet. That is something kids in school do as a simple experiment. What happens if you scatter sand over a magnet and what does that tell us about the magnet and about sand? The clue lies in the fact that the magnet and the iron filings are made of the same material.
We have tested magnets in vacuums created in laboratories and so from that we know that a magnetic field is not reliant on the presence of air. That is proof that Sceptis theory on magnetisim being created by air or atmospheric pressure is wrong because magnets still work in vacuums.
If a scientific theory is shown to be wrong through experiments performed or observations made then that theory is modified accordingly. But those of a certain mindset shall we say turn to denial and ignorance instead rather than recognising that something is wrong and adjusting their theory accordingly.
In the world of conventional science and physics all the evidence available to us points to the Earth being a globe. If one day evidence comes to light which suggests otherwise then we will give that due consideration and modify our models if necessary. Lets remember that mother nature created the Universe we live in and we have occupied that Universe for a tiny, tiny amount of time. She also decided on what the laws are which govern this Universe we live in, not us. Science is our effort to understand those laws and no matter how much we might want to, if we don't like those laws or don't agree with them we cannot change them.
-
so where does gravity really end?
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
How does it form a "pressure circuit" through the wall of the sealed container?
It doesn't. It forms it through itself.
-
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
If this nonsense was true, it would mean no metal would be air atmospheric tight.
Correct.
-
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
If this nonsense was true, it would mean no metal would be air tight.
Correct.
Trying to play a semantic game of atmosphere vs air wont get you anywhere.
Plenty of metals are air tight, and that means they are "atmospheric tight".
That means your nonsense is wrong.
Just like the polarity of magnets shows your nonsense is wrong.
Now stop pretending everything is the air unless you can justify all these things which clearly show it isn't.
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
How does it form a "pressure circuit" through the wall of the sealed container?
It doesn't. It forms it through itself.
How does it form it through itself and then atmospherically know to "communicate" with the other magnet outside the sealed container? If I slide the outside magnet around, the inside magnet slides around with it and vice versa. There must be some sort of atmospheric connection between the two?
-
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
If this nonsense was true, it would mean no metal would be air tight.
Correct.
Trying to play a semantic game of atmosphere vs air wont get you anywhere.
Plenty of metals are air tight, and that means they are "atmospheric tight".
That means your nonsense is wrong.
Just like the polarity of magnets shows your nonsense is wrong.
Now stop pretending everything is the air unless you can justify all these things which clearly show it isn't.
Put your brain into gear.
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
How does it form a "pressure circuit" through the wall of the sealed container?
It doesn't. It forms it through itself.
How does it form it through itself and then atmospherically know to "communicate" with the other magnet outside the sealed container? If I slide the outside magnet around, the inside magnet slides around with it and vice versa. There must be some sort of atmospheric connection between the two?
There is. They create atmospheric change around themselves.
-
How do they do that then? Magnets don't need air to be magnetic so what has the atmosphere got to do with it?
-
How do they do that then? Magnets don't need air to be magnetic so what has the atmosphere got to do with it?
Remember when I used a sink?
Remember when I used sponge ball analogies?
Remember when I used vortex?
Remember when I used atmospheric pressure and not simply just a simple air push?
Remember the car battery?
I know I know, you'll say it means nothing...and fair enough. But then I can't help you with that mindset.
Remember all the little things I add and you may start to think on it and start to put little pieces of the jigsaw together to form something a bit more coherent to your own mind.
-
Why do you have to make everything so complicated? You are the self-declared simpleton remember?
What is wrong with just saying that magnetism is caused by the spinning of electrons within iron atoms? When they align in the right way they produce the effect that we call magnetism. The electrons in other types of atoms cannot align in the same way so no magnetic properties. We can break the alignment of iron atoms by bashing them against a non-magnetic material and so reduce the strength of magnetic field.
-
Why do you have to make everything so complicated? You are the self-declared simpleton remember?
I don't think it is. It just happens to be from your side because you are unwilling to do your jigsaw.
What is wrong with just saying that magnetism is caused by the spinning of electrons within iron atoms?
Explain the spinning of electrons within iron atoms and tell me how they cause magnetism.
In your own words and by super simple analogy, if you don't mind.
When they align in the right way they produce the effect that we call magnetism.
Explain to me about aligning and why this would be the case for magnetism. In your own words and use analogies when you can. Nice and simple.
The electrons in other types of atoms cannot align in the same way so no magnetic properties.
Why can't they align. What stops them?
We can break the alignment of iron atoms by bashing them against a non-magnetic material and so reduce the strength of magnetic field.
Why does bashing something change the properties, as in weakening?
A simple analogy and in your own words.
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
How does it form a "pressure circuit" through the wall of the sealed container?
It doesn't. It forms it through itself.
How does it form it through itself and then atmospherically know to "communicate" with the other magnet outside the sealed container? If I slide the outside magnet around, the inside magnet slides around with it and vice versa. There must be some sort of atmospheric connection between the two?
There is. They create atmospheric change around themselves.
There is what? An atmospheric connection between the two? How do they make that atmospheric connection when one magnet is inside the sealed container and the other is outside of it?
-
Wjata the difference between atmospheric pressure and air pressure?
-
A flow of atmospheric molecules that are heat expanded to crash into each other after being broken down to hydrogen like decay.
If this nonsense was true, it would mean no metal would be air tight.
Correct.
Trying to play a semantic game of atmosphere vs air wont get you anywhere.
Plenty of metals are air tight, and that means they are "atmospheric tight".
That means your nonsense is wrong.
Just like the polarity of magnets shows your nonsense is wrong.
Now stop pretending everything is the air unless you can justify all these things which clearly show it isn't.
Put your brain into gear.
I have. And that really seems to be a problem for you.
Why not ask us for what you really want, for us to switch our brains off and just accept your nonsense?
Alternatively perhaps you should try to put your brain into gear, rather than just throwing out pathetic insults and deflection.
Again, if electricity was caused by the motion or air/atmosphere/gas, then all metals (and other conductors) would need to be permeable to this air/atmosphere/gas. But in reality, metals are not.
Likewise, if magnetism was caused by a flow of air/atmosphere/gas, then there would be a repulsive pole and an attractive pole, with attractive poles attracting everything and repulsive poles repelling. But in reality, there are 2 different poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you, or anyone, honestly put their mind into gear, they would very quickly realise that electricity and magnetism cannot simply be air.
Why do you have to make everything so complicated? You are the self-declared simpleton remember?
I don't think it is. It just happens to be from your side because you are unwilling to do your jigsaw.
No, we do the jigsaw and realise your garbage simply doesn't fit.
So instead we look at what actually fits. In terms of magnetism, that is the motion of charges. That is what actually fits. That it is what actually explains things.
When you are willing to admit air can't explain it and move on to something that can, then maybe I will discuss how.
But until then, your repeated requests for an explanation is nothing more than a deflection from your inability to explain anything, and any explanation provided to you will likely be dismissed or ignored.
-
Referencing back to your comments in reply #1094 I don't know exactly how magnetism works in terms of electron spin or alignment. But what I do know from simple observations (remember you like to keep things simple) is that the effect that we call magnetism is confined to certain metals - chiefly ferrous (iron) metals.
That in itself provides evidence of a link between iron and magnetism wouldn't you agree? If magnetism was somehow related to pressure in air or the atmosphere then the effects of magnetism would be far more wide ranging between different materials, including non-metals. But it isn't. So perhaps you could explain (since it is your proposal) how air somehow knows to produce a magnetic effect between objects which are made of or contain air but not other materials?
Since magnets retain their magnetic properties even when placed in a vacuum that is also confirmation that magnetism does not relate in any way to air or atmospheric pressure.
A different type of magnetism is produced when an electric current is passed through a coil made from copper wire. How would you account for that? When the current is taken away (switched off) the magentic field associated with the copper wire vanishes. So clearly there is a link between magnetism and electricity. Again supporting the hypothesis that magnetism is related to the alignment and flow of electrons. Further more if you take a bar magnet and move it through a coil made from copper wire, an electric current is produced. Hold the bar magnet so it is stationary relative to the coil and the electric current vanishes.
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
How does it form a "pressure circuit" through the wall of the sealed container?
It doesn't. It forms it through itself.
How does it form it through itself and then atmospherically know to "communicate" with the other magnet outside the sealed container? If I slide the outside magnet around, the inside magnet slides around with it and vice versa. There must be some sort of atmospheric connection between the two?
There is. They create atmospheric change around themselves.
There is what? An atmospheric connection between the two? How do they make that atmospheric connection when one magnet is inside the sealed container and the other is outside of it?
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
-
Wjata the difference between atmospheric pressure and air pressure?
It depends how it's looked at.
On face value you pump up your tyres by extracting air from the atmosphere and pushing it into your tyre space.
Break that air down and try pumping elements of that break down into your tyres and see what happens.
-
I have. And that really seems to be a problem for you.
Why not ask us for what you really want, for us to switch our brains off and just accept your nonsense?
I want nothing from you. You can disappear for all I care.
You ask me about stuff and I tell you. You don't like what I tell you so you claim I don't tell you or that I'm wrong.
What more can I do?
You won't accept anything I say unless it conforms to what you believe.
Until you provide concrete proof for your belief's then I'm going to question it and/or brush it off as nonsense, depending on how I see it.
You have the simple option of totally ignoring me but you choose to have a dig 99.9% of the time which negates the rest of what you type. You've been told about it and you carry it on. You create your own issues.
Don't waste your time replying to this with another dig because i'll ignore it.
If you want to be constructive then I'm all typing ears. I can't say fairer than that.
-
Referencing back to your comments in reply #1094 I don't know exactly how magnetism works in terms of electron spin or alignment. But what I do know from simple observations (remember you like to keep things simple) is that the effect that we call magnetism is confined to certain metals - chiefly ferrous (iron) metals.
That in itself provides evidence of a link between iron and magnetism wouldn't you agree?
A link in terms of structural make up and ability to hold atmospheric breakdown, yes.
If magnetism was somehow related to pressure in air or the atmosphere then the effects of magnetism would be far more wide ranging between different materials, including non-metals. But it isn't.
Can a sponge hold more water than a wooden block, once saturated?
So perhaps you could explain (since it is your proposal) how air somehow knows to produce a magnetic effect between objects which are made of or contain air but not other materials?
Atmosphere produces it because it's been broken down to light molecular elements, held by certain material structures.
It's about opening the doors of those structures to allow flow.
Since magnets retain their magnetic properties even when placed in a vacuum that is also confirmation that magnetism does not relate in any way to air or atmospheric pressure.
They don't.
A different type of magnetism is produced when an electric current is passed through a coil made from copper wire. How would you account for that?
A different type?
When the current is taken away (switched off) the magentic field associated with the copper wire vanishes. So clearly there is a link between magnetism and electricity.
Yep, clearly.
The key is knowing why it happens which I'm trying to explain in tiny parts to get to (hopefully) a bigger understanding from your part...if you're interested in understanding it from my side.
You do not have to accept it but you won't understand it if you just reject everything.
Again supporting the hypothesis that magnetism is related to the alignment and flow of electrons.
Yep and again it's about knowing why it flows.
Further more if you take a bar magnet and move it through a coil made from copper wire, an electric current is produced. Hold the bar magnet so it is stationary relative to the coil and the electric current vanishes.
Same again. It's about material structures and energy applied to create 2 things. Friction/vibration and frequency.
-
I want nothing from you. You can disappear for all I care.
You mean you would love for me to disappear to stop pointing out why you are wrong.
You ask me about stuff and I tell you.
And there you go lying yet again.
I ask you about things and you do whatever you can to avoid answering because you have no answer.
You still refuse to explain the polarity of magnets with your air, because you know that any model of magnets using air simply will not match reality.
You don't like the fact that you are wrong, so you try to prop up your false claims with blatant lies, like claiming you have already provided the answers.
What more can I do?
How about actually answering the questions provided and addressing the issues raised?
For example, clearly explain how the air causes attraction and repulsion such that like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
This requires explaining how 2 inward flows somehow repel each other, instead of attracting each other as simple logic demands.
You have the simple option of totally ignoring me but you choose to have a dig 99.9% of the time which negates the rest of what you type.
There you go projecting again.
Once more, unlike I actually care about the truth, so I will object to your BS.
If you don't want me to, stop spouting that BS.
And no, I don't take a dig 99% of the time. That only starts when you start continually insulting me to avoid addressing the issues raised.
If you don't want me to take another dig at you, stop taking digs at other people.
While you continue to do so, and project your inadequacies onto others and blatantly lie about people I will point out those lies.
GROW UP!
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
No it doesn't.
The container is airtight, there is no way for the air to get through.
-
They don't.
Have you personally checked that magnets don't work in a vacuum then to know this or are you just assuming they don't because that fits in better with your belief system? I know magnets still work in a vacuum because I have tested them in the University labs where I did my Physics degree.
-
The container is airtight, there is no way for the air to get through.
Air tight?
This is why it's best to pay attention.
-
They don't.
Have you personally checked that magnets don't work in a vacuum then to know this or are you just assuming they don't because that fits in better with your belief system?
It's because I know a vacuum cannot be created. So do you but you'll argue for it because it fits the narrative.
I know magnets still work in a vacuum because I have tested them in the University labs where I did my Physics degree.
No you haven't.
-
A magnet stuck to a fridge or whatever is similar in a way. The difference is merely molecular change. As I explained a little earlier.
One thing that still confuses me about the magnet uses pressure bit is this - If I have like a tupperware plastic container (you know, the kind of thing you put leftovers in and seal it with a lid) and put a magnet on the inside wall and magnate opposite it on the outside wall. Then put the lid on. I can move the magnet on the inside around with the attractive force of the magnet on the outside. How does pressure cause/allow that when the two magnets are separated by the sealed container, or any other obstruction between the two?
The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.
The activation is by opposite magnets or even a metal. It forms a pressure circuit.
How does it form a "pressure circuit" through the wall of the sealed container?
It doesn't. It forms it through itself.
How does it form it through itself and then atmospherically know to "communicate" with the other magnet outside the sealed container? If I slide the outside magnet around, the inside magnet slides around with it and vice versa. There must be some sort of atmospheric connection between the two?
There is. They create atmospheric change around themselves.
There is what? An atmospheric connection between the two? How do they make that atmospheric connection when one magnet is inside the sealed container and the other is outside of it?
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
Ummm, the container is air/atmosphere tight - No seepage is occurring. And the air/atmosphere tightness has nothing to do with the thickness of the walls. Superfluidity is the creeping of the substance, not the passing through walls so to speak:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Helium-II-creep.svg/1920px-Helium-II-creep.svg.png)
Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
-
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
Ummm, the container is air/atmosphere tight - No seepage is occurring. And the air/atmosphere tightness has nothing to do with the thickness of the walls. Superfluidity is the creeping of the substance, not the passing through walls so to speak:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Helium-II-creep.svg/1920px-Helium-II-creep.svg.png)
Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Like I was saying.
-
Have you personally checked that magnets don't work in a vacuum then to know this or are you just assuming they don't because that fits in better with your belief system
You didn't actually answer the question. I ask you if you have personally checked whether magents work in a vacuum? If so how did you do it?
No you haven't.
Without wishing to make this sound too pantomime like... O yes I have. I should know. I was there and we (as a group) tried it several times.
When you understand how magnets actually work rather than (as in your case) just how you believe they work, you also understand that they don't need air to show magnetic properties. Hence we predicted the magnets would work when placed inside a vacuum chamber and then we tried it. And they did!
-
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
Ummm, the container is air/atmosphere tight - No seepage is occurring. And the air/atmosphere tightness has nothing to do with the thickness of the walls. Superfluidity is the creeping of the substance, not the passing through walls so to speak:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Helium-II-creep.svg/1920px-Helium-II-creep.svg.png)
Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Like I was saying.
Like you were saying what? Is the tupperware air-tight container cooled to 2 degrees above absolute zero when a helium superfluid appears? No.
Does the super fluid in the video leak through glass? No. From the video:
00:42 "The liquid helium had turned into a superfluid which displays some really odd properties here I have a beaker with an unglazed ceramic bottom of ultrafine porosity ordinarily this container with tiny pores can hold liquid helium but the moment the helium turns superfluid it leaks through."
Ceramic, not glass.
So again, there's no seepage in the air-tight container. Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
-
Have you personally checked that magnets don't work in a vacuum then to know this or are you just assuming they don't because that fits in better with your belief system
You didn't actually answer the question. I ask you if you have personally checked whether magents work in a vacuum? If so how did you do it?
No you haven't.
Without wishing to make this sound too pantomime like... O yes I have. I should know. I was there and we (as a group) tried it several times.
When you understand how magnets actually work rather than (as in your case) just how you believe they work, you also understand that they don't need air to show magnetic properties. Hence we predicted the magnets would work when placed inside a vacuum chamber and then we tried it. And they did!
No such thing as a vacuum.
-
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
Ummm, the container is air/atmosphere tight - No seepage is occurring. And the air/atmosphere tightness has nothing to do with the thickness of the walls. Superfluidity is the creeping of the substance, not the passing through walls so to speak:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Helium-II-creep.svg/1920px-Helium-II-creep.svg.png)
Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Like I was saying.
Like you were saying what? Is the tupperware air-tight container cooled to 2 degrees above absolute zero when a helium superfluid appears? No.
Does the super fluid in the video leak through glass? No. From the video:
00:42 "The liquid helium had turned into a superfluid which displays some really odd properties here I have a beaker with an unglazed ceramic bottom of ultrafine porosity ordinarily this container with tiny pores can hold liquid helium but the moment the helium turns superfluid it leaks through."
Ceramic, not glass.
So again, there's no seepage in the air-tight container. Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Yes I'm saying there's no such thing as an atmospheric tight container.
-
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
Ummm, the container is air/atmosphere tight - No seepage is occurring. And the air/atmosphere tightness has nothing to do with the thickness of the walls. Superfluidity is the creeping of the substance, not the passing through walls so to speak:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Helium-II-creep.svg/1920px-Helium-II-creep.svg.png)
Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Like I was saying.
Like you were saying what? Is the tupperware air-tight container cooled to 2 degrees above absolute zero when a helium superfluid appears? No.
Does the super fluid in the video leak through glass? No. From the video:
00:42 "The liquid helium had turned into a superfluid which displays some really odd properties here I have a beaker with an unglazed ceramic bottom of ultrafine porosity ordinarily this container with tiny pores can hold liquid helium but the moment the helium turns superfluid it leaks through."
Ceramic, not glass.
So again, there's no seepage in the air-tight container. Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Yes I'm saying there's no such thing as an atmospheric tight container.
What are you basing that on?
If I put some feathers in a tupperware container and seal it with the lid. Then take a high pressure air hose and blast the wall of the container from the outside, the feathers don't move. According to you they should. Why is it that they don't?
How do my cookies stay fresh in my tupperware container if it's not air-tight?
I can vacuum seal a steak and stick in the freezer and it will stay good for a couple of years. If it's not air-tight, how can that be?
-
If I put some feathers in a tupperware container and seal it with the lid. Then take a high pressure air hose and blast the wall of the container from the outside, the feathers don't move. According to you they should. Why is it that they don't?
How do my cookies stay fresh in my tupperware container if it's not air-tight?
I can vacuum seal a steak and stick in the freezer and it will stay good for a couple of years. If it's not air-tight, how can that be?
But it eventually does go off....right?
Not atmospherically tight.
Everything has porosity.
It's just a case of which molecular structure can penetrate.
This is the key.
If you've been paying attention to what I've been saying, you'll see what I'm saying.
-
If I put some feathers in a tupperware container and seal it with the lid. Then take a high pressure air hose and blast the wall of the container from the outside, the feathers don't move. According to you they should. Why is it that they don't?
How do my cookies stay fresh in my tupperware container if it's not air-tight?
I can vacuum seal a steak and stick in the freezer and it will stay good for a couple of years. If it's not air-tight, how can that be?
But it eventually does go off....right?
Not atmospherically tight.
Everything has porosity.
It's just a case of which molecular structure can penetrate.
This is the key.
If you've been paying attention to what I've been saying, you'll see what I'm saying.
Sure, pretty much everything is porous to a degree, some more than others. I get what you're saying, I get your concept, but it just doesn't jive with reality.
Ultimately, the beef does go off, goes bad, not because of air getting into the vacuum sealed pouch, but for two other reasons:
1) Because of the trace amounts of O2 left in the meat itself.
2) Anaerobic bacteria, bacteria that do not live or grow when oxygen is present. (e.g., botulism)
"Because vacuum packing beef blocks out all oxygen, the moisture inside your meat can’t evaporate and as a result, the beef keeps its juice and tenderness! Where water does evaporate, the effect is Freezer burn — which leads to whitish splotches (a.k.a. “ice crystals”) on the beef.
Vacuum packing meat inhibits only obligate bacteria (those activated by the presence of oxygen), not those that are anaerobic (those that do not need oxygen for activation)."
According to your theory of porosity, a magnet wouldn't be able to stick to another one inside a vacuum sealed pouch for years. So no, your explanation does not work.
What about the feathers, why don't they swirl around inside the sealed container when blasting the outside with air?
-
The container is airtight, there is no way for the air to get through.
Air tight?
Yes, air tight, as in it does not let gas through.
No need for your semantic BS of trying to pretend that means it isn't atmospheric tight or any other nonsense like that.
It means the container will not let air or atmosphere or gas or the like through.
Likewise, the issue of polarity shows that magnetism cannot be caused by air, yet you continue to ignore that.
It's because I know a vacuum cannot be created.
No, you just play semantic games to pretend that a vacuum needs to be a perfect vacuum so you can pretend they don't exist.
Back in reality, they do exist, they just aren't perfect.
Like I was saying.
This is why you should really pay attention.
The post you quoted directly addressed that.
Superfluid helium creates a thin film which coats the surface of the container. This means it will go up the wall of a container, and if there is no top, it will continue travelling along the wall to the outside.
It doesn't penetrate the walls of the container.
If you are referring to the frit it passes through, that has quite significant holes. Holes that would easily let a gas pass through, but the surface tension and viscosity of a typical liquid will prevent it from going through without significant force.
Yes I'm saying there's no such thing as an atmospheric tight container.
And there are plenty of examples in reality that prove that is wrong, such as a simple balloon.
-
No such thing as a vacuum.
Let's add another word into that sentence shall we. No such thing as a perfect vacuum.
However we can get pretty close and in universities (you know, those places where you go to receive higher education) they have vacuum chambers which can get you pretty close.
Irrespective. A magnetic field does not need air to propagate through any more than light does. So any talk of air or atmospheric pressure is irrelevant to whether a magnet works or not. Argue the point as much as you like.
If you can find any links at all anywhere on the Internet which back your opinion that magnetic fields are caused or influenced by air or atmospheric pressure please list them so I can learn and stand corrected. Just your claim that they are is not enough evidence.
You asked for an explanation about electrons and spin. So here is such an explanation. This tells you everything you could ever want to know about magnetism. I note there is no mention of air or atmospheric pressure.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/magnetic-forces-and-magnetic-fields/magnetic-field-current-carrying-wire/a/what-are-magnetic-fields
-
The container is airtight, there is no way for the air to get through.
Air tight?
This is why it's best to pay attention.
Are you saying scuba gear doesnt exist?
Are you saying propane tanks for bbq dont exist?
Are you saying submarines dont exist?
What about the trillion dollar natural gas industry?
Really?
Air tight isnt a thing?
-
Wjata the difference between atmospheric pressure and air pressure?
It depends how it's looked at.
On face value you pump up your tyres by extracting air from the atmosphere and pushing it into your tyre space.
Break that air down and try pumping elements of that break down into your tyres and see what happens.
The same thing happens.
Pumping air is pumping air.
You havent defined a difference.
-
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
Ummm, the container is air/atmosphere tight - No seepage is occurring. And the air/atmosphere tightness has nothing to do with the thickness of the walls. Superfluidity is the creeping of the substance, not the passing through walls so to speak:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Helium-II-creep.svg/1920px-Helium-II-creep.svg.png)
Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Like I was saying.
I feel like I could debate you with only using old posts.
Anaerobic conditions exist. This requires oxygen to stay out. We know oxygen stays out. See canned food for example. Also see glove boxes where things catch on fire if oxygen gets in.
Sealed containers exist.
-
If I put some feathers in a tupperware container and seal it with the lid. Then take a high pressure air hose and blast the wall of the container from the outside, the feathers don't move. According to you they should. Why is it that they don't?
How do my cookies stay fresh in my tupperware container if it's not air-tight?
I can vacuum seal a steak and stick in the freezer and it will stay good for a couple of years. If it's not air-tight, how can that be?
But it eventually does go off....right?
Not atmospherically tight.
Everything has porosity.
It's just a case of which molecular structure can penetrate.
This is the key.
If you've been paying attention to what I've been saying, you'll see what I'm saying.
Sure, pretty much everything is porous to a degree, some more than others. I get what you're saying, I get your concept, but it just doesn't jive with reality.
It depends on what you want to see as jiving with reality.
You accept porosity, you just seem to have the concept just related to normal air pressure and nothing else.
Think back to the stripping down of the gobstopper analogy.
Think back to the decompression of atmospheric molecules and how much lighter separated resultant molecules penetrate depending on porosity of objects and how they're pushed into them, or out of them..
Ultimately, the beef does go off, goes bad, not because of air getting into the vacuum sealed pouch, but for two other reasons:
1) Because of the trace amounts of O2 left in the meat itself.
2) Anaerobic bacteria, bacteria that do not live or grow when oxygen is present. (e.g., botulism)
"Because vacuum packing beef blocks out all oxygen, the moisture inside your meat can’t evaporate and as a result, the beef keeps its juice and tenderness! Where water does evaporate, the effect is Freezer burn — which leads to whitish splotches (a.k.a. “ice crystals”) on the beef.
Vacuum packing meat inhibits only obligate bacteria (those activated by the presence of oxygen), not those that are anaerobic (those that do not need oxygen for activation)."
You're trapping matter and placing it under pressure. That pressure stops the absorption to a massive degree because the pressure is dense molecular make up pushing against the bag and cannot penetrate that bag unless it breaks down a little t allow separated molecules to be pushed in, which is so slow it is not really noticed,
According to your theory of porosity, a magnet wouldn't be able to stick to another one inside a vacuum sealed pouch for years. So no, your explanation does not work.
As above.
What about the feathers, why don't they swirl around inside the sealed container when blasting the outside with air?
Inability to push through the container due to dense mass of the make up.
As above.
-
The container is airtight, there is no way for the air to get through.
Air tight?
Yes, air tight, as in it does not let gas through.
There's gas and there's gas.
As I explained above.
It's about dense mass make up, which is why I use atmosphere and not just air pressure.
-
No such thing as a vacuum.
Let's add another word into that sentence shall we. No such thing as a perfect vacuum.
However we can get pretty close and in universities (you know, those places where you go to receive higher education) they have vacuum chambers which can get you pretty close.
Irrespective. A magnetic field does not need air to propagate through any more than light does.
Everything needs atmosphere to work, whether it's through the atmosphere of the place we dwell or whether it's part of water...etc.
If it moves it requires atmosphere. Simple as that.
So any talk of air or atmospheric pressure is irrelevant to whether a magnet works or not. Argue the point as much as you like.
I will.
If you can find any links at all anywhere on the Internet which back your opinion that magnetic fields are caused or influenced by air or atmospheric pressure please list them so I can learn and stand corrected. Just your claim that they are is not enough evidence.
As above.
You asked for an explanation about electrons and spin. So here is such an explanation. This tells you everything you could ever want to know about magnetism. I note there is no mention of air or atmospheric pressure.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/magnetic-forces-and-magnetic-fields/magnetic-field-current-carrying-wire/a/what-are-magnetic-fields
How about you explain it nice and simple, in your own words.
It's too easy to just bring up something that you think fits.
Explain it, I dare you.
-
The container is airtight, there is no way for the air to get through.
Air tight?
This is why it's best to pay attention.
Are you saying scuba gear doesnt exist?
Are you saying propane tanks for bbq dont exist?
Are you saying submarines dont exist?
What about the trillion dollar natural gas industry?
Really?
Air tight isnt a thing?
No, it's not a thing.
-
Wjata the difference between atmospheric pressure and air pressure?
It depends how it's looked at.
On face value you pump up your tyres by extracting air from the atmosphere and pushing it into your tyre space.
Break that air down and try pumping elements of that break down into your tyres and see what happens.
The same thing happens.
Pumping air is pumping air.
You havent defined a difference.
I don't think you grasped breakdown of air.
-
They make the connection because the molecular change allows the seepage through the container with it being thin.
Think of it like a superfluid filtration through what appears to be a solid, which is not a solid to all broken down atmospheric matter.
Porosity is the key to this conundrum from your side.
Ummm, the container is air/atmosphere tight - No seepage is occurring. And the air/atmosphere tightness has nothing to do with the thickness of the walls. Superfluidity is the creeping of the substance, not the passing through walls so to speak:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Helium-II-creep.svg/1920px-Helium-II-creep.svg.png)
Are you now claiming there's no such thing as an air tight container?
Like I was saying.
I feel like I could debate you with only using old posts.
Anaerobic conditions exist. This requires oxygen to stay out. We know oxygen stays out. See canned food for example. Also see glove boxes where things catch on fire if oxygen gets in.
Sealed containers exist.
The video shows porosity. This is what I'm arguing.
Tins may keep air out and containers may keep air out but that is dense air under a specific pressure.
Break it down and it can penetrate. Extremely slowly but it shows porosity.
There's a reason you keep containers in the shade.
-
How about you explain it nice and simple, in your own words.
It's too easy to just bring up something that you think fits.
Explain it, I dare you.
What's the point because you will only ever believe what you think is true.
Since you don't believe magnets work in environments where air density if very low then why don't you go and find yourself a vacuum chamber and check it out for yourself. I have and so that's how I know they do. But obviously you haven't done the same experiments I have.
-
It depends on what you want to see as jiving with reality.
You accept porosity, you just seem to have the concept just related to normal air pressure and nothing else.
Think back to the stripping down of the gobstopper analogy.
Think back to the decompression of atmospheric molecules and how much lighter separated resultant molecules penetrate depending on porosity of objects and how they're pushed into them, or out of them..
Or instead of just accepting your wild fantasy with no connection to reality, instead realise that you can't just magically compress air and force it through tiny gaps smaller than a molecule as attempting to do so results in the air liquifying.
There's gas and there's gas.
As I explained above.
It's about dense mass make up, which is why I use atmosphere and not just air pressure.
And as I explained, the material is impermeable to gas, at least at any appreciable rate.
So it can't be air flowing though causing magnetism.
Just like the observed polarity of magnets shows that magnetism cannot be caused by air.
Again, have you figured out how 2 attractive flows can repel each other, or conversely how 2 repulsive flows can attract each other?
If not, your wild claims about the air causing magnetism is DOA.
Everything needs atmosphere to work, whether it's through the atmosphere of the place we dwell or whether it's part of water...etc.
No, it doesn't.
And that is the massive problem with your nonsense.
You want to pretend the atmosphere is required for everything, when there is nothing to support that wild claim, and plenty to show otherwise.
The video shows porosity. This is what I'm arguing.
No, you are arguing that materials which are air-tight are actually magically porous and still allow air through, meaning they are not air tight at all.
That is quite different to the video, which has an intentionally made porous material, made to allow fluids to flow through under pressure.
It needs that base. If instead it was a glass base, it wouldn't be flowing through.
-
Everything needs atmosphere to work, whether it's through the atmosphere of the place we dwell or whether it's part of water...etc.
How do you know everything needs atmosphere to work. What experiments have you done to verify this. You are just guessing.
-
How about you explain it nice and simple, in your own words.
It's too easy to just bring up something that you think fits.
Explain it, I dare you.
What's the point because you will only ever believe what you think is true.
Since you don't believe magnets work in environments where air density if very low then why don't you go and find yourself a vacuum chamber and check it out for yourself. I have and so that's how I know they do. But obviously you haven't done the same experiments I have.
I've never said magnets don't work n low pressure. I said a vacuum that you people call it.
You see, you people think space is a vacuum barring bits of stray matter just whizzing about. That makes me roll my eyes.
So when you say magnets work in this so called environment, I disagree.
Oh...and I knew you'd back out of explaining. It seems to be a massive issue for you.
-
Or instead of just accepting your wild fantasy with no connection to reality, instead realise that you can't just magically compress air and force it through tiny gaps smaller than a molecule as attempting to do so results in the air liquifying.
If you try to force air through, yes.
But then again if you'd paid attention you'd know what I was saying. Ask your mates who maybe have been taking notice.
And as I explained, the material is impermeable to gas, at least at any appreciable rate.
So it can't be air flowing though causing magnetism.
Like I said before. Pay attention.
Just like the observed polarity of magnets shows that magnetism cannot be caused by air.
Tell me about this polarity and tell me how it works that you know of?
Again, have you figured out how 2 attractive flows can repel each other, or conversely how 2 repulsive flows can attract each other?
If not, your wild claims about the air causing magnetism is DOA.
I believe I know...yes.
-
Everything needs atmosphere to work, whether it's through the atmosphere of the place we dwell or whether it's part of water...etc.
How do you know everything needs atmosphere to work. What experiments have you done to verify this. You are just guessing.
No atmosphere, no life, no movement.
-
Wjata the difference between atmospheric pressure and air pressure?
It depends how it's looked at.
On face value you pump up your tyres by extracting air from the atmosphere and pushing it into your tyre space.
Break that air down and try pumping elements of that break down into your tyres and see what happens.
The same thing happens.
Pumping air is pumping air.
You havent defined a difference.
I don't think you grasped breakdown of air.
You still havent defined anyhting.
Define it.
-
If I put some feathers in a tupperware container and seal it with the lid. Then take a high pressure air hose and blast the wall of the container from the outside, the feathers don't move. According to you they should. Why is it that they don't?
How do my cookies stay fresh in my tupperware container if it's not air-tight?
I can vacuum seal a steak and stick in the freezer and it will stay good for a couple of years. If it's not air-tight, how can that be?
But it eventually does go off....right?
Not atmospherically tight.
Everything has porosity.
It's just a case of which molecular structure can penetrate.
This is the key.
If you've been paying attention to what I've been saying, you'll see what I'm saying.
Sure, pretty much everything is porous to a degree, some more than others. I get what you're saying, I get your concept, but it just doesn't jive with reality.
It depends on what you want to see as jiving with reality.
You accept porosity, you just seem to have the concept just related to normal air pressure and nothing else.
Think back to the stripping down of the gobstopper analogy.
Think back to the decompression of atmospheric molecules and how much lighter separated resultant molecules penetrate depending on porosity of objects and how they're pushed into them, or out of them..
Ultimately, the beef does go off, goes bad, not because of air getting into the vacuum sealed pouch, but for two other reasons:
1) Because of the trace amounts of O2 left in the meat itself.
2) Anaerobic bacteria, bacteria that do not live or grow when oxygen is present. (e.g., botulism)
"Because vacuum packing beef blocks out all oxygen, the moisture inside your meat can’t evaporate and as a result, the beef keeps its juice and tenderness! Where water does evaporate, the effect is Freezer burn — which leads to whitish splotches (a.k.a. “ice crystals”) on the beef.
Vacuum packing meat inhibits only obligate bacteria (those activated by the presence of oxygen), not those that are anaerobic (those that do not need oxygen for activation)."
You're trapping matter and placing it under pressure. That pressure stops the absorption to a massive degree because the pressure is dense molecular make up pushing against the bag and cannot penetrate that bag unless it breaks down a little t allow separated molecules to be pushed in, which is so slow it is not really noticed,
According to your theory of porosity, a magnet wouldn't be able to stick to another one inside a vacuum sealed pouch for years. So no, your explanation does not work.
As above.
What about the feathers, why don't they swirl around inside the sealed container when blasting the outside with air?
Inability to push through the container due to dense mass of the make up.
As above.
So air is air sponges
Atmosphere is sponges
Molecules are sponges
And the break down is... what?
Define it.
-
If I place a bar magnetic on the wooden table in front of me there is no magnetic attraction between the table and the magnet.
If I now place a nail made of brass or other non-ferrous metal on the table it doesn't get attracted to the magnet or to the table which as I've already said is made from wood..Next I place an iron nail on the table near the magnet and immediately the nail is pulled to the magnet and sticks to it.
There is no change in air pressure so why does the magnet only attract the iron nail but not the brass nail?
I don't just accept what I am told like you claim I do. I do an actual experiment and then come to the most obvious conclusion. In this case that conclusion would be that magnetism or magnetic force only exists between iron based materials. Since there is no apparent magnetic force between the magnet and the brass nail.
-
You accepting is irrelevant.
You must maintain the assumption that whatever sceppy says is right.
However... when hes right hes also has a requirement to show how he is right and why conflicting observations still show his theory as relevant.
Press him in that fashion.
On the flip side.
If he outrifht rejects that scuba gear or circles exist, he still shpuld be able to show why/ how.
-
Acceptance or non-acceptance is not the point here. In this simple experiment I have observed that there is only a magnetic attraction (force) between two objects (the magnet and one of the nails) which are made of iron. There is no apparent attraction from the wooden table or the brass nail.
The air pressure in the room does not change and can be taken as constant throughout the experiment. That leads me to conclude that the magnetic force of attraction that exists between the magnet and the iron nail must be created by the fact that they are made of iron. Magnetism is therefore a physical property of iron and no other materials in the room. I would come to the same conclusion regardless of what I have or haven't read or what I have or haven't been told about magentism.
The experiment itself does not provide any evidence of a relationship between magnetism and air.
-
Back to you sceppy.
Wheres the relationship?
-
If I place a bar magnetic on the wooden table in front of me there is no magnetic attraction between the table and the magnet.
If I now place a nail made of brass or other non-ferrous metal on the table it doesn't get attracted to the magnet or to the table which as I've already said is made from wood..Next I place an iron nail on the table near the magnet and immediately the nail is pulled to the magnet and sticks to it.
There is no change in air pressure so why does the magnet only attract the iron nail but not the brass nail?
I don't just accept what I am told like you claim I do. I do an actual experiment and then come to the most obvious conclusion. In this case that conclusion would be that magnetism or magnetic force only exists between iron based materials. Since there is no apparent magnetic force between the magnet and the brass nail.
Are you ready to set out your jigsaw pieces and put them into places?
It's called putting your cryptic mind to work.
Does water flow through a funnel quicker than treacle?
Does treacle flow through a funnel quicker than whipped cream?
Does air flow through a sieve quicker than water?
Does treacle flow through a sieve quicker than whipped cream?
Can a sieve allow more air through than another if the sieve structure is more closely structured.
Can a plug be pulled from water easily if there is a low pressure beneath it, like air?
Does the plug feel like you're trying to stop a magnet being pushed into the hole, as if the plug was that magnet?
If you tried to push a plug under the sink against the flowing water would it appear like that plug was being repelled?
Just a few things to think about.
All it needs is to be thought of in atmospheric terms , such as molecular change/expansion and how it can be trapped and also be activated between materials porosity.
-
Acceptance or non-acceptance is not the point here. In this simple experiment I have observed that there is only a magnetic attraction (force) between two objects (the magnet and one of the nails) which are made of iron. There is no apparent attraction from the wooden table or the brass nail.
The air pressure in the room does not change and can be taken as constant throughout the experiment. That leads me to conclude that the magnetic force of attraction that exists between the magnet and the iron nail must be created by the fact that they are made of iron. Magnetism is therefore a physical property of iron and no other materials in the room. I would come to the same conclusion regardless of what I have or haven't read or what I have or haven't been told about magentism.
The experiment itself does not provide any evidence of a relationship between magnetism and air.
Does the air pressure change in a room when you put a window clamp onto a window pane?
One second the window clamp would not be pushed against the window and the next it does.
All you need to do is work it out from my side, not your side.
-
Wtf are you talking about?
Time to make a point.
Define atmospherix prwssure
-
All you need to do is work it out from my side, not your side.
Now why would anyone need to do that? Considering how obviously and spectacularly wrong you are.
-
How can we wqork anything out when you dont say anything
-
OK Sceptimatic. Explain to me exactly how the following happens. You put a bar magnet (strip of iron with a N and S pole) on the table in front of you. Table is make of wood. No apparent magnetic force between magnet and table.
Next you take a coin made of brass and place it on the magnet. No apparent magnetic effects. You hold the coin near the magnet and move it around the magnet. Still no apparent magnetic effects.
Next you take an iron nail and place it on the magnet. As soon as the nail comes within a certain distance of the magnet (a few cm away) you immediately feel the magnet pulling the nail towards one end of it. You let go of the nail it sticks to the magnet. If you prise it away and hold it towards the other end of the magnet you notice that this time it tries to push the nail away. This is the effect of magnetic repulsion and attraction. How you would explain this when you have previously insisted to us that there is no such thing as a pulling force only a pushing force I have no idea.
Now explain exactly how you believe air pressure creates the sensation of magnetism when you hold the nail near the magnet but when you hold the brass coin near the magnet at the same time, no magnetic sensation is felt? Based purely on what you observe and feel.
-
Like I said before. Pay attention.
Follow your own advice.
Tell me about this polarity and tell me how it works that you know of?
I already did, clearly showing how your nonsense simply doesn't work.
Back here remember:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2307990#msg2307990
You decided it was too long and just ignored it, because you can't refute it.
Again, have you figured out how 2 attractive flows can repel each other, or conversely how 2 repulsive flows can attract each other?
If not, your wild claims about the air causing magnetism is DOA.
I believe I know...yes.
Yet you refuse to provide any explanation.
That really seems to be a massive issue for you. You make all sorts of wild claims, yet can't back any of them up, and don't seem to be able to explain anything.
So how about you stop deflecting and either explain how the polarity of magnets work with air, or you admit you can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?
-
I've never said magnets don't work n low pressure. I said a vacuum that you people call it.
And what we call a vacuum refers to a region of very low pressure.
It does not need to be a perfect vacuum.
Even space is not a perfect vacuum.
So when you say magnets work in this so called environment, I disagree.
You didn't simply disagree.
You asserted as fact that magnets cannot work in a vacuum.
Now where is your justification for that?
Oh...and I knew you'd back out of explaining. It seems to be a massive issue for you.
There you go projecting again.
There are still so many things you haven't explained it isn't funny.
A key one for your magnet delusion is how the polarity of magnets work with air, requiring 2 attractive flows to magically repel or 2 outward flows to magically attract.
No atmosphere, no life, no movement.
Life is not the only source of movement. Try again.
Can a sieve allow more air through than another if the sieve structure is more closely structured.
Do you mean a finer mesh?
Typically no, the finer the mesh the harder it is to let air through.
Some things require quite significant force to push the air through.
If you tried to push a plug under the sink against the flowing water would it appear like that plug was being repelled?
Just a few things to think about.
Yes, and to extend it how it relates to 2 magnets interacting, which you keep on avoiding as it kills your claims.
If you tried to push an upwards flow of water up against the flowing water, would it appear like that was being repelled?
Yes.
If you tried to do the opposite and have 2 outlets with the water flowing out of both would it appear that it was being attracted?
Yes.
This is the opposite of what is observed with magnets, where like poles repel.
-
Oh...and I knew you'd back out of explaining. It seems to be a massive issue for you.
I didn't back out of anything. Let me explain why I haven't provided you with a personal explanation of how magnetism works. The link I provided you with has done it for me.
Have you ever heard of that phrase 'Why keep a dog and then learn to bark yourself'. That link is just one of many, many others which will tell you exactly the same thing about magnetism so why would I waste my time explaining something to you that has already explained many many times? If you have got your mind set on re-writing every physics textbook which has ever been written to satisfy your own mindset then that is something you can do yourself with your own explanations.
I don't have a massive issue. That lies with you preferring to deny and ignore all the conventional explanations already given.
-
Wtf are you talking about?
Time to make a point.
Define atmospherix prwssure
Calm down and take your time. When you start getting nasty, you make little sense.
-
All you need to do is work it out from my side, not your side.
Now why would anyone need to do that? Considering how obviously and spectacularly wrong you are.
Then don't do it. Save yourself from replying.
-
OK Sceptimatic. Explain to me exactly how the following happens. You put a bar magnet (strip of iron with a N and S pole) on the table in front of you. Table is make of wood. No apparent magnetic force between magnet and table.
Next you take a coin made of brass and place it on the magnet. No apparent magnetic effects. You hold the coin near the magnet and move it around the magnet. Still no apparent magnetic effects.
Next you take an iron nail and place it on the magnet. As soon as the nail comes within a certain distance of the magnet (a few cm away) you immediately feel the magnet pulling the nail towards one end of it. You let go of the nail it sticks to the magnet. If you prise it away and hold it towards the other end of the magnet you notice that this time it tries to push the nail away. This is the effect of magnetic repulsion and attraction. How you would explain this when you have previously insisted to us that there is no such thing as a pulling force only a pushing force I have no idea.
Now explain exactly how you believe air pressure creates the sensation of magnetism when you hold the nail near the magnet but when you hold the brass coin near the magnet at the same time, no magnetic sensation is felt? Based purely on what you observe and feel.
Get back to me when you acknowledge porosity with materials and then understand what I explained a few posts back.
From there I'll explain more but I'm not going to go through it when you don't seem to be getting any of it. It's pointless with you..
-
can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?
Everything that moves requires atmosphere. It's as simple as that.
-
can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?
Everything that moves requires atmosphere. It's as simple as that.
Yes, that lie is simple, but there is no justification for it at all.
Again, the polarity of magnets, a massive issue you are still avoiding, shows quite clearly that air is not involved.
And that is just one of many things that show air is not involved or needed.
-
can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?
Everything that moves requires atmosphere. It's as simple as that.
Yes, that lie is simple, but there is no justification for it at all.
Again, the polarity of magnets, a massive issue you are still avoiding, shows quite clearly that air is not involved.
And that is just one of many things that show air is not involved or needed.
Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.
-
Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.
I already did, and have referred back to that several times.
When I provided it you dismissed as too long.
Here is the post:
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Now going to try addressing the massive flaw in your model?
-
Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.
I already did, and have referred back to that several times.
When I provided it you dismissed as too long.
Here is the post:
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Now going to try addressing the massive flaw in your model?
In a few words explain what polarity is in terms of how your magnet works.
Give me a simple analogy.
-
Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.
I already did, and have referred back to that several times.
When I provided it you dismissed as too long.
Here is the post:
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Now going to try addressing the massive flaw in your model?
In a few words explain what polarity is in terms of how your magnet works.
Give me a simple analogy.
I have already explained it repeatedly. In both simple and complex ways.
I don't need to bother with analogies when a simple observations of magnets are all that is needed.
Like poles repel, opposite poles attract.
That cannot be explained by your air.
Now, can you deal with the issue, or just continually deflect?
-
I have already explained it repeatedly. In both simple and complex ways.
I don't need to bother with analogies when a simple observations of magnets are all that is needed.
Like poles repel, opposite poles attract.
That cannot be explained by your air.
Now, can you deal with the issue, or just continually deflect?
You're not explaining anything and you know it.
Tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
And then tell me what poles actually are.
Nice simple analogies would be ideal but I feel you're incapable of doing them. Prove me wrong.
-
Prove me wrong.
Why are you so obsessed about this proves this or that proves that all the time? Why is proof of everything always necessary for you?
-
Tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
No, that is entirely irrelevant to if your model and explanation matches reality.
Like I told you before, I don't need to know all the details of how magnets work to know that your explanation is wrong.
You tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract, which is impossible with your model based upon air.
If you feel the need to appeal to analogies because you can't actually explain, go ahead, just make sure you deal with both poles, not just one.
Prove me wrong
I already did, and have done so repeatedly.
That post you keep ignoring is one such example:
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
That post proves you are wrong as it proves your idea of air creating magnetism cannot account for the observed polarity of magnets.
If you wish to disagree, tell me where it is wrong.
-
Prove me wrong.
Why are you so obsessed about this proves this or that proves that all the time? Why is proof of everything always necessary for you?
Because I'm dealing with people like you who come to a flat Earth forum to peddle your global indoctrinated belief's, so I'm just counter arguing and using my ways to do it, whether you like that or not.
-
Tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
No, that is entirely irrelevant to if your model and explanation matches reality.
Like I told you before, I don't need to know all the details of how magnets work to know that your explanation is wrong.
It might help you if you go through what you typed, above and let it sink in as to what you're saying.
You can't explain poles and magnets but you think you can tell me I'm wrong or just throw away any answers I give because they don't suit you.
I'm absolutely fine with it...don;t get me wrong.....but, it shows you are arguing without any genuine back up.
-
Because I'm dealing with people like you who come to a flat Earth forum to peddle your global indoctrinated belief's, so I'm just counter arguing and using my ways to do it, whether you like that or not.
OK so if you are so confident you are right with your counter arguments then why don't you go peddling your flat Earth beliefs on other mainstream physics forums and preach your view of reality to them? Instead of confining yourself to flat Earth websites where you know you will find sympathetic and like minded people? Needless to say so long as you limit yourself to chatting with people who agree with you then that will help to reinforce your own confidence and belief that you are right won't it.
Those who believe in conspiracy theories seem to just flock together like sheep. Safety in numbers I suppose.
-
Or better question Why cant you prove your ideas with a diagram?
Is this the thread where you claimed circles and triangles dont exist?
Show us how a "horizon" is made and how we percieve it at "eye level" regardless of altitude.
-
Let's be fair... I seem to recall one diagram that Scepti managed to come up with. Not exactly convincing but a diagram nonetheless.
-
He provided a diagram that did not disprove but proved the ball earth horizon model.
-
It might help you if you go through what you typed, above and let it sink in as to what you're saying.
I already have.
It might help you if you stop with the pathetic deflection and actually address the issue for once.
You can't explain poles and magnets but you think you can tell me I'm wrong or just throw away any answers I give because they don't suit you.
No, I can explain them, but see no point in doing so as that would be just another deflection from your inability to explain them.
But as repeatedly shown, I don't need to be able to explain how they work to know that what you are claiming about how they work would produce which are fundamentally different from what is observed in reality.
I'm not telling you that you are wrong just because it doesn't suit me; I am telling you that you are wrong for the reasons already provided in the post you continue to ignore. If magnetism was caused by a flow of air, it would produce results fundamentally different to what is observed in reality.
Air would produce magnets with an attractive pole and a repulsive pole.
2 attractive poles should attract each other.
2 repulsive poles should repel each other.
The attractive pole should attract other materials.
The repulsive pole should repel other materials.
But in reality, while magnets have 2 poles, neither is attractive or repulsive in that sense.
Instead 2 like poles repel and 2 opposite poles attract.
This has all been repeatedly explained to you and you have provided nothing to refute it.
This shows you are wrong.
If you weren't wrong, you would be able to refute it.
but, it shows you are arguing without any genuine back up.
Quite the opposite.
It shows you are arguing without any genuine back up.
I have reality and logic backing me up.
All you seem to be able to do is deflect.
You have no evidence to justify any of your claims, nor do you have any logic at all to defend from their refutations.
-
You can't explain poles and magnets but you think you can tell me I'm wrong or just throw away any answers I give because they don't suit you
None of us will ever know everything about everything will we. We learn as we proceed through life. So how do we learn? What information do we trust and what don't we trust. Well for me if what I read about something, hear about something or am told about something and that is consistent with my life experience why should I have any doubt that what I have read, heard or am told is wrong? As soon as discrepancies start to appear between what I am told or what I read and my life experience then I will have reason to question it. Otherwise I can't see why I would have a reason to question it.
You are telling us or appear to be telling us that a magnetic field is caused by air pressure or atmospheric pressure. However my experience of experimenting with magnets and different materials tells me during the course of my life tells me that magnetic fields are caused by properties of the materials concerned and have nothing to do with the air pressure around them.
If you think different then obviously your experience with magnets is different to mine so explain how and why.
-
What is magnetism?
Who knows.
What variables affect magnetism?
Electrical current.
Windings.
Metals.
Definitely not air.
So, please let us know what the relationship is- because so far all experiments, easily reproducable and testable and well documented ones, show otherwise.
-
Because I'm dealing with people like you who come to a flat Earth forum to peddle your global indoctrinated belief's, so I'm just counter arguing and using my ways to do it, whether you like that or not.
OK so if you are so confident you are right with your counter arguments then why don't you go peddling your flat Earth beliefs on other mainstream physics forums and preach your view of reality to them? Instead of confining yourself to flat Earth websites where you know you will find sympathetic and like minded people? Needless to say so long as you limit yourself to chatting with people who agree with you then that will help to reinforce your own confidence and belief that you are right won't it.
Those who believe in conspiracy theories seem to just flock together like sheep. Safety in numbers I suppose.
What are you doing here?
-
Or better question Why cant you prove your ideas with a diagram?
Is this the thread where you claimed circles and triangles dont exist?
Show us how a "horizon" is made and how we percieve it at "eye level" regardless of altitude.
Tried them and you did the exact same thing when I did. You tried to play ridicule.
It's just a circle you go in until you get yourself all irate and frustrated, which you bring on yourself.
-
What am I doing here? You could call it researching the reasoning behind alternative thinkers I suppose. I've been fascinated by astronomy all my life so I am naturally interested in finding out about alternative theories about the Universe.
On the other hand you could call it finding entertainment.
-
No, I can explain them, but see no point in doing so as that would be just another deflection from your inability to explain them.
But as repeatedly shown, I don't need to be able to explain how they work to know that what you are claiming about how they work would produce which are fundamentally different from what is observed in reality.
This is all I ever get off all of you people.
You pee and moan about me not giving you my side (which I do) and argue that I'm wrong, then you are unwilling to show why I'm wrong by showing your side.
The same thing of " Oh I can explain them but why should I", gunk.
Here's the silly thing.
You people know electricity comes from atmosphere.
You know that electricity can make a magnet.
You then deny that atmospheric pressure is not responsible for magnets.
It baffles me why you go to these lengths to deny something which you cannot go on to explain.
-
You can't explain poles and magnets but you think you can tell me I'm wrong or just throw away any answers I give because they don't suit you
None of us will ever know everything about everything will we. We learn as we proceed through life. So how do we learn? What information do we trust and what don't we trust. Well for me if what I read about something, hear about something or am told about something and that is consistent with my life experience why should I have any doubt that what I have read, heard or am told is wrong? As soon as discrepancies start to appear between what I am told or what I read and my life experience then I will have reason to question it. Otherwise I can't see why I would have a reason to question it.
You are telling us or appear to be telling us that a magnetic field is caused by air pressure or atmospheric pressure. However my experience of experimenting with magnets and different materials tells me during the course of my life tells me that magnetic fields are caused by properties of the materials concerned and have nothing to do with the air pressure around them.
If you think different then obviously your experience with magnets is different to mine so explain how and why.
Explain how and why a magnet works.
-
No, I can explain them, but see no point in doing so as that would be just another deflection from your inability to explain them.
But as repeatedly shown, I don't need to be able to explain how they work to know that what you are claiming about how they work would produce which are fundamentally different from what is observed in reality.
This is all I ever get off all of you people.
You mean when you claim that the air is required for magnetism to work and claim that you can explain it with air, we point out that it is BS and explain why, and I don't run along with your distracts, where you request explanations from us just to dismiss them?
You pee and moan about me not giving you my side (which I do) and argue that I'm wrong, then you are unwilling to show why I'm wrong by showing your side.
The point you seem to keep on missing is that we don't need to be able to explain how magnets work to know that your explanation is wrong.
I have clearly explained why your explanation is wrong repeatedly.
I have shown a massive issue for your claims.
Yet you continually refuse to address these massive issues.
Again, I don't need to be able to fully explain how magnets work to show that what is observed in reality directly contradicts what is expected from your model.
You people know electricity comes from atmosphere.
No, that is your baseless assertion.
Stop lying about what we allegedly know.
Now stop with the pathetic deflections.
Either explain the observed polarity of magnets using air or admit you can't.
-
What is magnetism?
Who knows.
Exactly.
-
What am I doing here? You could call it researching the reasoning behind alternative thinkers I suppose. I've been fascinated by astronomy all my life so I am naturally interested in finding out about alternative theories about the Universe.
On the other hand you could call it finding entertainment.
You can go to many sites that cater for your thinking so why here?
-
You people know electricity comes from atmosphere.
No, that is your baseless assertion.
Stop lying about what we allegedly know.
Now stop with the pathetic deflections.
Either explain the observed polarity of magnets using air or admit you can't.
I think this plainly proves you're not here for anything other than trouble making.
-
What is magnetism?
Who knows.
Exactly.
You claim to, yet you continually refuse to explain.
You people know electricity comes from atmosphere.
No, that is your baseless assertion.
Stop lying about what we allegedly know.
Now stop with the pathetic deflections.
Either explain the observed polarity of magnets using air or admit you can't.
I think this plainly proves you're not here for anything other than trouble making.
Projecting again I see, and deflecting while you are at it.
So far you are the one continually refusing to explain anything, always avoiding the issues YOU create.
Grow up, stop with the deflections and explain how magnetism works, specifically the polarity, or admit you cannot explain it with air.
-
What is magnetism?
Who knows.
Exactly.
You claim to, yet you continually refuse to explain.
That's what I've been telling him...and you.
-
Explain how and why a magnet works.
I already have remember. As you are often saying that explanation might not be to your liking but I have explained it according to the best of my knowledge. Why do I need to know how and why a magnet works anyway?
I don't need to know how a car works to drive one.
-
Explain how and why a magnet works.
I already have remember. As you are often saying that explanation might not be to your liking but I have explained it according to the best of my knowledge. Why do I need to know how and why a magnet works anyway?
I don't need to know how a car works to drive one.
So you can stick magnets together but you don't know why they stick...they just do, right?
It has nothing at all to do with atmosphere, they just stick together regardless, right?
Is this your thought process?
-
So you can stick magnets together but you don't know why they stick...they just do, right?
It has nothing at all to do with atmosphere, they just stick together regardless, right?
Is this your thought process?
What are magnets made of?
Why don't brass screws or copper pipes or wire stick together?
Why is it that only things which are made of iron or contain iron stick together?
What is your thought process about the above? Mine would be there seems to be some connection between magnetic fields and iron. For permanent magnets anyway. Electromagnets are another matter. But still nothing to do with air or the atmosphere.
If magnetism is caused by the atmosphere why do only ferrous materials seem to create a magnetic effect?
There is a link between electric and magnetic fields as demonstrated by James Clarke Maxwell. The atmosphere is made up of molecules which are made up of atoms which are made up of charged particles. Protons and electrons.
However there are equal numbers of protons and electrons in atoms making up the atmosphere and so the overall charge is cancelled out. Hence the atmosphere is electrically neutral.
-
What is magnetism?
Who knows.
Exactly.
You claim to, yet you continually refuse to explain.
That's what I've been telling him...and you.
By that do you mean you are telling him that you know how they work, or that no one knows how they work and you claiming it is because of air is a blatant lie?
It has nothing at all to do with atmosphere, they just stick together regardless, right?
Is this your thought process?
It certainly isn't mine.
Instead it is that not only is there no evidence at all that the magnetic attraction depends on the atmosphere, but also evidence indicating it isn't caused by the air, such as airtight containers or solid objects still allowing the effect of magnets to go through them, even though they prevent the air; objects equally affected by air not being equally affected by magnets, or even more extreme cases where objects more affected by the air are less affected by magnets; the observations of magnets in low pressure, still working just as well even when suction cups (something that actually needs the air) fail; and of course, what you have been avoiding all through this thread since you brought them up, the observed polarity of magnets destroys any hope of them being explicable by air.
Air has no justification at all for why there are 2 poles, where like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
-
You keep asking us to explain things to you but then you dismiss or ignore those explanations because we don't tell you what you want to hear.
I am never going to tell you that magnetism is caused by the atmosphere because in my experience up to now I have seen no evidence which suggests it might be.
You think it is because you can't normally see a magnetic field so to our eyes the only thing that appears to link two magnets is the air between them. So what is this invisible magic force which seems to pull those magnets together you ask. Well scatter some iron filings over the magnets and you will find out as the magnetic field lines become visible.
Replace the magnets with two strips of copper and then scatter iron filings over them. No magnetic field lines.
-
So you can stick magnets together but you don't know why they stick...they just do, right?
It has nothing at all to do with atmosphere, they just stick together regardless, right?
Is this your thought process?
What are magnets made of?
You mean what can be magnetised?
A few things in terms of holding magnetic effects, like iron and such.
Why don't brass screws or copper pipes or wire stick together?
Not structured enough to create a storage and build capture of atmospheric breakdown to funnel like ( pressured vortex) realease.
Why is it that only things which are made of iron or contain iron stick together?
The structure allows greater atmospheric pressure change throughout the structure.
What is your thought process about the above? Mine would be there seems to be some connection between magnetic fields and iron. For permanent magnets anyway.
Yep. It's all about where the magnetic fields come from.
It's all around us. We actually work from them, as does every other living thing or any energetic moving thing.
Electromagnets are another matter. But still nothing to do with air or the atmosphere.
It's everything to do with the atmosphere.
Where do you think the scrap metal magnets get their magnetism from to pick up ferrous metals?
If magnetism is caused by the atmosphere why do only ferrous materials seem to create a magnetic effect?
Structure.
There is a link between electric and magnetic fields as demonstrated by James Clarke Maxwell. The atmosphere is made up of molecules which are made up of atoms which are made up of charged particles. Protons and electrons.
However there are equal numbers of protons and electrons in atoms making up the atmosphere and so the overall charge is cancelled out. Hence the atmosphere is electrically neutral.
So basically you're saying we do not get electricity from the atmosphere.
How about you tell me where we get it from, bearing in mind we can use generators and such in atmosphere.
Nice and simple, just explain where we get electricity and we can go from there.
-
It has nothing at all to do with atmosphere, they just stick together regardless, right?
Is this your thought process?
It certainly isn't mine.
You seem to go on like it is.
-
You keep asking us to explain things to you but then you dismiss or ignore those explanations because we don't tell you what you want to hear.
I am never going to tell you that magnetism is caused by the atmosphere because in my experience up to now I have seen no evidence which suggests it might be.
So tell me what you think it is.
Tell me where it comes from.
You can create a field to gain magnetism so tell me how a field is created.
-
Tell us the relationship between air and magnetsism because all experiments involvig magentism - air is not a factor.
Any example
Name one
Where you change the air and magetism changes.
-
Tell us the relationship between air and magnetsism because all experiments involvig magentism - air is not a factor.
Any example
Name one
Where you change the air and magetism changes.
You should've paid attention to my earlier comments and started the jigsaw.
-
How about you tell me where we get it from, bearing in mind we can use generators and such in atmosphere.
Have you ever done anything for yourself or have you just spent your entire life relying on other people to give you all the answers?
Here you go, try this.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-does-an-electric-generator-work-lesson-for-kids.html
-
This is all I ever get off all of you people.
You pee and moan about me not giving you my side (which I do) and argue that I'm wrong, then you are unwilling to show why I'm wrong by showing your side.
That's because on our side, we have an entire world filled with explanations and data and research that you could easily access and learn about. We don't NEED to teach you personally, you could learn any of it whenever you wanted.
On the other hand.. you are the only person in the world who believes your particular theories. So if you don't explain them... nobody can look them up.
See the difference?
Do your own work.
-
Tell us the relationship between air and magnetsism because all experiments involvig magentism - air is not a factor.
Any example
Name one
Where you change the air and magetism changes.
You should've paid attention to my earlier comments and started the jigsaw.
Dafuq?
You asked a bunch of questions about voretexes.
You said nothing of substance.
Quit being the riddler and answer
Next time i need a fan motor ill tell the clerk it has to be size XXX vortex and provide ebough friction vibration crush effect.
Im sure ill get what i need.
-
How about you tell me where we get it from, bearing in mind we can use generators and such in atmosphere.
Have you ever done anything for yourself or have you just spent your entire life relying on other people to give you all the answers?
Here you go, try this.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-does-an-electric-generator-work-lesson-for-kids.html
It wants me to create an account to view.
So how about you explain instead of ding the usual stuff of reliance on everything to copy and paste.
-
Do your own work.
And you need to do your own.
-
Dafuq?
?
-
You seem to go on like it is.
I clearly explained why it wasn't, and what my thought process actually is.
But your process sure seems to be grabbing any random bit of my post to use it to pretend you have responding, while ignoring the massive issues which show you are completely wrong. Truly pathetic.
Once more, HOW DOES AIR CAUSE THE OBSERVED POLARITY OF MAGNETS SUCH THAT LIKE POLES REPEL AND OPPOSITE POLES ATTRACT?
If you cannot explain that with your model (and especially if it in fact indicates something different should happen), then your model simply does not work.
The very first thing any attempt at explaining magnetism should do, is explain the observed polarity of magnets. If it can't do that, it is DOA.
So tell me what you think it is.
Tell me where it comes from.
Or, how about you stop deflecting and we continue to deal with the air to see if that is where it comes from?
You should've paid attention to my earlier comments and started the jigsaw.
Follow your own advice.
If you had honestly paid attention before you would have realised your jigsaw simple doesn't fit together and you should have discarded it long ago.
Not structured enough to create a storage and build capture of atmospheric breakdown to funnel like ( pressured vortex) realease.
Yet they happily interact with magnetic fields (specifically changing ones) and can generate magnetic fields from the passage of electricity. So your claim yet again makes no sense.
It's everything to do with the atmosphere.
Stop just asserting the same refuted BS.
Justify your BS.
Explain the observed polarity of magnets in terms of atmosphere.
If you can't, then there is no reason to think magnetism is caused by the air.
So basically you're saying we do not get electricity from the atmosphere.
How about you tell me where we get it from, bearing in mind we can use generators and such in atmosphere.
We can also use generators inside a house, or other building. Does that mean the electricity produced by the generator is magically produced by the building? NO!
More importantly, we can also see that fuel of some form is required. The closest you get to not needing that is a wind turbine.
But even then it isn't simply air magically converting into electricity.
Instead, you have a generator which rotates by moving a magnet relative to a conductor.
Nice and simple, just explain where we get electricity and we can go from there.
Or, nice and simple, just explain how air causes the observed polarity of magnets, and we can go from there.
-
Do your own work.
And you need to do your own.
I've done all of YOUR work for you so far, being the only one of us to actually perform your experiments.
Nobody but you knows how your theories work, so it doesn't matter how hard I work if you can't explain them.
Put some effort in, don't be so lazy.
-
You seem to go on like it is.
I clearly explained why it wasn't, and what my thought process actually is.
Actually you didn't.
-
I've done all of YOUR work for you so far, being the only one of us to actually perform your experiments.
Nobody but you knows how your theories work, so it doesn't matter how hard I work if you can't explain them.
Put some effort in, don't be so lazy.
How about you put some honest effort in.
-
Actually you didn't.
Actually I did, clearly explained in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2309258#msg2309258
How about you put some honest effort in.
How about you follow your own advice and put some honest effort in yourself for once?
After all, the only one in this thread currently refusing to do so is YOU!
With you continually from your inability how magnetism relies upon air, when all the available shows that air has nothing to do with it and cannot explain it.
For example, how about you grow up, put some honest effort in and explained the observed polarity of magnets with air?
-
Hes not going to do shitall.
This is 30pg of delfection across 2 threads now!
End this.
Hes clammed up.
He hasnt provided any new insight into his model for sooooooome time now.
-
This will thread will again end up at 100 pages plus unless we all at some point do exactly as Sceptimatic wants which is is hold our hands up and say 'hey - you are right and we were wrong... magnetism is a product of air and atmospheric pressure'..
But that will never happen of course because he isn't and it is not.
Just one question to Sceptimatic. A nice simple experiment. Take two bar magnets. The two I have here have one end painted red to signify the north pole. Now when I hold them N pole to S pole they pull together. But when I flick one around so they are N pole to N pole (red ends together) they try to push each other apart.
The ONLY thing that has changed is the orientation of the two magnets. How then do you explain the difference in magnetic force (from attractive to repulsive) as being attributed to the air? Onus is on you to explain this since you are the only one insisting magnetism is produced by air or atmospheric pressure.
-
Actually you didn't.
Actually I did, clearly explained in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2309258#msg2309258
You're not explaining anything in that post. Nothing.
-
Hes not going to do shitall.
This is 30pg of delfection across 2 threads now!
End this.
Hes clammed up.
He hasnt provided any new insight into his model for sooooooome time now.
Why don't you just end yourself from the thread instead of trying to be bid daddy to the rest.
You're on frustrated person. An angry person. An internet bully like a few others.
Just stay out of it with me if all you can do is have a pop.
If you want to re-engage with something worthwhile, then do so.
Just stop whining like a child.
-
This will thread will again end up at 100 pages plus unless we all at some point do exactly as Sceptimatic wants which is is hold our hands up and say 'hey - you are right and we were wrong... magnetism is a product of air and atmospheric pressure'..
But that will never happen of course because he isn't and it is not.
Just one question to Sceptimatic. A nice simple experiment. Take two bar magnets. The two I have here have one end painted red to signify the north pole. Now when I hold them N pole to S pole they pull together. But when I flick one around so they are N pole to N pole (red ends together) they try to push each other apart.
The ONLY thing that has changed is the orientation of the two magnets. How then do you explain the difference in magnetic force (from attractive to repulsive) as being attributed to the air? Onus is on you to explain this since you are the only one insisting magnetism is produced by air or atmospheric pressure.
I did explain You just decided to wave it all aside and carry a Jackblack hit of saying I didn't explain.
If you want to get the grasp of it then pay attention and stop looking for shoulder pats or cheering back pats.
Can't you people work alone?
-
This is always your standard way of deflecting any explanation requested of you isn't it. I have read all of the posts in this discussion over time and I think if you had explained in any kind of rational way how magnetism can possibly be created by air or atmospheric pressure I would have noticed it.
However if you are so sure you have already explained it then just give me the reply number of the post and I will look back and read it again.
-
I've done all of YOUR work for you so far, being the only one of us to actually perform your experiments.
Nobody but you knows how your theories work, so it doesn't matter how hard I work if you can't explain them.
Put some effort in, don't be so lazy.
How about you put some honest effort in.
I did. How about you put any effort at all? Or just admit you aren't capable of performing such a simple experiment?
-
This is always your standard way of deflecting any explanation requested of you isn't it. I have read all of the posts in this discussion over time and I think if you had explained in any kind of rational way how magnetism can possibly be created by air or atmospheric pressure I would have noticed it.
However if you are so sure you have already explained it then just give me the reply number of the post and I will look back and read it again.
Just because you refuse to even dare to try to understand any of it and get frustrated that I won't provide you with whatever you think you require...that is of no concern to me.
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain or we will continue this tit for tat nonsense.
-
I've done all of YOUR work for you so far, being the only one of us to actually perform your experiments.
Nobody but you knows how your theories work, so it doesn't matter how hard I work if you can't explain them.
Put some effort in, don't be so lazy.
How about you put some honest effort in.
I did. How about you put any effort at all? Or just admit you aren't capable of performing such a simple experiment?
You're about at the olwe of my shoes in terms of being anything meaningful.
Put some effort in Mr nasty or be overlooked.
-
Just because you refuse to even dare to try to understand any of it and get frustrated that I won't provide you with whatever you think you require.
OK so that's another one to add to the list of Sceptimatics excuses. I only asked you to give me a reply number that's all.
I say again, you are the only one who I have known ever to suggest there is a link between air or atmospheric pressure and magnetism so I am kind of reliant on you to explain this. No matter how much I try to find out about this from any other source apart from you I am not going to meet with much success.
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
-
Physics is not everybody's cup of tea.
Many in this thread are too busy playing apologist to earnestly engage in discussions about (theoretical) physics.
Scepti has been trying, by dialectic, to get you to recognize that "fields" are not defined and that magnetism is currently a mystery to all physicists as a result. Einstein recognized that his "castle in the sky" (continuous fields / fields of any kind) may well be utter fiction towards the end of his life. We are NOT talking about wild or anti-conventional physics concepts here.
Suppose for a second, that Scepti is right (benefit of the doubt, required to earnestly evaluate and not merely "debunk")
There is something VERY small, that is a component of our air, that is responsible for magnetism. There is an abundance of it on one side (pole) of a magnet and a deficiency on the other.
Putting aside that this is a vastly more sound conception than what we currently have (magic "fields" within and comprised of nothing), from a philosophical/physics perspective - the next step is to test the notion.
As I described earlier in this thread, no experimental validation or invalidation of this hypothesis is possible until we can measure and manipulate the IV (the proposed infintessimally small thing)
That should be the focus. Physics does not take place within the mind, i.e. thought experiment is in no way experiment.
-
Just because you refuse to even dare to try to understand any of it and get frustrated that I won't provide you with whatever you think you require.
OK so that's another one to add to the list of Sceptimatics excuses. I only asked you to give me a reply number that's all.
I say again, you are the only one who I have known ever to suggest there is a link between air or atmospheric pressure and magnetism so I am kind of reliant on you to explain this. No matter how much I try to find out about this from any other source apart from you I am not going to meet with much success.
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your own brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
To try and understand my part you might be better trying to also understand your part, in terms of what you think magnetism actually is and why it works.
Don't just throw up crap and say it's because one pole attracts the other and one repels.
Tell me how it works.
-
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
Its weird. Sceptimatic has made up a fantasy about how magnets work. Thats fine, a vivid imagination is nice and he is welcome to make up whatever stories he wants.
But he cant seem to understand that unless he can adequately communicate his made up story, no one even knows what it is. We cant use our "own brains" to comprehend his imagination unless he communicates it clearly.
-
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
Its weird. Sceptimatic has made up a fantasy about how magnets work. Thats fine, a vivid imagination is nice and he is welcome to make up whatever stories he wants.
But he cant seem to understand that unless he can adequately communicate his made up story, no one even knows what it is. We cant use our "own brains" to comprehend his imagination unless he communicates it clearly.
I'm trying to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
Jigsaws are jumbled up and need to be pieced together to gain a picture.
To get to that picture the pieces must start to be put together to see bits of it.
To do my jigsaw you have to start from the bottom and build it up but you'll never do it by also scattering your own jigsaw pieces in with mine.
The sooner that's understood the sooner people will try to do mine.
-
In order to do a jigsaw you have to have all the pieces. Until you provide us with any of the pieces of your jigsaw, how are we supposed make any sense of it? It's like someone telling me that have made a jigsaw but not telling me where I can get hold of one to try it.
Air as you know (hopefully) is made up of the molecules of various gases. Iron is a metal and not a gas. Given that gases don't appear to have any magnetic properties, how the heck can magnetic fields be caused by the air? The pieces of your jigsaw presumably can be put together to give us a picture of exactly how magnetism is related to air or atmospheric pressure. This jigsaw is of your own making but you are not giving us any of the pieces. That is all we want to know.
-
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
Its weird. Sceptimatic has made up a fantasy about how magnets work. Thats fine, a vivid imagination is nice and he is welcome to make up whatever stories he wants.
But he cant seem to understand that unless he can adequately communicate his made up story, no one even knows what it is. We cant use our "own brains" to comprehend his imagination unless he communicates it clearly.
I'm trying to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
Jigsaws are jumbled up and need to be pieced together to gain a picture.
To get to that picture the pieces must start to be put together to see bits of it.
To do my jigsaw you have to start from the bottom and build it up but you'll never do it by also scattering your own jigsaw pieces in with mine.
The sooner that's understood the sooner people will try to do mine.
I know you are trying, but it is not working. And it is not other peoples fault for not being able to understand your imagination.
You have a made up story that you want to tell other people. Of course they are not going to accept your made up story as true, that would be ridiculous. But at the least you want people to understand your story as you are trying to tell it.
What is preventing you from clearly communicating your thought up story?
-
In order to do a jigsaw you have to have all the pieces. Until you provide us with any of the pieces of your jigsaw, how are we supposed make any sense of it? It's like someone telling me that have made a jigsaw but not telling me where I can get hold of one to try it.
Air as you know (hopefully) is made up of the molecules of various gases. Iron is a metal and not a gas. Given that gases don't appear to have any magnetic properties, how the heck can magnetic fields be caused by the air? That is all we want to know.
Ok let's go through a few things.
Be the detective and log everything down for your jigsaw.
Aluminium does not conduct magnetism, right?
It doesn't act like a magnet.
However, if you wrap aluminium foil around a magnet you can still attract of repel another magnet.
Ok, so basing that on the aluminium foil covering one magnet, how does that magnet manage to attract or repel?
All I want to know from you is, how does that magnetism go through the foil.
If we want to get somewhere then I need you to be honest.
-
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
Its weird. Sceptimatic has made up a fantasy about how magnets work. Thats fine, a vivid imagination is nice and he is welcome to make up whatever stories he wants.
But he cant seem to understand that unless he can adequately communicate his made up story, no one even knows what it is. We cant use our "own brains" to comprehend his imagination unless he communicates it clearly.
I'm trying to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
Jigsaws are jumbled up and need to be pieced together to gain a picture.
To get to that picture the pieces must start to be put together to see bits of it.
To do my jigsaw you have to start from the bottom and build it up but you'll never do it by also scattering your own jigsaw pieces in with mine.
The sooner that's understood the sooner people will try to do mine.
I know you are trying, but it is not working. And it is not other peoples fault for not being able to understand your imagination.
You have a made up story that you want to tell other people. Of course they are not going to accept your made up story as true, that would be ridiculous. But at the least you want people to understand your story as you are trying to tell it.
What is preventing you from clearly communicating your thought up story?
I'm not asking people to accept it. If people want to know it then they have to try and understand it or at least try.
I'm not begging anyone to accept or understand it but if people ask and I answer and they say no joy then they need to find other ways of asking and I'll try and find better ways of explaining. And so on.
Anyone is free to treat me as nuts and just deck out.
-
ng to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
No one is shooting you down. We are simply trying to find out more about your ideas. We haven't got a clue because you won't tell us. As for having no real clue about magnetism, that isn't true. It's more a case of because you dismiss the conventional theories of magnetism, you think we haven't got any real clue because we do.
-
ng to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
No one is shooting you down. We are simply trying to find out more about your ideas. We haven't got a clue because you won't tell us. As for having no real clue about magnetism, that isn't true. It's more a case of because you dismiss the conventional theories of magnetism, you think we haven't got any real clue because we do.
So tell me what it is, then.
-
If people want to know it then they have to try and understand it or at least try.
Once again, how can we understand if you won't explain anything? You say you have but I can't find those explanations.
-
If people want to know it then they have to try and understand it or at least try.
Once again, how can we understand if you won't explain anything? You say you have but I can't find those explanations.
I'm trying to tell you it's atmosphere but you people just immediately waft your hand in the air and call no joy.
It's not me that has all the explaining issues, it's you lot in thinking like you do.
-
I'm trying to tell you it's atmosphere but you people just immediately waft your hand in the air and call no joy.
But what properties of the atmosphere cause magnetism? It is just gas and gas is not magnetic.. so how does the atmosphere create a magnetic field?
-
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
Its weird. Sceptimatic has made up a fantasy about how magnets work. Thats fine, a vivid imagination is nice and he is welcome to make up whatever stories he wants.
But he cant seem to understand that unless he can adequately communicate his made up story, no one even knows what it is. We cant use our "own brains" to comprehend his imagination unless he communicates it clearly.
I'm trying to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
Jigsaws are jumbled up and need to be pieced together to gain a picture.
To get to that picture the pieces must start to be put together to see bits of it.
To do my jigsaw you have to start from the bottom and build it up but you'll never do it by also scattering your own jigsaw pieces in with mine.
The sooner that's understood the sooner people will try to do mine.
I know you are trying, but it is not working. And it is not other peoples fault for not being able to understand your imagination.
You have a made up story that you want to tell other people. Of course they are not going to accept your made up story as true, that would be ridiculous. But at the least you want people to understand your story as you are trying to tell it.
What is preventing you from clearly communicating your thought up story?
I'm not asking people to accept it. If people want to know it then they have to try and understand it or at least try.
I'm not begging anyone to accept or understand it but if people ask and I answer and they say no joy then they need to find other ways of asking and I'll try and find better ways of explaining. And so on.
Anyone is free to treat me as nuts and just deck out.
and that is what 99.999% of the people do. They think you are nuts and deck out. You are left dealing with the only people who want to listen to you, and almost all of them just want to argue with you.
And you want to argue with them. You don't really want to see the other jigsaw, you just want to throw your made up pieces into it and claim it doesn't work.
-
I'm trying to tell you it's atmosphere but you people just immediately waft your hand in the air and call no joy.
But what properties of the atmosphere cause magnetism? It is just gas and gas is not magnetic.. so how does the atmosphere create a magnetic field?
If you sat in the bath full of water and placed your hand over the open plug hole, you feel a massive force...right?
From a distance from a plughole you feel no force. As you move closer you feel some force and closer still, more and more until your hand is pushed into the low pressure void.
If that pipe was straight under that plug hold you would trap air above the water going down and below your hand. An air lock....right?
If someone below was to try and push against that water to close that airlock, what would happen?
It would repel...right?
I'll see if you want to go with this and if not don't waste any more of your time.
Now think about a magnet.
-
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
Its weird. Sceptimatic has made up a fantasy about how magnets work. Thats fine, a vivid imagination is nice and he is welcome to make up whatever stories he wants.
But he cant seem to understand that unless he can adequately communicate his made up story, no one even knows what it is. We cant use our "own brains" to comprehend his imagination unless he communicates it clearly.
I'm trying to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
Jigsaws are jumbled up and need to be pieced together to gain a picture.
To get to that picture the pieces must start to be put together to see bits of it.
To do my jigsaw you have to start from the bottom and build it up but you'll never do it by also scattering your own jigsaw pieces in with mine.
The sooner that's understood the sooner people will try to do mine.
I know you are trying, but it is not working. And it is not other peoples fault for not being able to understand your imagination.
You have a made up story that you want to tell other people. Of course they are not going to accept your made up story as true, that would be ridiculous. But at the least you want people to understand your story as you are trying to tell it.
What is preventing you from clearly communicating your thought up story?
I'm not asking people to accept it. If people want to know it then they have to try and understand it or at least try.
I'm not begging anyone to accept or understand it but if people ask and I answer and they say no joy then they need to find other ways of asking and I'll try and find better ways of explaining. And so on.
Anyone is free to treat me as nuts and just deck out.
and that is what 99.999% of the people do. They think you are nuts and deck out. You are left dealing with the only people who want to listen to you, and almost all of them just want to argue with you.
And you want to argue with them. You don't really want to see the other jigsaw, you just want to throw your made up pieces into it and claim it doesn't work.
Then stay out of it and pm all the rest and advise them to. Job done....right?
-
Physics is not everybody's cup of tea.
Many in this thread are too busy playing apologist to earnestly engage in discussions about (theoretical) physics.
Scepti has been trying, by dialectic, to get you to recognize that "fields" are not defined and that magnetism is currently a mystery to all physicists as a result. Einstein recognized that his "castle in the sky" (continuous fields / fields of any kind) may well be utter fiction towards the end of his life. We are NOT talking about wild or anti-conventional physics concepts here.
Suppose for a second, that Scepti is right (benefit of the doubt, required to earnestly evaluate and not merely "debunk")
There is something VERY small, that is a component of our air, that is responsible for magnetism. There is an abundance of it on one side (pole) of a magnet and a deficiency on the other.
Putting aside that this is a vastly more sound conception than what we currently have (magic "fields" within and comprised of nothing), from a philosophical/physics perspective - the next step is to test the notion.
As I described earlier in this thread, no experimental validation or invalidation of this hypothesis is possible until we can measure and manipulate the IV (the proposed infintessimally small thing)
That should be the focus. Physics does not take place within the mind, i.e. thought experiment is in no way experiment.
Then do it. You say you have a "vastly more sound concept" - just go show it instead of talking about it. The hypothesis presented is that there is something very small that is a component of air that is responsible for magnetism.
Just go show that air has an effect on magnetism. Remove almost all air from a chamber and you should remove almost all of this component. The strength of a magnet should be somehow proportional to the concentration of air around it if there is a component of air that is responsible for magnetism.
Should take half an afternoon?
And I simply think of "fields" as the abstraction of observable forces from arbitrary frames of reference. No magic needed to explain them.
Now the forces themselves ....
-
You either put some unbiased effort into it from your owm brain
What you mean make it up just like you do? Only in your case it isn't an unbiased brain is it.
Its weird. Sceptimatic has made up a fantasy about how magnets work. Thats fine, a vivid imagination is nice and he is welcome to make up whatever stories he wants.
But he cant seem to understand that unless he can adequately communicate his made up story, no one even knows what it is. We cant use our "own brains" to comprehend his imagination unless he communicates it clearly.
I'm trying to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
Jigsaws are jumbled up and need to be pieced together to gain a picture.
To get to that picture the pieces must start to be put together to see bits of it.
To do my jigsaw you have to start from the bottom and build it up but you'll never do it by also scattering your own jigsaw pieces in with mine.
The sooner that's understood the sooner people will try to do mine.
I know you are trying, but it is not working. And it is not other peoples fault for not being able to understand your imagination.
You have a made up story that you want to tell other people. Of course they are not going to accept your made up story as true, that would be ridiculous. But at the least you want people to understand your story as you are trying to tell it.
What is preventing you from clearly communicating your thought up story?
I'm not asking people to accept it. If people want to know it then they have to try and understand it or at least try.
I'm not begging anyone to accept or understand it but if people ask and I answer and they say no joy then they need to find other ways of asking and I'll try and find better ways of explaining. And so on.
Anyone is free to treat me as nuts and just deck out.
and that is what 99.999% of the people do. They think you are nuts and deck out. You are left dealing with the only people who want to listen to you, and almost all of them just want to argue with you.
And you want to argue with them. You don't really want to see the other jigsaw, you just want to throw your made up pieces into it and claim it doesn't work.
Then stay out of it and pm all the rest and advise them to. Job done....right?
I mostly stay out of it, and if you would prefer me to never talk to you again I'm happy to oblige.
And if you enjoy bickering with others over your made up ideas, that's fine. It seems like it is what you want.
The others here also enjoy the bickering and going back and forth. I do at times as well.
There is nothing wrong with any of that, Im just saying if you want anyone to understand your made up stories, then what you are doing is not working. If you dont care and just want to fling mud, bicker, and flame, just ignore this and me, dont respond, and carry on.
-
I mostly stay out of it, and if you would prefer me to never talk to you again I'm happy to oblige.
I'll leave you to make that choice. I'm ok with whatever you decide.
And if you enjoy bickering with others over your made up ideas, that's fine. It seems like it is what you want.
The others here also enjoy the bickering and going back and forth. I do at times as well.
The nature of the beast in conflicting ideas/thoughts.
There is nothing wrong with any of that, Im just saying if you want anyone to understand your made up stories, then what you are doing is not working.
If I can't understand stuff I'll ask for clarification. If I still can't I'll ask for simpler clarification. And so on and so on until I get a grasp.
If I end up not being able to with no further explanations, I'll simply put it on the backburner until such a time when it can be explained, if ever.
If you dont care and just want to fling mud, bicker, and flame, just ignore this and me, dont respond, and carry on.
Bickering will always be a part of debate. If you can't hurt ridicule, then by a scratch, then nip. If a nip isn't having the desired effect, then slap and punch and pick up weapons...etc...etc.
You get my meaning.
If people don't follow a narrative then whatever force is in the armoury, must be used.
-
I've done all of YOUR work for you so far, being the only one of us to actually perform your experiments.
Nobody but you knows how your theories work, so it doesn't matter how hard I work if you can't explain them.
Put some effort in, don't be so lazy.
How about you put some honest effort in.
I did. How about you put any effort at all? Or just admit you aren't capable of performing such a simple experiment?
You're about at the olwe of my shoes in terms of being anything meaningful.
Put some effort in Mr nasty or be overlooked.
LOL, the guy who refuses to do his own experiments, keeps demanding people explain stuff to him instead of looking it up himself... is complaining that others are not putting in any effort.
What have you contributed here that's meaningful? Nothing. Seems like everyone else does all the work here, you just complain.
-
In order to do a jigsaw you have to have all the pieces. Until you provide us with any of the pieces of your jigsaw, how are we supposed make any sense of it? It's like someone telling me that have made a jigsaw but not telling me where I can get hold of one to try it.
Air as you know (hopefully) is made up of the molecules of various gases. Iron is a metal and not a gas. Given that gases don't appear to have any magnetic properties, how the heck can magnetic fields be caused by the air? That is all we want to know.
Ok let's go through a few things.
Be the detective and log everything down for your jigsaw.
Aluminium does not conduct magnetism, right?
It doesn't act like a magnet.
However, if you wrap aluminium foil around a magnet you can still attract of repel another magnet.
Ok, so basing that on the aluminium foil covering one magnet, how does that magnet manage to attract or repel?
All I want to know from you is, how does that magnetism go through the foil.
If we want to get somewhere then I need you to be honest.
So youve just admitted that this magical unseen magnetism and unseen (what we call) gravity are able to pull in a predictable direction, even through other objects.
How or why - who knows.
But it can go through solid objects and "impermeable" membranes.
So its not a property of air.
Moving on!
-
Ok let's go through a few things.
Be the detective and log everything down for your jigsaw.
Aluminium does not conduct magnetism, right?
It doesn't act like a magnet.
However, if you wrap aluminium foil around a magnet you can still attract of repel another magnet.
Ok, so basing that on the aluminium foil covering one magnet, how does that magnet manage to attract or repel?
All I want to know from you is, how does that magnetism go through the foil.
If we want to get somewhere then I need you to be honest.
By being honest I assume you mean agree with you, yes? Because in your view it seems if I don't agree with something you say or claim then I'm not being honest. Right? Well sorry I will continue to put over that is true according to my own mind regardless of whether it is something you agree with. That way I'm being honest with myself.
Conductivity is a property of electricity not magnetism. At least according to my definition of conductivity anyway. I have heard of electrical conductivity but not magnetic conductivity. Well that's not strictly true but magnetic conductivity is a story for another day (and thread). Let's cover the basics first.
So a magnet does not give a you know what whether it is wrapped in aluminium foil or not. Aluminium is completely invisible to a magnet and indeed its associated magnetic field.
If you take a piece of copper wire and twist it to form a coil then likewise no magnetic field. BUT if you now pass an electric current through the piece of copper wire, then you DO get a magnetic field. I was told about this (or shall we use the word indoctrinated) but then I was also given a piece of copper wire and did the experiment myself. And guess what... it worked! Switch off the current and the magnetic field disappears! I had just made myself an electromagnet. Now unlike a bar magnet which is a permanent magnet, a coil of copper wire with a current passing through is known as a non-permanent magnet because the magnetic field is only present when there is a current passing through the wire. We call it a B field. F=Bil Where B is the strength of the magnetic field, i is the current passing through the wire and l is the length of the coil. So increase either the current in the wire and/or the length of the coil and you will increase the strength of the magnetic field. You can test all this in any school or college physics lab.
Then another bit of magic. Taking that same piece of copper wire in the form or a coil but this time without an electric current passing through it, I attached an ammeter to both ends of the coil. Nothing. Not a sausage. BUT then I took a bar magnet and passed it through the coil. What do you know, the ammeter showed me there was a current passing through the wire! Wow.. it was almost as if there is a link between magnetism and electric currents.
There, I have just given you an introduction to electromagnetism!
-
You're not explaining anything in that post. Nothing.
Quit with the pathetic deflection and address how air causes magnets to have the observed polarity.
I did explain You just decided to wave it all aside and carry a Jackblack hit of saying I didn't explain.
No, you explained nothing. That is because you have no way to explain it.
You came close to providing an explanation, suggesting the magnetism is a flow of air, but simple logic shows that isn't the case. You then continually deflect from these simple issues and claim you have already explained, all while being unable to explain.
I'm trying to communicate my story but I'm being shot down before each attempt by people who have no clue about it and also have no real clue about magnetism.
No, you are being "shot down" by people who have observed how magnets work and understand that your claims do not match that.
You are being asked about specific issues that your claims raise, and you continually to avoid them, continually deflecting.
If you want to communicate how you think magnets work, stop asking us for explanations are start addressing the massive issues.
Start trying to piece together your jigsaw, and show how air fits with the observed polarity of magnets.
It is extremely hypocritical and dishonest of you to continually demand we explain how magnets work from our understanding while you also claim we need to understand from the basics and not get any of our own "jigsaw pieces".
That is why I haven't went into the actual explanation of how magnetism actually works.
Instead I am focusing on YOUR jigsaw.
The only pieces I have been bringing in are those from reality, such as the observed polarity of magnets.
If you are claiming that this piece doesn't fit in with your jigsaw, you are saying your jigsaw is not of reality, that it is pure fantasy with no connection to reality.
Be the detective and log everything down for your jigsaw.
Aluminium does not conduct magnetism, right?
It doesn't act like a magnet.
However, if you wrap aluminium foil around a magnet you can still attract of repel another magnet.
Ok, so basing that on the aluminium foil covering one magnet, how does that magnet manage to attract or repel?
All I want to know from you is, how does that magnetism go through the foil.
If we want to get somewhere then I need you to be honest.
You want us to do YOUR jigsaw remember.
That means no bringing in OUR jigsaw.
That means YOU need to explain how magnetism manages to pass through the foil, especially given that air can't.
If you want to try providing your jigsaw you need to stop asking us about our own.
So can you explain how magnetism gets through but air can't, when you claim that air is based upon magnetism?
-
Scepti has been trying, by dialectic, to get you to recognize that "fields" are not defined and that magnetism is currently a mystery to all physicists as a result.
Cut the crap.
Scepti has baselessly asserted that everything is magically caused by his magic air. That is not claiming it is a mystery. That is claiming mainstream science is completely wrong and that it is magically caused by air.
Massive issues have been pointed out with this and he continues to deflect.
So what he has been trying to do is continually avoid the fact that he cannot justify his bold claim that everything magically uses air.
He uses whatever dishonest tactics he can to avoid admitting this.
Are you just trying to prop him up because you share a hatred of science and the RE?
Suppose for a second, that Scepti is right (benefit of the doubt, required to earnestly evaluate and not merely "debunk")
I did, and showed how that would produce results fundamentally different to what is observed in reality.
That means he is not right.
And honestly evaluating and showing that it is wrong doesn't mean we are merely debunking.
There is something VERY small, that is a component of our air, that is responsible for magnetism. There is an abundance of it on one side (pole) of a magnet and a deficiency on the other.
Which would then mean you have an attractive pole and a repulsive pole.
Things would be attracted by 1 pole and repelled by the other.
When you bring 2 magnets together, the attractive sides would attract one another and the repulsive sides would repel one another.
Back in reality, we have 2 poles which are distinguished by the interaction with other poles.
The decision to call them north and south is arbitrary.
Magnetic materials are attracted to both poles.
When you bring 2 magnets together, like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
Putting aside that this is a vastly more sound conception than what we currently have
No it isn't, as it has no connection to reality.
You may as well claim it is magic pixies.
So no, this is not sound at all.
At least mainstream physics actually matches what is observed in reality. I would say that makes mainstream science is far more sound.
As I described earlier in this thread, no experimental validation or invalidation of this hypothesis is possible
And as I explained earlier, and yet to actually be challenged on by explaining why that is wrong, experimental invalidation of this hypothesis is entirely possible.
This hypothesis predicts specific results regarding the polarity of magnets.
So a simple test is one I described involving 3 magnets which clearly establishes the fact that like poles repel and opposite poles attract rather than magnets having an attractive and repulsive side.
This shows his model is wrong.
Physics does not take place within the mind, i.e. thought experiment is in no way experiment.
A key part of physics does take place within the mind, and this allows thought experiments to be experiments. I know you really hate that fact.
You use your mind to make predictions about what the hypothesis indicates should happen.
This allows you to make up an experiment.
You can then use your mind and previously obtained observations to see if you already have all the results you need for that experiment to determine the result of the experiment.
Or you can show that the hypothesis is internally contradictory.
So you can use thought experiments to invalidate a hypothesis without needing to actually carry out the experiments.
-
There is something VERY small, that is a component of our air, that is responsible for magnetism.
Which is?
As I described earlier in this thread, no experimental validation or invalidation of this hypothesis is possible until we can measure and manipulate the IV (the proposed infintessimally small thing)
IV? As in intravenous or as in the Roman numeral for 4?
Putting aside that this is a vastly more sound conception than what we currently have (magic "fields" within and comprised of nothing)
Physics is clearly not your cup of tea is it. As you said. A field in physics is a region of space where a particular type of force can be felt. Electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields. There's nothing magical about fields.
If you sat in the bath full of water and placed your hand over the open plug hole, you feel a massive force...right?
From a distance from a plughole you feel no force. As you move closer you feel some force and closer still, more and more until your hand is pushed into the low pressure void.
If that pipe was straight under that plug hold you would trap air above the water going down and below your hand. An air lock....right?
If someone below was to try and push against that water to close that airlock, what would happen?
It would repel...right?
I'll see if you want to go with this and if not don't waste any more of your time.
Now think about a magnet.
That is all very interesting. Which part tells me what property of the atmosphere causes magnetism? That is the question I actually asked you.
-
Physics does not take place within the mind, i.e. thought experiment is in no way experiment.
Did jack1234 say theortical physics isnt a thig?
-
Bickering will always be a part of debate. If you can't hurt ridicule, then by a scratch, then nip. If a nip isn't having the desired effect, then slap and punch and pick up weapons...etc...etc.
You get my meaning.
If people don't follow a narrative then whatever force is in the armoury, must be used.
But it doesnt work. That is clear. NO one follows your narrative, no matter how much you fight, and you NEVER follow anyone else's narrative, no matter how much they push back.
It is just the fighting. No attempt at common understanding, no give and take. Just fighting.
Which is fine, but you shouldn't pretend you are doing anything other than just having a go at folks
-
@Themightykabool
Kind of. I'm no rational positivist, and all thought takes place in the mind.
However, hypothesis (speculation often misrepresented as "theory") without experimental validation/invalidation is called guessing. You CAN guess right, but it is VERY unlikely.
-
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)
Scepti has baselessly asserted that everything is magically caused by his magic air. That is not claiming it is a mystery. That is claiming mainstream science is completely wrong and that it is magically caused by air.
Or something in that air / something that that air breaks into.
The reason that scepti is asking you questions (dialectic) instead of providing direct answers, is so you will work out what they (scepti) mean on your own (from your side, as scepti is saying). By asking you to explain how magnets work, you are supposed to realize that we don't know - no one does (perhaps scepti does!). They are not so much saying that mainstream science is wrong, but (I think) expecting you to realize and admit that mainstream science doesn't have an answer at all (not a cogent one anyhow). We can describe and manipulate magnetism (making it orders of magnitude more real than gravitation), however we do not know what it is, or what "fields" are. There is good reason to suspect, as einstein did, that they aren't real at all.
He uses whatever dishonest tactics he can to avoid admitting this.
That is not what I'm seeing, however I can appreciate that it seems that way from your perspective (and could conceivably be the case). I see them fully "admitting"/explicitly stating that it is the atmosphere, though I am not sure exactly what they are intending to say by that (perhaps that atomos and atmos are the same? After all, it is only missing one letter and that is NOTHING for etymology). They HAVE already clarified that "airtight" containers both keep things out (like oxygen) and are permeable. Logically, if both statements are true, then they are likely/possibly conceptualizing something smaller than what we consider to be "air" (though still is, or is a component of it).
Are you just trying to prop him up because you share a hatred of science and the RE?
I'm only trying to bring clarity and focus to a largely disordered, antagonistic, and unproductive thread. I know it is likely futile. I love science in any case, and my intention is not to "get scepti's back". As I've said before, I am just like the rest of you here - trying to understand what scepti is saying and from where/what they derive their conviction.
I did, and showed how that would produce results fundamentally different to what is observed in reality.
That means he is not right.
As I said, the hypothesis that scepti is forwarding (perhaps a conclusion, from their perspective - or even a validated hypothesis, though this would require experiment that has been omitted so far) can only be validated or invalidated by experiment (not discussion). No experiment is possible until we better understand what that IV is, and how to manipulate it. Seeing (interpreted from description) as no container known (or perhaps in scepti's view, possible) can keep these proposed infinitesimal things out - we have a significant hurdle to creating an experimental setup. Hypotheses that can't be tested are just guesses.
And honestly evaluating and showing that it is wrong doesn't mean we are merely debunking.
This is true. Scientifically speaking, we just can't be certain that it is wrong until we A, understand it thoroughly, and B, invalidate it experimentally.
It is my knowledge (and love) of science (the scientific method, in particular) that requires this rigor.
When you bring 2 magnets together, like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
So then you agree that scepti's description is conceivable for magnets, but doesn't explain attraction of magnetic, but unmagnetized, materials to either pole? I don't see this as a major issue when you think of the magnetic materials as many small magnets (that have the ability/freedom of motion to align and unalign themselves). Have you ever seen the salt jump towards and away from the static?
You may as well claim it is magic pixies.
If they are not proposing something experimentally testable, you may well be right. But we should reserve final judgement until that is clear.
So no, this is not sound at all.
It is more sound, at least potentially, because it talks of real/physical/tangible/POTENTIALLY empirical things. It does not invoke "pixies" like "fields", which are both ill-defined and nonsensical (contrary to traditional / conventional physics).
At least mainstream physics actually matches what is observed in reality. I would say that makes mainstream science is far more sound.
That's the whole point. What we have now in mainsteam science as an explanation for magnetism is a mere description of it. We don't know what the magnetic field is or why/how it works. We can talk about what it does, and some amount of how - but not why or what it truly is.
experimental invalidation of this hypothesis is entirely possible.
Well then it is a damn sight better than the pixies!
This hypothesis predicts specific results regarding the polarity of magnets.
I somewhat agree.
-
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)
So a simple test is one I described involving 3 magnets which clearly establishes the fact that like poles repel and opposite poles attract rather than magnets having an attractive and repulsive side.
I see what you are saying. Though in scepti's conception, attraction is not an option that has any available mechanism. In their view, which as we've discussed - is perfectly sound and traditional in conventional physics, is that there is only push (repulsion/collision). One pole has an abundance of "magnetons" around it, and the other a deficiency.
It is easy to imagine why the 2 "abundant" poles would repel (and do so more strongly the more you forced them together).
It is likewise easy to imagine why the abundant pole and the deficient pole would attract, as the "magneton" is not merely in and around the magnet, but surrounding everything (a part of the atmosphere). As the abundant pole exudes (perhaps, as scepti has talked about sieves/funnels) the deficient one readily accepts and the combined loop becomes one magnet, effectively.
It is a bit harder to imagine how the 2 deficient poles repel, though conceivably it could be because the more intense that deficiency becomes, the more the available "magnetons" in the room rush into the gap. I agree I am stretching and speculating, but I am doing so in good faith and earnestly.
A key part of physics does take place within the mind, and this allows thought experiments to be experiments. I know you really hate that fact.
Einstein did a lot more bad things than JUST marrying his cousin. Thought experiments are in no way experiments, and in the minds of non-experimenters it is nothing but poison. Your fact is not only demonstrably untrue, it is religious in origin. Nothing has ever been learned in science by "thought experiment". Knowledge, in science, is only obtained through rigorous adherence to the scientific method, of which "thought experiment" is most certainly not a part. Of course imagining and speculating is an important part of hypothesizing (since brute forcing by mere random guess, is often slower), but a hypothesis is nothing but a guess without the experimental validation/invalidation. This is how science, which I care deeply about, works.
This allows you to make up an experiment.
Ideally. Unfortunately many hypotheses cannot be validated or invalidated by experiment. Which makes them scientifically useless (or worse, in the way - bias).
You can then use your mind and previously obtained observations to see if you already have all the results you need for that experiment to determine the result of the experiment.
It's all merely musing until you do real experiment.
Or you can show that the hypothesis is internally contradictory.
True. There are, in fact, many more criteria that have been worked out to determine a valid hypothesis - but this is usually beyond the scope of discussions since so few people understand the bones of the scientific method (which doesn't include explicit criteria on what a valid hypothesis is).
So you can use thought experiments to invalidate a hypothesis without needing to actually carry out the experiments.
In a way, by the exception/caveat above - yes. If you can demonstrate the hypothesis itself to be invalid, then there is little reason to perform a valid experiment on it.
In some ways, because it invokes the "magneton" - a theoretical (not confirmed to exist empirically) form of matter - we have already invalidated the hypothesis in the eyes of many physics departments. It is interesting to note that had those rigorous criteria existed in newton's time, gravitation would never have made it into any textbooks and the reverend john michell would have been simply laughed at (if he had bothered to perform his observation, disingenuously/erroneously presented as an experiment today, at all).
-
The reason that scepti is asking you questions (dialectic) instead of providing direct answers
Is to continually deflect from their complete inability to actually explain anything.
The questions he is asking is in no way addressing the issues that are raised, and this is his standard tactic of deflection.
Again, he baselessly asserts it is all caused by air, but then when massive holes are pointed out, he does whatever he can to try to run away from them.
If he wants to change his tune and instead claim no one has any idea how magnets work, including him, then he can try to ask questions about how we think it works.
That is not what I'm seeing
Where has he admitted that he cannot explain magnetism with air, or actually made any genuine attempt at addressing the issues raised?
It seems that that is not what you are seeing because you want to side with Scepti in your shared hatred for RE and science.
I'm only trying to bring clarity and focus to a largely disordered, antagonistic, and unproductive thread.
Yet you decide to attack those trying to make it productive and side with the one using whatever dishonest tactics they can.
If that truly was the case you would be trying to get Scepti to actually address the issues raised.
As I said, the hypothesis that scepti is forwarding (perhaps a conclusion, from their perspective - or even a validated hypothesis, though this would require experiment that has been omitted so far) can only be validated or invalidated by experiment (not discussion).
And as I explained, that strict view is wrong. This is based upon your irrational dislike of thought experiments.
We can easily make predictions from key parts of his model which simply do not match reality.
The experiments have already been carried out. We don't need to do them specifically to focus on his model.
Trying to plead ignorance to pretend no experiment is possible doesn't help either.
When you bring 2 magnets together, like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
So then you agree that scepti's description is conceivable for magnets, but doesn't explain attraction of magnetic, but unmagnetized, materials to either pole? I don't see this as a major issue when you think of the magnetic materials as many small magnets (that have the ability/freedom of motion to align and unalign themselves). Have you ever seen the salt jump towards and away from the static?
No, I am saying it is conceivable for a force, but in almost every conceivable way, it does not match magnets.
The key thing I was focusing on with that statement is the interactions of 2 magnets, where reality has fundamentally different results.
It is more sound, at least potentially
And it is less sound, at least potentially.
How about instead of focusing on the potential, you focus on the actual.
It is not more sound.
It is not backed up by any evidence and is contradicted by plenty.
That's the whole point. What we have now in mainsteam science as an explanation for magnetism is a mere description of it. We don't know what the magnetic field is or why/how it works. We can talk about what it does, and some amount of how - but not why or what it truly is.
Which is true of all the fundamental forces.
Ultimately you will always reach a point were you simply don't know.
experimental invalidation of this hypothesis is entirely possible.
Well then it is a damn sight better than the pixies!
No, because it shows it is false.
That means it is worse than the pixies, because it is quite difficult to show pixies don't exist.
-
attraction is not an option that has any available mechanism
That is pure semantics.
Yes, technically it wouldn't be attraction, instead it would be the air on either side pushing it. But that results in a macroscopic effect referred to as attraction.
In their view, which as we've discussed - is perfectly sound and traditional in conventional physics, is that there is only push (repulsion/collision).
I wouldn't say we've discussed it. You made baseless assertions, I explained why it is wrong, even giving simple examples, and you then left.
Conventional physics relies upon attractive and repulsive interactions. It is not simply all push.
Again, only having push/collisions only works for gas, and to a lesser extent fluids.
It is easy to imagine why the 2 "abundant" poles would repel (and do so more strongly the more you forced them together).
And I have no issue with that part at all. That is also likely when I pointed out the massive problem early on, Scipti ignored the other "deficient"/attractive pole and instead appealed to these "abundant"/repulsive poles.
It is trivial to show that these poles will repel.
But this causes issues for interactions with magnetic materials which are not magnets, raising the question as to why they are attracted to this pole rather than repelled by it.
For that, he switches to the other pole, where the flow causes things to be drawn towards it, and if something obstructs the flow, the difference in pressure (or in this case the abundance of magnetons) causes it to be force towards it. And at the more precise level, it would always be a gradient causing the motion.
It is likewise easy to imagine why the abundant pole and the deficient pole would attract, as the "magneton" is not merely in and around the magnet, but surrounding everything (a part of the atmosphere). As the abundant pole exudes (perhaps, as scepti has talked about sieves/funnels) the deficient one readily accepts and the combined loop becomes one magnet, effectively.
One could actually conclude it could go either way, especially if you consider magnets of different strengths.
For example if you bring the abundant side of a strong magnet to the deficient side of a weak magnet, then the weak magnet can't accept enough and thus is pushed away.
It is a bit harder to imagine how the 2 deficient poles repel, though conceivably it could be because the more intense that deficiency becomes, the more the available "magnetons" in the room rush into the gap.
Except this runs counter to every other type of flow, such as vacuum cleaners, where the flow is so great it sucks up little bits of dust.
And you have an abundance on the other side trying to push in, pushing them together.
So them trying to rush into the gap, with them coming from all around, will simply push them together.
I agree I am stretching and speculating, but I am doing so in good faith and earnestly.
I wouldn't say trying to prop up a failed idea is acting in good faith.
You are making excuses to try to prop it up.
Thought experiments are in no way experiments
Repeating the same lie wont magically make it true.
Dismissing reality as religion does not magically make it untrue.
I have clearly explained why thought experiments are a key part of science.
It's all merely musing until you do real experiment.
You are entirely missing the point. The point is the results have already been collected by previous experiments.
You don't need to do more to test it.
If Scepti's model requires magnets to have an attractive pole and a repulsive pole, such that 2 attractive poles attract each other and 2 repulsive poles repel, you don't need to carry out a physical experiment to test this.
Plenty of people have already carried out physical experiments on magnets and we know quite well how they behave.
We can use that already known behaviour to show his model does not match reality.
That means we don't need to test it.
You don't need to carry out a physical experiment when the results for it are already known.
If you think it really needs to be done then go ahead, but carrying it out will not provide any new information.
In a way, by the exception/caveat above - yes. If you can demonstrate the hypothesis itself to be invalid, then there is little reason to perform a valid experiment on it.
Or if you can demonstrate it is unsound.
Thought experiments rely upon already knowing what the results will be due to prior experiments or being able to show a contradiction based upon current theories to show these theories are incomplete. Or otherwise don't claim to actually prove anything.
You even tried to appeal to one yourself, you just didn't call it a thought experiment.
What Clickljama's sometimes presents as thought experiments are not thought experiments because he has no idea what the results would actually be and instead just assumes them. That means they are not thought experiments.
-
I've done all of YOUR work for you so far, being the only one of us to actually perform your experiments.
Nobody but you knows how your theories work, so it doesn't matter how hard I work if you can't explain them.
Put some effort in, don't be so lazy.
How about you put some honest effort in.
I did. How about you put any effort at all? Or just admit you aren't capable of performing such a simple experiment?
You're about at the olwe of my shoes in terms of being anything meaningful.
Put some effort in Mr nasty or be overlooked.
LOL, the guy who refuses to do his own experiments, keeps demanding people explain stuff to him instead of looking it up himself... is complaining that others are not putting in any effort.
What have you contributed here that's meaningful? Nothing. Seems like everyone else does all the work here, you just complain.
Ok little nasty, you have nothing much to say.
-
So youve just admitted that this magical unseen magnetism and unseen (what we call) gravity are able to pull in a predictable direction, even through other objects.
How or why - who knows.
But it can go through solid objects and "impermeable" membranes.
So its not a property of air.
Moving on!
Let me know when you want to engage.
-
I've done all of YOUR work for you so far, being the only one of us to actually perform your experiments.
Nobody but you knows how your theories work, so it doesn't matter how hard I work if you can't explain them.
Put some effort in, don't be so lazy.
How about you put some honest effort in.
I did. How about you put any effort at all? Or just admit you aren't capable of performing such a simple experiment?
You're about at the olwe of my shoes in terms of being anything meaningful.
Put some effort in Mr nasty or be overlooked.
LOL, the guy who refuses to do his own experiments, keeps demanding people explain stuff to him instead of looking it up himself... is complaining that others are not putting in any effort.
What have you contributed here that's meaningful? Nothing. Seems like everyone else does all the work here, you just complain.
Ok little nasty, you have nothing much to say.
I have more to say than you do, as I've actually tested your ideas and found them to be false. Have you done anything but complain, call people names, claim everyone is a nasty liar and demand others do your work for you?
-
Let's go back to your analogy with water draining out of a bath. How does that in any way provide us with information that explains how magnetism works? I have a 'wet and dry' vacuum cleaner which allows me to suck up excess water off the floor. Where ever I place the end of the hose in the pool of water I see water being sucked into the hose. Water nearest the hose moves quicker than the water further away from the hose.
In the same way if you see a crowd of people by a narrow gate the people near the gate move quicker than those near the back of the queue.
How does any of that help me to understand how magnetism works?
-
Let me know when you want to engage.
When do you want to engage?
Not just throw out a bunch of insults and deflect, or assert nonsense without justification, but actually genuinely engage, such as by defending your bold claims?
Because so far you are the nasty one refusing the engage in any form of honest, rational discourse.
Have you figured out how to explain the observed polarity of magnets yet? If not, can you be honest for once and admit you can't explain it and that there is no reason to think air causes magnetism?
-
I have more to say than you do, as I've actually tested your ideas and found them to be false. Have you done anything but complain, call people names, claim everyone is a nasty liar and demand others do your work for you?
No wonder you get banned on the other site.
-
Let's go back to your analogy with water draining out of a bath. How does that in any way provide us with information that explains how magnetism works? I have a 'wet and dry' vacuum cleaner which allows me to suck up excess water off the floor. Where ever I place the end of the hose in the pool of water I see water being sucked into the hose. Water nearest the hose moves quicker than the water further away from the hose.
Ok, you're familiar with how a drinking straw works...right.
You understand that you create a low pressure over the straw and the higher pressure air pushes the water in the cup and up that straw.
Are you ok with that?
If not then explain why and if you can. explain why this happens.
In the same way if you see a crowd of people by a narrow gate the people near the gate move quicker than those near the back of the queue.
How does any of that help me to understand how magnetism works?
It helps because that's the funnel mindset.
Imagine two gates like you suggest.
Both gates are facing each other and both crowds are pushing towards those gates.
What happens?
They repel each other....right?
If you were to place one gate behind the crowd going into the other gate that thinned crowd would blend right in with the wider crowd and be pushed into towards the gate, creating what you see as an attraction.
Now think of the magnet itself holding extreme low /trapped pressure in it's (for analogy reasons) funnel.
Now create a push by allowing flow through the structure from high to low push (attract) to high against high (repel).
-
When do you want to engage?
Never with you.
Just go and bother someone else.
-
Ok, you're familiar with how a drinking straw works...right.
You understand that you create a low pressure over the straw and the higher pressure air pushes the water in the cup and up that straw.
Are you ok with that?
If not then explain why and if you can. explain why this happens.
Let's skip over the analogies shall we and get to the heart of the matter. There are lots of different sources of pressure and all we are doing is addressing how different types of pressure cause an effect which is similar to magnetism. What property do you think, specifically relating to iron - or more specifically iron atoms causes a bar magnet made from iron to be a permanent magnet?
It is clearly something to do with iron because if I got a bar of copper or zinc or various other metals we would not get the same effect as if we use iron. So what it is about iron that produces magnetism? If I got two bars made out of gold for example and tried to get them to stick together or repel each other I wouldn't have much success.
-
Physics is not everybody's cup of tea.
Many in this thread are too busy playing apologist to earnestly engage in discussions about (theoretical) physics.
Scepti has been trying, by dialectic, to get you to recognize that "fields" are not defined and that magnetism is currently a mystery to all physicists as a result. Einstein recognized that his "castle in the sky" (continuous fields / fields of any kind) may well be utter fiction towards the end of his life. We are NOT talking about wild or anti-conventional physics concepts here.
Suppose for a second, that Scepti is right (benefit of the doubt, required to earnestly evaluate and not merely "debunk")
There is something VERY small, that is a component of our air, that is responsible for magnetism. There is an abundance of it on one side (pole) of a magnet and a deficiency on the other.
Putting aside that this is a vastly more sound conception than what we currently have (magic "fields" within and comprised of nothing), from a philosophical/physics perspective - the next step is to test the notion.
As I described earlier in this thread, no experimental validation or invalidation of this hypothesis is possible until we can measure and manipulate the IV (the proposed infintessimally small thing)
That should be the focus. Physics does not take place within the mind, i.e. thought experiment is in no way experiment.
Funny that you insist that science should rely on experimental validation, whilst baseless stating that the idea that magnetism being due to some component of air is vastly more sound than what we know from real physics. This has been tested, it was tested long ago, and countless times since. The enormous number of applications of magnetism/electromagnetism it's used for (not least the device you are using) demonstrate that we have a very good understanding of how it works. And that has nothing to do with air.
The independent variable you want to control in this case is very easy. Do magnetic or electromagnetic forces change with air pressure? No, they don't. Magnetism and electromagnetism work just fine in a vacuum. You can operate motors, solenoids, transformers, etc, etc, etc in a high vacuum with no impediment. Some applications depend on operating in a vacuum, such as CRTs and mass spectrometers.
Supposing that anything scepti says might be right are the thought experiments here, not our scientific knowledge of electromagnetic fields.
-
No wonder you get banned on the other site.
Because he shows the FE is wrong?
Understandable.
Lots of religious sites, ban those who question rather than just accept doctrine.
You understand that you create a low pressure over the straw and the higher pressure air pushes the water in the cup and up that straw.
Which is fundamentally different to a magnet, for the same simple issue of polarity you continually ignore.
How about this, we stop focusing on the drain and instead focus on the hose filling up the tub. As the water flows, it pushes things away.
But these magnetic things are drawn towards a magnet.
The low pressure side results in things moving towards the object. The high pressure side results in things being pushed away.
But that simply how a magnet works.
When do you want to engage?
Never with you.
Just go and bother someone else.
Of course, you have no interest in engaging with someone who repeatedly clearly explains why you are wrong, in a way you cannot refute or rationally object to.
Grow up.
If your model of magnetism cannot deal with the polarity of magnets, it is DOA.
Again, magnets have 2 poles. Both poles attract paramagnetic materials.
For the interaction of 2 magnets, like poles repel each other and opposite poles attract.
This is backed up by so many observations it isn't funny.
But you claim the air magically funnels through it so you have a high pressure and low pressure side.
This means that the high pressure side is trying to push everything away as the air moves out. This would be a repulsive side, which would repel everything, including other magnets.
This also means the low pressure side would have the surrounding air push everything towards it, effectively attracting things towards it.
This means one side would attract materials and the other side would repel them. This already fails to match reality.
But when you start having 2 magnets interact you have bigger problems.
The 2 repulsive poles repel each other just fine, but the 2 attractive poles would attract each other as the air around them pushes them together.
Again, this shows quite clearly that magnetism is not caused by air.
Unless you can deal with this issue your claim is DOA.
-
Because he shows the FE is wrong?
Understandable.
Lots of religious sites, ban those who question rather than just accept doctrine.
I wonder why it is that when you visit a FE forum you find several users who are actually RE believers while you hardly ever, if ever come across FE believers posting on the mainstream science websites. I guess FE believers don't like or feel safe straying outside of their like-minded comfort zones. The banning would be aimed at them in that case.
-
I have more to say than you do, as I've actually tested your ideas and found them to be false. Have you done anything but complain, call people names, claim everyone is a nasty liar and demand others do your work for you?
No wonder you get banned on the other site.
I bet I can post over there without getting banned longer than you can. :)
-
@solarwind
IV? As in intravenous or as in the Roman numeral for 4?
Lol, it stands for independent variable and it is a required part of all experiments. Sadly few people are properly educated on what the scientific method is, and the colloquial usages of experiment and hypothesis are incorrect.
A field in physics is a region of space where a particular type of force can be felt. Electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields. There's nothing magical about fields.
The trouble is, that in the regrettably ongoing era of aether-mcarthyism, there is no space. Something cannot act upon nothing. It is absolutely anathema to all of physics, and the reason that no physicist worth their salt has ever been comfortable with newton's god-gravity (and fields in general. as I mentioned, einstein towards the end of his life became increasingly worried that fields were non-real). Fields are made up of nothing (known, anyhow), in a medium of nothing. This is not acceptable from the perspective of physics/natural philosophy.
People who do not study the history of physics, cannot hope to understand it today.
-
Funny that you insist that science should rely on experimental validation, whilst baseless stating that the idea that magnetism being due to some component of air is vastly more sound than what we know from real physics.
It isn't baseless. It's factual. There exists no mainstream explanation for a mechanism or composition of any type of "field" (magnetism very much included). This is why scepti keeps asking for people to explain it themselves. When they look inward for that knowledge, they will find it isn't there. If they diligently look outwards (research), they will find that no such explanation exists at all - merely description.
And that has nothing to do with air.
Scepti is talking, from what I've interpreted - only they can confirm, about things in the air that are smaller than gas. Things that can enter and exit an "airtight" (really, GAS-tight - gas is not the entirety of what we call "air" or "atmosphere" - there are many smaller things than that there!) container without issue.
The independent variable you want to control in this case is very easy.
No, it isn't and that is the trouble. First, we need to understand what IT is - which we don't. Only scepti can help clarify on that. Scepti has made it pretty clear that it isn't gas (or not the atomic, usually diatomic, gas that we know and love).
THEN we need to be able to manipulate and measure it. We can't proceed to experiment before we do both things.
Supposing that anything scepti says might be right are the thought experiments here
That's right. And thought experiments that do not become actual experiments are a waste of time (and worse, prevent you from doing experiment / practicing real experimental science)
As I said, physics doesn't take place in discussion or inside the mind. It takes place in objective manifest reality, by rigorous experiment.
-
@jackblack
The questions he is asking is in no way addressing the issues that are raised, and this is his standard tactic of deflection.
The purpose of the dialectic is to encourage the student to learn for themselves / come to their own conclusions. By asking the right questions, and having the student earnestly try to answer them on their own - the lesson is learned in a more impactful way (ideally) because the conclusion belongs to the student and was reached by them alone.
The request, which you and most (but not all) have ignored, to explain how magnetic fields actually work and what they are composed of (in the "mainstream" view) is to help YOU recognize that you lack answers for those questions. By admitting that, you would be demonstrating earnest interest in evaluating scepti's ideas further. As usual, your antagonistic approach is across purposes to learning and communication.
If he wants to change his tune and instead claim no one has any idea how magnets work, including him, then he can try to ask questions about how we think it works.
If scepti DIDN'T have any idea how magnets worked (as the rest of us do not), then why would we be interested in hearing more from them on the subject? The admission you are requesting would unmake the conversation, and the need thereof. It's silly (and based in ego/pride).
Where has he admitted that he cannot explain magnetism with air, or actually made any genuine attempt at addressing the issues raised?
They do not think you are worth their time conversing with, due to your attitude and approach. They have said, effectively, that it is not gas, as whatever it is can enter and exit an "airtight" container. There are many smaller things than gas in our air that are known to science - yes, some of which can absolutely enter and exit an airtight container (even without magic like quantum tunneling). Your evident lack of earnesty and civility is the cause of the lack of "genuine attempt" to engage with the issues you have with understanding what has been said so far. It's tit for tat. If you don't show any genuine attempt to understand, why should they?
It seems that that is not what you are seeing because you want to side with Scepti in your shared hatred for RE and science.
You keep making this baseless claim. I suppose you can continue to ignore my responses to it, but don't expect to learn anything! I like science a lot, and have no strong feelings towards "RE" which has no impact on it (or any of human experience).
Yet you decide to attack those trying to make it productive and side with the one using whatever dishonest tactics they can.
I am not attacking anyone, it is across purposes to communication. You should try to do the same! It is worth the effort!
If that truly was the case you would be trying to get Scepti to actually address the issues raised.
You mean by asking them directly? Or by constantly insulting and assuming that they are wrong (and stupid) at the outset like you do?
We can't force scepti to answer any questions, but perhaps a DIAlog could be encouraged by asking and answering questions in kind (they answer, you answer, they answer etc.).
We can easily make predictions from key parts of his model which simply do not match reality.
That MAY be, however it is not how we determine if a hypothesis is correct or not in the scientific method. Hypothesis can ONLY be validated/invalidated by rigorous experiment (save for your raised caveat, of further criteria for "valid" hypothesis) and that is its sole function!
The experiments have already been carried out. We don't need to do them specifically to focus on his model.
In order for this to be the case, which I agree it could (that there already exist well established and repeated experiments that have tested scepti's hypothesis already), we would have to understand exactly what is being claimed is causing the magnetic "pressure", and how to both measure and manipulate it. Currently we don't have that. It seems clear that scepti is talking about something smaller than gas, and something that is STILL inside a low pressure chamber (no matter how low, and also has no difficulty exiting and reentering it either, when gas cannot).
Trying to plead ignorance to pretend no experiment is possible doesn't help either.
I'm just pointing it out (in a vain attempt to bring focus to a wildly unproductive thread). We should be focusing on experimental evaluation of scepti's posit, or dropping it altogether (decking out, as scepti says).
I AM pleading ignorance as to scepti's true vision and conception of magnetism, as I am not sure they have made it entirely clear yet. I am speculating and filling in the gaps a LOT on my own, but again - this is the purpose of the dialectic.
The key thing I was focusing on with that statement is the interactions of 2 magnets, where reality has fundamentally different results.
Did you read my speculative explanation of that? What part of that potential description did you take issue with? It is not certain that what scepti is describing is as you are interpreting it (as impossible... not a great way to go about evaluating something earnestly. You can only "debunk" when plagued with the pre-existing bias that it MUST be wrong).
Which is true of all the fundamental forces.
Except push / collision, yes. (don't zeno's paradox me on this, pedantry will not aid this conversation)
No, because it shows it is false.
That means it is worse than the pixies, because it is quite difficult to show pixies don't exist.
That's what I said. It is a MUCH better hypothesis than pixies, BECAUSE it can be (according to you) disproven.
-
@ blackjack
Yes, technically it wouldn't be attraction, instead it would be the air on either side pushing it. But that results in a macroscopic effect referred to as attraction.
The difference, in scepti's view at least (if not reality), is not semantic - it's actual. It merely APPEARS to be attraction, but attraction is not a thing in reality. In the exact same way that we do not "suck" liquid/gas/matter into straws or vacuums, and for the same reasons! It is the push from the atmosphere doing the work, and our "sucking" merely creates a pressure differential that allows that.
Conventional physics relies upon attractive and repulsive interactions. It is not simply all push.
Not traditionally, no. And even in "modern" conventional physics there is no mechanism for it. It is taken on faith, as many other things are.
Again, only having push/collisions only works for gas, and to a lesser extent fluids.
What scepti is describing, potentially, reconciles and allows for it to work for everything. At least, that is what it appears they are attempting to do / have already concluded.
It is trivial to show that these poles will repel.
It is trivial to IMAGINE that they will POSSIBLY repel. It is also trivial to imagine that they won't. In imagination, all things are possible. In reality, very few of our imaginings bare any resemblance to reality (yes, even when the conceptualizations with formalized mathematical description are useful). This is why experiment is not optional in the scientific method.
But this causes issues for interactions with magnetic materials which are not magnets, raising the question as to why they are attracted to this pole rather than repelled by it.
Potentially, yes. Though if you imagine the magnetic materials (which are not magnetized, at the outset) as small magnets themselves, it is easy to imagine how they align themselves properly on either side of the magnet and effectively become a part of it (as they do in the current mainstream conception, albeit for different supposed reasons).
For that, he switches to the other pole, where the flow causes things to be drawn towards it, and if something obstructs the flow, the difference in pressure (or in this case the abundance of magnetons) causes it to be force towards it. And at the more precise level, it would always be a gradient causing the motion.
This could be a problem, though I don't think we necessarily have a solid enough grasp on what scepti is thinking to be certain it IS.
One could actually conclude it could go either way, especially if you consider magnets of different strengths.
For example if you bring the abundant side of a strong magnet to the deficient side of a weak magnet, then the weak magnet can't accept enough and thus is pushed away.
Exactly! In imagination all things are possible. There is GOOD reason that experiment cannot be substituted for "imagination"/"musings"/"thought experiment" (or observation, or anything else) in the scientific method. It's to figure out what is ACTUALLY happening (ideally), not merely what we imagine is.
Except this runs counter to every other type of flow, such as vacuum cleaners, where the flow is so great it sucks up little bits of dust.
And you have an abundance on the other side trying to push in, pushing them together.
So them trying to rush into the gap, with them coming from all around, will simply push them together.
I see what you are saying. However, in this case - the proposed thing is so small that it cannot be fully "sealed" out.
In the case of one vacuum cleaner, we both understand that the atmospheric pressure is forcing its way in creating the flow and the illusion that the vacuum is "sucking".
In the case of 2 vacuum cleaners, I do agree that when the two vacuum hoses touch they will appear to attract one another until they lock together creating a sustained "airtight" (not really, but go with it) chamber which the air outside cannot penetrate. This may not be analogous/applicable to scepti's description because the magnets themselves may already be saturated with as many magnetons as they can hold. As a result the "free magnetons" rush into the space between the magnets causing repulsion where we would expect the illusion of attraction.
I wouldn't say trying to prop up a failed idea is acting in good faith.
I wouldn't say that describing it as a failed idea (which was your clear preexisting bias from the outset) simply because you can IMAGINE flaws in it is acting to earnestly evaluate / understand / test it.
Repeating the same lie wont magically make it true.
That's true. I am simply stating facts.
You can't hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if your definitions are wrong. As I've said, and you cannot refute, thought experiment is ONLY useful, in a scientific context, to generate hypothesis. Hypothesis can ONLY be validated or invalidated through experiment, and this is semantically inarguable. It is a part of the scientific method, and you have no obligation to learn the correct definition of it. You can remain incorrect if you wish.
I have clearly explained why thought experiments are a key part of science.
You have been miseducated to that effect. Thought "experiments" are not experiments, and they are not a part of the scientific method (i.e. NOT science). This isn't an arguable point.
The point is the results have already been collected by previous experiments.
So you keep saying with undue certainty. But the proposed magneton hasn't been expounded upon thoroughly enough to even begin imagining an experimental setup. You are in too much of a hurry to avoid doing any science.
If Scepti's model requires magnets to have an attractive pole and a repulsive pole, such that 2 attractive poles attract each other and 2 repulsive poles repel, you don't need to carry out a physical experiment to test this.
Not certainly, no. You perhaps need to understand a new mechanism, or new property - but nothing is irreconcilable just because you have a thought that suggests it might be. We learn through experiment in science. Not merely musings while we sit on our asses.
That means we don't need to test it.
My whole point is that currently we can't test it (experimentally, the only "test" that exists in science). We would both have to understand more thoroughly what the proposed magneton is and how to measure and manipulate it. We have none of that, and only your failed "thought experiments"/musings.
Or if you can demonstrate it is unsound.
It is true that we could potentially find the hypothesis not valid at the outset, but only with rigorous criteria to do so first - which vary depending on source. As I said, most physics dept's would declare the current formulation of hypothesis (mine, not scepti's) invalid because it invokes theoretical things (things not known to empirical science), namely the magneton.
You even tried to appeal to one yourself, you just didn't call it a thought experiment.
It was merely for demonstration. It doesn't remove the necessity for experimentation, and never could. It would be unscientific, by definition. A deviation from the scientific method. I am not denying the use of "thought experiment" to generate hypothesis - but that is the extent of its scientific use.
What Clickljama's sometimes presents as thought experiments are not thought experiments because he has no idea what the results would actually be and instead just assumes them. That means they are not thought experiments.
This is why we test our conceptions ("thought experiments" if you must) against reality by experiment. I can appreciate that if the experiment has already been carried out, that we can reference that experiment. In this case, that is plainly not possible until more detail is given. That's the whole point, which you seem committed to missing.
-
Ok, you're familiar with how a drinking straw works...right.
You understand that you create a low pressure over the straw and the higher pressure air pushes the water in the cup and up that straw.
Are you ok with that?
If not then explain why and if you can. explain why this happens.
Let's skip over the analogies shall we and get to the heart of the matter. There are lots of different sources of pressure and all we are doing is addressing how different types of pressure cause an effect which is similar to magnetism. What property do you think, specifically relating to iron - or more specifically iron atoms causes a bar magnet made from iron to be a permanent magnet?
It is clearly something to do with iron because if I got a bar of copper or zinc or various other metals we would not get the same effect as if we use iron. So what it is about iron that produces magnetism? If I got two bars made out of gold for example and tried to get them to stick together or repel each other I wouldn't have much success.
Like I said. It's the structure of the iron after cooling.
It's what is trapped and what creates an imbalance in the pressures in the atmosphere by that breakdown of elements left inside that structure.
-
What has cooling got to do with it?
The way you describe these things has absolutely no bearing on my experiences with magnets in the real world. Yet everything I read in books about how they behave and what causes a magnet to be magnetic does.
It's as if you are deliberately going against everything conventional physics says about the properties of magnetism regardless of whether it matches our real world experience of it and making up your own version instead. What conventional physics says makes sense. What you talk about makes no sense.
I can't discuss anything on that basis with anyone.
All atoms consist of protons and electrons. The electrons 'spin' around the nucleus which is made up of the protons and it is the way the electrons can align themselves in iron atoms which can create the magnetic field. This alignment of the electrons doesn't happen in other types of atoms which explains why other materials do not show the same mangnetic property. That to me makes sense. Even though I cannot see the electrons directly. You need electron microscopes and not surprisingly I don't happen to have access to an electron microscope. Absolutely nothing to do with the atmosphere at all.
-
What has cooling got to do with it?
The way you describe these things has absolutely no bearing on my experiences with magnets in the real world. Yet everything I read in books about how they behave and what causes a magnet to be magnetic does.
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
Broken down elements mean the gobstopper (remember when I explained this analogy?) loses layers and becomes less dense and is squeezed by the more dense.
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
However this will only happen if a channel is opened up for it, such as something that can effect a flow which can be any metal that has the structure to allow it.
-
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
What?
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Eh?
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
As above
Sorry... you've lost me. I'll stick to my books which make sense to me.
-
It's as if you are deliberately going against everything conventional physics says about the properties of magnetism regardless of whether it matches our real world experience of it and making up your own version instead. What conventional physics says makes sense. What you talk about makes no sense.
You follow the physics you believe you know and are told and if you can prove the workings of it yourself then you can be comfortable in your own knowledge and happy to go that way. That's fair enough.
It seems you are interested in alternatives but are not interested in accepting them and that's also fair enough.
But you have to ask yourself a question.
Assuming you're 100% sure of your side why are you even responding to a dummy like myself?
You clearly think I talk nonsense yet you waste a lot of time asking questions and trying to understand something you appear not to want to bother understanding.
A massive counter productive operation on your part.
I can't discuss anything on that basis with anyone.
Then don't. Deck out and chat with those who suit your ways of thinking, or those you can at least feel comfortable with.
Don't let me hold you back.
All atoms consist of protons and electrons. The electrons 'spin' around the nucleus which is made up of the protons and it is the way the electrons can align themselves in iron atoms which can create the magnetic field.
Can you explain how and why this happens?
This alignment of the electrons doesn't happen in other types of atoms which explains why other materials do not show the same mangnetic property. That to me makes sense.
Can you explain this a bit further? Simplify it and give an analogy if you can.
Even though I cannot see the electrons directly. You need electron microscopes and non surprisingly I don't happen to have access to an electron microscope. Absolutely nothing to do with the atmosphere at all.
Ok, so you're reliant on being told and reliant on the electron microscopes showing what you believe to be true, without proof.
Fair enough but I think that certainly leaves stuff open for question just like many many other things that are cloaked in secrecy.
-
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
What?
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Eh?
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
As above
Sorry... you've lost me. I'll stick to my books which make sense to me.
Ok, no need to answer above. Just forget about me.
-
The purpose of the dialectic is to encourage the student to learn for themselves / come to their own conclusions.
Which is not what he is doing at all.
Instead, the purpose of him asking the questions is to deflect from his own inability to explain anything.
The questions he is asking have nothing to do with the issues raised other than magnetism.
The request, which you and most (but not all) have ignored
I have not ignored it.
I am not the one who came here and claimed to know how magnetism work. I am not the one who asserted that it works based upon the air.
As such the mainstream view is entirely irrelevant.
Refusing to be distracted by such questions which he continually uses to avoid admitting he has no idea is not being antagonistic.
If scepti DIDN'T have any idea how magnets worked (as the rest of us do not), then why would we be interested in hearing more from them on the subject? The admission you are requesting would unmake the conversation, and the need thereof. It's silly (and based in ego/pride).
And there you go contradicting yourself.
If he was doing what you are claiming, and trying to get us to admit that no one knows, his admission puts him in good faith that no one knows.
As it stands currently, he is arrogantly pretending that he is the only one who knows how it works.
Admitting that he has no idea puts him in a position to start questioning the mainstream model and trying to get us to justify it, instead of the position he is in now, where he made a bunch of claims about how magnetism works and refuses to address the issues raised with it.
So he can either deal with the issues that his claims have raised, or he can admit he has no idea.
This has nothing to do with ego, and instead is to do with not running around in circles like he seems to want.
They do not think you are worth their time conversing with, due to your attitude and approach.
Yes, my attitude of caring about the truth and refusing to continually run along with his pathetic deflections.
He wants sheep that will either blindly accept whatever BS he says or who will run along with whatever distraction he throws at them to continue pretending he is right.
Your evident lack of earnesty and civility
And there you go with more insults.
You are describing Scepti here, not me.
You could say it is tit for tat.
He starts it, and I don't give into his crap.
I have shown a genuine, earnest attempt to understand, but because that means I recognise issues with his claims and want them to be addressed, he refuses to engage because he can't justify his nonsense and instead he proceeds to insults.
When he makes no genuine attempt to defend his model and address the issues raised, why should anyone bother with playing his games?
It seems that that is not what you are seeing because you want to side with Scepti in your shared hatred for RE and science.
You keep making this baseless claim.
It isn't baseless.
Throughout your history on this forum, you have shown a continued dislike/hatred for science and the RE, doing whatever you can to pretend it is all wrong and nonsense.
You can claim you like science all you want, your actions show otherwise.
Sceptic does the same.
You then come to this thread, and see someone making bold claims that air is the cause of magnetism, yet making no attempt to deal with the issues raised, yet you side with him.
I am not attacking anyone, it is across purposes to communication.
If you truly think that, you should go back and read your posts.
If that truly was the case you would be trying to get Scepti to actually address the issues raised.
You mean by asking them directly? Or by constantly insulting and assuming that they are wrong (and stupid) at the outset like you do?
Try again. Go back and read what was there at the outset.
He is the one insulting and assuming everyone is wrong.
I have directly asked him about these issues, and because he has no answer he results to insults and deflection.
I don't just assume he is wrong, instead I logically think about his model and explain why it is wrong, why it does not match reality, what the big issues related to it are. Which he then proceeds to ignore.
but perhaps a DIAlog could be encouraged by asking and answering questions in kind (they answer, you answer, they answer etc.).
And I have already answered plenty of his questions, so try getting him to answer ours.
That MAY be, however it is not how we determine if a hypothesis is correct or not in the scientific method. Hypothesis can ONLY be validated/invalidated by rigorous experiment (save for your raised caveat, of further criteria for "valid" hypothesis) and that is its sole function!
You not liking how science works doesn't magically change it.
We already know what the results are from plenty of prior experiments. There is no need to go and test it specifically for this wild claim.
The scientific method doesn't work by making up a new hypothesis that ignores the existing evidence just to pretend everything is based upon the air.
I'm just pointing it out (in a vain attempt to bring focus to a wildly unproductive thread).
It seems that you are just trying to make it less productive.
If you want to make it more productive, try to get Scepti to actually address the issues raised.
Did you read my speculative explanation of that? What part of that potential description did you take issue with?
Did you read my response, where I addressed what part I take issue with?
Which is true of all the fundamental forces.
Except push / collision, yes.
No, even them.
You need to explain how they collide, what mechanism causes them to interact and repel one another.
If you actually understood science, you would know that it primarily based upon electromagnetic interactions, which in turn are explained by fields.
These collisions have the exact same problem as all the other fundamental forces, as they are described by those forces.
No, because it shows it is false.
That means it is worse than the pixies, because it is quite difficult to show pixies don't exist.
That's what I said. It is a MUCH better hypothesis than pixies
No it isn't. Those 2 statements are direct contradictions of each other.
You are claiming it is better, I am explaining why it is worse.
Do you understand the difference between better and worse?
-
If scepti DIDN'T have any idea how magnets worked (as the rest of us do not), then why would we be interested in hearing more from them on the subject?
Who says 'the rest of us' don't have any idea. Sceptimatic flatly refuses to accept the mainstream explanation of how magentism works and so has invented his own version instead. But as always with Sceptis explanations, there is absolutely no evidence to support what he thinks.
When you have worked your way through the education system from primary to graduate in science and physics you do gain some idea of how magnetism works.
-
The difference, in scepti's view at least (if not reality), is not semantic - it's actual.
No, it is purely semantics.
I am using the word attraction to describe the macroscopic effect, which appears to be attraction, even though it is based upon pushing things.
If you had bothered reading what I said rather than just attacking you would know that.
Conventional physics relies upon attractive and repulsive interactions. It is not simply all push.
Not traditionally, no. And even in "modern" conventional physics there is no mechanism for it. It is taken on faith, as many other things are.
Yes traditionally. As soon as you get to any tensile properties or cohesive properties or the like you have attraction as well as repulsion.
And regardless, there is no complete underlying mechanism for ANYTHING! You always reach a point of not knowing.
What scepti is describing, potentially, reconciles and allows for it to work for everything. At least, that is what it appears they are attempting to do / have already concluded.
No it doesn't. It is what he is claiming so he can claim everything is push, so he can say gravity can't be real as it is a pull, so he can dismiss it and the RE along with it.
But he has repeatedly failed to demonstrate it and repeatedly ignored all the issues just trying to rely on push for everything has.
Potentially, yes. Though if you imagine the magnetic materials (which are not magnetized, at the outset) as small magnets themselves, it is easy to imagine how they align themselves properly on either side of the magnet and effectively become a part of it (as they do in the current mainstream conception, albeit for different supposed reasons).
Which just leads to the latter issue, where the stronger magnet should cause the weaker magnets to still be repelled.
I see what you are saying. However, in this case - the proposed thing is so small that it cannot be fully "sealed" out.
Which has no impact on the resulting force. It wont magically turn an attraction into a repulsion.
You have the large pressure all around, and a void in the middle. This will cause it to be pushed together.
This may not be analogous/applicable to scepti's description because the magnets themselves may already be saturated with as many magnetons as they can hold.
Which then means the other "magnetons" wouldn't be flowing towards it and thus you have no attraction and no repulsion.
You need a cause for the repulsion and there simply is not one there.
I wouldn't say trying to prop up a failed idea is acting in good faith.
I wouldn't say that describing it as a failed idea (which was your clear preexisting bias from the outset)
There you go with more bias attacks.
It was not a pre-existing bias.
It was a conclusion based upon an honest and logical evaluation of it, further backed up by his continued avoidance of the issues raised.
Repeating the same lie wont magically make it true.
That's true. I am simply stating facts.
Like I said, repeating the same lie wont make it true, not even if you claim it is a fact.
I have clearly explained how thought experiments are useful and are a valid part of science.
If you wish to continue parroting the same lie, try to actually justify it, including directly addressing what I have said, rather than just continually dismissing it.
You not liking the refutations of your claims doesn't mean they haven't been refuted.
You can remain incorrect if you wish.
No thanks. I think I will remain correct rather than accepting your lies.
This isn't an arguable point.
You're right there, but here you are trying to argue against the truth. Why?
The point is the results have already been collected by previous experiments.
So you keep saying with undue certainty.
No, the certainty is not undue at all.
Not certainly, no. You perhaps need to understand a new mechanism, or new property
i.e. you need to discard his mechanism/property as it is wrong and come up with a new one.
most physics dept's would declare the current formulation of hypothesis (mine, not scepti's) invalid because it invokes theoretical things (things not known to empirical science), namely the magneton.
Do you even understand what those words mean?
In order for it to be valid, it needs to be logically consistent, such that the conclusion follows from the premise. That does not make it true and does not require it to only involve things already known.
-
It seems you are interested in alternatives but are not interested in accepting them and that's also fair enough.
Perhaps he is only interested in ones which actually make sense rather than repeatedly contradict themselves or reality?
Why would anyone accept your claims when you do whatever you can to dodge the issues that they raise?
For example, you STILL haven't addressed the polarity of magnets, which is one of the most basics things about magnets.
Your model indicates that magnets should have 2 fundamentally different poles, where appears to be attractive and the other appears to be repulsive.
This is nothing like how magnets are observed to behave in reality.
You have been dodging this for so long it isn't funny.
Why should anyone accept your wild claims when you refuse to address this massive issue?
Assuming you're 100% sure of your side why are you even responding to a dummy like myself?
All it takes for stupidity to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.
The same could be asked of you.
-
jack44556677 understands what I'm conveying. He's not agreeing with anything for or against. He's trying to tell you that it takes thought, which you people refuse to do and instead spend far too much time attacking anyone who simply goes against mainstream ideals.
This is why most of you will never think for yourselves.
Attacking jack44556677 shows how petty you are because you think he's came in to help me and you class him as a threat, so you try to ridicule and intimidate.
Too many nasties taking part.
-
He's trying to tell you that it takes thought
Which you refuse to do.
But of course you will side with him with your shared hatred of the RE and science.
Again, have you figured out how to explain the observed polarity of magnets yet?
This is why most of you will never think for yourselves.
I do think for myself, which is why I wont accept your BS.
I have actually thought about it and realise it doesn't match reality.
If you want to change my mind you need to actually address the issues raised.
But every time you just deflect, because you know you can't explain, because your model simply doesn't match reality.
-
When you think how a few smacks with a hammer can render a magnet not a magnet, you start to realise you are pushing something out without allowing anything else to replace it.
-
What is the hammer doing?
Is it hitting the air and causing the air to change?
-
When you think how a few smacks with a hammer can render a magnet not a magnet, you start to realise you are pushing something out without allowing anything else to replace it.
One can think of it in terms of a few smacks with a hammer. But basically the hammer would be knocking the electrons out of alignment and so the magnetic effect is weakened as a result. Eventually the electrons realign and the magnetic effect returns.
If you said to be there is a fundamental link between electronic forces and magnetic forces then I would agree with you but I have seen no evidence to support your theory that it has anything to do with pressure from the air. If that evidence can be presented to me then I will consider but up to now the description of how electrons link up in iron atoms seems the most logical explanation. Again that is my logic.
-
@jackblack
If scepti DIDN'T have any idea how magnets worked (as the rest of us do not), then why would we be interested in hearing more from them on the subject?
Hi Jack,
Like sceptimatic, you seem to have a propensity to downplay things that we do have great knowledge and understanding of. I wonder why that is? Maybe you have some of your own biases that color your perception?
To say we have "no idea" about HOW magnets work is just silly. The current framework describes the HOW simply, elegantly, and with incredible utility -
A moving charge creates a magnetic moment.
We use this "how" to engineer the most incredible electromagnetic machines. For example, MRI machines are not magic wands given to us by interdimensional gods, but devices we have designed, built, and utilized using our collective knowledge of how magnets work. We use these concepts to build devices that can actually image directly inside your body! To say we have "no idea" is just incredibly ignorant. More than that, it seems outrageously self serving to your own ideology. You believe something more is happening with magnetisms. Thats fine, the history of science would indicate that it is incredibly likely that indeed more is going on, and you are more than welcome to your opinions/musings/imaginations about this, and I would love to hear more about them.
But this idea that because we do not know the why of everything, then we have "no idea" about anything, is bizarre. We know lots - we have an amazing collective pool of observations of the universe around us, and beautiful conceptualizations that link them in an amazing manner. This backdrop of knowledge and wisdom shouldn't be dismissed or ignored.
Don't get lost in your personal notions so deeply that you lose sight of the the greater world around you. Just some friendly advice.
-
Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌
Answer is EZ:
-
When you think how a few smacks with a hammer can render a magnet not a magnet, you start to realise you are pushing something out without allowing anything else to replace it.
No, You just realise that a big magnet is made of a bunch of smaller magnets, and whacking it with a hammer misaligns them.
Or in your case, you would brake whatever causes the flow.
Now, have you figured out how to explain the polarity yet?
-
Funny that you insist that science should rely on experimental validation, whilst baseless stating that the idea that magnetism being due to some component of air is vastly more sound than what we know from real physics.
It isn't baseless. It's factual. There exists no mainstream explanation for a mechanism or composition of any type of "field" (magnetism very much included). This is why scepti keeps asking for people to explain it themselves. When they look inward for that knowledge, they will find it isn't there. If they diligently look outwards (research), they will find that no such explanation exists at all - merely description.
Yeah, yeah. This is a classic flat earther argument against gravity too. But it can be applied to anything if you dig down to the most fundamental levels. What is matter really? Why does it behave the way it does? Why are there 3 special dimensions (that we perceive)? Why does the arrow of time move forward? Why anything?
Maybe one day, we’ll have answers to these questions, maybe not. In the meantime science is about finding the most complete models that match the available data. As I understand it, the current winner is quantum electrodynamics, but even Maxwell’s version does a decent job for a lot cases.
This vague suggestion of something in the air that you can’t identify that pushes things together may more sense to you than actual physics pieced together by actual physicists validated by actual experiments. But there’s nothing “factual” about what you said, unless you have evidence for a model that fits all the data better.
And that has nothing to do with air.
Scepti is talking, from what I've interpreted - only they can confirm, about things in the air that are smaller than gas.
Scepti has thousands of posts about how weight is caused by the mass of atmosphere pressing down on things. He seems to mean it quite literally, and now uses much the same argument for magnetism. If he does really mean something else entirely, isn’t it up to him to explain things? People are going to reply to what he says, not what they guess he really means.
Are you sure you’re not just seeing more subtle because he’s the only other Flat Earther talking about these things?
Things that can enter and exit an "airtight" (really, GAS-tight - gas is not the entirety of what we call "air" or "atmosphere" - there are many smaller things than that there!) container without issue.
Is there any scientific evidence or theoretical basis for these “smaller things”? Last I checked “air” is a well defined term. It’s the mixture of gases found naturally in the atmosphere, which also a well defined term.
The independent variable you want to control in this case is very easy.
No, it isn't and that is the trouble. First, we need to understand what IT is - which we don't. Only scepti can help clarify on that. Scepti has made it pretty clear that it isn't gas (or not the atomic, usually diatomic, gas that we know and love).
So air isn’t just comprised of gas molecules, and atoms aren’t what we think? It contains something else, which causes both magnetism and for things to have weight. That something else is somehow left behind when we evacuate the gas part of air (whatever that is) from a chamber. Yet there’s no evidence for any of this, you don’t know what IT is that contracts all that “indoctrinated” science we learn that’s based on actual measurements and experiments. Is that about right?
THEN we need to be able to manipulate and measure it. We can't proceed to experiment before we do both things.
That’s right. Scepti, yourself or anyone else who thinks their ideas are capable of overturning entire fields of physics need proper hypothesis, make predictions based the model and test them.
No one else does though.
Supposing that anything scepti says might be right are the thought experiments here
That's right. And thought experiments that do not become actual experiments are a waste of time (and worse, prevent you from doing experiment / practicing real experimental science)
As I said, physics doesn't take place in discussion or inside the mind. It takes place in objective manifest reality, by rigorous experiment.
Maybe you shouldn’t be claiming that completely untested and unsupported ideas are factual, while dismissing real physics that’s verified by experimentation then?
-
Things that can enter and exit an "airtight" (really, GAS-tight - gas is not the entirety of what we call "air" or "atmosphere" - there are many smaller things than that there!) container without issue.
Is there any scientific evidence or theoretical basis for these “smaller things”? Last I checked “air” is a well defined term. It’s the mixture of gases found naturally in the atmosphere, which also a well defined term.
I believe he is referring to radiation.
For example, alpha particles can penetrate quite thin but otherwise airtight materials, but even a few cm of air can stop them.
Beta particles have better penetration, but are likewise stopped by most materials.
There are then the various photons, which can penetrate or are blocked by various materials.
e.g. most metals are quite good at stopping a lot of photons due to their conductivity, while non-metals are often quite good at letting them pass straight through.
Then there are neutrons, which interact so weakly (except via magnetic fields due to their spin, and is evidence for the quark model of the nucleon due to the overall lack of charge) that they penetrate quite a lot, typically needing several m of boron infused concrete or water to stop them.
-
What has cooling got to do with it?
The way you describe these things has absolutely no bearing on my experiences with magnets in the real world. Yet everything I read in books about how they behave and what causes a magnet to be magnetic does.
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
Broken down elements mean the gobstopper (remember when I explained this analogy?) loses layers and becomes less dense and is squeezed by the more dense.
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
However this will only happen if a channel is opened up for it, such as something that can effect a flow which can be any metal that has the structure to allow it.
Like Solarwind, despite everything you said I'm still not really following your story.
So the magnet is a 'container' for broken down atmosphere? and it also goes through it? But only if a 'channel' is opened? All because of 'structure'?
Am I close to what you are imagining?
-
Things that can enter and exit an "airtight" (really, GAS-tight - gas is not the entirety of what we call "air" or "atmosphere" - there are many smaller things than that there!) container without issue.
Is there any scientific evidence or theoretical basis for these “smaller things”? Last I checked “air” is a well defined term. It’s the mixture of gases found naturally in the atmosphere, which also a well defined term.
I believe he is referring to radiation.
For example, alpha particles can penetrate quite thin but otherwise airtight materials, but even a few cm of air can stop them.
Beta particles have better penetration, but are likewise stopped by most materials.
There are then the various photons, which can penetrate or are blocked by various materials.
e.g. most metals are quite good at stopping a lot of photons due to their conductivity, while non-metals are often quite good at letting them pass straight through.
Then there are neutrons, which interact so weakly (except via magnetic fields due to their spin, and is evidence for the quark model of the nucleon due to the overall lack of charge) that they penetrate quite a lot, typically needing several m of boron infused concrete or water to stop them.
I was thinking he was talking about neutrinos or something like them. Particles that are ubiquitous, and can go through anything without interacting directly with the matter.
-
Like sceptimatic, you seem to have a propensity to downplay things that we do have great knowledge and understanding of.
Perhaps, but not in this case. In this case I am merely being honest. Any honest physics knowledgeable person would (and does) admit the same. We do not know what magnetism is or how it works.
I wonder why that is? Maybe you have some of your own biases that color your perception?
We are all plagued by bias, and much of it is pernicious and intrinsic. So much so that we are blinded to it. If that were the case (as often is), I would need to rely on external evaluation and notification of such a thing. I think in this case you are misunderstanding me, and taking minor statements as evidence of more grandiose "philosophy" you assume is there. I am not saying that we know nothing about magnetism - we absolutely know (and have learned) a great deal. A couple of the things that we do not know, is how it works and what it is composed of.
A moving charge creates a magnetic moment.
I am a fan of faraday. Induction is the core of many technologies. However, this doesn't work for permanent magnets.
We use this "how" to engineer the most incredible electromagnetic machines.
We can do a great many things that we don't really understand. There are still arguments/discussions/disagreements among aviation/avionics engineers about how, precisely, a plane flies and which conceptions should be employed to make the best plane. This is unthinkable to most students, but it is the reality.
For example, MRI machines are not magic wands given to us by interdimensional gods, but devices we have designed, built, and utilized using our collective knowledge of how magnets work. We use these concepts to build devices that can actually image directly inside your body! To say we have "no idea" is just incredibly ignorant.
This is a great example. We can (and do) use magnetism to great effect, but we can also (and do) utilize it without really understanding what it is or how it works, fundamentally. The concepts that are employed, to great effect - as you point out, do not contain the answers to these mysteries.
Thats fine, the history of science would indicate that it is incredibly likely that indeed more is going on, and you are more than welcome to your opinions/musings/imaginations about this, and I would love to hear more about them.
In due time! I'm still trying to understand scepti for the time being.
But this idea that because we do not know the why of everything, then we have "no idea" about anything, is bizarre.
That would be bizarre! Thankfully that is a misunderstanding on your part, and not a claim I am making.
We know lots - we have an amazing collective pool of observations of the universe around us, and beautiful conceptualizations that link them in an amazing manner. This backdrop of knowledge and wisdom shouldn't be dismissed or ignored.
You are preaching to the choir, I assure you!
Don't get lost in your personal notions so deeply that you lose sight of the the greater world around you. Just some friendly advice.
This is good advice!
-
Yeah, yeah. This is a classic flat earther argument against gravity too.
Bored already? It isn't a "flat earther" argument, it is a major scientific concern and has been since newton invoked it. Relativity was created, in part, BECAUSE gravity is not a philosophically sound or scientific concept (which newton well understood at the time, and freely admitted to). Einstein attempted to do away with the magical "spooky action at a distance" (a profoundly unscientific / anti-physics concept) by describing a medium (aether) that could be contorted by matter. Then aether-mcarthyism hit, and pulled the rug out from under it - leaving us once again in the sorry state where something acts upon nothing (completely unacceptable, anathema to physics) and causes spooky action at a distance. Einstein is on record saying that if aether is done away with, then so was relativity.
But it can be applied to anything if you dig down to the most fundamental levels. What is matter really? Why does it behave the way it does? Why are there 3 special dimensions (that we perceive)? Why does the arrow of time move forward? Why anything?
You are describing sophistry. We MUST remain ever vigilant against such things. This is not the issue with gravity, or "fields" in general. It is not a sophist posit/criticism (it's also not new, or from "flat earthers" if such a thing there actually be - but from physicists and natural philosophers). There is too much to discuss on this to do it justice in a few sentences. Though come to think of it, the name of this thread suggests it is EXACTLY the right place to be discussing it...
In the meantime science is about finding the most complete models that match the available data. As I understand it, the current winner is quantum electrodynamics, but even Maxwell’s version does a decent job for a lot cases.
Sadly you are correct. It is sad because the scientific method does not include models - those are meta-scientific tools for specific (and limited) use. Science is about rigorous adherence to the scientific method to obtain knowledge of manifest benefit to humanity (ideally). It isn't about "building a better model". It's about experiment.
This vague suggestion of something in the air that you can’t identify that pushes things together may more sense to you than actual physics pieced together by actual physicists validated by actual experiments. But there’s nothing “factual” about what you said, unless you have evidence for a model that fits all the data better.
It is a more sound concept, yes - but that doesn't make it correct nor factual! We can only determine if the hypothesis is correct (and even then, only provisionally) through experiment. If we can't experimentally validate/invalidate it, then it's game over (scientifically speaking).
What is factual is that it is a more sound concept than what we currently have (which is, essentially nothing - "fields" comprised of and within "nothing"; certainly nothing known). We do not know what fields are, or what they are made of. If scepti was correct, we would!
All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful for a time. Comparison against models is a time/money saving approach, not science. Often it simply avoids experimentalism altogether. But experimentalism is where the discovery (and all knowledge in science) comes from!
Scepti has thousands of posts about how weight is caused by the mass of atmosphere pressing down on things. He seems to mean it quite literally, and now uses much the same argument for magnetism.
I did notice that (though haven't read the thousands)! The unified theory of denpressure.
If he does really mean something else entirely, isn’t it up to him to explain things? People are going to reply to what he says, not what they guess he really means.
Well, yes and no. Yes if they want others to understand it! No, they aren't obligated to explain anything.
However, when you imagine from the perspective that it "must be wrong" you are merely debunking and it is frightfully easy to do (even when it isn't, in actuality). If you imagine from the perspective that "it must be right" you can do the same. Objectivity requires us to try and do neither, which is a frightfully difficult task for a subjective biased being.
Assuming scepti is using the dialectic (which it seems likely they are), then the best way to make progress understanding them is to try our best to imagine how it COULD be possible - rather than why it must be impossible. "Benefit of the doubt" if you will.
I agree that we can't really proceed without scepti making clear what they mean - though this is often more challenging than it seems. Language is imprecise, and our emotions and subjectivity are also constant obstacles.
Are you sure you’re not just seeing more subtle because he’s the only other Flat Earther talking about these things?
Perhaps, people do love the underdog. But, I'm not really a flat earther - I'm a globe skeptic/denier, and have different views than scepti (which is why I am interested in learning more!).
Is there any scientific evidence or theoretical basis for these “smaller things”? Last I checked “air” is a well defined term. It’s the mixture of gases found naturally in the atmosphere, which also a well defined term.
Absolutely! However we rarely think of them when we talk about "air" and "atmosphere". When we talk of air, we are talking almost exclusively of gas. However, in that air are many things that are not gas. What if we include subatomic things? What if we include electrons and neutrinos? What if we include radio waves / electromagnetic radiation / light? Etc.
So air isn’t just comprised of gas molecules, and atoms aren’t what we think?
The former, yes. The latter, probably - but that was not a point I was making.
It contains something else, which causes both magnetism and for things to have weight. That something else is somehow left behind when we evacuate the gas part of air (whatever that is) from a chamber.
That seems like a possible (if not plausible) interpretation of scepti's position, yes. We know we can't evacuate the gas part. In scepti's view, it seems that is because the pushing (that moves the gas from inside the vacuum chamber to the outside of it) comes from the gas itself (not the vacuum pump). All you can hope to do is spread/seperate that gas out within the vacuum chamber - you can never hope to eliminate it. Gas will always be touching every wall of the container, no matter what. Scepti may well not agree with this, but this is my interpretation so far.
Yet there’s no evidence for any of this, you don’t know what IT is that contracts all that “indoctrinated” science we learn that’s based on actual measurements and experiments. Is that about right?
I don't know exactly how scepti feels about it, but I like science a lot! Indoctrination has more to do with the approach than the content. The science that is derived from experiments (the only science that is based purely on measurements/observations is an exception - known as natural law) is as solid as knowledge gets for humankind. One can, and many are, indoctrinated to accept such things - but much more dangerous and damaging is the indoctrination of things merely masquerading as such experimentally validated science when they are, in fact, not.
Abundance of evidence or lack thereof often depends greatly on perspective on/interpretation of that evidence. Here is another example of "benefit of the doubt"-ing (I am using my own conceptions/knowledge and effort to MAKE the thing, at least potentially, work/cogent/conceivable) :
Assuming scepti is conceptualizing something infinitesimal, that acts as a fluid/gas and is a ubiquitous part of air/atmosphere - they are potentially describing aether. Aether is described by many scientists of years gone by as an "ultra fine fluid". Evidence for such a fluid is everywhere, but as I said - this depends largely on interpretation of the evidence.
We know that light is a wave, and that all waves are pressure variances within media. We know this. We make an exception for light because we have "done away" with such "primitive" notions as aether. However, waves cannot exist irrespective of their mediums - we know that too. The fact that we can evacuate a chamber of almost all of the air we think is in there, and light still has no trouble negotiating through it anyway - is itself strong evidence that the medium is (to us, anyway) omnipresent. Many see experiments with light in vacuum chambers as clear, and obvious, evidence of aether's reality.
That’s right. Scepti, yourself or anyone else who thinks their ideas are capable of overturning entire fields of physics need proper hypothesis, make predictions based the model and test them.
It won't overturn so much as you think (especially in this case, where a cogent and philosophically/physics sound description does not currently exist at all). Good experimentally validated science isn't going to suddenly stop being useful if (and/or when) "denpressure" is accepted.
I am glad you recognize and appreciate what I'm saying, however predictions and models are not a part of science. Yes, I know how insane that sounds. The scientific method does not include a "model" step, or a "prediction" step. The only prediction in the scientific method is the hypothesis, which predicts a causal relationship between an IV and a DV for the explicit purpose of experimental validation or invalidation (ideally). All the rest - "my model predicts this and I saw it so it's all true" - is NOT science.
Maybe you shouldn’t be claiming that completely untested and unsupported ideas are factual, while dismissing real physics that’s verified by experimentation then?
I certainly shouldn't be, and am not! I think you are misunderstanding me. Hopefully my explanations above have cleared things up. Let me know if not!
-
Perhaps, but not in this case. In this case I am merely being honest. Any honest physics knowledgeable person would (and does) admit the same. We do not know what magnetism is or how it works.
No, that is not being honest. That is dishonestly misrepresenting magnetism as if it is some magical mystical thing.
The honest person would instead be saying that we don't fundamentally know how anything works.
And that includes simple things like collisions. Fundamentally, we don't know what collisions or how they work.
I am a fan of faraday. Induction is the core of many technologies. However, this doesn't work for permanent magnets.
And how have you determined that?
Have you checked that there are no moving charges in permanent magnets?
Yeah, yeah. This is a classic flat earther argument against gravity too.
Bored already? It isn't a "flat earther" argument, it is a major scientific concern and has been since newton invoked it.
It is a FE argument.
It is cherry picking parts of science to discard, only to replace them with pure speculation, or to pretend that because we don't know everything it must be fake.
You are describing sophistry. We MUST remain ever vigilant against such things. This is not the issue with gravity, or "fields" in general.
No, that is the exact issue.
Ultimately you reach a point where we simply do not know, and that applies to everything.
But you instead choose to cherry pick and pretend that us not knowing this particular thing is a massive problem for it, while ignoring that applies to everything.
Especially if you use it to pretend we don't have any idea and that wild speculation based upon nothing is magically better that what we currently have.
It is a more sound concept, yes - but that doesn't make it correct nor factual!
Do you understand what that word means?
Sound effectively means correct.
It means that it is based upon valid reasoning with true premises.
That means it is correct.
You can't have it be sound with it being incorrect and non-factual.
Assuming scepti is using the dialectic (which it seems likely they are)
Not in the slightest.
It seems like he is asking questions to avoid his inability to explain and justify his model.
The best way to make progress is for them to stop that and start trying to explain and justify his model.
the best way to make progress understanding them is to try our best to imagine how it COULD be possible
Which I did, and then demonstrated that it doesn't match reality.
We know that light is a wave, and that all waves are pressure variances within media. We know this.
No, people assumed that based upon their prior experience of waves.
That doesn't mean all waves must be.
We do away with the medium for light, because we know light is composed of particles, and like all particles has wave-like nature.
Trying to have aether as the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves leads to all sorts of contradictions.
however predictions and models are not a part of science. Yes, I know how insane that sounds.
Then perhaps you should stop saying it, because models are a key part of science.
All the rest - "my model predicts this and I saw it so it's all true" - is NOT science.
And is nothing like what happens with model in actual science.
I certainly shouldn't be, and am not! I think you are misunderstanding me.
I think you are misunderstanding English, like the word "sound".
-
When you think how a few smacks with a hammer can render a magnet not a magnet, you start to realise you are pushing something out without allowing anything else to replace it.
One can think of it in terms of a few smacks with a hammer. But basically the hammer would be knocking the electrons out of alignment and so the magnetic effect is weakened as a result. Eventually the electrons realign and the magnetic effect returns.
If you said to be there is a fundamental link between electronic forces and magnetic forces then I would agree with you but I have seen no evidence to support your theory that it has anything to do with pressure from the air. If that evidence can be presented to me then I will consider but up to now the description of how electrons link up in iron atoms seems the most logical explanation. Again that is my logic.
Remember the sieve analogy?
-
What has cooling got to do with it?
The way you describe these things has absolutely no bearing on my experiences with magnets in the real world. Yet everything I read in books about how they behave and what causes a magnet to be magnetic does.
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
Broken down elements mean the gobstopper (remember when I explained this analogy?) loses layers and becomes less dense and is squeezed by the more dense.
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
However this will only happen if a channel is opened up for it, such as something that can effect a flow which can be any metal that has the structure to allow it.
Like Solarwind, despite everything you said I'm still not really following your story.
So the magnet is a 'container' for broken down atmosphere? and it also goes through it? But only if a 'channel' is opened? All because of 'structure'?
Am I close to what you are imagining?
Think of the magnet as siphoning.
Trapped atmosphere which is broken down molecules, like I explained and then a high force pushing against that trapped matter, which is the atmosphere.
-
Like sceptimatic, you seem to have a propensity to downplay things that we do have great knowledge and understanding of.
Perhaps, but not in this case. In this case I am merely being honest. Any honest physics knowledgeable person would (and does) admit the same. We do not know what magnetism is or how it works.
I can readily believe that you are expressing you honest opinion, and that's great, and personally, I'm always interested in hearing others opinions. However, you should be careful to not equate your opinions with facts.
For example, I am:
1) A "physics knowledgeable" person
and
2) Honest (for the most part...)
and I do not agree with your statement, as written, that we do not know how magnets work.
So, your opinions/musings/thoughts are demonstrably incorrect in this regard, no matter how honestly you are expressing them. Honesty, while a great quality, does not always equal truth.
And why the appeal to authority in the first place? We are on a flat earth forum, and you are a "globe skeptic/denier", you should personally realize that appeal to authority is the very first thing dismissed out of hand here. You do it yourself after all, right?
A moving charge creates a magnetic moment.
I am a fan of faraday. Induction is the core of many technologies. However, this doesn't work for permanent magnets.
Again, just a little advice again, you shouldn't use your lack of knowledge as the standard of what works and doesn't work. You are totally welcome to your opinions/imaginations in this regard, but the conclusive statements like this come across as a little silly against the backdrop of our collective scientific knowledge.
And of course, you are more than free to explain why you believe modern scientific theory "doesn't work" for permanent magnets. I'll happily listen to your opinions, and you could certainly bring me to some agreement if it is reasonable, but as stated, Im sorry to say it simply makes you appear ignorant.
For example, MRI machines are not magic wands given to us by interdimensional gods, but devices we have designed, built, and utilized using our collective knowledge of how magnets work. We use these concepts to build devices that can actually image directly inside your body! To say we have "no idea" is just incredibly ignorant.
This is a great example. We can (and do) use magnetism to great effect, but we can also (and do) utilize it without really understanding what it is or how it works, fundamentally. The concepts that are employed, to great effect - as you point out, do not contain the answers to these mysteries.
I like the little kicker word there, "fundamentally". We obviously understand how magnets work to the degree that we can make, control, and use them to incredible precision. We have a beautiful scientific understanding of how magnets work. To deny this would be silly, so you need to add the caveat, "fundamentally".
As Jack(black) rightly points out, couldn't this be applied to EVERYTHING? We dont really understand anything "fundamentally", do we?
It's an escape clause for your argument, a rabbit hole that leads to nowhere. What does it mean? is it even possible to understand something "fundamentally"? How do we know if the knowledge we have is "fundamental" or not? Couldn't there always be something more "fundamental" underneath?
It seems like you are using an impossible goal as the standard of which to judge our knowledge, and since we can never reach it, you dismiss the knowledge we do have. It's strange.
-
As Jack(black) rightly points out, couldn't this be applied to EVERYTHING? We dont really understand anything "fundamentally", do we?
It's an escape clause for your argument, a rabbit hole that leads to nowhere. What does it mean? is it even possible to understand something "fundamentally"? How do we know if the knowledge we have is "fundamental" or not? Couldn't there always be something more "fundamental" underneath?
It seems like you are using an impossible goal as the standard of which to judge our knowledge, and since we can never reach it, you dismiss the knowledge we do have. It's strange.
This tends to be the go-to argument for anything that contradicts a flat earth, which is the entire knowledge of the human race.
I've used an example before, that I have a can of Coke sitting on my desk. I know it contains Coke because I just took a sip. But I can't prove that a magic fairy didn't drink it all and replace it with pixie juice one second ago.
So a Flat Earther would claim it's actually unicorn sweat with complete confidence, and my claims that it's Coke are wrong because I have some uncertainty, because there is a chance it might not be no matter how unlikely. They take these uncertainties that as Jackblack pointed out pertains to literally everything, and use it as an excuse to deny and ignore established knowledge and then go on to claim that THEY know 100% it's dragon spit or whatever.
There is no question that can't be extended by asking WHY one more time. We will never know everything, but it's just insanity to claim that we know nothing, that our entire industrial and technological innovations just came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with science and human ingenuity.
They forget that science explains how, religion explains why. These are not the same thing.
-
What has cooling got to do with it?
The way you describe these things has absolutely no bearing on my experiences with magnets in the real world. Yet everything I read in books about how they behave and what causes a magnet to be magnetic does.
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
Broken down elements mean the gobstopper (remember when I explained this analogy?) loses layers and becomes less dense and is squeezed by the more dense.
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
However this will only happen if a channel is opened up for it, such as something that can effect a flow which can be any metal that has the structure to allow it.
Like Solarwind, despite everything you said I'm still not really following your story.
So the magnet is a 'container' for broken down atmosphere? and it also goes through it? But only if a 'channel' is opened? All because of 'structure'?
Am I close to what you are imagining?
Think of the magnet as siphoning.
Trapped atmosphere which is broken down molecules, like I explained and then a high force pushing against that trapped matter, which is the atmosphere.
Okay, I can think of the magnet as siphoning broken down molecules from high pressure on one side to low pressure on the other.
Is this happening continually in your idea? Or only under certain circumstances?
Also, why is the pressure high on one side of the magnet and low on the other? Not sure I understand this.
-
What has cooling got to do with it?
The way you describe these things has absolutely no bearing on my experiences with magnets in the real world. Yet everything I read in books about how they behave and what causes a magnet to be magnetic does.
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
Broken down elements mean the gobstopper (remember when I explained this analogy?) loses layers and becomes less dense and is squeezed by the more dense.
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
However this will only happen if a channel is opened up for it, such as something that can effect a flow which can be any metal that has the structure to allow it.
Like Solarwind, despite everything you said I'm still not really following your story.
So the magnet is a 'container' for broken down atmosphere? and it also goes through it? But only if a 'channel' is opened? All because of 'structure'?
Am I close to what you are imagining?
Think of the magnet as siphoning.
Trapped atmosphere which is broken down molecules, like I explained and then a high force pushing against that trapped matter, which is the atmosphere.
Okay, I can think of the magnet as siphoning broken down molecules from high pressure on one side to low pressure on the other.
Is this happening continually in your idea? Or only under certain circumstances?
Also, why is the pressure high on one side of the magnet and low on the other? Not sure I understand this.
It only happens when something is there to aid that push, otherwise the siphoning ceases and becomes potential energy, if you like.
The high pressure against low pressure is like the vortex I explained.
Like a funnel.
Think of it like a resistor in terms of resisting the vortex by thinning out the pressure at the other end.
Like the sink analogy.
-
So remind me again. What causes this pressure in the first place?
-
@sobchak
I can readily believe that you are expressing you honest opinion, and that's great, and personally, I'm always interested in hearing others opinions. However, you should be careful to not equate your opinions with facts.
Opinions are supported by emotion, facts are supported by evidence (ideally) - though there is often still great disagreement on which facts are correct.
The fact is that modern science in all its glory does not know what a magnetic field is or what it is comprised of. Honest physicists most all recognize and admit this.
What fact/evidence do you have to refute this?
For example, I am:
1) A "physics knowledgeable" person
and
Cool! It's not everybodys cup of tea - as I said. And there is an awful lot of physics to keep knowledgeable about, so individual perspectives are expected to vary. I am most happy to benefit from your knowledge/perspective!
2) Honest (for the most part...)
Lol, one just has to be open and honest regarding this one question - then we can go back to being the lying pieces of shit we usually are.
It is more difficult (for many) in this context (due to apologetics and pride) to admit : "science doesn't have an answer for that". On a physics forum, without any other context this question would receive the proper honest answer quickly (undoubtedly with many highly theoretical speculations and musings too)
and I do not agree with your statement, as written, that we do not know how magnets work.
I think you are hung up on phrasing in a way that I do not intend. What we are really talking about is not the magnet though... Perhaps if I had phrased it "we do not know what magnetism is, what it is comprised of, or how it works" you wouldn't have the same reaction?
Honesty, while a great quality, does not always equal truth.
Absolutely!
And why the appeal to authority in the first place? We are on a flat earth forum, and you are a "globe skeptic/denier", you should personally realize that appeal to authority is the very first thing dismissed out of hand here. You do it yourself after all, right?
Sometimes I do it to help the credential worshipping indoctrinated. Statements that come from "Einstein" sometimes are more readily taken notice of and earnestly evaluated. I agree it should not be this way - but alas. Name dropping :(
In this case I am not making an appeal to authority. I am saying that the most knowledgeable on this subject recognize and admit that there is no explanation for what a magnetic field is or how it truly functions in physics/science.
I encourage individuals to verify/validate all claims thoroughly, regardless of source, before accepting them as true. This is one such claim that I, and many other physicists make.
As Jack(black) rightly points out, couldn't this be applied to EVERYTHING? We dont really understand anything "fundamentally", do we?
You are missing the point. Perhaps if I had phrased it differently - as "magnetism" - then you might not miss it?
It seems like you are using an impossible goal as the standard of which to judge our knowledge, and since we can never reach it, you dismiss the knowledge we do have. It's strange.
That's just a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to my phrasing.
This is simple : if you claim that the fact that science has no knowledge of what a magnetic field is comprised of, or precisely how it functions is incorrect - then you should be able to find and share that knowledge.
I'm happy to wait while you collect your research.
-
It seems like you are using an impossible goal as the standard of which to judge our knowledge, and since we can never reach it, you dismiss the knowledge we do have. It's strange.
That's just a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to my phrasing.
This is simple : if you claim that the fact that science has no knowledge of what a magnetic field is comprised of, or precisely how it functions is incorrect - then you should be able to find and share that knowledge.
I'm happy to wait while you collect your research.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?
That current scientific knowledge has limits? That's not in dispute.
That science has no idea how magnets behave? Science has extremely accurate models and predictions about magnetic behavior.
As stated before, you can always ask WHY one more time until you get "I don't know" as an answer for ANY question on ANY subject. This has always been the case, it will always be so. We will never know everything, we never can because you can always ask WHY again.
So why keep bringing this up? If you dispute everything we know because there is more to learn, you are throwing away the entireity of human discovery. Not very useful.
-
@sobchak
I can readily believe that you are expressing you honest opinion, and that's great, and personally, I'm always interested in hearing others opinions. However, you should be careful to not equate your opinions with facts.
Opinions are supported by emotion, facts are supported by evidence (ideally) - though there is often still great disagreement on which facts are correct.
The fact is that modern science in all its glory does not know what a magnetic field is or what it is comprised of. Honest physicists most all recognize and admit this.
We know its not air...
-
Remember the sieve analogy?
Remember the polarity?
Remember how it shows your model doesn't work?
Have you figured out how to explain the 2 poles of the magnets and their interaction with other poles to produce what is observed in reality?
-
The fact is that modern science in all its glory does not know what a magnetic field is or what it is comprised of. Honest physicists most all recognize and admit this.
Again, this is an extremely dishonest misrepresentation.
The fact is that ultimately we do not know what anything is comprised of or how anything works. Ultimately you always reach a point where we simply do not know. And this applies to EVERYTHING!
Selecting magnetism as if it is special and only one of a few things limited in this way is an extremely dishonest misrepresentation of the actual fact.
Honest people would not single out magnetism, or other forces. Instead they would admit it is EVERYTHING.
In this case I am not making an appeal to authority.
Yes you are.
You are saying that this particular authority thinks this to indicate that this is true.
That is a classic example of an appeal to authority.
You are missing the point. Perhaps if I had phrased it differently - as "magnetism" - then you might not miss it?
Of if you did it more honestly as "everything".
That is the point you seem to be missing.
The way you phrase it indicates that magnetism is special in this regards and that while we understand other things perfectly, magnetism is somehow beyond our grasp and thus should be more seriously questioned.
But in reality, magnetism is not special in this regards. The same applies to everything.
It seems like you are using an impossible goal as the standard of which to judge our knowledge, and since we can never reach it, you dismiss the knowledge we do have. It's strange.
That's just a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to my phrasing.
Perhaps, it is a "misunderstanding" on the basis of you cherry picking magnetism, rather than just simply stating it applies to everything.
You are acting like in order to say Scepti is wrong we need to know 100% what magnetism is.
That is an impossible standard, which will never be reached. There will always be another question.
If instead you phrased it differently to indicate that this applies to everything, and not just magnetism, then it wouldn't cause the same issues.
We would see that it is merely a technical limitation and thus not one to cast aside our current understanding of magnetism as the best we currently have.
But it isn't really a misunderstanding do to other things you have said.
You are claiming magnetism is special in this regards. You are saying that this "problem" does not apply to everything.
Instead you claim that collision/push is perfectly understood, which is pure nonsense.
It is just as limited as magnetism.
Is still relies upon the same electromagnetic interactions with the same electromagnetic fields.
If you wish to disagree and instead claim it isn't just cherry picking magnetism, then perhaps you can provide the complete mechanism by which 2 objects collide and push off each other.
So to set it up, you have 2 atoms travelling towards each other. What happens, and by what mechanism?
Make sure you address why they don't just pass straight through each other.
-
@jackblack
Again, this is an extremely dishonest misrepresentation.
It's just a fact. You know what you have to do to refute it. You must provide the scientific description of magnetism/the magnetic "field" - which you can't do, because no one can. That's why it is an unrefuted fact currently.
You are still approaching this like it is some sort of argument, and that admitting that fact would be putting you at some sort of rhetorical disadvantage. It is a mistake you seem committed to not correcting.
It would just be being honest to do so, not "throwing the match".
-
We know its not air...
I generally agree, assuming air is ONLY gas. If air includes things smaller than gas (which it does), then we can't be as certain.
In any case, scientifically we can ONLY know through experimentation (and even then, it is provisional). All else is poetry and imagination.
-
He refuses to define it.
Quit putting words in his mouth.
-
We know its not air...
I generally agree, assuming air is ONLY gas. If air includes things smaller than gas (which it does), then we can't be as certain.
Care to explain what you think is in the air that is smaller than gas? Gas is made of atoms, and while there may be a few loose electrons floating around there simply isn't anything else in there.
-
He refuses to define it.
Quit putting words in his mouth.
Lol. Fair enough.
I was only trying to "translate" the words they HAVE used (like electrolysis and "breakdown of elements").
I agree that what I come up with may well be putting words into their mouth.
-
@sobchak
I can readily believe that you are expressing you honest opinion, and that's great, and personally, I'm always interested in hearing others opinions. However, you should be careful to not equate your opinions with facts.
Opinions are supported by emotion, facts are supported by evidence (ideally) - though there is often still great disagreement on which facts are correct.
The fact is that modern science in all its glory does not know what a magnetic field is or what it is comprised of. Honest physicists most all recognize and admit this.
What fact/evidence do you have to refute this?
What now? I think you must have mistaken me for the poster who claimed we had a demonstrated physical mechanism for the mathematical constructs that are used to describe all of the fundamental forces we have found in the world around us.
Please check this and redirect your post to this individual, and if you would like, I'm happy to have a go at him as well.
No. To refresh your memory, I'm the poster who took exception to your opinion that we have no idea how magnets work. If this was just a ridiculous misstatement, and you would like to retract it, I will certainly not hold it against you, and will happily join forces in going after those field believing mouth breathers.
Cool! It's not everybodys cup of tea - as I said. And there is an awful lot of physics to keep knowledgeable about, so individual perspectives are expected to vary. I am most happy to benefit from your knowledge/perspective!
Ha. I'm not sure I have much to give you, as you say, there is an awful lot to be knowledgeable about, and while I have generally broad knowledge in both physics and modern science in general, I only have speciality in a small subset of these subjects. Plus, you seem to be doing fine on your own, perhaps besides some self-importance about your own musings and opinions (shocking for a physicist, right?!?!)
Still, that said, if you ever have any questions related specifically to biophysics, Im your huckleberry.
And why the appeal to authority in the first place? We are on a flat earth forum, and you are a "globe skeptic/denier", you should personally realize that appeal to authority is the very first thing dismissed out of hand here. You do it yourself after all, right?
Sometimes I do it to help the credential worshipping indoctrinated. Statements that come from "Einstein" sometimes are more readily taken notice of and earnestly evaluated. I agree it should not be this way - but alas. Name dropping :(
In this case I am not making an appeal to authority. I am saying that the most knowledgeable on this subject recognize and admit that there is no explanation for what a magnetic field is or how it truly functions in physics/science.
Im sorry Jack, but I have to really laugh here. I mean, you literally define an appeal to authority in your explanation of how what you are doing is not an appeal to authority.
Police: Why were you robbing the store?
Jack44556677: I wasn't robbing the store, I was just taking their goods without compensation by threat of violence.
:)
And I do have to ask again, isn't it incongruous that a "globe skeptic / denier" makes an appeal to scientific authority?
If you dont want to talk about it, its fine, but you should know that this glaring discrepancy in logic is observed and noted.
As Jack(black) rightly points out, couldn't this be applied to EVERYTHING? We dont really understand anything "fundamentally", do we?
You are missing the point. Perhaps if I had phrased it differently - as "magnetism" - then you might not miss it?
Sure, feel free to rephrase the point you are trying to make with whatever terms you think most clearly describe it. I certainly could have missed your point, and would be happy to check out any restatement of your opinion for clarity.
-
What has cooling got to do with it?
The way you describe these things has absolutely no bearing on my experiences with magnets in the real world. Yet everything I read in books about how they behave and what causes a magnet to be magnetic does.
You have to have push to have a magnet. You have to have a container to hold a build up of broken down elements.
Broken down elements mean the gobstopper (remember when I explained this analogy?) loses layers and becomes less dense and is squeezed by the more dense.
If this happens inside the container which would be the magnet it can only be pushed out by other atmospheric gobstopper break down that can be pushed into that structure.
Nothing can come back out of that structure against that force, it gets pushed through it to the opposite end.
However this will only happen if a channel is opened up for it, such as something that can effect a flow which can be any metal that has the structure to allow it.
Like Solarwind, despite everything you said I'm still not really following your story.
So the magnet is a 'container' for broken down atmosphere? and it also goes through it? But only if a 'channel' is opened? All because of 'structure'?
Am I close to what you are imagining?
Think of the magnet as siphoning.
Trapped atmosphere which is broken down molecules, like I explained and then a high force pushing against that trapped matter, which is the atmosphere.
Okay, I can think of the magnet as siphoning broken down molecules from high pressure on one side to low pressure on the other.
Is this happening continually in your idea? Or only under certain circumstances?
Also, why is the pressure high on one side of the magnet and low on the other? Not sure I understand this.
It only happens when something is there to aid that push, otherwise the siphoning ceases and becomes potential energy, if you like.
The high pressure against low pressure is like the vortex I explained.
Like a funnel.
Think of it like a resistor in terms of resisting the vortex by thinning out the pressure at the other end.
Like the sink analogy.
I have to say Im still not really following your thoughts. In your siphon or sink or funnel analogies, there is a preexisting pressure gradient that is used to drive a fluid flow, so Im not sure how to use these analogies to understand your thoughts on magnets.
In your case, there is no preexisting pressure gradient? And no fluid flow?
-
@jackblack
Again, this is an extremely dishonest misrepresentation.
It's just a fact.
It is a dishonest misrepresentation of that fact.
I am not saying that that fact is wrong, but that you are dishonestly misrepresenting it to pretend there is a problem with magnetism.
In fact, with what I have said I have made it clear that I accept that fact, I just didn't do it in such a dishonest way which could then be used against me by pretending I think there is some massive flaw just for magnetism.
I said that it applies to everything.
That ultimately regardless of what it is you are trying to explain, you eventually reach the point where we simply don't know.
I have explained what you need to do to refute that, show that magnetism is special, and that other things we do have a complete mechanism for, such as collision or repulsion.
So feel free to provide a complete mechanism for how 2 particles collide and repel each other. Otherwise why not be honest and admit that it applies to everything and stop singling out magnetism.
-
It is a dishonest misrepresentation of that fact.
This implies intent. The fact is just a fact, it has no ulterior motive unto itself. You may suspect STRONGLY that scepti is only raising it to deflect more, and to undermine science in general - but I do not see that as a certainty nor a given. In fact, as a dialectic question, it was intended to tease out if there were any reason for conceptual conflict (between your own and/or mainstream science's current, lack of, conception and scepti's). As it stands, I don't see any if there is - and how could there be when there is just a placeholder for such science currently (the "field"). Scepti may well be wrong, as you are already certain they are, however what they are proposing doesn't appear to conflict with what we know about the magnetic field (necessarily anyhow) and would actually help us to explain a great deal that is currently a long standing mystery. The real trouble is it posits an as yet unknown or misclassified/misunderstood type of matter - I think... Scepti would have to confirm.
I am not saying that that fact is wrong
Well that is progress (though if you were saying that before now, I clearly misunderstood you)!
but that you are dishonestly misrepresenting it to pretend there is a problem with magnetism.
It isn't dishonest, you just lack the historical context of physics that I have. There is a MAJOR problem with "fields" in general, magnetism very much included. It is fundamentally unacceptable in physics/philosophy for something to act upon nothing, or for the "spooky action at a distance" that physicists have been trying to shake since the magician/alchemist newton invoked it centuries ago.
In fact, with what I have said I have made it clear that I accept that fact, I just didn't do it in such a dishonest way which could then be used against me by pretending I think there is some massive flaw just for magnetism.
It isn't so much a "flaw", as an omission. A placeholder for science one day in the distant future (it has been like that for centuries, and shows no sign of abatement/progress). We can go through the scientific method and evaluate precisely why if you wish. I don't think scepti is trying to have an argument with you, or use anything you say against you (in the manner you routinely treat them). We all best search for truth (or failing that lofty goal, validated fact should suffice) together, not against one another!
I said that it applies to everything.
No, it applies to "fields" not everything. This isn't a sophist posit, and it doesn't come from "flat earthers" (if such a thing there be). It is a scientific concern of significant merit.
The fact that we cannot know everything is evident. It is not the lack of knowledge that causes this issue, it is the placeholder for that knowledge. After enough time, the placeholder becomes idolized and that is the situation we are in today. A generation (and more) of physicists that don't know the history, and have forgotten that there is a problem there that needs to be solved. In any case, the lack of a cogent/philosophically sound explanation for the magnetic field does not unmake or refute all (or almost any) of science, nor is it being made out to.
That ultimately regardless of what it is you are trying to explain, you eventually reach the point where we simply don't know.
Absolutely. And when you reach that point, you best be honest with yourself and students about it. If there were an aether, we could talk about contortions of it to cause the magnetic effect. If there isn't, then the spooky action at a distance must be resolved (and can only be resolved experimentally, as that is how science progresses/discovery is made).
Otherwise why not be honest and admit that it applies to everything and stop singling out magnetism.
It applies to all fields of indescribable/unknown composition and mechanism. I am not singling out magnetism, but neither am I talking about all of physics/science/knowledge.
I do work diligently to both be honest and earnest, and I encourage others to do the same.
-
What now? I think you must have mistaken me for the poster who claimed we had a demonstrated physical mechanism for the mathematical constructs that are used to describe all of the fundamental forces we have found in the world around us.
Don't get distracted. We were just talking about the fact - nothing more than that. I'm happy you accept and admit that fact, as it's important to demonstrating earnesty and discussing in good faith.
No. To refresh your memory, I'm the poster who took exception to your opinion that we have no idea how magnets work. If this was just a ridiculous misstatement, and you would like to retract it, I will certainly not hold it against you, and will happily join forces in going after those field believing mouth breathers.
You misunderstood what I said. I've explained that, but you seem more interested in calling people "mouth breathers". We don't know how magnets work, because in order to do that we would need to understand what magnetism was and how the magnets made it. Using something is not the same as understanding it.
Plus, you seem to be doing fine on your own, perhaps besides some self-importance about your own musings and opinions (shocking for a physicist, right?!?!)
I'm saddened that you do not come to share your knowledge freely. It is the best course for all humanity. However, you are not obligated to share; you must want to for yourself and ideally understand why you should.
What musings and opinions are you speaking of? I certainly have them, as all subjective humans do, but I do try to leave them out of scientific discussion. Most of the things I share, that are mine, are findings and conclusions bore of earnest research.
Still, that said, if you ever have any questions related specifically to biophysics, Im your huckleberry.
Biophysics eh? I'm sure I would have more questions if I understood better what it was! Is it like biochemistry (but with an emphasis on understanding how/why, rather than the what)?
Im sorry Jack, but I have to really laugh here. I mean, you literally define an appeal to authority in your explanation of how what you are doing is not an appeal to authority.
This isn't a debate to me. I don't engage in such silly games, they are beneath me. If this were a debate, the judge may well agree and the mention of einstein and any other physicist would be inadmissible to the discussion. I might even have some points deducted (oh no!) What we would be left with is MY claim. You seem to be getting distracted again.
I engage in rational discourse. Debate is across purposes to communication and learning (though the logical fallacies are of value, don't forget the fallacy fallacy!). If I were saying that I knew that modern physics did not have an explanation for the magnetic field in composition or mechanism BECAUSE einstein or my teacher said so - then I agree we would have a problem worth discussing. I'm not saying that, despite your wish that I am.
I am NOT advocating you to appeal to authority. I am advocating you (and everyone) to verify/validate every claim thoroughly before accepting them, regardless of source.
Sure, feel free to rephrase the point you are trying to make with whatever terms you think most clearly describe it. I certainly could have missed your point, and would be happy to check out any restatement of your opinion for clarity.
The statement I made was one of fact. You have clearly interpreted me incorrectly, and are now choosing to continue to do so so you can play a pitiful debate game?
-
It is a dishonest misrepresentation of that fact.
This implies intent.
I know. And based upon your actions, I think that intent is there.
We are not simply talking about a fact, but how YOU are choosing to present that fact.
Well that is progress (though if you were saying that before now, I clearly misunderstood you)!
It isn't progress. I have never denied it, I just objected to your dishonest misrepresentation of it.
That should have been abundantly clear when I clearly stated that that fact applies to everything.
It isn't dishonest
It is either dishonest or based upon extreme ignorance.
Again, the same applies to literally everything.
Cherry picking magnetism or even fields in general dishonestly presents it as a problem unique to that.
So either you know this fact applies to everything and are dishonestly presenting it as if it doesn't, or you have no idea what you are talking about.
I said that it applies to everything.
No, it applies to "fields" not everything.
No, it applies to everything.
Ultimately you will always reach a point where there is no mechanism.
Again, if you wish to claim otherwise, provide something where it doesn't apply.
The fact that you make no attempt to makes me thing that you know it does apply to everything and just want to pretend it doesn't.
Remember, collisions are based upon those same fields.
-
What now? I think you must have mistaken me for the poster who claimed we had a demonstrated physical mechanism for the mathematical constructs that are used to describe all of the fundamental forces we have found in the world around us.
Don't get distracted. We were just talking about the fact - nothing more than that. I'm happy you accept and admit that fact, as it's important to demonstrating earnesty and discussing in good faith.
No. To refresh your memory, I'm the poster who took exception to your opinion that we have no idea how magnets work. If this was just a ridiculous misstatement, and you would like to retract it, I will certainly not hold it against you, and will happily join forces in going after those field believing mouth breathers.
You misunderstood what I said. I've explained that, but you seem more interested in calling people "mouth breathers". We don't know how magnets work, because in order to do that we would need to understand what magnetism was and how the magnets made it. Using something is not the same as understanding it.
Plus, you seem to be doing fine on your own, perhaps besides some self-importance about your own musings and opinions (shocking for a physicist, right?!?!)
I'm saddened that you do not come to share your knowledge freely. It is the best course for all humanity. However, you are not obligated to share; you must want to for yourself and ideally understand why you should.
What musings and opinions are you speaking of? I certainly have them, as all subjective humans do, but I do try to leave them out of scientific discussion. Most of the things I share, that are mine, are findings and conclusions bore of earnest research.
Still, that said, if you ever have any questions related specifically to biophysics, Im your huckleberry.
Biophysics eh? I'm sure I would have more questions if I understood better what it was! Is it like biochemistry (but with an emphasis on understanding how/why, rather than the what)?
Im sorry Jack, but I have to really laugh here. I mean, you literally define an appeal to authority in your explanation of how what you are doing is not an appeal to authority.
This isn't a debate to me. I don't engage in such silly games, they are beneath me. If this were a debate, the judge may well agree and the mention of einstein and any other physicist would be inadmissible to the discussion. I might even have some points deducted (oh no!) What we would be left with is MY claim. You seem to be getting distracted again.
I engage in rational discourse. Debate is across purposes to communication and learning (though the logical fallacies are of value, don't forget the fallacy fallacy!). If I were saying that I knew that modern physics did not have an explanation for the magnetic field in composition or mechanism BECAUSE einstein or my teacher said so - then I agree we would have a problem worth discussing. I'm not saying that, despite your wish that I am.
I am NOT advocating you to appeal to authority. I am advocating you (and everyone) to verify/validate every claim thoroughly before accepting them, regardless of source.
Sure, feel free to rephrase the point you are trying to make with whatever terms you think most clearly describe it. I certainly could have missed your point, and would be happy to check out any restatement of your opinion for clarity.
The statement I made was one of fact. You have clearly interpreted me incorrectly, and are now choosing to continue to do so so you can play a pitiful debate game?
I've seen no proof you have a physics background or ever graduated with any superior knowledge or achievement, regarding magnetism. Lots and lots of words that mean next to nothing, impress nobody.
Your argument is exactly that of sceptimatic's. Advocating to verify and validate every single claim thoroughly, before accepting them, regardless of source. I heard a claim that if I dont wear a seat belt and am involved in a high speed collision, I will likely die. Please tell me how you would like me to validate and verify that claim?
If you don't understand how something works, or see it for yourself firsthand, therefore it doesn't work. Much like scepti's arguments against the earth being a globe.
The common theme seems to be, if you don't understand something, it isn't real.
-
He refuses to define it.
Quit putting words in his mouth.
Lol. Fair enough.
I was only trying to "translate" the words they HAVE used (like electrolysis and "breakdown of elements").
I agree that what I come up with may well be putting words into their mouth.
Sceppy has previously define air as the very same air we breath and now hes claiming atmosphere is different from air, yet refuses to define it.
Scepoy is known to misuse words.
Until he choses to reveal his definition everyones guessing at wtf hes trying to say.
One time it went on for 50pg before we realized that positive pressure and negative pressure he meant increasing rates, not static relative values.
-
I have to say Im still not really following your thoughts. In your siphon or sink or funnel analogies, there is a preexisting pressure gradient that is used to drive a fluid flow, so Im not sure how to use these analogies to understand your thoughts on magnets.
In your case, there is no preexisting pressure gradient? And no fluid flow?
The flow is a breakdown of elements/molecules.
It has to start and end as extreme low pressure to extreme high pressure within the entire atmosphere.
The smaller molecular breakdown is what the metal has trapped. The rest is a following to equalise but can't because it does not fit, yet it does apply the pressure.
-
The flow is a breakdown of elements/molecules.
It has to start and end as extreme low pressure to extreme high pressure within the entire atmosphere.
The smaller molecular breakdown is what the metal has trapped. The rest is a following to equalise but can't because it does not fit, yet it does apply the pressure.
Again, how does this flow account for the observed polarity of the magnets?
-
So remind me again. What causes this pressure in the first place?
I've explained it to you, why are you asking again?
-
"Breakdown of atmosphere and swirling vortexes into a vibration crush" is not an explanation.
It is a vegan bullshit salad made up of words.
Like if a child randomly selected sciency sounding words and strung them together.
Please define "atmosphere" and how it is different from "air" as a start.
-
Breakdown of atmosphere and swirling vortexes into a vibration crush
I would challenge anyone to have the vaguest understanding about what all that means.
-
Sure, feel free to rephrase the point you are trying to make with whatever terms you think most clearly describe it. I certainly could have missed your point, and would be happy to check out any restatement of your opinion for clarity.
The statement I made was one of fact. You have clearly interpreted me incorrectly, and are now choosing to continue to do so so you can play a pitiful debate game?
Jack, let's be really clear here. You are expressing your opinions. And if understand your point correctly, you are of the opinion that because we do not have a physical mechanism for electromagnetic fields, we do not know how magnets work.
This is your opinion. You are more than welcome to it and I appreciate you sharing it here.
I think it is a silly opinion, and am treating it with some levity, so apologies if it comes across as some sort of game. However, if I am being offensive to you in any way I do apologize.
I'll ty to express my opinion on why this is a silly way to look at things. You are free to disagree with it as I do with yours.
I look at what happens if I apply your argument to other areas. If we should conclude that we do not understand a phenomena if we can not have a physical description of any underlying fields used in our current understanding, then what do we find?
Well, our understanding of almost every molecular interaction utilizes electromagnetic fields. Therefore we should say we don't know how any of these interactions work? Chemistry is out the window? Bummer, it was a good run while it lasted.
To take this further, as Jack(black) has been trying (unsuccessfully, you keep selectively ignoring it for some reason) to get you to address, I also believe that your argument would rationally conclude that we don't know how anything works. In our present understanding, everything is reducible to the effects of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. Their expression as fields is one of the great progressions in modern physics. If we have to conclude that we dont know how something works if we do not fully understand the responsible underlying fields describing them, then as all phenomena do, we dont understand anything.
I think this is a silly stance to take, but if you simply say we do not understand how magnetism works in the same way we do not understand how ANYTHING works, I will not disagree that this is at least a consistent opinion to have.
My opinion is that we know a tremendous amount about how magnets work. We can build, design, and manipulate them amazingly. We can use our understanding of how a moving charge creates a magnetic moment to predict the moment on a spinning electron to an accuracy of 1 in a trillion! We can directly image the moment on atoms within magnetic materials. We understand how paramagnetism and diamagnetism work. We do not know EVERYTHING, but we never will, and this certainly doesn't mean we dont know how they work except in the most pedantic and meaningless way.
-
Breakdown of atmosphere and swirling vortexes into a vibration crush
I would challenge anyone to have the vaguest understanding about what all that means.
You refuse to do your jigsaw so you're going to struggle.
-
I have to say Im still not really following your thoughts. In your siphon or sink or funnel analogies, there is a preexisting pressure gradient that is used to drive a fluid flow, so Im not sure how to use these analogies to understand your thoughts on magnets.
In your case, there is no preexisting pressure gradient? And no fluid flow?
The flow is a breakdown of elements/molecules.
It has to start and end as extreme low pressure to extreme high pressure within the entire atmosphere.
The smaller molecular breakdown is what the metal has trapped. The rest is a following to equalise but can't because it does not fit, yet it does apply the pressure.
Im still at the same place. I understand how you imagine that the structure of the magnet allows the flow of broken down elements/molecules, but I still dont understand the driving force for this flow. How does the pressure increase at the inlet and decrease at the outlet?
-
Breakdown of atmosphere and swirling vortexes into a vibration crush
I would challenge anyone to have the vaguest understanding about what all that means.
You refuse to do your jigsaw so you're going to struggle.
And we all struggle due to you refusing to deifne thinge
-
So remind me again. What causes this pressure in the first place?
I've explained it to you, why are you asking again?
Not really.
You have provided a vague claim of what happens, but not why.
You refuse to do your jigsaw so you're going to struggle.
I do your jigsaw and show it doesn't actually fit.
For example, I try taking your "flowing air" piece, and try to match it with the "observed polarity of magnets" piece, and it simply doesn't fit.
So it seems you are the one refusing to do your jigsaw and instead you are just making up randomly shaped pieces with no clue as to how it is all meant to fit together.
-
We understand how paramagnetism and diamagnetism work.
Don't forget about ferromagnetism, ferrimagnetism and antiferromagnetism. We also understand how they works, and all based upon the same underlying principles.
-
I have to say Im still not really following your thoughts. In your siphon or sink or funnel analogies, there is a preexisting pressure gradient that is used to drive a fluid flow, so Im not sure how to use these analogies to understand your thoughts on magnets.
In your case, there is no preexisting pressure gradient? And no fluid flow?
The flow is a breakdown of elements/molecules.
It has to start and end as extreme low pressure to extreme high pressure within the entire atmosphere.
The smaller molecular breakdown is what the metal has trapped. The rest is a following to equalise but can't because it does not fit, yet it does apply the pressure.
Im still at the same place. I understand how you imagine that the structure of the magnet allows the flow of broken down elements/molecules, but I still dont understand the driving force for this flow. How does the pressure increase at the inlet and decrease at the outlet?
It doesn't. It is the opposite.
Think of it like a funnel or a vortex analogy.
-
It doesn't. It is the opposite.
Think of it like a funnel or a vortex analogy.
I did, and it produced results inconsistent with reality which you really seem to want to avoid.
Again, how do the 2 low pressure regions result in repulsion or the 2 high pressure regions result in attraction?
-
Have you ever played blow football?
-
It doesn't. It is the opposite.
Think of it like a funnel or a vortex analogy.
I did, and it produced results inconsistent with reality which you really seem to want to avoid.
Again, how do the 2 low pressure regions result in repulsion or the 2 high pressure regions result in attraction?
So you thought of it like a funnel and it produced results inconsistent, did it?
-
I have to say Im still not really following your thoughts. In your siphon or sink or funnel analogies, there is a preexisting pressure gradient that is used to drive a fluid flow, so Im not sure how to use these analogies to understand your thoughts on magnets.
In your case, there is no preexisting pressure gradient? And no fluid flow?
The flow is a breakdown of elements/molecules.
It has to start and end as extreme low pressure to extreme high pressure within the entire atmosphere.
The smaller molecular breakdown is what the metal has trapped. The rest is a following to equalise but can't because it does not fit, yet it does apply the pressure.
Im still at the same place. I understand how you imagine that the structure of the magnet allows the flow of broken down elements/molecules, but I still dont understand the driving force for this flow. How does the pressure increase at the inlet and decrease at the outlet?
It doesn't. It is the opposite.
Think of it like a funnel or a vortex analogy.
It does the opposite? What do you mean? Can you explain?
-
It doesn't. It is the opposite.
Think of it like a funnel or a vortex analogy.
I did, and it produced results inconsistent with reality which you really seem to want to avoid.
Again, how do the 2 low pressure regions result in repulsion or the 2 high pressure regions result in attraction?
So you thought of it like a funnel and it produced results inconsistent, did it?
Can you draw a picture of this funnel system?
It would aide his misundersranding how a funnel works
-
Since the original topic of this thread is about gravity I watched a superb documentary last night featuring one of my favourite science journalists, Jim Al-Khalili. Don't know if anyone else saw it.
According to the law of gravitation according to Newton, the weight of a object should decrease slightly the further away we get from the centre of the Earth (and hence centre of gravity). This would not be the case for that old FE favourite universal acceleration. If Earth was flat and accelerating 'upwards' at a rate of 9.81m/s2 then anything that was part of the Earth physically (such as a mountain) would be accelerating at the same rate as any other part of the Earth. So the weight of anything would not vary according to altitude.
However using two completely different pieces of (very high precision) instruments, a group of students measured the weights of themselves and a test mass at various locations around the UK and at various altitudes. If gravity is correct then there should be very subtle differences in the weight readings and that's exactly what they found.
The results were also in agreement with the predicted results they should get if the Earth is an oblate spheroid. At the southern tip of the UK they would be at a location where the radius was greatest and so weight would be least. So choosing a location in the SW of the UK and at the highest altitude, this was where the overall weights were found to be least.
Further more the programme showed how accurate weight readings all over the world showed how gravity varies from place to place and from time to time according to a number of factors. How does UA explain that?!?
-
So you thought of it like a funnel and it produced results inconsistent, did it?
Yes, as already explained, repeatedly.
I picture it like a flow of something like air through the magnet.
If you orient the 2 high pressure outlets together, then the high pressure pushes the magnets apart.
If you orient the 2 low pressure inlets together, then the higher pressure all around will push the magnets together.
This is inconsistent with what is observed in reality, where like poles always repel.
-
Since the original topic of this thread is about gravity I watched a superb documentary last night featuring one of my favourite science journalists, Jim Al-Khalili. Don't know if anyone else saw it.
According to the law of gravitation according to Newton, the weight of a object should decrease slightly the further away we get from the centre of the Earth (and hence centre of gravity). This would not be the case for that old FE favourite universal acceleration. If Earth was flat and accelerating 'upwards' at a rate of 9.81m/s2 then anything that was part of the Earth physically (such as a mountain) would be accelerating at the same rate as any other part of the Earth. So the weight of anything would not vary according to altitude.
However using two completely different pieces of (very high precision) instruments, a group of students measured the weights of themselves and a test mass at various locations around the UK and at various altitudes. If gravity is correct then there should be very subtle differences in the weight readings and that's exactly what they found.
The results were also in agreement with the predicted results they should get if the Earth is an oblate spheroid. At the southern tip of the UK they would be at a location where the radius was greatest and so weight would be least. So choosing a location in the SW of the UK and at the highest altitude, this was where the overall weights were found to be least.
Further more the programme showed how accurate weight readings all over the world showed how gravity varies from place to place and from time to time according to a number of factors. How does UA explain that?!?
One of the labs for geophysics students in college is (or, at least used to be) to measure the change in acceleration of gravity at different levels in a multi-story building using a gravimeter and deduce the in differences in elevation from that. It's surprisingly accurate considering how small the measured changes are.
Another lab exercise is to map the acceleration of gravity over an area. What becomes clear pretty quickly is how acceleration changes with change in latitude. Even a hundred meters north and south on level ground can make an obvious difference.
So, no... universal acceleration is not a viable explanation for gravity.
-
Yeah, yeah. This is a classic flat earther argument against gravity too.
Bored already? It isn't a "flat earther" argument, it is a major scientific concern and has been since newton invoked it.
The scientific concern is that the theory is incomplete and there’s more work to be done, which is quite normal. But physicists don’t doubt that gravity is a real thing or that it’s measured effects are described with very high precision with general relativity or even Newton’s law of universal gravitation for most cases. Flat Earthers tend to claim none of it is real. Big difference.
Relativity was created, in part, BECAUSE gravity is not a philosophically sound or scientific concept (which newton well understood at the time, and freely admitted to).
Nope. Einstein came up with special relativity because of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment and because Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism were not compatible with Galilean relativity at velocities approaching the speed of light. That is the forces created by moving charges would appear different to observers in different reference frames. Einstein and others working on it reasoned that they should be invariant. He later had the idea that similar principles could be applied to gravity and devised general relativity.
It had nothing to do with Newton’s work not being scientific or philosophically sound. Einstein knew that Newton’s laws still had to work. Newton made observations, devised hypotheses based on those observations in his laws of motion and tested them. Sounds like science to me, and they are still one of the most fundamental concepts in mechanics.
Einstein attempted to do away with the magical "spooky action at a distance" (a profoundly unscientific / anti-physics concept) by describing a medium (aether) that could be contorted by matter.
Erm, no. Theories of light propagating through luminiferous aether were superseded by relativity. Newton was a proponent of some kind of aether.
Then aether-mcarthyism hit, and pulled the rug out from under it - leaving us once again in the sorry state where something acts upon nothing (completely unacceptable, anathema to physics) and causes spooky action at a distance.
Such emotive language. What you find acceptable or not is irrelevant. Measurements and observations are what matter, remember? Aether theories of light were largely abandoned when they no long fit the available data.
Einstein is on record saying that if aether is done away with, then so was relativity.
Funny that relativity is one of the main reasons that aether was done away with then.
But it can be applied to anything if you dig down to the most fundamental levels. What is matter really? Why does it behave the way it does? Why are there 3 special dimensions (that we perceive)? Why does the arrow of time move forward? Why anything?
You are describing sophistry. We MUST remain ever vigilant against such things. This is not the issue with gravity, or "fields" in general. It is not a sophist posit/criticism (it's also not new, or from "flat earthers" if such a thing there actually be - but from physicists and natural philosophers). There is too much to discuss on this to do it justice in a few sentences. Though come to think of it, the name of this thread suggests it is EXACTLY the right place to be discussing it...
Not sure I follow this?
In the meantime science is about finding the most complete models that match the available data. As I understand it, the current winner is quantum electrodynamics, but even Maxwell’s version does a decent job for a lot cases.
Sadly you are correct. It is sad because the scientific method does not include models - those are meta-scientific tools for specific (and limited) use. Science is about rigorous adherence to the scientific method to obtain knowledge of manifest benefit to humanity (ideally). It isn't about "building a better model". It's about experiment.
Scientific models are representations of the thing being studied (can just be a simple equation). You build a model from your hypothesis and test predictions against experiments or observations. How is that not following the scientific method?
This vague suggestion of something in the air that you can’t identify that pushes things together may more sense to you than actual physics pieced together by actual physicists validated by actual experiments. But there’s nothing “factual” about what you said, unless you have evidence for a model that fits all the data better.
It is a more sound concept, yes - but that doesn't make it correct nor factual! We can only determine if the hypothesis is correct (and even then, only provisionally) through experiment. If we can't experimentally validate/invalidate it, then it's game over (scientifically speaking).
Yet you say you’re not even sure what Scepti is talking about. How can you say its a more sound concept?
What is factual is that it is a more sound concept than what we currently have (which is, essentially nothing - "fields" comprised of and within "nothing"; certainly nothing known). We do not know what fields are, or what they are made of.
You know we have quantum mechanics, right?
If scepti was correct, we would!
He’s not. Scepti isn’t even interested whether his ideas fit reality. These threads are full of suggestions for simple experiments he can do to test them, and he just doesn’t care. It’s about something that makes sense to him personally that he thought of. And that would fine if he didn’t keep on about everyone else mindlessly believing what we’re told, which is kind of insulting.
All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful for a time. Comparison against models is a time/money saving approach, not science. Often it simply avoids experimentalism altogether. But experimentalism is where the discovery (and all knowledge in science) comes from!
And what do you suggest we do with all that experimental data? Leave it as a bunch of numbers in a lab book? Or work out the relationships and how everything fits together? The later sounds a lot like a model to me.
Scepti has thousands of posts about how weight is caused by the mass of atmosphere pressing down on things. He seems to mean it quite literally, and now uses much the same argument for magnetism.
I did notice that (though haven't read the thousands)! The unified theory of denpressure.
You should check out his explanation for the sun and moon.
If he does really mean something else entirely, isn’t it up to him to explain things? People are going to reply to what he says, not what they guess he really means.
Well, yes and no. Yes if they want others to understand it! No, they aren't obligated to explain anything.
Nobody has to post anything at all, but if someone wants an honest discussion of their ideas, they should explain what they mean.
However, when you imagine from the perspective that it "must be wrong" you are merely debunking and it is frightfully easy to do (even when it isn't, in actuality). If you imagine from the perspective that "it must be right" you can do the same. Objectivity requires us to try and do neither, which is a frightfully difficult task for a subjective biased being.
What if imagine from the perspective of my own experience designing and testing things including pressure and vacuum systems? I’m not saying it must be wrong because Scepti is saying it, I’m saying it’s wrong because I know it’s not how these things work. But I also accept that what I personally understand barely scratches the surface of what’s been determined. And that’s really the biggest difference between our positions.
Assuming scepti is using the dialectic (which it seems likely they are), then the best way to make progress understanding them is to try our best to imagine how it COULD be possible - rather than why it must be impossible. "Benefit of the doubt" if you will.
I give Scepti the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says, and isn’t just here for a laugh.
I agree that we can't really proceed without scepti making clear what they mean - though this is often more challenging than it seems. Language is imprecise, and our emotions and subjectivity are also constant obstacles.
Maybe there is nothing more than he says?
Are you sure you’re not just seeing more subtle because he’s the only other Flat Earther talking about these things?
Perhaps, people do love the underdog. But, I'm not really a flat earther - I'm a globe skeptic/denier, and have different views than scepti (which is why I am interested in learning more!).
A globe denier, but not a flat earther? So what shape do you think it is? And how do you reconcile that with your respect for science?
Is there any scientific evidence or theoretical basis for these “smaller things”? Last I checked “air” is a well defined term. It’s the mixture of gases found naturally in the atmosphere, which also a well defined term.
Absolutely! However we rarely think of them when we talk about "air" and "atmosphere". When we talk of air, we are talking almost exclusively of gas. However, in that air are many things that are not gas. What if we include subatomic things? What if we include electrons and neutrinos? What if we include radio waves / electromagnetic radiation / light? Etc.
Sure they can share the same space as air. We can have air with light or radiation, air without light or radiation, a vacuum with light or radiation, or a vacuum without light or radiation. All combinations are possible, so in what sense are they particles inherently part of the air?
If you want to call photons a component of air, then it almost makes sense. Although then maybe we can include gravitons too? I don’t think that’s what denpressure is all about though.
So air isn’t just comprised of gas molecules, and atoms aren’t what we think?
The former, yes. The latter, probably - but that was not a point I was making.
Ignoring the actual definition of air though.
It contains something else, which causes both magnetism and for things to have weight. That something else is somehow left behind when we evacuate the gas part of air (whatever that is) from a chamber.
That seems like a possible (if not plausible) interpretation of scepti's position, yes. We know we can't evacuate the gas part. In scepti's view, it seems that is because the pushing (that moves the gas from inside the vacuum chamber to the outside of it) comes from the gas itself (not the vacuum pump). All you can hope to do is spread/seperate that gas out within the vacuum chamber - you can never hope to eliminate it. Gas will always be touching every wall of the container, no matter what. Scepti may well not agree with this, but this is my interpretation so far.
You might be surprised just how much air we can evacuate in ultra high vacuum chambers.
Yet there’s no evidence for any of this, you don’t know what IT is that contracts all that “indoctrinated” science we learn that’s based on actual measurements and experiments. Is that about right?
I don't know exactly how scepti feels about it, but I like science a lot! Indoctrination has more to do with the approach than the content. The science that is derived from experiments (the only science that is based purely on measurements/observations is an exception - known as natural law) is as solid as knowledge gets for humankind. One can, and many are, indoctrinated to accept such things - but much more dangerous and damaging is the indoctrination of things merely masquerading as such experimentally validated science when they are, in fact, not.
It’s not very clear what you mean, but it sounds like you think you get to decide what counts as science and what doesn’t?
Abundance of evidence or lack thereof often depends greatly on perspective on/interpretation of that evidence. Here is another example of "benefit of the doubt"-ing (I am using my own conceptions/knowledge and effort to MAKE the thing, at least potentially, work/cogent/conceivable) :
Assuming scepti is conceptualizing something infinitesimal, that acts as a fluid/gas and is a ubiquitous part of air/atmosphere - they are potentially describing aether. Aether is described by many scientists of years gone by as an "ultra fine fluid". Evidence for such a fluid is everywhere, but as I said - this depends largely on interpretation of the evidence.
Scientists of years gone by also reasoned that such a fluid must be non interacting or very nearly non interacting with matter. Unlike Scepti’s atmospheric stacking business.
We know that light is a wave, and that all waves are pressure variances within media. We know this.
No we don’t. The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.
We make an exception for light because we have "done away" with such "primitive" notions as aether.
Because the evidence contradicts the primitive notion of aether. Not that it’s completely dead, as some scientists are revisiting it. But they do so taking into account everything we’ve since learned about relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.
However, waves cannot exist irrespective of their mediums - we know that too.
Light is not a wave according to current theory.
The fact that we can evacuate a chamber of almost all of the air we think is in there, and light still has no trouble negotiating through it anyway - is itself strong evidence that the medium is (to us, anyway) omnipresent.
It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it. The existence of a medium is an assumption.
Many see experiments with light in vacuum chambers as clear, and obvious, evidence of aether's reality.
People who fully understand the subject?
That’s right. Scepti, yourself or anyone else who thinks their ideas are capable of overturning entire fields of physics need proper hypothesis, make predictions based the model and test them.
It won't overturn so much as you think (especially in this case, where a cogent and philosophically/physics sound description does not currently exist at all). Good experimentally validated science isn't going to suddenly stop being useful if (and/or when) "denpressure" is accepted.
Denpressure as presented would utterly break our understanding of mechanics. It’s completely at odds with experimentally validated science and basic engineering so it’s not going to be accepted. If Scepti wants to amend his ideas to something that could potentially be compatible with reality that’s up to him, but he doesn’t appear interested.
I am glad you recognize and appreciate what I'm saying, however predictions and models are not a part of science. Yes, I know how insane that sounds. The scientific method does not include a "model" step, or a "prediction" step.
The only prediction in the scientific method is the hypothesis, which predicts a causal relationship between an IV and a DV for the explicit purpose of experimental validation or invalidation (ideally).
So prediction isn’t part of the scientific method, apart from it being a vital part of the scientific method?
All the rest - "my model predicts this and I saw it so it's all true" - is NOT science.
Just as well no one says this, then. But once a model has been validated we have pretty high confidence it can be used for practical applications. This is where applied science comes in.
This thing about models not being science sounds very familiar too.
Maybe you shouldn’t be claiming that completely untested and unsupported ideas are factual, while dismissing real physics that’s verified by experimentation then?
I certainly shouldn't be, and am not! I think you are misunderstanding me. Hopefully my explanations above have cleared things up. Let me know if not!
It’s cleared up your position a bit, but I still don’t agree with a lot you say.
-
Sadly you are correct. It is sad because the scientific method does not include models - those are meta-scientific tools for specific (and limited) use.
What an utterly ridiculous statement to make. So what is the Standard MODEL of particle physics then if the scientific method does not include models?
-
Getting back on topic....... gravity doesn't exist.......
This thread topic lends itself to practical experiments which anyone can do to investigate gravity.
Here's a few statements about gravity I read recently:
1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free-fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.
2. Gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical.
3. A body that is twice the mass of another, experiences twice the gravitational force. A body that is three times the mass of another, experiences three times the gravitational force, and so on.
4. Einstein's generalized theory of relativity is automatically a theory of gravity.
5. Gravity is acceleration and gravity is also warped space-time.
6. Thus, a person living at the top of a high rise building, will age slower than a person living on the ground floor, closer to the mass of earth where gravity is marginally stronger.
-
Getting back on topic....... gravity doesn't exist.......
This thread topic lends itself to practical experiments which anyone can do to investigate gravity.
Here's a few statements about gravity I read recently:
1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free-fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.
If gravity supposedly existed then free fall would be a so called gravitational pull, as we are told, so it would hardly vanish if it was a reality, which it isn't.
As for becoming weighless. This is true because to have weight you need a scale and you need a foundation for a mass to show a weight measurement upon it.
So, in free fall you become weightless but nt massless.
2. Gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical.
They are both identical in terms of they do not exist.
3. A body that is twice the mass of another, experiences twice the gravitational force. A body that is three times the mass of another, experiences three times the gravitational force, and so on.
A body that is twice the mass of another experiences more atmospheric displacement. A body that is three times the mass of another, experiences three times the atmospheric displacement....and so on.
There's no fictional gravitational force.
4. Einstein's generalized theory of relativity is automatically a theory of gravity.
It's automatically nothing more than spouted storylines to cater for the magical mysteries that were thought up with Earth and space and passed off as factual due to nobody having the ability to physically prove it wrong, just as unicorns can't be physically proved to be right.....etc.
5. Gravity is acceleration and gravity is also warped space-time.
Acceleration implies consistent build of mps or mph or whatever. To accelerate you need consistently added applied energy.
An extreme low pressure would only allow this is that was the case, as would extreme high pressure.
A so called vacuum would have absolutely no particles to allow any movement, never mind any ability to stop it.
If you have no medium you have no working of anything.
To have a working you require energy and friction in order to move.
A so called vacuum offers neither.
As for warped space time, the same applies.
You can't warp a medium if there is no medium.
It's simple logic that is papered over by use of fantasy storylines.
6. Thus, a person living at the top of a high rise building, will age slower than a person living on the ground floor, closer to the mass of earth where gravity is marginally stronger.
Age is but a number we humans put on ourselves.
Time is just a continuous regurgitation of numbers we set out to cater for dark and light or day and night or am to pm.
The only distortion to age would be the mechanism of the person who uses it to count, not the person.
We all age the same.
-
1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.
Sceptimatic, we'll talk about weight before we discuss mass. Do something for me. Stand on your bathroom scales and weigh yourself.
Then I'll take you through a thought experiment.
-
1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.
Sceptimatic, we'll talk about weight before we discuss mass. Do something for me. Stand on your bathroom scales and weigh yourself.
Then I'll take you through a thought experiment.
Ok I did that and I am eating lettuce and celery as we speak. :o ;)
On a serious note, get to your point.
-
If gravity supposedly existed then free fall would be a so called gravitational pull, as we are told, so it would hardly vanish if it was a reality
And this just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You don't feel gravity. You feel your body transferring a force.
So for example, when you are standing on Earth, you have gravity pulling you down, and Earth pushing you up. The force of Earth pushing you up acts on your feet, and is transferred through your body to the rest of your body, so you feel it.
A body that is twice the mass of another experiences more atmospheric displacement.
No, that uses volume, not mass.
And this produces the effect known as buoyancy, which pushes objects up.
Acceleration implies consistent build of mps or mph or whatever. To accelerate you need consistently added applied energy.
No, you don't.
Acceleration implies change in velocity. This can increase energy, decrease energy or keep energy constant.
You can't warp a medium if there is no medium.
Which is a completely pointless statement.
You either accept that space-time is a medium, and thus there is a medium to warp; or you don't, and thus there is no warping of any medium.
The only distortion to age would be the mechanism of the person who uses it to count, not the person.
Why?
Why should 2 clocks, which are functionally identical, "age" (i.e. tick) at different rates, while people age at the same rate?
Are you sure you aren't confusing the actual passage of time with the "years old" idea people are assigned?
Now again, have you figured out how to explain the observed polarity of magnets?
-
And this just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You're more than entitled to think that.
-
And this just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You're more than entitled to think that.
And you are not entitled to repeatedly lie about mainstream science and reality to repeatedly pretend there are problems when there is not.
Now again, have you figured out how to explain the observed polarity of magnets when simple logic shows your model should produce results inconsistent with reality?
-
And you are not entitled to repeatedly lie about mainstream science and reality to repeatedly pretend there are problems when there is not.
That's your opinion and you're massively entitled to it, in my book.
-
And you are not entitled to repeatedly lie about mainstream science and reality to repeatedly pretend there are problems when there is not.
That's your opinion and you're massively entitled to it, in my book.
Again, have you figured out how to explain the observed polarity of magnets when simple logic shows your model should produce results inconsistent with reality?
-
And you are not entitled to repeatedly lie about mainstream science and reality to repeatedly pretend there are problems when there is not.
That's your opinion and you're massively entitled to it, in my book.
Again, have you figured out how to explain the observed polarity of magnets when simple logic shows your model should produce results inconsistent with reality?
Have you?
-
Again, have you figured out how to explain the observed polarity of magnets when simple logic shows your model should produce results inconsistent with reality?
Have you?
Stop with the pathetic deflection.
I have clearly explained why I believe your model should produce results fundamentally different to reality.
You are the one claiming that magnetism is cause by air, not me.
As such, the burden is on you to explain how air causes the polarity of magnets that is observed.
Can you explain this polarity or not?
-
Stop with the pathetic deflection.
You just can't help being nasty, can you?
-
Hes been trolling for 75pg now.
He hasnt yeidled a single tidbit of new insight.
Give up.
Edit
Whoops
See i even mixed up my threads because its the same sht on both.
-
Hes been trolling for 75pg now.
He hasnt yeidled a single tidbit of new insight.
Give up.
Edit
Whoops
See i even mixed up my threads because its the same sht on both.
Are you mad that I pay you little attention?
-
1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.
Sceptimatic, we'll talk about weight before we discuss mass. Do something for me. Stand on your bathroom scales and weigh yourself.
Then I'll take you through a thought experiment.
Ok I did that and I am eating lettuce and celery as we speak. :o ;)
On a serious note, get to your point.
Ok, good.
You were likely standing on your scales in the bathroom or another room of your house when you did that.
Now imagine you are instead standing on those same scales in an elevator at the top of a very tall building. This elevator shaft is special, in that it is a vacuum chamber.
Now imagine the elevator cables all fail at once and the elevator you're in, plummets. Your weight as read on the scales you are standing on, would suddenly read zero even though you may still be standing on them. This is because you are falling at exactly the same speed as the scales and the elevator. You would be experiencing weightlessness.
The light in the elevator goes out. You are in pitch blackness. This is what floating in outer space (if you believed in outer space ofcourse) would feel like. It would be indistinguishable.
-
1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.
Sceptimatic, we'll talk about weight before we discuss mass. Do something for me. Stand on your bathroom scales and weigh yourself.
Then I'll take you through a thought experiment.
Ok I did that and I am eating lettuce and celery as we speak. :o ;)
On a serious note, get to your point.
Ok, good.
You were likely standing on your scales in the bathroom or another room of your house when you did that.
Now imagine you are instead standing on those same scales in an elevator at the top of a very tall building. This elevator shaft is special, in that it is a vacuum chamber.
Now imagine the elevator cables all fail at once and the elevator you're in, plummets. Your weight as read on the scales you are standing on, would suddenly read zero even though you may still be standing on them. This is because you are falling at exactly the same speed as the scales and the elevator. You would be experiencing weightlessness.
The light in the elevator goes out. You are in pitch blackness. This is what floating in outer space (if you believed in outer space ofcourse) would feel like. It would be indistinguishable.
In your mind you believe this.
You see, in your scenario you would fall at the exact same time as the scales. But also in your scenario you already have a weight measurement reading on the scale, so surely in your elevator and vacuum story, the scales would read the same as you are both falling at the same rate.
However, you are dismissing your gravity with an elevator and person and scale all falling because of your gravity, so you can hardly be weightless if you have a reading on that scale.
If you want to change it to the lift falling against pressure and its mass overcoming the air resistance below quicker than you can overcome the air resistance in the elevator along with the scales....you may feel weightless If there is no scale reading under your feet.
It's a tricky one.
Obviously you believe in space vacuums, so you follow that train of thought and believe what you said would happen. I think differently....obviously...as you can see.
-
Stop with the pathetic deflection.
You just can't help being nasty, can you?
I can, and have. Can you?
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
-
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
Can you explain how magnets work?
-
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
Can you explain how magnets work?
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets?
-
1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.
Sceptimatic, we'll talk about weight before we discuss mass. Do something for me. Stand on your bathroom scales and weigh yourself.
Then I'll take you through a thought experiment.
Ok I did that and I am eating lettuce and celery as we speak. :o ;)
On a serious note, get to your point.
Ok, good.
You were likely standing on your scales in the bathroom or another room of your house when you did that.
Now imagine you are instead standing on those same scales in an elevator at the top of a very tall building. This elevator shaft is special, in that it is a vacuum chamber.
Now imagine the elevator cables all fail at once and the elevator you're in, plummets. Your weight as read on the scales you are standing on, would suddenly read zero even though you may still be standing on them. This is because you are falling at exactly the same speed as the scales and the elevator. You would be experiencing weightlessness.
The light in the elevator goes out. You are in pitch blackness. This is what floating in outer space (if you believed in outer space ofcourse) would feel like. It would be indistinguishable.
In your mind you believe this.
You see, in your scenario you would fall at the exact same time as the scales. But also in your scenario you already have a weight measurement reading on the scale, so surely in your elevator and vacuum story, the scales would read the same as you are both falling at the same rate.
However, you are dismissing your gravity with an elevator and person and scale all falling because of your gravity, so you can hardly be weightless if you have a reading on that scale.
If you want to change it to the lift falling against pressure and its mass overcoming the air resistance below quicker than you can overcome the air resistance in the elevator along with the scales....you may feel weightless If there is no scale reading under your feet.
It's a tricky one.
Obviously you believe in space vacuums, so you follow that train of thought and believe what you said would happen. I think differently....obviously...as you can see.
Everything is in free-fall, so, the scales should then read zero, contrary to your belief they will continue to read your original weight.
Ok, I removed the air from the elevator shaft, as the air would offer a slight resistance to the falling elevator.
In fact, if the shaft below the elevator were perfectly the same shape as the elevator's verticals, and airtight, the compression of the air under the falling elevator, might actually slow the falling elevator to a complete stop.
You are standing on the scales in the elevator, before it falls. It reads your weight. It doesn't matter if they are digital scales or with a needle.
Same scenario, but this time the light stays on and there is a heavy metal safe next to you in the same elevator. It is on a set of scales also, which reads it's weight as half a tonne - five hundred kilograms.
The elevator falls. Your weight on the scales suddenly reads 000. The weight of the metal safe also suddenly reads 0000.
Can you now lift the safe with your little finger and move it around as if it is lighter than a feather, inside the elevator?
-
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
Can you explain how magnets work?
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets?
Air?
-
Everything is in free-fall, so, the scales should then read zero, contrary to your belief they will continue to read your original weight.
Ok, I removed the air from the elevator shaft, as the air would offer a slight resistance to the falling elevator.
By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.
So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.
Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.
Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.
It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.
In fact, if the shaft below the elevator were perfectly the same shape as the elevator's verticals, and airtight, the compression of the air under the falling elevator, might actually slow the falling elevator to a complete stop.
It certainly would as long as the walls were strong enough to cater for the massive compression of the elevators dense mass and anything within.
You are standing on the scales in the elevator, before it falls. It reads your weight. It doesn't matter if they are digital scales or with a needle.
Same scenario, but this time the light stays on and there is a heavy metal safe next to you in the same elevator. It is on a set of scales also, which reads it's weight as half a tonne - five hundred kilograms.
The elevator falls. Your weight on the scales suddenly reads 000. The weight of the metal safe also suddenly reads 0000.
Nope, not in your fictional vacuum.
f you're now talking about air pressure then, it depends on the air compression in the shaft and how it arrests the fall of the elevator which would arrest your own fall and also the scale. It could end up with the opposite of what you think.
Can you now lift the safe with your little finger and move it around as if it is lighter than a feather, inside the elevator?
It would depend on what scenario is present..
-
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
Can you explain how magnets work?
Again, you are the one claiming they work with air.
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
-
Again, you are the one claiming they work with air.
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
Using atmospheric breakdown, not just air. But you know this.
-
Define atmosphere.
-
Again, you are the one claiming they work with air.
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?
Using atmospheric breakdown, not just air. But you know this.
Semantics.
Explain it. I don't really care if you want to use air or atmospheric breakdown or anything else like that. Explain how this flow/pressure difference causes the polarity of magnets, i.e. causes magnets to interact in the way they are repeatedly observed to interact.
-
By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.
So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.
Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.
Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.
It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.
It certainly can, and have been created. They are called drop towers. Here’s one in Germany:
-
That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.
Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales.
Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.
Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal to the floor with the weight still on top.
Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.
Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.
Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.
-
What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?
You arrived late to the party! The "point" is that what Scepti is suggesting is not inherently in conflict with the "scientific placeholder" of the magnetic field.
Scepti has asked repeatedly for others internal definitions of magnetism (how it is created / what it is comprised of / how it functions), while they attempt to explain their own. I suspect that this is a dialectic question intended to tease out / make explicit any conceptual conflicts that may exist and need to be discussed/addressed.
As you rightly point out, parroting why incessantly is sophistry and is to be avoided. However, when it is a genuine question - it is merely inquisitive (and should be encouraged)
So why keep bringing this up? If you dispute everything we know because there is more to learn, you are throwing away the entireity of human discovery. Not very useful.
I agree! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
-
I've seen no proof you have a physics background or ever graduated with any superior knowledge or achievement, regarding magnetism. Lots and lots of words that mean next to nothing, impress nobody.
And if you HAD seen proof, THEN you would have earnestly considered/evaluated the "lots and lots of words" (or worse, accepted them as "probably right" without another thought?!), but thankfully can simply ignore them? Credential worship is a scourge, and no claim should be accepted from any source without thorough validation first.
Your argument is exactly that of sceptimatic's. Advocating to verify and validate every single claim thoroughly, before accepting them, regardless of source.
Correct, though it isn't an argument. It is a prerequisite to being a capable student and to independent thought/research.
I heard a claim that if I dont wear a seat belt and am involved in a high speed collision, I will likely die. Please tell me how you would like me to validate and verify that claim?
The devil's always in the details. At the end of the day, "thorough validation" is subjective. For some, simply evaluating the findings of car companies and scores of independent validation on what those car companies claim (with crash test dummies etc.) suffices. For others, they might have to destroy some cars or do some scale testing and extrapolate from there. Some people need to stick their hands in the wounds, and it will not be real before then. Many of those "doubting thomas" types become scientists, and skepticism/disbelief is an asset in science. P.S. In regards to your example, it certainly doesn't help that in some crashes, the people wearing seatbelts all die but the person who wasn't is thrown clear and survives. AND that the cheap seat-belts we have (as cheap as possible for the manufacturers who were FORCED to put them in at all) don't distribute the force load and CAUSE huge amounts of unnecessary damage to passengers as a result (in less than lethal crashes). The devil is always in the details...
If you don't understand how something works, or see it for yourself firsthand, therefore it doesn't work ... The common theme seems to be, if you don't understand something, it isn't real.
I agree that this is a very real danger. There are a few rules of thumb I have found useful to determining the subjective criteria for "thorough validation" of a claim/fact.
1. Experimental validation; this is the best we have to verify a claim (especially a "scientific" one) but is not applicable in many (if not most) cases.
2. QED; this is next best but can easily be misleading because it is not validated rigorously like the above. In general, if it can be demonstrated (by you) then there is likely something to it. If it cannot, it is likely fiction/imagination/non-real.
3. All claims require thorough validation, but some call for more rigor than others. As a fan of sagan, I also council that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That evidence should ideally fall in the first, then (failing that) second catagories.
Extra-ordinary meaning outside of the realm of your common experience (not education).
-
Jack, let's be really clear here.
I agree, we need to be as explicitly clear as we can. Effective communication depends on it, and even with it - still poses significant difficulty!
You are expressing your opinions. And if understand your point correctly, you are of the opinion that because we do not have a physical mechanism for electromagnetic fields, we do not know how magnets work.
It can be easily misinterpreted to be an opinion, yes. As I said, the major difference between an opinion and a fact is what supports them (opinion on emotion, and fact on evidence) however there is more to "be really clear" about here.
Facts are arbitrary. They are arbitrated by our "authorities"/teachers/books/etc. They OUGHT to be supported by evidence, but often are not and even when they are they are often far from certainly true/correct. It is a fact that there is no scientific explanation for magnetism in composition or mechanism (indeed, for all "fields"). The wonderful thing about this particular fact (not true of many/most of the others), is that refuting it is as simple as providing the composition and mechanism (that the fact purports NOT to exist). I entreat you to do so! Facts stand, right or wrong; correct or incorrect, until they are refuted (and sadly, often much longer than that).
This is your opinion. You are more than welcome to it and I appreciate you sharing it here.
Demonstrate that it is my opinion (and wrong!) by demonstrating that science DOES have an explanation for the composition and mechanism. Or accept the fact, or neither!
I think it is a silly opinion, and am treating it with some levity, so apologies if it comes across as some sort of game. However, if I am being offensive to you in any way I do apologize.
I appreciate the candor/earnesty! If we can't treat/temper this discussion with some levity, we would all be depressed/down all the time. I am difficult to offend, and encourage all to speak our minds freely. Though I do take the subject seriously - there must always be room for levity.
I look at what happens if I apply your argument to other areas. If we should conclude that we do not understand a phenomena if we can not have a physical description of any underlying fields used in our current understanding, then what do we find?
I'm not making a general argument, I am stating a specific fact (or opinion, from your perspective). It is not a sophist posit/claim that "fields" are currently a place-marker for science that was expected to come in the future (we are still waiting, centuries after this blunder).
Well, our understanding of almost every molecular interaction utilizes electromagnetic fields. Therefore we should say we don't know how any of these interactions work? Chemistry is out the window? Bummer, it was a good run while it lasted.
It would be sophistry if that were the purpose of raising this fact, which it is not. You still seem to be struggling with the critical difference between using something / describing something, and understanding it. Our conceptions (understanding, as you said above) are irrelevant to the manifest objective reality we hope to understand. The history of science shows that facts (including scientific conceptions / theories etc.) are doomed to expiration. They have a half life.
Does this mean that all science is useless? Of course not! Incorrect conceptions can and have been VERY useful to humanity, and will continue to be so. But useful is not correct! In science, the only way to establish such consistency with manifest objective reality is by rigorous experiment. Even then, it is provisional and (based on the history) doomed to be overturned / generally found laughable by subsequent generations.
To take this further, as Jack(black) has been trying (unsuccessfully, you keep selectively ignoring it for some reason) to get you to address, I also believe that your argument would rationally conclude that we don't know how anything works. In our present understanding, everything is reducible to the effects of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. Their expression as fields is one of the great progressions in modern physics. If we have to conclude that we dont know how something works if we do not fully understand the responsible underlying fields describing them, then as all phenomena do, we dont understand anything.
It is a misunderstanding. I am making no such generalized argument from the fact. It's just a fact. We don't know what fields are. We haven't for centuries.
I think this is a silly stance to take, but if you simply say we do not understand how magnetism works in the same way we do not understand how ANYTHING works, I will not disagree that this is at least a consistent opinion to have.
Fundamentally, I do have strong suspicions (informed from history) that our understanding of just about everything is flawed in some way. This is not a radical, but rather a pragmatic, perspective. It appears radical and perhaps "anti-science" when you misunderstand/misrepresent it as a sophist posit.
My opinion is that we know a tremendous amount about how magnets work.
Don't sell yourself short! You are just as capable of recognizing, classifying, and defining/arbitrating fact as any other! It is a FACT that we (humanity, and perhaps some in this discussion) know a tremendous amount about how magnets work. This is evident in the sheer volume of knowledge that we have amassed on the subject.
We can build, design, and manipulate them amazingly.
True, however using is not the same as understanding AND understanding is most often not the same as understanding properly/correctly nor establishing veracity.
We do not know EVERYTHING, but we never will, and this certainly doesn't mean we dont know how they work except in the most pedantic and meaningless way.
Nor will we ever, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying! Look at all the cool stuff we can do as a result of continuing to try anyway (MRIs being a good example), and continuously being wrong / making mistakes along the way!
What we don't know is how magnetic fields work, or what they are made of. We know how to generate them, measure them, and manipulate them - and we can do LOTS of cool things with them. We don't understand the magnetic field in composition or mechanism.
Don't be so enamored with what we can do that you ignore the limits (and gaps) of our knowledge. Mind the gap!
The whole reason for bringing up the fact, which I did and scepti didn't (they simply asked a question that leads to it if one is being earnest and honest), was only to say that because currently there is no "mainstream" description of composition or mechanism for a magnetic field (again, you are most welcome to disagree and provide those descriptions and/or reasoning) - scepti's conception is not in inherent conflict with anything that we DO know about magnets/magnetism.
-
A lot of pleading here.
Lets see a definition of atmoshpere and what he means by it.
-
What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?
You arrived late to the party! The "point" is that what Scepti is suggesting is not inherently in conflict with the "scientific placeholder" of the magnetic field.
Then you seem to have fundamentally missed the point, as the point I have repeatedly made, and what he has done whatever he can to avoid, is that what he is suggesting has fundamental conflicts with what is observed in reality, and he is doing whatever he can to dodge this point, and you are pretending his wild speculation, contradicted by reality, is somehow better than what modern science has, just because modern science doesn't know everything.
It is a fact that there is no scientific explanation for magnetism in composition or mechanism (indeed, for all "fields").
There you go with the same dishonest misrepresentation.
It is a fact that ultimately there is no scientific explanation for anything as you eventually get to the point where we simply don't know.
The wonderful about this particular fact is that refuting it is as simple as providing a complete mechanism for literally anything. Which you have continually refused to do, so you can continue to dishonestly pretend like magnetism and other "fields" are special in this regard.
Again, the point you seem to completely miss is that they were not claiming science knows everything. Basically no one does.
Instead they pointed out you were trying to set an impossible standard.
The point is that it is silly to bring up such things as not knowing exactly how a fundamental force works to pretend that wild speculation based upon pretending it is cause by the air is just as good or better.
It is silly because no matter how far you go, there will always be the next question.
It even applies to matter itself, which is a quite good example of it.
What is this desk composed of? Primarily wood.
But what is that composed of? Primarily organic molecules.
But what is that composed of? Primarily carbon and other atoms.
But what is that composed of? A carbon atom is composed of a nucleus and electrons?
But what are they composed of? Well, we have no idea what an electron is composed of, or if it is actually composed of anything rather than simply being an electron.
But for the nucleus, that is composed of protons and neutrons.
But then what are they composed of? Quarks.
But what are they composed of? Again, we don't know. Some people believe they may be composed of subquarks. Others think they are point particles and simply are.
So even something like composition, we don't what ANYTHING is composed of.
So again, fields are not special in this regards.
Why can't fields simply be fields?
It is also a fact that we understand magnetism quite well.
It is a misunderstanding. I am making no such generalized argument from the fact.
It isn't a misunderstanding at all.
It is that you are dishonestly applying this just to magnetism and other fields to pretend they are special in us having no idea how it works at all, when in reality, we have a very good idea of how magnetism works, and that lack of complete knowledge applies to everything.
scepti's conception is not in inherent conflict with anything that we DO know about magnets/magnetism.
As explained repeatedly, it is in conflict with plenty.
-
By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.
So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.
Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.
Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.
It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.
It certainly can, and have been created. They are called drop towers. Here’s one in Germany:
There seems to be a lot of talk on it and no showing. However, it's still not a vacuum no matter how close to one they make out/.
-
That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.
Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales.
Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.
Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.
Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.
Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.
Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.
Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.
Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.
-
define "atmosphere" and what's different about it from "air".
because the conventional definition, "atmosphere" is comprised of "air".
-
The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.
There you go contradicting yourself.
You first claim it wont change now you claim it does.
It just shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are knowingly spouting garbage.
Just like I explained to you before, you don't feel gravity, what you feel is your body transferring a force to you keep stationary by balancing the force due to gravity.
The same applies in this instance with the scales.
They don't just magically record your weight. Instead, they record the force they are applying to you.
When you are standing "stationary" on Earth they record the force applied to you to counter the force of gravity.
But if you are in free fall, then there is no force to counter gravity, instead you fall due to gravity. That means they don't measure any force being applied to you. In fact it would typically have a negative reading as now it doesn't even measure the force to hold the scale plate stationary.
Now again, care to explain how your model of magnetism produces the observed polarity of magnets rather than what logic indicates it should which is fundamentally different to what is observed?
-
side derail
just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?
-
The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.
There you go contradicting yourself.
You first claim it wont change now you claim it does.
It just shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are knowingly spouting garbage.
Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.
If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.
Mixing stuff up and then claiming one thing of my claim, is pointless. It gets you nowhere, except in your own mind, which you are welcome to.
-
side derail
just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?
They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.
Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?
-
Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.
I'm not the one twisting anything. That is you, repeatedly, to pretend there is a problem.
If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.
See, this is an example of you twisting things, yet again.
You were claiming a problem for gravity, by completely misrepresenting it.
And yet again, you dodge the simple issue of your magnets simply not working.
-
Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.
I'm not the one twisting anything. That is you, repeatedly, to pretend there is a problem.
If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.
See, this is an example of you twisting things, yet again.
You were claiming a problem for gravity, by completely misrepresenting it.
And yet again, you dodge the simple issue of your magnets simply not working.
How?
-
side derail
just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?
They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.
Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?
You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.
-
side derail
just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?
They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.
Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?
You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.
Take a look at what light bulbs were filled with.
They weren't vacuums or even extreme low pressure.
-
side derail
just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?
They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.
Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?
You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.
Take a look at what light bulbs were filled with.
They weren't vacuums or even extreme low pressure.
Originally they were extreme low pressure, high vacuum. Then to increase longevity and easier production, they switched over to an inert gas. Why you say they weren't is historically incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb
You can read Edison's patent here where a vacuum is referenced:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US223898A/en
(Though many others had made similar devices before Edison, his was seemingly the most robust and commercially viable)
So how do you define the atmosphere?
-
By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.
So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.
Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.
Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.
It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.
It certainly can, and have been created. They are called drop towers. Here’s one in Germany:
There seems to be a lot of talk on it and no showing. However, it's still not a vacuum no matter how close to one they make out/.
It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show. I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum.
The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.
I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly scenario described above.
-
Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.
I'm not the one twisting anything. That is you, repeatedly, to pretend there is a problem.
If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.
See, this is an example of you twisting things, yet again.
You were claiming a problem for gravity, by completely misrepresenting it.
And yet again, you dodge the simple issue of your magnets simply not working.
How?
Again, stop playing dumb. You know how. I explained how you misrepresented gravity and free fall, and how as the scale reads a force being applied across it, it would not show your weight in free fall.
As for the dodging the issue, that is so painfully obvious it isn't funny.
I raised a simple issue of your "model" of how magnets work not matching simple observations of 2 or more magnets interacting.
Simple observations show like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.
These 2 are fundamentally incompatible.
Your model is fundamentally incompatible with reality.
This was raised quite some time ago and you have done whatever you can to ignore this issue rather than either admitting your model doesn't match reality, or even attempting to explain how your model produces these observations.
-
That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.
Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales.
Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.
Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.
Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.
Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.
Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.
Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.
Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.
Both practical experiments illustrate exactly what will occur in the falling elevator scenario, sceptimatic. You know, the scenario where you said your weight on the scales would not change when the elevator falls?
I think you should do the experiment/s. If you want it more like the elevator, glue a square sheet of ply wood to the underside of the scales and then drop it and then yourself.
I used the word horizontal, for the falling setups, but for you, perhaps the word "level" would have been better, or even the word, "flat"?
-
define "atmosphere" and what's different about it from "air".
because the conventional definition, "atmosphere" is comprised of "air".
Do you accept that gases can be split?
Do you accept that we have a stacked atmosphere and gases separate into it?
If you can't then I can't explain anything to you.
-
side derail
just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?
They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.
Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?
You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.
Take a look at what light bulbs were filled with.
They weren't vacuums or even extreme low pressure.
Originally they were extreme low pressure, high vacuum. Then to increase longevity and easier production, they switched over to an inert gas. Why you say they weren't is historically incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb
You can read Edison's patent here where a vacuum is referenced:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US223898A/en
(Though many others had made similar devices before Edison, his was seemingly the most robust and commercially viable)
So how do you define the atmosphere?
Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.
How about showing me the process of evacuating the air from a lightbulb, like you think.
Let's see what happens.
If you heat up and seal a bulb you will create lower pressure by expansion of atmosphere from within.
The inner bulb still has lots of trapped atmosphere within but it cannot agitate and expand like before, meaning the bulb does not explode...generally, anyway.
-
It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show. I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum.
The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.
I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly scenario described above.
It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.
If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.
-
Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.
No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.
-
That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.
Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales.
Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.
Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.
Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.
Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.
Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.
Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.
Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.
Both practical experiments illustrate exactly what will occur in the falling elevator scenario, sceptimatic. You know, the scenario where you said your weight on the scales would not change when the elevator falls?
I think you should do the experiment/s. If you want it more like the elevator, glue a square sheet of ply wood to the underside of the scales and then drop it and then yourself.
I used the word horizontal, for the falling setups, but for you, perhaps the word "level" would have been better, or even the word, "flat"?
Have you done the experiments?
You started off using a vacuum.
Then you changed to low pressure.
Then you changed to high pressure.
You had an elevator with a person and a set of scales on the floor with the person stood on them.
Let's elevator it....oops, sorry, I mean, evaluate it. ;) (just a light hearted joke).
First of all we rule out your vacuum.
Ok,, so now we have an elevator with lower pressure in the shaft and in the elevator itself.
If the person shows a reading on the scale and the elevator is allowed to drop against little resistance build up, it will take time for it to slow down by compression of that air in that shaft.
However, we have a problem right there because the shaft would be sealed, I assume (unless you want to put another scenario up) and that would not allow a push on that elevator which would mean it would stop anyway before it got anywhere near the bottom because there would be no air inrush on top of it.
If this baffles you I'll be happy to explain why.
Anyway, the person in the elevator would immediately experience a weight reading drop due to the feet leaving the scales, if the scales were stuck to the elevator floor but not the person's feet to the scale plate.
This would be due to the larger dense mass of the elevator being able to compress the air below, immediately which would offer a reaction against you in compressing that air in the lift against the ceiling and then back to the floor and back onto you, meaning you get a more denser pressure upon you meaning you have less push against resistance......hence, you end up getting left behind.
Attach your feet to a scale plate that is also attached to the floor and you fall with the elevator but scale plate spring would be stretched as the elevators dense mass pushes through the resistance of air and leaves the same type of scenario inside, which is the spring acting like a loose object until the spring resistance arrests that, meaning it would naturally show nothing and even minus if the plate pushes up a bit.
But, the argument you tried to make was with a vacuum, meaning no resistance and that's why I counter argued it by telling you, in this magical scenario there would be no resistance to anything or anyone.
Sooooo, if the person was attacked to the scales and the elevator and had a reading at that particular hypothetical point, then hypothetically nothing would change. The scale reading would stay the same.....hypothetically in this magical situation.
Does anyone get what I'm saying?
-
define "atmosphere" and what's different about it from "air".
because the conventional definition, "atmosphere" is comprised of "air".
Do you accept that gases can be split?
Do you accept that we have a stacked atmosphere and gases separate into it?
If you can't then I can't explain anything to you.
Just define it and we ll go from there.
My exceptance is irrelevant to the truthfulness of your model.
-
That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.
Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales.
Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.
Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.
Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.
Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.
Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.
Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.
Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.
Both practical experiments illustrate exactly what will occur in the falling elevator scenario, sceptimatic. You know, the scenario where you said your weight on the scales would not change when the elevator falls?
I think you should do the experiment/s. If you want it more like the elevator, glue a square sheet of ply wood to the underside of the scales and then drop it and then yourself.
I used the word horizontal, for the falling setups, but for you, perhaps the word "level" would have been better, or even the word, "flat"?
Have you done the experiments?
You started off using a vacuum.
Then you changed to low pressure.
Then you changed to high pressure.
You had an elevator with a person and a set of scales on the floor with the person stood on them.
Let's elevator it....oops, sorry, I mean, evaluate it. ;) (just a light hearted joke).
First of all we rule out your vacuum.
Ok,, so now we have an elevator with lower pressure in the shaft and in the elevator itself.
If the person shows a reading on the scale and the elevator is allowed to drop against little resistance build up, it will take time for it to slow down by compression of that air in that shaft.
However, we have a problem right there because the shaft would be sealed, I assume (unless you want to put another scenario up) and that would not allow a push on that elevator which would mean it would stop anyway before it got anywhere near the bottom because there would be no air inrush on top of it.
If this baffles you I'll be happy to explain why.
Anyway, the person in the elevator would immediately experience a weight reading drop due to the feet leaving the scales, if the scales were stuck to the elevator floor but not the person's feet to the scale plate.
This would be due to the larger dense mass of the elevator being able to compress the air below, immediately which would offer a reaction against you in compressing that air in the lift against the ceiling and then back to the floor and back onto you, meaning you get a more denser pressure upon you meaning you have less push against resistance......hence, you end up getting left behind.
Attach your feet to a scale plate that is also attached to the floor and you fall with the elevator but scale plate spring would be stretched as the elevators dense mass pushes through the resistance of air and leaves the same type of scenario inside, which is the spring acting like a loose object until the spring resistance arrests that, meaning it would naturally show nothing and even minus if the plate pushes up a bit.
But, the argument you tried to make was with a vacuum, meaning no resistance and that's why I counter argued it by telling you, in this magical scenario there would be no resistance to anything or anyone.
Sooooo, if the person was attacked to the scales and the elevator and had a reading at that particular hypothetical point, then hypothetically nothing would change. The scale reading would stay the same.....hypothetically in this magical situation.
Does anyone get what I'm saying?
No
Time to start drawing pictures
-
Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.
No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.
You didn't state it, because that would be you directly stating your model contradicts reality.
I used simple logic to show how that is a natural result of your model.
And you have been unable to refute it.
What you need to do is explain how the flow creates the observed polarity of magnets.
And it seems you are anything but glad to do that.
Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.
Why?
-
It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show. I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum.
The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.
I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly scenario described above.
It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.
If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.
I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects. But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?
-
Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.
No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.
You didn't state it, because that would be you directly stating your model contradicts reality.
I used simple logic to show how that is a natural result of your model.
And you have been unable to refute it.
What you need to do is explain how the flow creates the observed polarity of magnets.
And it seems you are anything but glad to do that.
Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.
Why?
Maybe pay more attention instead of making stuff up.
-
It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show. I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum.
The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.
I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly scenario described above.
It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.
If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.
I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects. But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?
Absolutely.
Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.
-
Define atmoshpere
-
Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.
No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.
You didn't state it, because that would be you directly stating your model contradicts reality.
I used simple logic to show how that is a natural result of your model.
And you have been unable to refute it.
What you need to do is explain how the flow creates the observed polarity of magnets.
And it seems you are anything but glad to do that.
Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.
Why?
Maybe pay more attention instead of making stuff up.
Follow your own advice.
Now again, explain how your model produces the observed polarity of magnets.
If you can't, then admit you have no explanation for how a flow causes that polarity.
I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects. But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?
Absolutely.
Except you have no justification for how or why the air magically pushes things down, especially when the pressure is greater below.
And you seemed to have ignored the problem, the fact that air resists an object falling shows it almost certainly isn't what causes it to fall.
-
No need for drawings. Sceptimatic, upload your video clip of the experiments, and I'll do the same.
The vacuum in the elevator shaft was simply to remove air resistance under the elevator, which would slow the elevator's descent.
Even without the shaft, the air resistance offered to a falling box with a person standing inside on a set of scales, is low.
Would you feel better if the man is standing on a set of scales inside a large wooden crate, being lifted up by a crane overhead, to the top of a skyscraper? The chain breaks as the crate reaches the height of the skyscraper, and the crate falls.
Is this a better alternative scenario for you?
It's still a falling man standing on a set of scales. The simple experiments I set out, match the falling crate scenario, even more closely than the falling elevator in a shaft.
Remember, the assertion being tested is a falling man does not feel gravity. He does not feel his own weight. In free-fall, you become weightless.
-
Except you have no justification for how or why the air magically pushes things down, especially when the pressure is greater below.
And you seemed to have ignored the problem, the fact that air resists an object falling shows it almost certainly isn't what causes it to fall.
All explained but, as usual you rejected it and decided to go into frenzy mode.
That's your issue.
-
No need for drawings. Sceptimatic, upload your video clip of the experiments, and I'll do the same.
The vacuum in the elevator shaft was simply to remove air resistance under the elevator, which would slow the elevator's descent.
Even without the shaft, the air resistance offered to a falling box with a person standing inside on a set of scales, is low.
Would you feel better if the man is standing on a set of scales inside a large wooden crate, being lifted up by a crane overhead, to the top of a skyscraper? The chain breaks as the crate reaches the height of the skyscraper, and the crate falls.
Is this a better alternative scenario for you?
It's still a falling man standing on a set of scales. The simple experiments I set out, match the falling crate scenario, even more closely than the falling elevator in a shaft.
Remember, the assertion being tested is a falling man does not feel gravity. He does not feel his own weight. In free-fall, you become weightless.
You used a vacuum, which is why I answered like I did.
Now you're changing it.
However, I've answered all scenarios....pay attention to them.
-
It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show. I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum.
The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.
I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly scenario described above.
It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.
If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.
I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects. But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?
Absolutely.
Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.
So what should changing the air pressure do to the force or acceleration of a falling object?
Say if we remove 99.9% of the air?
-
It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show. I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum.
The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.
I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly scenario described above.
It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.
If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.
I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects. But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?
Absolutely.
Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.
So what should changing the air pressure do to the force or acceleration of a falling object?
Say if we remove 99.9% of the air?
If you cannot remove all atmosphere, which you can't. It stacks, just like anything would stack.
Any object within that stacking system has to displace it by the objects own dense mass.....not volume.
Sooo, just as an object in water would displace water, the same happens in air.
Basically you have an object pushing in all directions above the stacking system, which is massively key.
Everything has to alter to ft withing a stack, no matter what it is. It's just a case of getting your head around it from my side, which people can't.
It needs thought without bias to get it from my side.
-
It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show. I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum.
The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.
I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly scenario described above.
It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.
If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.
I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects. But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?
Absolutely.
Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.
So what should changing the air pressure do to the force or acceleration of a falling object?
Say if we remove 99.9% of the air?
If you cannot remove all atmosphere, which you can't. It stacks, just like anything would stack.
Any object within that stacking system has to displace it by the objects own dense mass.....not volume.
Sooo, just as an object in water would displace water, the same happens in air.
Basically you have an object pushing in all directions above the stacking system, which is massively key.
Everything has to alter to ft withing a stack, no matter what it is. It's just a case of getting your head around it from my side, which people can't.
It needs thought without bias to get it from my side.
I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%. If you object to that, make it 90%.
How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?
Heavier/ lighter? Faster/slower?
-
I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%. If you object to that, make it 90%.
How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?
Heavier/ lighter? Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.
-
Except you have no justification for how or why the air magically pushes things down, especially when the pressure is greater below.
And you seemed to have ignored the problem, the fact that air resists an object falling shows it almost certainly isn't what causes it to fall.
All explained but, as usual you rejected it and decided to go into frenzy mode.
That's your issue.
You mean as usual, you have no explanation at all. You have no way to explain it. You know this simple issues shows you are wrong.
So as you have no explanation, you just repeatedly lie and claim to have already explained it, and then just lash out and attack when it is repeatedly pointed out that you are dodging the issue.
If you truly had explained it, it would be trivial for you to either provide the explanation again, or to link to the post where you did explain it.
But we both know that that is not the case as you haven't explained it.
Now stop lying, stop with the pathetic deflection, and either explain how your model accounts for the observed polarity of magnets, or admit you have no explanation.
As that is entirely your issue.
Any object within that stacking system has to displace it by the objects own dense mass.....not volume.
No, it displaces its volume. That is because it occupies some volume. It doesn't matter what its mass is. It displaces its volume.
Sooo, just as an object in water would displace water, the same happens in air.
It is pushed up by the greater pressure below, causing an apparent reduction in weight due to this upwards, buoyant force?
Everything has to alter to ft withing a stack, no matter what it is. It's just a case of getting your head around it from my side, which people can't.
It needs thought without bias to get it from my side.
No, it is just a case of your system simply not working to explain reality and needing to repeatedly contradict itself.
Stop pretending everyone else is always the issue when you can't even explain something as simple as why there is a pressure gradient in the first place, or why the air pushes things in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
The problem is that you claim it is the air which pushes it down in the first place. You aren't just removing the resistance, you are also removing what you CLAIM pushes it down, meaning it is pushed down less.
-
I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%. If you object to that, make it 90%.
How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?
Heavier/ lighter? Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.
So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?
-
Things at the bottom of the ocean should be heavier because of all that pressure.
-
You mean as usual
As usual, what?
-
I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%. If you object to that, make it 90%.
How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?
Heavier/ lighter? Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.
So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?
Nope. It depends on what's above the object.
-
Things at the bottom of the ocean should be heavier because of all that pressure.
Nope. More condensed but not heavier.
-
I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%. If you object to that, make it 90%.
How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?
Heavier/ lighter? Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.
So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?
Nope. It depends on what's above the object.
Very little air at the same pressure as underneath it. ie dropping something in a vacuum chamber.
-
Things at the bottom of the ocean should be heavier because of all that pressure.
Nope. More condensed but not heavier.
But you said pressure pushes people down.
Make up your mind.
-
You mean as usual
As usual, what?
Exactly what was in my post, which you just ignore because you have no way to honestly and respond to.
As explained, your model directly contradicts reality.
If air was the cause of things falling, they should be falling upwards, as that is the direction the pressure gradient will push them.
Likewise, if magnets were caused by a flow of air (or something of the like), the polarity of magnets would be completely different to what is observed.
You have no way to honestly address either of these issues, so as usual, you just use whatever dishonest BS you can to deflect.
Now again, are you going to explain how your model produces the observed polarity of magnets, where like poles repel and opposite poles attract?
Or will you continue with this dishonest, childish BS?
-
No need for drawings. Sceptimatic, upload your video clip of the experiments, and I'll do the same.
The vacuum in the elevator shaft was simply to remove air resistance under the elevator, which would slow the elevator's descent.
Even without the shaft, the air resistance offered to a falling box with a person standing inside on a set of scales, is low.
Would you feel better if the man is standing on a set of scales inside a large wooden crate, being lifted up by a crane overhead, to the top of a skyscraper? The chain breaks as the crate reaches the height of the skyscraper, and the crate falls.
Is this a better alternative scenario for you?
It's still a falling man standing on a set of scales. The simple experiments I set out, match the falling crate scenario, even more closely than the falling elevator in a shaft.
Remember, the assertion being tested is a falling man does not feel gravity. He does not feel his own weight. In free-fall, you become weightless.
You used a vacuum, which is why I answered like I did.
Now you're changing it.
However, I've answered all scenarios....pay attention to them.
Well, I don't think you have answered all scenarios. You seem to maintain that a falling man does not experience weightlessness and his weight does not change during free fall. You seem to prefer to explain everything with air pressure, as if we are all wondering around the ocean floor breathing through gills.
So, can the man in the falling crate, lift a half tonne steel safe which is also falling with him, with his little finger? ??? The contention here is the weight of the safe also goes to zero during free-fall. This thread is concentrating on gravity, and whether it exists.
Do experiment 1, which will take you five minutes, less time than it takes you to create a post, and upload the result....easy.
Or do you think the world around you and the laws of physics, are different for you, because you have an alternate world model mindset going on in your head?
-
I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%. If you object to that, make it 90%.
How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?
Heavier/ lighter? Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.
So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?
Nope. It depends on what's above the object.
Very little air at the same pressure as underneath it. ie dropping something in a vacuum chamber.
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
-
Floating helium balloons say otherwise.
-
Floating helium balloons say otherwise.
No they don't.
-
Good rebuttal.
Chaulk full of information as usual.
Care to draw us a picture of this action you claim?
-
Good rebuttal.
Chaulk full of information as usual.
Care to draw us a picture of this action you claim?
It's as good as what you put up by trying to use helium balloons without actually reading what I said.
I'll put it up again for you to see where you went wrong.
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
So, now you decided to use a helium balloon.
A helium balloon works because the air below is more plentiful than above and a helium balloon is gases that are broken down into less dense molecules, meaning they are crushed up because they cannot be crushed down into denser molecules below.
However...if you were to break down the air below to be the same as the helium then the balloon will be pushed down by the air above because it will overcome the broken down air below.
Read it...absorb it and come back to me when you've done so.
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?
Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.
You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
-
if "air" pushes things down, why don't helium balloons get pushed down?
how does "air" differ from "atmosphere"?
define these things.
you're not saying anything.
-
I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%. If you object to that, make it 90%.
How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?
Heavier/ lighter? Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.
So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?
Nope. It depends on what's above the object.
Very little air at the same pressure as underneath it. ie dropping something in a vacuum chamber.
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
The question is whether the object is pushed down with more or less force, if there is very little air present?
I mean there’s only one logical answer to that, but I’m still curious if you can actually say it.
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?
Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.
You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.
In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.
And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.
You're getting there so tread carefully.
-
if "air" pushes things down, why don't helium balloons get pushed down?
how does "air" differ from "atmosphere"?
define these things.
you're not saying anything.
If you aren't a robot then you should read what I actually put to you.
-
The question is whether the object is pushed down with more or less force, if there is very little air present?
I mean there’s only one logical answer to that, but I’m still curious if you can actually say it.
If there's very little air present then the object will encounter little resistance to its mass and therefore fall much faster than if it would against higher stacked pressure.
What's the issue?
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?
Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.
You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.
In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.
And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.
You're getting there so tread carefully.
Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again. ::)
The piston would move down because air is compressible.
You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
The problem is that there is more pressure below. That more pressure below means that the object should be pushed up, not down.
Just like with magnets, if you orient the 2 inward flowing regions together, the high pressure on the outside will force the magnets together, rather than push them apart as it is observed to do in reality.
Floating helium balloons say otherwise.
No they don't.
Yes, they do. They clearly show that air behaves in the manner that simple logic dictates it should. It pushes objects up due to the pressure being greater the lower you are.
A helium balloon works because the air below is more plentiful than above and a helium balloon is gases that are broken down into less dense molecules, meaning they are crushed up because they cannot be crushed down into denser molecules below.
Bringing in a helium balloon doesn't magically change the air around it.
If it is the air around it doing the pushing, it doesn't matter if the balloon is full of helium, air, CO2, water or lead. The air will push it the same.
This means either the air above is stronger and manages to push it down, regardless of what it is filled with, or it can't, and as simple logic dictates, the pressure being greater below will result in the air pushing the object upwards.
If you need to actually discuss what is inside the balloon, that means you are implicitly appealing to gravity, where gravity acts to pull the mass of the balloon and whatever is inside it down. And then it is a fight between the force of gravity pulling the balloon down and the force of the air pushing the balloon up.
Read it...absorb it and come back to me when you've done so.
You've now set up a different scenario.
Yes, to show you that your claim does not match reality.
In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.
The problem is that in reality, it doesn't.
Instead it compresses the air below and moves down. This again clearly shows that it isn't the air magically pushing things down, just like it isn't the air magically pushing magnets around.
-
The scientific concern is that the theory is incomplete and there’s more work to be done, which is quite normal.
That is a concern - yes, though as you said it is "normal" for our theories to be incomplete and inaccurate (in various regards).
The serious concern I spoke of is very different. It is the presupposition (which has slowly mutated into belief and even worship over time) of an unscientific (non-emperical) entity - the "field".
It is unacceptable in physics (and philosophy, of which physics is a branch) for something to act upon nothing. If the "field" is real, then physicists have been remiss in their duties (and/or incompetent) to discover and make scientific progress understanding it for centuries now.
Flat Earthers tend to claim none of it is real. Big difference.
Gravitational fields (or gravitons, if you wish) are not real, as far as anyone knows or ever has known (scientifically or otherwise). The perspective on shape of the earth doesn't enter into it.
It is relatively clear how this fiction entered science and who is responsible for it.
Einstein came up with special relativity because of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment and because Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism were not compatible with Galilean relativity at velocities approaching the speed of light.
Every physicist worth their salt since newton has recognized the unscientific and philosophically unsound nature of gravitation - just as newton did when he first invoked (not invented) it. It is not so much that what you wrote above about relativity isn't correct, it is more that it doesn't contradict what I said. Relativity was created, in part, to break newton's magic spell of gravitation and make it, finally, scientific. Without an aether (space-time) that physically exists to "warp" this cannot be done. Which is why einstein said that if aether is disproven, so is relativity.
Sounds like science to me
It may SOUND that way, however science has strict and rigorous definitions. Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces (with the sole caveat of natural law, established through repeated measurement alone)
One cannot hope to understand, discuss, or practice science if their definitions are wrong. The vast majority of people do not have or use the correct (working) definitions.
Erm, no. Theories of light propagating through luminiferous aether were superseded by relativity. Newton was a proponent of some kind of aether.
This is just what we are taught. The history is more nuanced. Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)
What you find acceptable or not is irrelevant.
It is not simply my determination, it is one necessitated by the very definition of science (and the rules of philosophy/logic which it is bound by). I agree, my personal feelings are not what is relevant.
Measurements and observations are what matter, remember?
No, that is only useful to establish natural law. In science, what matters is experiment! Experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement, nor can it ever be.
Aether theories of light were largely abandoned when they no long fit the available data.
That is again, merely what we are taught (today). The history tells a different story, for those with an interest in such stories.
Funny that relativity is one of the main reasons that aether was done away with then.
Not so much funny as sad. Once again, this is what we are taught today - but it is incorrect.
Not sure I follow this?
The simplest form of sophistry is the nagging child endlessly repeating "why". Sophistry is a type of anti-philosophy designed to "unmake" conversations and philosophical progress. Sophistry is intrinsically connected to SOPHISTication. In this case, you are saying that because I recognize (and am claiming/stating) that magnetic fields are a mystery that therefore everything that we know about magnets (or perhaps, anything else) is also not understood. It is to unmake knowledge, and to remove the necessity of further evaluation or discussion. It is to be avoided and curtailed wherever found.
Scientific models are representations of the thing being studied (can just be a simple equation). You build a model from your hypothesis and test predictions against experiments or observations. How is that not following the scientific method?
Excellent question, very much at the heart of our discussion.
The scientific method does not involve models in any step. The use thereof today is to limit experimentalism (for multiple reasons, one of the chief ones being money). One may (and arguably should, if not must) employ models to generate hypothesis, but experiment happens out here in the reality we hope to understand (and no place else)! As I said above, experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement - nor can it ever be.
Yet you say you’re not even sure what Scepti is talking about. How can you say its a more sound concept?
Yes. Because scepti's conception involves a material (emperical, unlike "fields" which are composed of mystery) cause, it is vastly more sound than the current lack of composition offered by the "field" (a scientific "placeholder" for science that was expected to come in the future - a deviation from the scientific method)
You know we have quantum mechanics, right?
I do! And you know why they call it that and not quantum physics right?
If scepti was correct, we would!
He’s not.
Like I said, the only way to determine that scientifically is by experiment. Of course, the hypothesis needs to be valid and properly defined first in order to take any further steps.
And that would fine if he didn’t keep on about everyone else mindlessly believing what we’re told, which is kind of insulting.
Virtue untested is no virtue at all! If we are educated, and we know (and perhaps more importantly, know how we know, with conviction, and can convey that to others), then we shouldn't take such insults too seriously.
In fairness, our "education" process largely turns out parrots. That is the purpose and result of conditioning by rote (under the guise of education). It was because we needed more factory workers - more indians and less chiefs. There is a great (great in explanation, terrible in terms of speechwriting/reading) speech that explains it all by woodrow wilson if you are interested.
And what do you suggest we do with all that experimental data?
There is nothing wrong with the latter, it just isn't science. It's meta-science, and its only scientific purpose is the generation of hypothesis that can be experimentally validated or refuted. We are not talking about mathematical formalization/generalization of data - that is all well and good (though the language you "translate"/represent scientific knowledge into/with is somewhat irrelevant)
You should check out his explanation for the sun and moon.
I may do that! They are quite mysterious and most certainly not at all the things our creation mythology (disingenuously/erroneously taught as science from childhood) purports.
Nobody has to post anything at all, but if someone wants an honest discussion of their ideas, they should explain what they mean.
I agree! As I said, if they want anyone else to understand their perspective they will have to do just that. However, as I also said, it is easier said than done - especially when there is an inherent resistance to it caused by "education". The committed will keep trying, though sadly may still fail to understand for a variety of reasons. I agree it is significantly dependent on scepti's ability and success at explaining to us / helping us understand them.
What if imagine from the perspective of my own experience designing and testing things including pressure and vacuum systems?
That is a great place to start! I think that scepti has done a mostly adequate job of addressing the "vacuum" issue. They have said (or I have inferred from deduction) that the vacuum chamber cannot keep this, proposed/conceived, small matter out. I agree that, at least in theory, it may be possible to test the "magnetic fields wane in strength under extreme low pressure" claim. It also may be beyond our precision and ability to both evacuate a chamber sufficiently and measure a small change in the magnetic strength caused by it - ESPECIALLY if the "magneton" responsible doesn't have any difficulty entering and exiting a "fully evacuated" chamber from our perspective, if such a thing were possible. It is important to recognize that what Scepti is saying about the evacuation is fundamentally correct and consistent with modern science. When the vacuum pump creates an relative pressure imbalance, it does not suck the air/matter out of the container. It allows the air inside the container to push outwards on its own. This pushing happens as the gasses themselves expand to fully fill the (vacuum) container once more - always. This is one way of describing/conceptualizing why "perfect vacuum" is unattainable, even in theory (at least the way we're commonly going about it).
But I also accept that what I personally understand barely scratches the surface of what’s been determined. And that’s really the biggest difference between our positions.
I hope that isn't the case. I hope Scepti shares this humility, as the alternative of pride is vastly worse (and more costly).
I give Scepti the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says, and isn’t just here for a laugh.
It is certainly possible, many come here for that specific purpose. Again, I hope not - but time will tell (for me, I recognize some have put in significant time and already come to that conclusion)
Maybe there is nothing more than he says?
Which is why I suggested that the discussion best turn to a scientific one. Hypothesis and experiment - that will sort it out. We can talk and imagine and model endlessly with little to no progress. Empericism is the way out of the cul-de-sac.
A globe denier, but not a flat earther? So what shape do you think it is? And how do you reconcile that with your respect for science?
I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is, because like all people I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.
The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant meniscus effects) is flat, level, and horizontal. This is a well established law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries. In order to refute it, and to make the globe posit even conceivable in emperical science, something other than that would need to be directly measured repeatedly and rigorously (namely a sustained convex curve required by the globe model). The fact that no such measurements exist should be enough to concern any empirical scientist. Whenever water is measured at rest (with the caveats above, only mentioned to curtail irrelevant pedantry) it only has the one shape. That's why it's a law.
If you want to call photons a component of air, then it almost makes sense. Although then maybe we can include gravitons too? I don’t think that’s what denpressure is all about though.
It sure sounds like it to me, though that is merely my interpretation/rationalization. Even the things the gas is made of is breaking down and recombining.
Ignoring the actual definition of air though.
Perhaps. For the purposes of discussion, we can use any definition we wish as long as its meaning is shared. Scepti has shared that air includes the things that air breaks down into, and I don't personally have any issue with that (inside this conversation nor outside of it) - do you?
You might be surprised just how much air we can evacuate in ultra high vacuum chambers.
Of course! Not as good as "space" though. They should bring a container of that back for study (they should have and would have done it decades ago if it were possible)!
It’s not very clear what you mean, but it sounds like you think you get to decide what counts as science and what doesn’t?
By the definition of science (and the other technical vernacular of the scientific method, like hypothesis and experiment etc.), yes - WE do!
Scientists of years gone by also reasoned that such a fluid must be non interacting or very nearly non interacting with matter. Unlike Scepti’s atmospheric stacking business.
That's true! However inertia remains a mystery... Drag caused by an interacting fluid would tie things up nicely - but so would other speculations (like the spin of all atoms creating a "gyroscopic" resistance to change in motion). Scientists (people) are always wrong, and it never hurts to try again with old and new ideas alike.
No we don’t. The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.
Only as taught to us in school. In reality, that's not the case. Waves can only exist in a media and are typically composed of that media to boot. The "exception" for light is more or less indefensible, philosophically and scientifically. Light does things impossible for matter, but easy/commonplace for pressure waves within that matter (instantaneous acceleration, reflection etc.)
Not that it’s completely dead, as some scientists are revisiting it.
As they ought, and I wish them the best of luck!
But they do so taking into account everything we’ve since learned about relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.
If they remain bound to equation and do not find the path back to experimentalism they will remain confused and lost. God does not play dice with the universe.
Light is not a wave according to current theory.
There are few, even theoretical, physicists that would agree with you. Most proclaim that it is both a wave and a particle, or at least that it exhibits the behavior of both. One of the most successful new conceptions considers the wave and the particle moved by that wave separate and distinct, it has been used to corporate and military success. The proof is always in the pudding if you ask me!
It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it. The existence of a medium is an assumption.
It's a deduction! It also has lots of support, but like I said - it depends largely on interpretation of evidence / experiment - not the data itself!
People who fully understand the subject?
People who are competent physicists, both historically and contemporarily - yes. But who cares about accolades or pedigree? Those never prevented any previous generations from being hopelessly wrong for centuries.
If Scepti wants to amend his ideas to something that could potentially be compatible with reality that’s up to him, but he doesn’t appear interested.
Well they clearly feel that the reality you speak of is non-real. If there really is any contradiction (experimentally especially) I have yet to see it. What did you have in mind?
So prediction isn’t part of the scientific method, apart from it being a vital part of the scientific method?
Prediction is required in the hypothesis. Hypothesis is validated/invalidated by experiment alone. There is no "predict" step. A hypothesis can be a mere guess (not really a "prediction" the way you are using the word)
But once a model has been validated we have pretty high confidence it can be used for practical applications. This is where applied science comes in.
I like pudding! If things are useful, let's use them! It is a logical fallacy that all bayesians fall for/suffer from that useful = correct. Useful is different from correct, and models are different from science. Models are created for specific and limited use. Use them and enjoy the pudding!
It’s cleared up your position a bit, but I still don’t agree with a lot you say.
Nor should you! I would hate for you to have to change your username!
Like Scepti, it will only take time and your earnest interest to clear up my position further.
-
Thanks for keeping your last post short and sweet, jack. :o Not!
You can deny the earth is a globe all you like, it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard. You've waffled on about hydrostatics and water being flat, so you obviously haven't heard of "global hydrostatic equilibrium?"
Gravity is warped space-time.
The planets of our solar system, prove the existence of gravity. The closer a planet is to the sun, the more circular is it's orbit of the sun. The further out from the sun you go, the more eliptical is the orbit of planets. This is because of the gravity exerted on the motion of the outer planets, by the inner planets closer to the sun. This is the field of orbital mechanics.
Gravitational fields are very real. What do you call the force keeping you on the ground? Bouyancy? Universal acceleration? ;D ;D ;D
-
The scientific concern is that the theory is incomplete and there’s more work to be done, which is quite normal.
That is a concern - yes, though as you said it is "normal" for our theories to be incomplete and inaccurate (in various regards).
The serious concern I spoke of is very different.
No, it is ultimately exactly that. We don't know everything.
You just wrap it up to pretend it is a bigger issue for magnetism and the like.
Flat Earthers tend to claim none of it is real. Big difference.
Gravitational fields (or gravitons, if you wish) are not real
Gravity, and gravitation certainly are real. There is still the exact question of how, but again, that applies to everything.
You want to try to attack fields specifically, even though all forms of interaction between matter needs fields of some kind, even if that "field" is just space time.
But ultimately, even your objection to "mysterious fields" which we don't what they are made of, applies to EVERYTHING!
Like I pointed out before, ultimately, we don't know what matter is made of.
What is an electron? What is it made from? How is it any more real than a field?
The vast majority of people do not have or use the correct (working) definitions.
Are you sure that it isn't you who is incorrect?
This is just what we are taught. The history is more nuanced. Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)
No, relativity and quantum mechanics supersedes aether.
The point is light does not need a medium.
There doesn't need to be some magical medium for light to travel in as waves.
Space-time is nothing like the aether of the past.
Aether theories of light were largely abandoned when they no long fit the available data.
That is again, merely what we are taught (today). The history tells a different story, for those with an interest in such stories.
No, the actual history tells us pretty much that.
There were 2 main competing models of light, both correctly predicted/explained the results of some experiments, while others did not or resulted in contradictions.
The simplest form of sophistry is the nagging child endlessly repeating "why".
Which is effectively what you are doing with magnets.
The scientific method does not involve models in any step.
Except the step where you make a model based upon the observed phenomenon, and then the step where you use that model to make predictions.
And then the step where you try to falsify that model by testing those predictions.
Models are a key part of science.
It is also quite important when you want your hypotheses to be correct, and fit in with everything.
Yes. Because scepti's conception involves a material (emperical, unlike "fields" which are composed of mystery) cause, it is vastly more sound than the current lack of composition offered by the "field" (a scientific "placeholder" for science that was expected to come in the future - a deviation from the scientific method)
No more than by claiming it uses magical, material pixies. It doesn't make it sound. It is wild speculation built upon nothing more than a desire to try to pretend everything is caused by air; and it is far less sound that the current models because it is refuted by simple observations.
So no, his wild speculation is not more sound than our current understanding.
This is also quite rich when you claim that this medium of his is pure mystery which we don't know anything about.
I do! And you know why they call it that and not quantum physics right?
It is called quantum physics as well.
It is called that as "mechanics" is more narrow that "physics".
But it is certainly part of physics. Just like plenty of other things which don't have the word "physics" in their name.
Like I said, the only way to determine that scientifically is by experiment.
Such as the one I suggested, which shows he is wrong.
They are quite mysterious and most certainly not at all the things our creation mythology (disingenuously/erroneously taught as science from childhood) purports.
You mean you dislike what you are "taught" and thus reject it as fantasy/incorrect.
Just how do you know they are not what is taught, which is based upon plenty of evidence?
It is important to recognize that what Scepti is saying about the evacuation is fundamentally correct and consistent with modern science.
Except where he tries to pretend a vacuum needs to be perfect in order to be a vacuum and where he claims that the molecules magically expand so there is no free space between them.
I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is
Then how can you deny it is a globe?
because like all people I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.
I think there is plenty of verified data clearly showing it is a globe.
The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant meniscus effects) is flat, level, and horizontal.
No it isn't.
The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest, ignoring surface tension effects, at an extremely small scale, are indistinguishable from flat.
Notice a very key part you overlook, at an extremely small scale.
The other key part is that you aren't actually determining that it is flat, but merely that it doesn't have any detectable curve.
The 2 are vastly different, and if you truly understood science the way you claim to, you know that it is impossible to prove something, but only possible to disprove.
The only way to show Earth is actually flat is to show that there is no measurable curvature over the entire surface. Not just a measuring that it isn't measurable at one location, but a measurement which spans the entire distance.
This is because without such a measurement you have no way of distinguishing between it actually being flat, or reality, where the radius of curvature is so great, and the curvature so small, you can't detect it.
So the best you can do with any measurement of a small region is show that the curvature is less than some amount based upon the experimental error.
But we have plenty of observations of large regions of Earth, where the observation is over a large enough distance to indicate the surface is curved.
This is simplest done by observing a distant enough object, where the bottom is obscured by the water, even though the object and observer are both above the water.
I know you wish to assert that that isn't actually evidence, as it could just be light magically bending to make Earth appear round, but that goes right back on you, how do those observations of water being flat account for that, and other possibilities? How do you know the water actually is flat, rather than actually being curved and just appearing flat?
This is a well established law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries. In order to refute it
No it isn't, and simple observations refute it.
The fact that you need to add qualifiers in shows just how limited such a "law" is.
The actual law is that the surface is of equal energy so a water molecule moving along the surface would not change energy.
This then doesn't need the exceptions from surface tension, or the extremely small area. And doesn't even need it to be at rest.
Surface tension would cause a flat surface (over a small distance) to be of unequal energy. For example, the surface near the water-glass interface would be at a lower energy than that near the middle, away from the glass. This causes the water to move towards the glass, and thus curve.
If you replace the glass with a hydrophobic material, then the water near the interface is at higher energy, and it loses energy by moving towards the middle.
You can even demonstrate it with a large enough tank rotating, where the water adopts a roughly parabolic surface.
This shows that water is not magically trying to be flat. Instead, it tries to have the surface at equal energy.
The fact that no such measurements exist
You mean the fact that you need to ignore such measurements shows your position is not one of science, but just wilful rejection of reality.
Of course! Not as good as "space" though. They should bring a container of that back for study (they should have and would have done it decades ago if it were possible)!
For what purpose?
Especially given that you would need to have any equipment directly connecting to the vacuum already attached, as trying to open any container would mean you no longer have that vacuum.
And even merely storing it will be quite difficult as most containers will leak to some extent.
That's true! However inertia remains a mystery... Drag caused by an interacting fluid would tie things up nicely
No it wouldn't.
That would result in the older idea of the natural state being v=0, as the fluid would resist motion through it, rather than changes in motion.
Inertia, what is actually observed, is that objects resist change in motion.
No we don’t. The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.
Only as taught to us in school.
No, in reality as well.
You not liking that will not change that fact.
Light does not behave as a classical wave.
The "exception" for light is more or less indefensible, philosophically and scientifically.
Good thing it isn't just for light. It is for all matter.
All matter is capable of undergoing the same phenomenon as light. But the more massive the matter, the less significant the wave nature becomes.
But some which are routinely used would be neutron and electron diffraction.
They even use electrons to image samples.
Light also has some properties fundamentally incompatible with pressure waves, such as the ability to be polarised.
It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it. The existence of a medium is an assumption.
It's a deduction!
At best it is induction, not deduction.
It is noting some wave like properties, and assuming that must be a wave as well, and must have a medium to propagate in.
If there really is any contradiction (experimentally especially) I have yet to see it.
Because you keep ignoring it.
The simple polarity of magnets contradicts his idea.
But there are plenty of other examples if you read through what he has written and how other have responded.
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?
Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.
You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.
In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.
And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.
You're getting there so tread carefully.
Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again. ::)
The piston would move down because air is compressible.
You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.Maybe you need to pay more attention.
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
The problem is that there is more pressure below. That more pressure below means that the object should be pushed up, not down.
That depends on the object.
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?
Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.
You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.
In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.
And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.
You're getting there so tread carefully.
Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again. ::)
The piston would move down because air is compressible.
You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.Maybe you need to pay more attention.
What aspect of air pushes things down?
We have static pressure
Dynamic pressure
Youve introduced some sort of denp displacement pressure as well as a magnetic vortex crush pressure.
Show how these new two pressures function.
-
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?
Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.
You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.
In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.
And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.
You're getting there so tread carefully.
Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again. ::)
The piston would move down because air is compressible.
You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.Maybe you need to pay more attention.
What aspect of air pushes things down?
We have static pressure
Dynamic pressure
Youve introduced some sort of denp displacement pressure as well as a magnetic vortex crush pressure.
Show how these new two pressures function.
Let's ramp this up.
Warping space is simply atmospheric displacement by any object placed into it.
Why the warp?
Because you alter the stacking system by that object
.
You see, warped space is used for what you're told, is space. A void and you're expected to understand that that void of nothing, can warp.
You accept it because...well....it's a narrative to follow without ridicule, so why not.
-
You claim its caused by the very tangible air.
So validate the claim.
-
You claim its caused by the very tangible air.
So validate the claim.
How would you like me to validate the claim?
How can you validate your claim against it?
-
I didnt make any claims.
You did.
Validate them.
Tangible air.
What are the properties of tangible air that gives these independent variables of "predictble falling rate" and "magnetic vortex crushing friction"?
Try a picture
Try defining atmosphere
Try an experiment where other variables are isolated.
Shouldnt be hard.
-
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.
Which shows your model doesn't explain reality.
In reality, the piston moves down.
Science understands that the air is not the reason why things fall down.
Instead gravity is. That explains why the piston moves down.
Maybe you need to pay more attention.
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
The problem is that there is more pressure below. That more pressure below means that the object should be pushed up, not down.
That depends on the object.
Only if you admit there is something dependent on the object which is trying to move it down, like gravity.
If it is just the air around it, then it doesn't matter what the object is or what it is made of.
If it is just the air around it causing the motion, all that matters is that the pressure and thus force is greater below and thus it will be pushed up.
You are relying upon gravity to pretend gravity isn't real.
You can even show this by turning the system on its side, or looking at the wind.
You can even simulate gravity in this way.
First, just with a system on its side, with a high pressure source of air, we can observe that objects are pushed away from the high pressure, regardless of if it is a helium filled balloon or a steel ball bearing. The high pressure always pushes an object away.
Now, to simulate gravity, instead of using a high pressure flow of air, we use an enclosed container and accelerate it, like a car accelerating.
We can hang a mass from the roof, and we observe that as the car accelerates forwards, the mass appears to move backwards.
But if instead we hang a helium filled balloon from the floor, we observe that it moves forwards, not backwards.
So gravity behaves like inertia, not like air pressure.
How can you validate your claim against it?
By observing an object fall, defying the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, showing it isn't falling due to air pushing it down.
-
Thanks for keeping your last post short and sweet, jack. :o Not!
Unconvinced asked many good questions which deserved adequate response.
it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard.
So we are taught to believe, yes. When you get into the details, you find that it hasn't.
You've waffled on about hydrostatics and water being flat, so you obviously haven't heard of "global hydrostatic equilibrium?"
I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate any "waffling".
The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation (i.e. un/anti-scientifically). This is at best negligence, and at worst fraud.
Water's surface has only ever been meausured to be flat, level, and horizontal at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant menisuc effects) Until measurement of the convex curvature (required by the globe model) exists, the globe will continue to be an unscientific posit that directly conflicts with the aforementioned natural law from hydrostatics.
Gravity is warped space-time.
In your faith/belief (conditioned by rote under the guise of education), yes. In science, there is no "space time" to warp in the first place - nor is there any "gravity" to do the warping.
The planets of our solar system, prove the existence of gravity.
We have essentially no idea what those lights in the sky are. Our creation mythology is just that. Newton famously posited no hypothesis, and chalked up the motions to God almighty. Lights in the sky don't "prove" anything in science. Only experiment can do that. Natural law can be established, but there is no inherent reason that such behavior in the sky would have any/much relevance to the behavior down here on earth. Natural law deals with what, not why/how.
This is the field of orbital mechanics.
Yes, a highly spurious and consistently unsound "discipline". Let michio kaku explain it to you : there is almost no less dependable/correct "science" than astrophysics/cosmology. They fully admit that they don't even use the scientific method :( (chiefly because they can't). The reason that they keep creating MORE speculative fiction (dark matter, super-de-duper massive "black holes", inflation etc.) is because the existing fiction doesn't work (not for our "solar system" and not outside of it either).
Gravitational fields are very real.
If that were at all true, they could be measured, rigorously defined, manipulated and most importantly experimentally demonstrated to exist.
What do you call the force keeping you on the ground?
If you must have a "force", that force is called weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter and is not "imbued" by fictional/non-real fields that defy explanation, measurement, and description.
-
it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard.
So we are taught to believe, yes. When you get into the details, you find that it hasn't.
No, when we get to the details, we find that it has been verified quite well, and you have a bunch of people who hate what shape it is and do whatever they can to reject the evidence.
Water's surface has only ever been meausured to be flat, level, and horizontal at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant menisuc effects)
There you go repeating the same lie.
Again, why not present it honestly?
YOU have one ever measured the surface of calm water at rest on a small scale and found that it matches both a flat Earth and a round Earth.
Importantly, the surface of water has never been measured to not match that of a round Earth.
But observations over a long distance clearly indicate that the surface is curved.
You do not have any natural law of hydrostatics to back you up.
You have a blatant misrepresentation of it.
Your continued dismissal of surface tension shows this.
Surface tension is part of hydrostatics and shows that water does not magically remain flat nor adopt a flat shape.
The actual law of hydrostatics explains this meniscus.
Until you can actually show that water will magically be flat, including the effects of surface tension (or as you dismiss them, "irrelevant minisuc effects"), and to a level of accuracy which refutes the globe model, your objection to the globe will remain unscientific nonsense.
In science, there is no "space time" to warp in the first place - nor is there any "gravity" to do the warping.
That is entirely your opinion.
Space and time certainly are real, and the evidence indicates they are related.
Gravity is not doing the warping of space time, it IS the warping.
We have essentially no idea what those lights in the sky are.
No, YOU have no idea because you choose to remain ignorant of what we can learn about them.
They are not simply lights in the sky.
We have sent probes to them, landing on some of them.
If that were at all true, they could be measured, rigorously defined, manipulated and most importantly experimentally demonstrated to exist.
You mean such as measuring the gravitational acceleration at any location, which also demonstrates their existence?
Again, your objection applies to literally everything.
Try demonstrating that anything actually exists, rather than just being figments of your imagination.
Again, you are trying to set up an impossible standard and only using it to attack what you like.
If you must have a "force", that force is called weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter and is not "imbued" by fictional/non-real fields that defy explanation, measurement, and description.
We have been over this before. The fact that weight varies with location shows that weight is not intrinsic to matter.
Instead mass is intrinsic, with something acting on the mass to cause weight.
-
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.
Which shows your model doesn't explain reality.
In reality, the piston moves down.
The piston would only move down if there is a force from above, however small that can be added to by the piston itself or by another energy means to fill the space the piston leaves...otherwise it stays put.
-
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.
Which shows your model doesn't explain reality.
In reality, the piston moves down.
The piston would only move down if there is a force from above, however small that can be added to by the piston itself or by another energy means to fill the space the piston leaves...otherwise it stays put.
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
Again, the fact it moves down shows your claim that it is all from the air is wrong.
The fact that the pressure inside the tube is larger than the ambient air, due to it needing to support the weight of the piston, shows your claim that the air pushes things down is wrong.
The fact that you can't get the same thing to happen with the system being held sideways again shows your claim that the air pushes things down is wrong.
If it was actually the air pushing things, the greater pressure would push the piston up. And due to the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, it would push everything up.
We have been over this repeatedly.
You have no explanation at all for why the air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
Not everything needs to be pushed down from above, and especially not from the air above.
Again, the fact that the piston compresses the air below shows quite simply that it is not the air pushing it down; that there is something separate to the air that is causing it to move down. Sane people accept this is gravity.
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.
We can never get past the begining until you do
-
The question is whether the object is pushed down with more or less force, if there is very little air present?
I mean there’s only one logical answer to that, but I’m still curious if you can actually say it.
If there's very little air present then the object will encounter little resistance to its mass and therefore fall much faster than if it would against higher stacked pressure.
What's the issue?
The issue is what happens to the force of the downward pressure with almost no air. Does it stay the same?
I see you only mention air resistance to a falling object, nothing about the force you claim gives it weight and makes it fall in the first place.
So what happens to the weight of an object in (almost) vacuum if it’s not falling?
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
No there can't.
When looked at logically, nothing can pull. Everything must be pushed by either compression or expansion.There is no place for pull, except to use as a word to face value differentiate motions, for clarity.
Not everything needs to be pushed down from above, and especially not from the air above.
Yep, everything needs to be pushed down from above. It's just understanding why, which you don't because you follow gravity, so it's understandable.
Again, the fact that the piston compresses the air below shows quite simply that it is not the air pushing it down; that there is something separate to the air that is causing it to move down. Sane people accept this is gravity.
Of course the piston compresses the air below. It's mass is sitting on that very top stack and does so because there is no air above it nor ability for air to be pushed up the sides of it to take place above, hence why the piston stays put.
Have a think on it.
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.
We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.
I keep hoping you are just playing games.
Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.
Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.
Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.
Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.
If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.
-
The question is whether the object is pushed down with more or less force, if there is very little air present?
I mean there’s only one logical answer to that, but I’m still curious if you can actually say it.
If there's very little air present then the object will encounter little resistance to its mass and therefore fall much faster than if it would against higher stacked pressure.
What's the issue?
The issue is what happens to the force of the downward pressure with almost no air. Does it stay the same?
I see you only mention air resistance to a falling object, nothing about the force you claim gives it weight and makes it fall in the first place.
So what happens to the weight of an object in (almost) vacuum if it’s not falling?
For anything to work it must have equal and opposite force.
Air cannot push down unless something is pushed up to aid it,
Let's use that piston and the scenarios.
1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.
2. If the piston has an air gap at the side then the air below it will transfer up the side and take its place above the piston in a continuous action and reaction motion of air versus dense mass (object/piston).
This means the air above can push the piston down by the pistons own dense mass of displacement of that air below which now cannot resist it, so the piston falls to the bottom, albeit slowly, depending on the gap at the edges of it against the container walls.
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.
We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.
I keep hoping you are just playing games.
Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.
Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.
Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.
Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.
If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.
Stack some boxes ontop of eah other
Push them down from above.
Each box is pushed by the trasnferancs of force from the box above it, the stack, to your arm pusbing down.
Unless you can identify to us the unmeasurable property of air that passss through objects, it can not be air.
-
Not going to answer every point, as this is already very long.
The serious concern I spoke of is very different. It is the presupposition (which has slowly mutated into belief and even worship over time) of an unscientific (non-emperical) entity - the "field".
“Unscientific” only according to YOU. The is no presupposition or belief, let alone “worship”, only scientific theories to fit the available evidence. Your language gives away your bias. Not very scientific.
It is unacceptable in physics (and philosophy, of which physics is a branch) for something to act upon nothing. If the "field" is real, then physicists have been remiss in their duties (and/or incompetent) to discover and make scientific progress understanding it for centuries now.
Again, “unacceptable” according to YOU. “Remiss in their duties” according to YOU. These are YOUR opinions, nothing more.
You talk about following the scientific method, but nowhere in the scientific method does it say you have to like what comes out. The universe doesn’t care what you personally find “acceptable”.
Gravitational fields (or gravitons, if you wish) are not real, as far as anyone knows or ever has known (scientifically or otherwise). The perspective on shape of the earth doesn't enter into it.
Still somewhat unknown, but measurable effects of gravity are very much known. Only Flat Earthers and sometimes Geocentrists have a problem with it.
It is relatively clear how this fiction entered science and who is responsible for it.
Yeah, evidence and those constructing and testing theories to fit the evidence.
Every physicist worth their salt since newton has recognized the unscientific and philosophically unsound nature of gravitation - just as newton did when he first invoked (not invented) it.
Simply untrue. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature. I doubt you could find a single physicist who disputes this.
It is not so much that what you wrote above about relativity isn't correct, it is more that it doesn't contradict what I said.
Mainly the part about relativity being devised because Newton was “unscientific”. When did Einstein ever say that?
Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces (with the sole caveat of natural law, established through repeated measurement alone)
One cannot hope to understand, discuss, or practice science if their definitions are wrong. The vast majority of people do not have or use the correct (working) definitions.
The scientific method is a general set of principles, not a rigid set of instructions. Exactly how each step is conducted depends on the situation. But I can’t find any definition that describes some kind of “natural law caveat”. If you’re going to appeal to strict definitions, you probably shouldn’t be adding clauses yourself.
Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)
Except Einstein used the word to describe something very different from Aether theories of light.
What you find acceptable or not is irrelevant.
It is not simply my determination, it is one necessitated by the very definition of science (and the rules of philosophy/logic which it is bound by). I agree, my personal feelings are not what is relevant.
Necessitated, only according to YOU. Where is the part of the scientific method that rules out answers that don’t make sense to you?
Measurements and observations are what matter, remember?
No, that is only useful to establish natural law. In science, what matters is experiment! Experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement, nor can it ever be.
There are many areas of scientific research where controlled lab experiments aren’t possible or practical. That’s why definitions are always clear that they are general principles. You would dismiss entire fields of study as “unscientific” because of the exact wording Francis Bacon used centuries ago?
It never seems to be actual scientists banging on about scientific method, just people who want to reject things they don’t like.
The scientific method does not involve models in any step. The use thereof today is to limit experimentalism (for multiple reasons, one of the chief ones being money). One may (and arguably should, if not must) employ models to generate hypothesis, but experiment happens out here in the reality we hope to understand (and no place else)! As I said above, experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement - nor can it ever be.
You’re partly right, it’s not just observation/measurement. It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis. The key part is not about running experiments in a controlled environment, it’s about testing a falsifiable hypotheses. Models have a place in the process, both to describe a hypothesis to be tested and all to describe what’s already been scientifically determined.
You should check out his explanation for the sun and moon.
I may do that! They are quite mysterious and most certainly not at all the things our creation mythology (disingenuously/erroneously taught as science from childhood) purports.
Oh really? And you have evidence for that do you? To contrast with the mountains of scientific evidence that they are just what we are taught.
Sounds like a bunch more supported opinion and rejection of verified science to me. I assume you need to mix in some conspiracy theory with your science to reject the accepted understanding of the sun and moon?
Which is why I suggested that the discussion best turn to a scientific one. Hypothesis and experiment - that will sort it out. We can talk and imagine and model endlessly with little to no progress. Empericism is the way out of the cul-de-sac.
There’s a vast body of experimentally determined knowledge about magnets, gravity and gas pressure spanning hundreds of years and countless experiments that Scepti’s explanations directly contradict. Not sure why we need to reinvent the wheel?
I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is, because like all people I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.
Or you haven’t looked or choose to ignore the data. There’s plenty of data to show the earth can only be a globe.
The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant meniscus effects) is flat, level, and horizontal. This is a well established law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries.
Archimedes disagreed when he said “ The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose center is the same as that of the earth.”
That was over 2000 years ago.
In order to refute it, and to make the globe posit even conceivable in emperical science, something other than that would need to be directly measured repeatedly and rigorously (namely a sustained convex curve required by the globe model). The fact that no such measurements exist should be enough to concern any empirical scientist. Whenever water is measured at rest (with the caveats above, only mentioned to curtail irrelevant pedantry) it only has the one shape. That's why it's a law.
It is not, and has never been a law. It’s just something that Flat Earthers say.
Apart from a whole load of images from space that unambiguously show the earth is spherical and water “finds its level” relative to the center of it, you can measure the curvature directly yourself. You just need to be at sufficiently high elevation looking over a large enough body of water to measure the horizon drop. Because despite what one Samuel Rowbotham once said, the horizon does not always “rise to eye level”.
It’s not very clear what you mean, but it sounds like you think you get to decide what counts as science and what doesn’t?
By the definition of science (and the other technical vernacular of the scientific method, like hypothesis and experiment etc.), yes - WE do!
Again, YOUR interpretation of these definitions and YOUR determination of whether those definitions are met.
Scientists of years gone by also reasoned that such a fluid must be non interacting or very nearly non interacting with matter. Unlike Scepti’s atmospheric stacking business.
That's true! However inertia remains a mystery... Drag caused by an interacting fluid would tie things up nicely
Say what? It’s specifically the lack of observable drag that made them reason it was non interacting.
No we don’t. The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.
Only as taught to us in school. In reality, that's not the case. Waves can only exist in a media and are typically composed of that media to boot. The "exception" for light is more or less indefensible, philosophically and scientifically. Light does things impossible for matter, but easy/commonplace for pressure waves within that matter (instantaneous acceleration, reflection etc.)
This makes no sense at all. You are objecting to the idea of normal waves propagating in nothing, even though that’s not the current understanding. Again you complain about “what we are taught in school”. Did you have a particularly shit science education?
Not that it’s completely dead, as some scientists are revisiting it.
As they ought, and I wish them the best of luck!
Interesting that you support this. As far as I can tell, it’s entirely hypothetical and model based. No experiments have been carried out. So isn’t it “unscientific”?
But they do so taking into account everything we’ve since learned about relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.
If they remain bound to equation and do not find the path back to experimentalism they will remain confused and lost. God does not play dice with the universe.
Interesting use of a Einstein quote as at the time he was suggesting that the universe should be causally deterministic. ie that with enough information about prior states, you could predict everything with equations.
Light is not a wave according to current theory.
There are few, even theoretical, physicists that would agree with you. Most proclaim that it is both a wave and a particle, or at least that it exhibits the behavior of both. One of the most successful new conceptions considers the wave and the particle moved by that wave separate and distinct, it has been used to corporate and military success. The proof is always in the pudding if you ask me!
Wavelike properties does not equal being a wave, and certainly not like other waves you want to compare to. For practical purposes it can be useful to treat it as one or the other though depending on the situation.
It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it. The existence of a medium is an assumption.
It's a deduction! It also has lots of support, but like I said - it depends largely on interpretation of evidence / experiment - not the data itself!
It’s a hypothesis, and one that no one has been able to verify. Many have tried and so far all have failed.
People who fully understand the subject?
People who are competent physicists, both historically and contemporarily - yes. But who cares about accolades or pedigree? Those never prevented any previous generations from being hopelessly wrong for centuries.
I didn’t mention accolades or pedigree, I said those who fully understand the subject. That means knowing the established theory completely, including being able to do the maths, knowing the relevant experiments that have been conducted and why the conclusions have been accepted. IMO this is a prerequisite of even being to challenge theories that have been rigorously tested. Laypeople reading fringe science blogs written by other laypeople is nearly enough.
If Scepti wants to amend his ideas to something that could potentially be compatible with reality that’s up to him, but he doesn’t appear interested.
Well they clearly feel that the reality you speak of is non-real. If there really is any contradiction (experimentally especially) I have yet to see it. What did you have in mind?
Literally everything we know about gravity, magnetism and gas pressure is what I have in mind. It’s taking some very creative interpretations from you just to fit what you believe (where gravity is a lie).
So prediction isn’t part of the scientific method, apart from it being a vital part of the scientific method?
Prediction is required in the hypothesis. Hypothesis is validated/invalidated by experiment alone. There is no "predict" step. A hypothesis can be a mere guess (not really a "prediction" the way you are using the word)
So prediction is part of a step in the scientific method, but not a part of the scientific method?
But once a model has been validated we have pretty high confidence it can be used for practical applications. This is where applied science comes in.
I like pudding! If things are useful, let's use them! It is a logical fallacy that all bayesians fall for/suffer from that useful = correct. Useful is different from correct, and models are different from science. Models are created for specific and limited use. Use them and enjoy the pudding!
Erm? What?
-
The question is whether the object is pushed down with more or less force, if there is very little air present?
I mean there’s only one logical answer to that, but I’m still curious if you can actually say it.
If there's very little air present then the object will encounter little resistance to its mass and therefore fall much faster than if it would against higher stacked pressure.
What's the issue?
The issue is what happens to the force of the downward pressure with almost no air. Does it stay the same?
I see you only mention air resistance to a falling object, nothing about the force you claim gives it weight and makes it fall in the first place.
So what happens to the weight of an object in (almost) vacuum if it’s not falling?
For anything to work it must have equal and opposite force.
Air cannot push down unless something is pushed up to aid it,
Let's use that piston and the scenarios.
Why not the scenario I asked about? If that wasn’t clear, just an object in a vacuum chamber. Does it have weight?
Fine, we’ll do yours then.
1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.
If there’s no air pressure from above, why isn’t it moving up from the force of air pressure below? You need a downward force to counteract the air pressure. Something not gravity, but not air pressure?
2. If the piston has an air gap at the side then the air below it will transfer up the side and take its place above the piston in a continuous action and reaction motion of air versus dense mass (object/piston).
This means the air above can push the piston down by the pistons own dense mass of displacement of that air below which now cannot resist it, so the piston falls to the bottom, albeit slowly, depending on the gap at the edges of it against the container walls.
This is your regular explanation for things falling. How does this explain what happens on a vacuum chamber?
My question is, do things still have the same weight, if we remove most of the air? An obvious question to ask of your idea that weight comes from air pressure.
-
There are two known pripertues of air pressure
Static
Dynamic
Sceppy is proposing additional two
Predictable rate of fall
And
Magnetic vortex crushing friction
Either these are additional or cam be measured in orginal two
Well scpepy?
Whata going on here?
Care to finish your own thoughts gor once?
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.
We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.
I keep hoping you are just playing games.
Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.
Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.
Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.
Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.
If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.
Stack some boxes ontop of eah other
Push them down from above.
Each box is pushed by the trasnferancs of force from the box above it, the stack, to your arm pusbing down.
Unless you can identify to us the unmeasurable property of air that passss through objects, it can not be air.
Read what I said and absorb it. Don't set yourself back to square one, it does you no favours.
-
Why not the scenario I asked about? If that wasn’t clear, just an object in a vacuum chamber. Does it have weight?
If placed on a scale plate, yes it will read a weight measurement.
Not because it's in a vacuum but because it's still in a pressurised system, albeit a lower one...but so is the actual scale.
That scale still takes up its own dense mass of air already inside that chamber before it was evacuated.
The very same goes for the dense mass of the object upon that scale.
Fine, we’ll do yours then.
1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.
If there’s no air pressure from above, why isn’t it moving up from the force of air pressure below? You need a downward force to counteract the air pressure. Something not gravity, but not air pressure?
Because it's already up. It's already sitting on the stack with zero pressure release past it due to no pressure above to push against.
2. If the piston has an air gap at the side then the air below it will transfer up the side and take its place above the piston in a continuous action and reaction motion of air versus dense mass (object/piston).
This means the air above can push the piston down by the pistons own dense mass of displacement of that air below which now cannot resist it, so the piston falls to the bottom, albeit slowly, depending on the gap at the edges of it against the container walls.
This is your regular explanation for things falling. How does this explain what happens on a vacuum chamber?
My question is, do things still have the same weight, if we remove most of the air? An obvious question to ask of your idea that weight comes from air pressure.
No.
All things measure whatever their dense mass is of atmospheric pressure they displace upon that scale plate to show a measurement.
-
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.
If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.
We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.
I keep hoping you are just playing games.
Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.
Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.
Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.
Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.
If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.
Stack some boxes ontop of eah other
Push them down from above.
Each box is pushed by the trasnferancs of force from the box above it, the stack, to your arm pusbing down.
Unless you can identify to us the unmeasurable property of air that passss through objects, it can not be air.
Read what I said and absorb it. Don't set yourself back to square one, it does you no favours.
Its been read
It makes no sense.
Specific questions have been given to you which you avoid and dodge.
-
“Unscientific” only according to YOU.
Well, no - not only according to me - but the number of people who recognize/claim it is irrelevant to the point. It is by definition that we determine what is scientific and what is not (not arbitration or "democracy"/consensus). As I said, one cannot hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if their definifions are wrong (as most are, due to miseducation).
Your language gives away your bias. Not very scientific.
People make poor scientists! You misunderstand me though. The verbiage I chose is to (attempt to, clearly) convey the reality. Humans are subjective and belief based creatures. We can't seem to help it, and it appears biological / a part of our design. One of the reasons we don't allow zeus or god or fairies into scientific theory is because it turns science into mythology. The same is true of fields. If an emperical scientist proposes that a field (or zeus, or fairies) is real - they need to get to work figuring out what it is comprised of (and measuring that!) and how it interacts with other matter. It is unscientific (which is to say, mythological) to propose non-real things as a cause in science. Again, this is by definition!
The universe doesn’t care what you personally find “acceptable”.
Exactly! (Though I encourage you to check out norm mcdonalds response to this quip from ndt). The universe doesn't care that we believe there are "fields" in reality. It doesn't care if our equations are useful for us, and doesn't notice when we (inevitably, historically) recognize they are wrong. It doesn't force us to make scientific progress or study science at all. In order to study science, and recognize what is scientific and what is not requires the proper definitions which the vast majority do not have.
Still somewhat unknown, but measurable effects of gravity are very much known.
We're not there yet, you're getting ahead of yourself. How can we discuss effects if our cause is non-real? I can argue that god is the cause (as newton did), and it is a defensible position in many ways but it isn't science. I am not sharing an opinion with you, though it may take some time to recognize that!
Only Flat Earthers and sometimes Geocentrists have a problem with it.
As I said, every physicist worth their salt has known that "gravitation" is unscientific and philosophically unsound. Many of them learn it by studying newton, who is forthright about that fact. Others recognize it by studying the scientific method (aka science)
Yeah, evidence and those constructing and testing theories to fit the evidence.
That isn't what happened, and isn't the scientific method. You can't propose a non-real entity in a hypothesis - this is a critical difference that separates science from mythology.
Gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature. I doubt you could find a single physicist who disputes this.
Lol, or it was before it wasn't a force anymore! Don't take my word for anything. Do some research, or don't - up to you.
Mainly the part about relativity being devised because Newton was “unscientific”. When did Einstein ever say that?
He said it many ways, but I am not sure they ever used that particular verbiage. It is not very cool for a physicist to go kicking dead phycisists in their graves, and professional courtesy calls for you to "massage"/sugar-coat that at least a little bit. The issues with gravitation are long standing, and part of any adequate training in physics.
The scientific method is a general set of principles
Nope. It's a technical process for conducting science. It can also be used to discern science from pseudoscience/mythology/religion masquerading as it! It is true that there are many fringes/caveats, but the bones are the same since bacon.
If you’re going to appeal to strict definitions, you probably shouldn’t be adding clauses yourself.
The definition is a personal working definition, and ought to suffice for the discussion unless you have some issue with it. Do you disagree that natural law is a part of science? I make a caveat for it, but we could declare it merely "empericism" and not science (the scientific method) if you wish.
Except Einstein used the word to describe something very different from Aether theories of light.
Why do you think that? He was using a word that had a known meaning among physicists at the time, and in at least one speech/lecture is explaining explicitly that aether and relativistic "space time" must be the same thing. He said it many other ways too, confirming what he meant by it.
Where is the part of the scientific method that rules out answers that don’t make sense to you?
It isn't about "making sense", it's about being real. You cannot claim that a non-real thing is acted upon or causes action upon anything manifestly real. It is anathema to all physics, and philosophically unsound.
Many, if not most things in reality don't "make sense". The truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is obliged to possibilities.
There are many areas of scientific research where controlled lab experiments aren’t possible or practical.
True. The lab merely makes (or is hoped to) control and seperation of variables more easy. You can absolutely do experiments outside of a stuffy lab.
You would dismiss entire fields of study as “unscientific” because of the exact wording Francis Bacon used centuries ago?
I would dismiss mythology masquerading as science, yes. We all should! However, I would never advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
It never seems to be actual scientists banging on about scientific method, just people who want to reject things they don’t like.
Don't forget the meta-scientists (philosophers mostly), like karl popper and many others! Practicing scientists today are largely too busy trying to scrape a crust together than to study the skeleton or history of their disciplines.
It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
Again, by definition, this is incorrect. The ONLY test of hypothesis in science is done by experiment. There are no exceptions.
Models have a place in the process, both to describe a hypothesis to be tested and all to describe what’s already been scientifically determined.
Roughly consistent with what I said. They are useful (and depending on your personal conception, potentially necessary) in the hypothesis generation step. Other than that, they are tools for specific use. If they are useful, use them! But don't delude yourself into thinking that useful means correct or that models are a part of science/the scientific method (beyond what was just discussed).
Oh really? And you have evidence for that do you? To contrast with the mountains of scientific evidence that they are just what we are taught.
There is no "scientific evidence", except the provisional proof gained from experiment; and that is best characterized as knowledge/scientific knowledge. In the caveat of natural law (often referred to as such - "scienfitic evidence") it is merely measurement - though adding the adjective "scientific" is to convey that adequate rigor and repetition has been applied to the measurements. No amount of mere measurement will ever help you prove what is going on in reality - for that you need experiment! So says the very definition of science itself! The critical importance and requirement of experiment in science cannot be overstated.
There’s a vast body of experimentally determined knowledge about magnets, gravity and gas pressure spanning hundreds of years and countless experiments that Scepti’s explanations directly contradict.
Ok, share one you have in mind! From where I'm sitting, there is only "empty space" in the current view and nothing scepti is suggesting conflicts with the lack thereof (how could it?).
Or you haven’t looked or choose to ignore the data. There’s plenty of data to show the earth can only be a globe.
So we are taught, yes. Looking deeper into that data, you will find the problems with it (or much more commonly, you never will - because you'll never check and IF you do you will likely do so under extreme bias; a mere "debunker" allied with abject appeal to authority)
Archimedes disagreed when he said “ The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose center is the same as that of the earth.”
I doubt they ever said this. However, this is another reason idolatry (aka credential worship) is to be avoided. Every claim needs to be validated thoroughly, regardless of source. Everybody makes mistakes, and we are all products of our upbringing.
That was over 2000 years ago.
Perhaps we can forgive the blunder more readily then as a result?
It is not, and has never been a law.
The wonderful thing about natural law (and science), is it is demonstrable! We can verify and validate this law today as they did hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago! What we can't do, and have never done, is refute it! That's why it's still a natural law today!!! The only way to refute natural law is to measure water's surface doing something differently (repeatedly and rigorously). I am certain that you will be surprised if you ever bother to do it!
the horizon drop.
The horizon drop doesn't measure the shape of the world, obviously. To measure the shape of the world - you have to DO that!
Say what? It’s specifically the lack of observable drag that made them reason it was non interacting.
Right, by which they concluded that it must be weakly interacting. The inertial resistance to change in motion could fit well with a weakly interacting fluid which interacts more with increasing density. Highly theoretical speculation, I agree.
This makes no sense at all.
When we don't understand, the best way to move forward is to ask questions!
Did you have a particularly shit science education?
Most certainly! We most all did. Very few of us ever become actual scientists, and this is one of the many reasons that they don't bother teaching it properly at the lower levels (below grad school typically). It's also the reason for widespread/ubiquitous scientific illiteracy.
Interesting that you support this. As far as I can tell, it’s entirely hypothetical and model based. No experiments have been carried out. So isn’t it “unscientific”?
Until verified/validated by rigorous and repeated experiment, yes. But in terms of generating hypothesis, imagination, and proposing something philosophically sound and physical/emperical for something that isn't (the "field") is a major step back towards science for physics at large. We won't escape the cul-de-sac of theory and (endless) discussion/mathematical analysis without experimentalism taking the reins once more. I am not a rational positivist, and I like poetry and imagination.
Interesting use of a Einstein quote as at the time he was suggesting that the universe should be causally deterministic. ie that with enough information about prior states, you could predict everything with equations.
Sort of (it certainly isn't NOT that). It's really more a criticism of the quantumnists and their religious ideologies/philosophies. Shrodinger was the best at that though.
Wavelike properties does not equal being a wave, and certainly not like other waves you want to compare to.
It's an exception, and one no doubt ingrained in you. What has wavelike properties but is not a wave? Is this a riddle?
For practical purposes it can be useful to treat it as one or the other though depending on the situation.
Right, but when the equations are more real (to you) than the reality you hope to understand is when you are truly lost. Useful conceptions are not correct, as you just explained in other words.
It’s a hypothesis, and one that no one has been able to verify. Many have tried and so far all have failed.
In order to experimentally validate the hypothesis (and for the hypothesis to be "valid" depending on specific criteria used to determine that) we must be able to measure and manipulate aether. It is tricky to do so, but there are those that conclude we have already done so in a variety of ways (misattributed to other things currently). It largely has to do with interpretation of evidence (and experiment), rather than the data itself.
I didn’t mention accolades or pedigree
No, you merely meant it - unless you are saying that "those who fully understand the subject" can be anyone at all (credential-less). I doubt you honestly meant that, but I hope you did!
Laypeople reading fringe science blogs written by other laypeople is nearly enough.
And there it is! Laypeople who aren't in the priesthood proper (with the accolades/pedigrees to prove it) couldn't ever hope to understand - isn't that right? How dare they challenge the priesthood! "They are not fit to judge the mighty art which I hath wrought."
Literally everything
I find that "literally everything" and "nothing" have a lot in common. Let's start simple; we've gone over the vacuum bit, what's the next "irreconcilable paradox" on the list of "literally everything" to discuss?
So prediction is part of a step in the scientific method, but not a part of the scientific method?
Not really the way you are using the word. What the hypothesis really has to have is not exactly a prediction, but a proposed causal relationship between an IV and a DV. It can be interpreted that that will always be a prediction of some kind, and that is semantically sound. The prediction could be a mere guess - is every guess a prediction? If so, then I suppose I concede to your "point"?
Erm? What?
A statistician once "proved" (mathematically of course) a causal relationship between the number of steel workers in a union in one country to the number of deaths due to murder in a foreign country.
They did it to prove a point. Statistics can be (and often is) abused.
One of these abuses is in the field of science, where statistical correlation and usefulness are often mistaken for correctness/accuracy/truth/consistency with actual manifest objective reality.
In science we use experiment to determine what is consistent with reality. All the rest is poetry and imagination (as planck said).
-
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
No there can't.
When looked at logically, nothing can pull.
You are yet to demonstrate that there can't be any pull.
And all your attempts at trying to demonstrate that claimed fact of yours ends in you just ignoring everything you can't explain in terms of a push.
Until you can actually address those situations and explain just how it is all caused by a pushing force, I will dismiss your outright lie, as just that, an outright lie.
When looked at logically, there is NOTHING prohibiting pulling, so I will continue to use. I don't care that you don't like forces which "pull" because they destroys your claims.
Showing you are wrong is not enough for me to discard it, because I actually care about the truth.
But even then, you are still ignoring the main problem.
In reality, the piston falls and compresses the gas.
This only occurs when it is vertical.
If you instead turn it upside down, the piston falls and that results in the gas decompressing.
If you hold it sideways, the piston stays put.
This is just like our old friend the mercury barometer you are still yet to explain.
The problem for you is that they so clearly demonstrate that it is not the air pushing things down. Instead weight is caused by a force OTHER than air, such as gravity.
The resting position of the piston/barometer is then based upon the balance between pressure and gravity.
Of course the piston compresses the air below. It's mass is sitting on that very top stack and does so because there is no air above it
This makes no sense at all.
You are claiming the only reason things are pushed down is BECAUSE of the air above.
So if there is no air above, that means it can't compress it.
There is nothing pushing it down.
But who really cares if it is a mass?
Again, you are claiming it is the air pushing it down. That means the mass of the piston is irrelevant.
You need the air above to apply a force to push it down.
If it is just the air, and the air below is at a greater pressure than the air above, it will push the piston UP. It will not magically cause the air below to be compressed more.
That makes no sense at all and defies simple logic.
You are claiming that even though the pressure below is greater than the pressure above, the piston will be pushed down and compress the air below even further.
Have a think on it.
I have. You should try.
Follow your own advice and actually think about the nonsense you are spouting.
Actually try having a proper think about it to see if it actually makes sense, rather than just spouting whatever nonsense you can come up with to save your failed model.
For anything to work it must have equal and opposite force.
And your "explanation" simply doesn't have it.
1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.
No, if there is no air above, then we just have the air below.
The air below pushes up on the piston, and this results in an equal and opposite force on the air below.
But importantly, this means there is a net upwards force on the piston, and the piston will be pushed upwards and out of the tube.
The only way to stop this, is if there is some other force acting on the piston, such as gravity or the air above.
Again, what you are claiming defies all reason.
You are claiming you can have an object happily sitting still, with a MASSIVE force being applied to one side of it, trying to push it in a particular direction, with no force to counter it.
Any sane person can easily realise that under such a situation, where a massive force is being applied to a single side of an object, without any other force, it will move that object.
This is the basis of how a firearm works.
For the purpose of a firearm, the ambient air pressure is negligible. But the pressure generated from combustion is quite significant and applies a massive force to the projectile, propelling it out of the firearm.
But according to your insanity, the bullet should just sit there, even under that tremendous pressure.
Again, you have thrown all logic out the window in an attempt to save your failed model.
Read what I said and absorb it. Don't set yourself back to square one, it does you no favours.
Follow your own advice.
Read what we have said and absorb it.
We are not setting ourselves back to square one.
You just refuse to leave it, as you continually refuse to address the issues which show your model doesn't work.
In order to leave square 1, you need to actually start explaining how your model works, and addressing the issues raised.
Such as how having a greater force below pushing up results in the object moving down, in direct defiance of simple logic.
Until you actually start doing that, you will remain at square 1.
-
Thanks for keeping your last post short and sweet, jack. :o Not!
Unconvinced asked many good questions which deserved adequate response.
it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard.
So we are taught to believe, yes. When you get into the details, you find that it hasn't.
You've waffled on about hydrostatics and water being flat, so you obviously haven't heard of "global hydrostatic equilibrium?"
I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate any "waffling".
The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation (i.e. un/anti-scientifically). This is at best negligence, and at worst fraud.
Water's surface has only ever been meausured to be flat, level, and horizontal at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant menisuc effects) Until measurement of the convex curvature (required by the globe model) exists, the globe will continue to be an unscientific posit that directly conflicts with the aforementioned natural law from hydrostatics.
Gravity is warped space-time.
In your faith/belief (conditioned by rote under the guise of education), yes. In science, there is no "space time" to warp in the first place - nor is there any "gravity" to do the warping.
The planets of our solar system, prove the existence of gravity.
We have essentially no idea what those lights in the sky are. Our creation mythology is just that. Newton famously posited no hypothesis, and chalked up the motions to God almighty. Lights in the sky don't "prove" anything in science. Only experiment can do that. Natural law can be established, but there is no inherent reason that such behavior in the sky would have any/much relevance to the behavior down here on earth. Natural law deals with what, not why/how.
This is the field of orbital mechanics.
Yes, a highly spurious and consistently unsound "discipline". Let michio kaku explain it to you : there is almost no less dependable/correct "science" than astrophysics/cosmology. They fully admit that they don't even use the scientific method :( (chiefly because they can't). The reason that they keep creating MORE speculative fiction (dark matter, super-de-duper massive "black holes", inflation etc.) is because the existing fiction doesn't work (not for our "solar system" and not outside of it either).
Gravitational fields are very real.
If that were at all true, they could be measured, rigorously defined, manipulated and most importantly experimentally demonstrated to exist.
What do you call the force keeping you on the ground?
If you must have a "force", that force is called weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter and is not "imbued" by fictional/non-real fields that defy explanation, measurement, and description.
Credibility and making sense go hand in hand, jack. Try to remember that.
When you get into the details of the earth, of which you obviously haven't, you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.
Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.
Weight. Now, what magical force do you come up with to explain all matter imbued with weight? Oh, that magical force would be called "gravity", yes? Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?
-
Well, no - not only according to me - but the number of people who recognize/claim it is irrelevant to the point.
That's right.
Regardless of if it is just you, or also several other people, it won't magically make your opinion a fact.
Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.
As I said, one cannot hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if their definifions are wrong (as most are, due to miseducation).
So why do you continue to try to do so, when your definitions are so clearly wrong due to your extreme bias against what science has shown which you don't like?
If an emperical scientist proposes that a field (or zeus, or fairies) is real - they need to get to work figuring out what it is comprised of (and measuring that!) and how it interacts with other matter.
Again, this can applied to literally everything.
As such, by your standard, NOTHING is scientific.
After all, what is matter ultimately made of?
So if you truly want to hold to this position, you need to claim that literally nothing is scientific.
Even things like a table, which can easily be observed and interacted with in reality, can't be scientific, as we do not know what it is ultimately made of.
But any sane person realises that is pure nonsense.
You don't need to know exactly what something is made of in order for it to be scientific.
Instead, in order to be scientific, it needs to be testable, and repeatable, and thus observable in some way.
The other important aspect is falsifiability.
Fields do this by mediating interactions between matter.
Gods and the like are not. A key part they fail on is the falsifiability.
If you didn't get the result you predicted, will, that was just God not giving you what you wanted, rather than God not being real.
I can argue that god is the cause (as newton did)
Do you mean aether?
Because I can't find anywhere where he suggests it.
But you ignore the key point, they aren't discussing the CAUSE of gravity. They are discussing gravity itself.
As I said, every physicist worth their salt has known that "gravitation" is unscientific and philosophically unsound.
And that is just your biased opinion, which you make, because you hate the RE.
It is not a position based upon fact.
Gravitation, contrary to your hate based opinion, is scientific. It is based upon plenty of experiments. It is repeatable, observable and testable.
The only way in which you can have a consistent position and claim it is unscientific is if you claim EVERYTHING is.
The issues with gravitation are long standing, and part of any adequate training in physics.
And the big one, which made it distinct from the other fundamental forces, was why inertial mass was the same as gravitational mass. General relativity, with curved space time was actually able to address that issue. This also explained other things, such as gravitational lensing of light.
No the main "long standing" issues are those in common with the other fundamental forces and the issue of dark matter/gravity changing with distance.
Why do you think that?
Because the 2 make no sense at all being equated.
They are fundamentally different.
You cannot claim that a non-real thing is acted upon or causes action upon anything manifestly real.
And you can't simply dismiss something as non-real because you don't like it or because you don't know everything about it.
There is nothing scientific about that dismissal.
It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
Again, by definition, this is incorrect. The ONLY test of hypothesis in science is done by experiment. There are no exceptions.
Just what do you think an experiment it?
Because from what you say, you seem to have no idea.
One of the simplest ways to define an experiment, would be an observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
Roughly consistent with what I said.
But directly contradicting your claim that they have no place in science.
So if you think that is consistent, you are claiming your position is self-contradictory.
Ok, share one you have in mind!
You have already been provided with plenty and just repeatedly ignored it.
Some key parts for magnetism are:
Like poles repel.
Opposite poles attract.
Paramagnetic materials are attracted to both sides of a magnet.
A key part for air and other fluids is that they exert a force based upon pressure and area.
If an object is inside a fluid, then the force is based upon the pressure gradient across it where it is pushed from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side.
What scepti is suggesting requires directly contradicting one or both of these.
His entire idea of a replacement for gravity directly defies everything we know about how fluids work.
Instead of accepting that things are pushed from high pressure to low pressure, he instead claims that the air will magically push an object down, pushing from the low pressure side to the high pressure side; except when it decides to not do that for things like helium filled balloons.
Likewise, his idea for magnets, as repeatedly explained to you requires violating that, as what we know about fluids indicate that magnetism caused by fluids will have the outwards flowing sides repel and the inwards flowing side attract.
This applies if you put 2 magnets together, in contrast to like poles repelling and opposite poles attracting; and it would also apply to putting paramagnetic materials near a magnet, where the inwards flowing side with a low pressure region should attract them and the high pressure region from the outwards flowing side will push them away.
Stop playing dumb and ignoring this.
What he is suggesting goes directly against what has already been established beyond any sane doubt by science. It is not simply empty space where any wild speculation can be provided.
So we are taught, yes. Looking deeper into that data, you will find the problems with it
No, looking into the data, honestly and without bias, you find that it shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
It is only looking into the data with extreme bias, with a hatred for the RE (or the like), that you pretend there are problems, such as pretending there is massive global conspiracy to try to pretend Earth is round.
If you want to claim there are problems with it, how about you try to provide some, without just going with the sophistry of "we can't know anything".
Every claim needs to be validated thoroughly, regardless of source.
Yes, such as your claim, that water is magically flat.
Especially considering in order to make that claim you already need to modify it to explicitly exclude things which show you are wrong.
It is not, and has never been a law.
The wonderful thing about natural law (and science), is it is demonstrable! We can verify and validate this law today
You mean we can invalidate it, just like they did long ago.
Your claim has NEVER been a natural law.
It is based upon wilful ignorance and is refuted by plenty of observations, including those you try to exclude from your "law" because you know it shows your "law" is just a wild claim.
What we can't do, and have never done, is refute it!
Ignoring the refutations of your baseless claim (not a natural law), doesn't mean it hasn't been refuted.
It has been refuted by countless observations.
The surface of water has been repeatedly observed to NOT BE FLAT!
You not liking that fact will not change that fact.
You repeatedly ignoring it just means your position is based upon wilful rejection of reality.
The horizon drop doesn't measure the shape of the world, obviously. To measure the shape of the world - you have to DO that!
No, not obviously.
Try to clearly explain why the horizon drop doesn't measure the world.
After all, it is measuring the angle to a part of the world, from another part, which measures the world.
Right, by which they concluded that it must be weakly interacting. The inertial resistance to change in motion could fit well with a weakly interacting fluid which interacts more with increasing density.
No, it doesn't,
They reasoned it doesn't interact with matter because it doesn't have that drag.
That drag would not account for inertia.
Even if it was just weakly interacting, it would still attempt to prevent relative motion, it would not resist change in motion.
The simplest way to see this is an object moving relative to this magical aether which you then try to slow down or stop, i.e. make it stationary relative to the aether.
The drag idea would provide no resistance to this.
This means you should be able to find the motion of this aether trivially by trying to accelerate an object in every possible direction (in sequence) with a negligible force, and seeing which one then has no force required to accelerate it.
And do this with objects which are moving relative to each other.
Doing so will lead to the conclusion that the aether is not moving relative to the object, regardless of the motion of the object, which would cause most people to discard that model.
Until verified/validated by rigorous and repeated experiment, yes. But in terms of generating hypothesis, imagination, and proposing something philosophically sound and physical/emperical for something that isn't (the "field") is a major step back towards science for physics at large.
This again shows you have no idea what sound is.
Wild speculation is not sound.
Sound is effectively the same as true.
In order for it to be sound, it has to be supported by evidence.
Instead, it is refuted by evidence.
Wild speculation, which ignores what we already know about reality is not scientific in any way.
It's really more a criticism of the quantumnists and their religious ideologies/philosophies.
So you think appealing to a god was a criticism of religious ideas?
Are you sure that is the path you want to go down?
It was an attack on the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.
It's an exception, and one no doubt ingrained in you. What has wavelike properties but is not a wave? Is this a riddle?
Like I already told you, ALL MATTER!
For example, electrons and neutrons, which are routinely used in diffraction, and in case you don't know, diffraction is a wave property.
In classical mechanics, particles do not diffract. At best, you get reflection from it bouncing off things, but you do not get diffraction.
Instead, diffraction is a property limited to waves, and initially was one piece of evidence used to support the idea that light was a wave.
This means electrons, something pretty much only ever thought of in classical mechanics as a particle, a fundamental building block of matter, has wave nature.
So no, it isn't just light.
It also includes electrons and neutrons as a bare minimum.
A key take away of quantum mechanics is that ALL particles have wave nature.
If you didn't keep ignoring reality, you would already know this and not need to ask the same questions and make the same false statements.
In order to experimentally validate the hypothesis (and for the hypothesis to be "valid" depending on specific criteria used to determine that) we must be able to measure and manipulate aether.
No, you don't. At least not directly.
For example, you can measure your speed relative to the aether, as was done with the aberration of starlight and MMX.
The problem is the 2 speeds contradicted each other, showing that idea of aether was untennable.
Now the attempts to try to keep aether alive try to do whatever they can to keep it indistinguishable from relativity.
A statistician once "proved" (mathematically of course)
So they showed their conclusion by starting with true statements and using mathematical principles to show their conclusion?
If not, that isn't proving anything mathematically.
Do you mean they showed a correlation?
If so, that would be the generating a hypothesis/model step.
You then need to test that hypothesis/model.
That is the validation part of the model.
Making a model from available data is not testing and validating the model.
So that doesn't apply to what was stated.
-
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
No there can't.
When looked at logically, nothing can pull.
You are yet to demonstrate that there can't be any pull.
I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
We were all brought up to use push and pull as differences in interaction with objects.
You push or pull a door.
You push or pull a cart.
You push or pull a lever.
You pull a tug of war rope.
etc, etc, etc, etc.
But when it's looked at a bit deeper, pull is not a realistic force, at all. It's just a word that describes what appears to be the opposite of push, on face value.
I showed you how that works and you tried to counter it. I failed to see your counter as being legit just as you fail to see my mention of just push not being legit.
You are welcome to that but it won't change my mind because it's plain to see from my side that push can be the only force that can interact any matter by energy applied.
-
I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is brought up examples of where a push occurs.
You are yet to explain how various forces are transferred without a pull.
But when it's look at a bit deeper than your superficial analysis, there always seems to be pulling forces at work as well.
If you wish to disagree, there are plenty of examples you have been provided with which you continue to deflect from.
The simplest being a single link in a chain, which you continually refused to address because you have no way to explain it in terms of push, as it needs a pulling force.
But again, all of that is just a deflection from the far bigger issue, your claims directly contradict reality.
If your model was correct, the piston would be pushed up, just like everything should be due to the greater pressure below.
But in reality, the piston falls and compresses the piston and does so until it reaches a balance, where the net force due to the pressure difference across it is balanced by its weight.
Again, this shows that weight is not caused by air.
-
I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is brought up examples of where a push occurs.
You are yet to explain how various forces are transferred without a pull.
But when it's look at a bit deeper than your superficial analysis, there always seems to be pulling forces at work as well.
Show me.
-
If your model was correct, the piston would be pushed up, just like everything should be due to the greater pressure below.
But in reality, the piston falls and compresses the piston and does so until it reaches a balance, where the net force due to the pressure difference across it is balanced by its weight.
Again, this shows that weight is not caused by air.
Nope.
The only way the piston can be pushed up is if the energy applied below is greater than above.
In the scenario given the piston simply rests on the below mass/ stacking of air.
There is no applied energy to push that air, up, so all it does is resist.
Pay attention to what I explained earlier and you won't need to go through this.
-
No You show US!
-
No You show US!
Show you what?
-
I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is brought up examples of where a push occurs.
You are yet to explain how various forces are transferred without a pull.
But when it's look at a bit deeper than your superficial analysis, there always seems to be pulling forces at work as well.
Show me.
Don't play dumb. You have been provided with countless examples, including one in that very post which you chose to remove because you know you can't honestly address it.
Here it is again:
The simplest being a single link in a chain, which you continually refused to address because you have no way to explain it in terms of push, as it needs a pulling force.
You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
Instead you ignore that pulling force and treat the individual link as pure magic which just magically holds itself together and moves as one, and then just focus on the part that isn't in dispute, that the previous link in the chain pushes on this link.
Until you can actually explain the link itself, your claims that everything is push is pure nonsense.
Another example from earlier in this thread would be magnets, where you still haven't explained how they magically produce the observed polarity with only using air.
But again, that is all just a distraction from your bigger failure, your complete to describe why things fall with the air.
The only way the piston can be pushed up is if the energy applied below is greater than above.
For example, if the pressure below is greater than the pressure above, as in your example.
This means it is applying a greater force and thus greater energy.
That means that it should be pushing the object up.
The air doesn't need extra energy applied. It already has that energy in the form of pressure.
But if you want to go down that rabbit hole again, what is providing energy to the air above to push things down?
And then in the contradictory case, what is providing the energy to the air below to push the helium filled balloon up?
Before you say that the energy was provided by lifting the object, the same applies to the air. It has been compressed, that compression (even to only atmospheric pressure) is providing energy to it. And it doesn't matter how it is compressed.
So that leaves you back just dealing with pressure, where the pressure is greater below meaning the object is pushed up.
Pay attention to what I explained earlier and you won't need to go through this.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice and pay attention to what I explained earlier.
If the pressure is greater below, that means the air pushes the object up, not down.
-
You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
I certainly did but you decided to overlook the bigger picture for your own version and then claimed I didn't explain, like you always do. Feel free to do that as much as you want but you waste a lot of your own input.
A chain cannot pull or be pulled.
It's all push.
If you look at it n simple face value appearance you would naturally just go with the flow of the word "pull" because that's what you and I were taught.
Push is the only way a force can make any impact to become a force, at all..
-
I certainly did
There you go using the same old pathetic tactics. As you cannot justify your position, you just outright lie and claim you already did.
In this case the bigger picture isn't the issue. The smaller picture. The smaller picture you kept ignoring which clearly shows a pull is required.
You want to completely ignore that small picture of an individual link, all so you can focus on the bigger picture of how the links interact with each other so you can pretend there is no pull.
But all that does is show that there is a push. It doesn't nothing to address the pull you keep on pretending doesn't exist.
Now stop with the pathetic lies and deal with the issues. If you want to claim there is no pull, don't just lie and say you have already explained it, either provide a link to this non-existent explanation or provide the explanation again.
If you had actually explained it, that would be trivial; like how I continually provide you with the explanation for why your model does not match reality at all and has no chance of ever doing so, which you keep on ignoring.
Alternatively, if you don't want to try to defend that lie of yours, deal with the issue at hand and explain how the air magically manages to push an object in direct defiance of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.
Again, if the pressure is greater below an object, that means it will push it up. The air can't push things down, not unless the pressure above is greater.
You need an extra force acting on the object to overcome this pressure gradient and push/pull it down. This is even more important in the example we were previously discussing most recently, where the piston makes a seal against a tube, and in falling down it compresses the air below.
You need some force to cause that compression.
Sane people accept that that force is gravity. But you want to pretend it is all the air, even though you have no way to explain how the air magically pushes down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient. And you continually refuse to address this issue, just like all the other issues that show beyond any doubt that your model is fundamentally flawed.
-
You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
I certainly did but you decided to overlook the bigger picture for your own version and then claimed I didn't explain, like you always do. Feel free to do that as much as you want but you waste a lot of your own input.
A chain cannot pull or be pulled.
It's all push.
If you look at it n simple face value appearance you would naturally just go with the flow of the word "pull" because that's what you and I were taught.
Push is the only way a force can make any impact to become a force, at all..
Agreed. Gravity is a pushing by virtue of the warping of space around an object. The closer you are to the object, the stronger the push from the warped space. More mass equals more warped space around that mass than a smaller mass.
-
You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
I certainly did but you decided to overlook the bigger picture for your own version and then claimed I didn't explain, like you always do. Feel free to do that as much as you want but you waste a lot of your own input.
A chain cannot pull or be pulled.
It's all push.
If you look at it n simple face value appearance you would naturally just go with the flow of the word "pull" because that's what you and I were taught.
Push is the only way a force can make any impact to become a force, at all..
Within thw bigger picture are super tiny pictures.
Theres a whole engineering discipline around it called finite element.
Sorry, reality disagrees with you.
-
I certainly did
There you go using the same old pathetic tactics. As you cannot justify your position, you just outright lie and claim you already did.
In this case the bigger picture isn't the issue. The smaller picture. The smaller picture you kept ignoring which clearly shows a pull is required.
You want to completely ignore that small picture of an individual link, all so you can focus on the bigger picture of how the links interact with each other so you can pretend there is no pull.
Show me the pull. Explain where the pull is and I'll happily show you there isn't one.
-
When you get into the details of the earth... you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.
That is your faith, informed from conditioning by rote under the guise of education, yes. In reality, it is the opposite. The data you presume to exist, due to miseducation, doesn't.
Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.
Once again, in your models and belief - yes. In reality, whenever water's surface at rest is measured it is flat, level, and horizontal. You have no measurements to the contrary, nor does anyone. That is why this law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries. If you want to refute it, you (or anyone) must measure the sustained convex curvature of waters surface at rest required for the globe posit to be possible at all. This has never been done in all of human history, and whenever water's surface at rest is measured - it only has the one shape. Please do not use the "meniscus defense", as it is desperate non-sequitur.
to explain all matter imbued with weight
One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Most natural laws are this way; "scientific bedrock" more or less.
Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?
No! Nothing happens to the weight. It's the same as it ever was. It is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.
Ultimately we will have to discuss the difference between the object's intrinsic weight and the effective weight (weight with the buoyant force factored in), but it's all pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass" which exist only in equation and are in no way real/definable/measurable/manipuable), and magic is best left out of science!
-
measuring water over far distances is a thing.
sorry
you are wrong
crows nests on boats and light houses
bridges
canals
-
When you get into the details of the earth... you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.
That is your faith, informed from conditioning by rote under the guise of education, yes. In reality, it is the opposite. The data you presume to exist, due to miseducation, doesn't.
Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.
Once again, in your models and belief - yes. In reality, whenever water's surface at rest is measured it is flat, level, and horizontal. You have no measurements to the contrary, nor does anyone. That is why this law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries. If you want to refute it, you (or anyone) must measure the sustained convex curvature of waters surface at rest required for the globe posit to be possible at all. This has never been done in all of human history, and whenever water's surface at rest is measured - it only has the one shape. Please do not use the "meniscus defense", as it is desperate non-sequitur.
to explain all matter imbued with weight
One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Most natural laws are this way; "scientific bedrock" more or less.
Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?
No! Nothing happens to the weight. It's the same as it ever was. It is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.
Ultimately we will have to discuss the difference between the object's intrinsic weight and the effective weight (weight with the buoyant force factored in), but it's all pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass" which exist only in equation and are in no way real/definable/measurable/manipuable), and magic is best left out of science!
Why do you limit yourself so much Jack? Seems like a very small world you paint yourself into.
Jack: The shape of the world is unknowable because water seems flat!
Also Jack: there are no possible ways of measuring mass or gravitation!
Could it be that you are just not clever enough to think of possible ways to measure the shape of the world besides looking at a pool of water? Or that there could be ways of possibly measuring mass?
-
@jackblack part 1 of 2
Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.
I understand why you think this, but it is wrong. Matter is manifestly real and tangible, and the quantumnists are deluded and wrong. Fields are a placeholder for science that was expected to come. Until that science comes (which it never has, and never will), we are left with "spooky action at a distance" which is unscientific and anathema to physics.
when your definitions are so clearly wrong
What are my definitions, and in what way are they wrong?
Again, this can applied to literally everything.
You can apply ketchup to everything too, but that doesn't make it appropriate to do so. The criticism is about fields, not "everything" as you desperately want it to be.
After all, what is matter ultimately made of?
The presumptive answer is atoms. We can't see well enough at these scales to be certain, so we speculate. Philosophically, the atom is the smallest division of matter. "Sub-atomic" things are a philosophical violation of the concept of the atom - though there may well be smaller (physical, tangible, emperical, and manifestly real) things, than what we mistook for atoms.
But any sane person realises that is pure nonsense.
So why do YOU keep saying this nonsense?
Fields do this by mediating interactions between matter.
The trouble being that "fields" don't exist. If they did, then we could make a scientific argument for what they cause (and how they cause it). Currently we can't do that, and never will with our current (lack of) approach.
Do you mean aether?
No. The discussion was about the cause of the motions of the lights in the sky.
And that is just your biased opinion
No, it's just another fact. You can read about it in newton's own hand if you wish.
It is based upon plenty of experiments.
Only when you don't properly understand what an experiment is. There is a reason that newton didn't even bother to feign a hypothesis for gravitation. He understood full well that it was not a scientific posit, and could never have experimental validation. Only god almighty could be responsible for its actions, which is why newton concluded that.
was why inertial mass was the same as gravitational mass. General relativity, with curved space time was actually able to address that issue.
That's incorrect, it was simply "carried over". The concept that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same is taken on faith, and as a "coincidence". In fact, mass is fiction (non-real/ exists only in equation/can not be measured or defined)
This also explained other things, such as gravitational lensing of light.
There is no such thing. Every experimental evaluation of the claim shows that clearly. Light's path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.
Because the 2 make no sense at all being equated.
You are confused about what I said. The best thing to do when you don't understand is to ask questions! (The more specific the better the chance of getting a specific answer!)
And you can't simply dismiss something as non-real because you don't like it or because you don't know everything about it.
In science everything is dismissed as non-real until it is proven to be real (default skepticism, not default faith as you are exhibiting). There is no "field"; it is a conceptual placeholder for science that was expected to come in the future and a deviation from the scientific method. It is fine to posit something new, but until it is emperically proven to be real - it isn't.
Just what do you think an experiment is?
I don't just think it, I know it! And I know how I know it too! I'd be happy to share that with you if you have the interest!
One of the simplest ways to define an experiment, would be an observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
It isn't just (too) simple, it's incorrect!
So if you think that is consistent, you are claiming your position is self-contradictory.
I'm not following you. What contradiction specifically are you speaking of?
Some key parts for magnetism are:
Like poles repel.
Opposite poles attract.
Paramagnetic materials are attracted to both sides of a magnet.
For most of those you have already been given conceptualizations that do not require paradox. Sadly they didn't help you to imagine others on your own. You seem too busy debunking, rather than imagining how something COULD be possible.
What scepti is suggesting requires directly contradicting one or both of these.
Possibly, though this isn't certain. In terms of poles and magnetic attraction of paramagnetic and unmagnetised magnetic materials a cogent potential conception has already been given to you.
indicate that magnetism caused by fluids will have the outwards flowing sides repel and the inwards flowing side attract.
That is only one potentiality. There are others! Use your imagination!
Stop playing dumb and ignoring this.
I'm doing neither, though it seems your conversation with scepti is "bleeding" into this one a little bit.
It is not simply empty space where any wild speculation can be provided.
The "field" in composition and mechanism is exactly that! And this is exactly the reason that almost anything that scepti suggests can't contradict it, by definition.
The observed behavior (currently attributed to "fields") could potentially, but imagined paradoxes can also be reconciled (through that same imagination, and also by establishing co-behavior/mechanism by measurement and experiment)
-
@jackblack part 2 of 2
No, looking into the data, honestly and without bias, you find that it shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
There are some (precious few) data sets that suggest that, but only with abject appeal to authority (and most often the ingrained belief that the earth MUST be spherical conditioned by rote under the guise of education). The rest (the ones verifiable/validatable independently) don't establish (nor seek to) the shape of the entire world.
such as pretending there is massive global conspiracy to try to pretend Earth is round.
The ones that claim that are most often RE acolytes. Earnest flat earth researchers typically don't claim such silliness.
Yes, such as your claim, that water is magically flat.
Magic is best left out of science/knowledge. Water's surface at rest is flat/level/horizontal for a variety of reasons. Or, rather, it can be conceptualized to be caused in a variety of ways. However, the reason we know that water's surface at rest is flat/level/horizontal is not from any of those conceptions - it's from rigorous and repeated measurement (most notably in the discipline of hydrostatics)!
Especially considering in order to make that claim you already need to modify it to explicitly exclude things which show you are wrong.
No, that is commonplace with natural law. Things are "idealized", it's not a big deal.
You mean we can invalidate it
We could if it were invalidatable, yes. As it stands, we haven't invalidated/refuted this law for as long as it has stood (centuries at least). We have only ever validated it. That's how natural law works!
It has been refuted by countless observations.
The surface of water has been repeatedly observed to NOT BE FLAT!
You can't merely "observe". You need to MEASURE THE WATER'S SURFACE (not yelling, just too lazy to bold it). That is how the law was established in the first place, and the only way to refute it is to measure water's surface at rest doing something else! If you have such measurement, share it! Otherwise you should recognize that you don't have it, and start into research/apologetics/rationalization as to why you don't have it.
No, not obviously.
It bloody well ought to be. I recognize that it isn't in your case, and many others but that has to do with bias.
Try to clearly explain why the horizon drop doesn't measure the world.
One reason is that the horizon is not a physical place (it's an optical illusion). Another is that you can't measure the world, or it's shape without MEASURING THE WORLD! It really is obvious.
Doing so will lead to the conclusion that the aether is not moving relative to the object
Right, which can be rationalized many ways (there is essentially never only one way to conceptualize or interpret something), one of which involves "aether-dragging" but this is all getting further away from the subject at hand.
Sound is effectively the same as true.
Not when used properly. Sound is short for "logically sound". Logically sound is fantastically different than true.
Wild speculation, which ignores what we already know about reality is not scientific in any way.
I generally agree, however there is no wrong way to come to a hypothesis - and wild speculation and models have their limited place in the scientific method (aka science) solely for this purpose.
It was an attack on the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.
That's exactly what I said! Somehow you seem to be misunderstanding me...
Like I already told you, ALL MATTER!
No, waves exist within matter (exclusively).
In classical mechanics, particles do not diffract.
And cannot, yes. The waves within them / they are riding (and/or comprised of) can though!
Instead, diffraction is a property limited to waves, and initially was one piece of evidence used to support the idea that light was a wave.
Yes, very strong evidence in my view!
A key take away of quantum mechanics is that ALL particles have wave nature.
Exactly, the quantumnists are wrong. That is evident in a variety of ways, but the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" conveys it pretty well.
No, you don't. At least not directly.
For example, you can measure your speed relative to the aether, as was done with the aberration of starlight and MMX.
This presumes an aether at the outset. Actually, the function of the mmx itself presumes an aether and to many is proof (strong evidence) of aether's reality.
The trouble is that is circular logic.
The problem is the 2 speeds contradicted each other, showing that idea of aether was untennable.
Not if you define the world as stationary! (Or if aether is dragged with it, and countless other potentials undoubtedly)
Do you mean they showed a correlation?
Of course! Statistics can't establish causality. Nothing but experiment can do that, and even then it is provisional (and typically doomed to expiration)
You then need to test that hypothesis/model.
That is the validation part of the model.
The trouble is it is done the same way, by circular logic. The hypothesis was the number of workers in this steel union causes proportional deaths in the foreign country. This was "proven" statistically though I doubt they went to the trouble of manipulating artificially the number in the union (though they may have done). In any case, none of this is science.
Making a model from available data is not testing and validating the model.
It is validated the same way typically (as it is created), and is embarrassing circular logic.
-
“Unscientific” only according to YOU.
Well, no - not only according to me - but the number of people who recognize/claim it is irrelevant to the point. It is by definition that we determine what is scientific and what is not (not arbitration or "democracy"/consensus).
Who mentioned consensus? Another clue about where you first started this journey, perhaps?
Anyway my point is that all this is your interpretation of how those definitions are applied, and that you do it selectively and inconsistently in order to claim that things you don’t agree with are not science.
As I said, one cannot hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if their definifions are wrong (as most are, due to miseducation).
So all the universities and science institutions have their definitions wrong, and you have it right?
One of the reasons we don't allow zeus or god or fairies into scientific theory is because it turns science into mythology.
The only reason they are mythical is lack of scientific evidence. If Zeus appeared in the sky throwing lightning bolts around and fathering illegitimate Demigods, science would have to deal with that. I’m sure it would cause quite a stir as well.
The same is true of fields. If an emperical scientist proposes that a field (or zeus, or fairies) is real - they need to get to work figuring out what it is comprised of (and measuring that!) and how it interacts with other matter.
Experiments ONLY measure interactions. Fields, like everything else are studied through their interactions. If they are compromised of something else, maybe one day scientists could work out how to measure that, but that’s another question. Just as if Zeus was real and making his presence felt, we wouldn’t need to understand how he worked to see him wrecking shit with thunderbolts.
It is unscientific (which is to say, mythological) to propose non-real things as a cause in science. Again, this is by definition!
Only because YOU say that fields aren’t real. YOUR definition, because YOU think there must something else. But that is just YOUR opinion.
Still somewhat unknown, but measurable effects of gravity are very much known.
We're not there yet, you're getting ahead of yourself. How can we discuss effects if our cause is non-real? I can argue that god is the cause (as newton did), and it is a defensible position in many ways but it isn't science. I am not sharing an opinion with you, though it may take some time to recognize that!
You have it completely backwards, and contradict your own argument about experimental evidence.
To repeat myself, experiments ONLY measure the observable effects. That’s not getting ahead of ourselves, that’s a starting point. From there we can devise theories to explain gravitation, form testable hypotheses and think of new experiments to test that. It’s a continuous process, and we know we don’t have a complete answer yet.
As I said, every physicist worth their salt has known that "gravitation" is unscientific and philosophically unsound.
You can say it as much you like, it’s doesn’t make it true. Have you actually asked any physicists about it?
Gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature. I doubt you could find a single physicist who disputes this.
Lol, or it was before it wasn't a force anymore! Don't take my word for anything. Do some research, or don't - up to you.
Fundamental interaction is arguably more correct, mainly as we lack a complete theory, but fundamental force is the more common term. The point is that real physicists don’t doubt its existence.
Mainly the part about relativity being devised because Newton was “unscientific”. When did Einstein ever say that?
He said it many ways, but I am not sure they ever used that particular verbiage.
Or maybe he never said anything close? Your chance to prove me wrong.
The scientific method is a general set of principles
Nope. It's a technical process for conducting science. It can also be used to discern science from pseudoscience/mythology/religion masquerading as it! It is true that there are many fringes/caveats, but the bones are the same since bacon.
It doesn’t describe exactly how to do each step. Which is why I take issue with you saying that things not explicitly described in it aren’t scientific. Although sometimes they are anyway.
The definition is a personal working definition, and ought to suffice for the discussion unless you have some issue with it. Do you disagree that natural law is a part of science? I make a caveat for it, but we could declare it merely "empericism" and not science (the scientific method) if you wish.
Since you’re so hung up on exact definitions, I find it quite amusing that you seem happy to make up your own and insert it into the scientific method, which you claim is rigid and immutable.
Except Einstein used the word to describe something very different from Aether theories of light.
Why do you think that? He was using a word that had a known meaning among physicists at the time, and in at least one speech/lecture is explaining explicitly that aether and relativistic "space time" must be the same thing. He said it many other ways too, confirming what he meant by it.
You’ve answered your own question. Einstein applied the term to Spacetime, not some kind of fluid as it was in Aether theories of light.
Where is the part of the scientific method that rules out answers that don’t make sense to you?
It isn't about "making sense", it's about being real. You cannot claim that a non-real thing is acted upon or causes action upon anything manifestly real. It is anathema to all physics, and philosophically unsound.
You are deciding what you think counts as real, based on whether it makes sense to you. I don’t claim fields are unreal, you do.
Many, if not most things in reality don't "make sense". The truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is obliged to possibilities.
Exactly. So who are you to decide what’s not real?
It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
Again, by definition, this is incorrect. The ONLY test of hypothesis in science is done by experiment. There are no exceptions.
Don’t forget your own “natural law caveat”! Apparently you can make up whatever exceptions you like to suit an argument. Science!
Oh really? And you have evidence for that do you? To contrast with the mountains of scientific evidence that they are just what we are taught.
There is no "scientific evidence", except the provisional proof gained from experiment; and that is best characterized as knowledge/scientific knowledge. In the caveat of natural law (often referred to as such - "scienfitic evidence") it is merely measurement - though adding the adjective "scientific" is to convey that adequate rigor and repetition has been applied to the measurements. No amount of mere measurement will ever help you prove what is going on in reality - for that you need experiment! So says the very definition of science itself! The critical importance and requirement of experiment in science cannot be overstated.
I’ll take that as a no then. You don’t have evidence for your claim.
There’s a vast body of experimentally determined knowledge about magnets, gravity and gas pressure spanning hundreds of years and countless experiments that Scepti’s explanations directly contradict.
Ok, share one you have in mind! From where I'm sitting, there is only "empty space" in the current view and nothing scepti is suggesting conflicts with the lack thereof (how could it?).
Gas pressure acts on surface area, gravity on mass. Gas pressure acts in all directions, gravity acts towards other masses. Gas pressure can be contained with physical barriers, gravity can’t. I could go on.
These are hardly obscure or highly theoretical differences, they are basic mechanics, readily observable.
Or you haven’t looked or choose to ignore the data. There’s plenty of data to show the earth can only be a globe.
So we are taught, yes. Looking deeper into that data, you will find the problems with it (or much more commonly, you never will - because you'll never check and IF you do you will likely do so under extreme bias; a mere "debunker" allied with abject appeal to authority)
I’ve looked and found only claims that don’t remotely fit the data. Anything specific in mind?
Archimedes disagreed when he said “ The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose center is the same as that of the earth.”
I doubt they ever said this.
Well he did.
However, this is another reason idolatry (aka credential worship) is to be avoided. Every claim needs to be validated thoroughly, regardless of source. Everybody makes mistakes, and we are all products of our upbringing.
It has been. I only mentioned it because your “law of hydrostatics that stood for centuries” never happened.
It is not, and has never been a law.
The wonderful thing about natural law (and science), is it is demonstrable! We can verify and validate this law today as they did hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago! What we can't do, and have never done, is refute it! That's why it's still a natural law today!!! The only way to refute natural law is to measure water's surface doing something differently (repeatedly and rigorously). I am certain that you will be surprised if you ever bother to do it!
The oceans are demonstrably curved over a spherical earth. Archimedes was correct and you are literally making stuff up and trying to pass it off as a “natural law”.
the horizon drop.
The horizon drop doesn't measure the shape of the world, obviously. To measure the shape of the world - you have to DO that!
There are many ways to measure the shape of the world, from mapping the entirety of the surface (done), to looking up to distant reference points from many different locations (done), to photographing it from space (done). All show it’s undoubtedly a globe. But you were only talking about measuring the curvature of a body of water, which anyone can do by looking at the horizon and applying a bit of basic geometry. Every time someone does it, they refute your made up “law”.
Most certainly! We most all did. Very few of us ever become actual scientists, and this is one of the many reasons that they don't bother teaching it properly at the lower levels (below grad school typically). It's also the reason for widespread/ubiquitous scientific illiteracy.
And maybe why some of them become Flat Earthers?
Sort of (it certainly isn't NOT that). It's really more a criticism of the quantumnists and their religious ideologies/philosophies. Shrodinger was the best at that though.
Einstein and Schrodinger were early pioneers of quantum physics. There were no “religious quantumists” to criticize, unless you suggest they were including themselves? They found that at this scale, things behave completely differently to classical physics, which didn’t appear to make any logical sense. This provoked much furious debate about the implications of it all.
But that didn’t stop Einstein contributing greatly to the field by publishing revolutionary papers on the subject. Einstein certainly didn’t claim it was all unscientific, or reject evidence he didn’t like.
It's an exception, and one no doubt ingrained in you. What has wavelike properties but is not a wave? Is this a riddle?
Photons, electrons, and everything else at that scale as far as I understand it.
For practical purposes it can be useful to treat it as one or the other though depending on the situation.
Right, but when the equations are more real (to you) than the reality you hope to understand is when you are truly lost. Useful conceptions are not correct, as you just explained in other words.[/quote]
How am I lost, if I understand that treating light as a wave isn’t really the full picture? If equations are useful, we can use them to do useful things. What’s the problem?
In order to experimentally validate the hypothesis (and for the hypothesis to be "valid" depending on specific criteria used to determine that) we must be able to measure and manipulate aether. It is tricky to do so, but there are those that conclude we have already done so in a variety of ways (misattributed to other things currently). It largely has to do with interpretation of evidence (and experiment), rather than the data itself.
As opposed to gravity, which you dismiss despite all the very clear evidence. Seems you allow ideas about Aether a lot of leeway.
I didn’t mention accolades or pedigree
No, you merely meant it - unless you are saying that "those who fully understand the subject" can be anyone at all (credential-less). I doubt you honestly meant that, but I hope you did!
It can be if those people put serious time and effort into learning the subject to gain sufficient level understanding.
Laypeople reading fringe science blogs written by other laypeople is nearly enough.
And there it is! Laypeople who aren't in the priesthood proper (with the accolades/pedigrees to prove it) couldn't ever hope to understand - isn't that right? How dare they challenge the priesthood! "They are not fit to judge the mighty art which I hath wrought."
No. Laypeople who don’t have detailed knowledge of what they are talking about. They don’t need to be in “priesthood”, they just need to put the effort into properly learning the subject.
I find that "literally everything" and "nothing" have a lot in common. Let's start simple; we've gone over the vacuum bit, what's the next "irreconcilable paradox" on the list of "literally everything" to discuss?
Like fluid mechanics and how it doesn’t work anything like how he says?
In science we use experiment to determine what is consistent with reality. All the rest is poetry and imagination (as planck said).
How ironic.
-
Show me the pull. Explain where the pull is and I'll happily show you there isn't one.
I already did, repeatedly. Remember this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/HoVTW2S.png)
Or would you prefer the more simpler one with just the single link you can't explain?
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
There is a force pushing the right hand side of the link to the right.
But at best (and this being generous) that pushing force can only affect the dark region of the link. You need a pulling force where the right of the link pulls the left.
It has also been explained how trying to appeal to smaller links won't help your case, as it just pushes the problem back.
Now again, going to stop avoiding the real issue?
How your air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient?
Are you capable of honestly and rationally justifying your position, or are you only capable of these repeated dishonest dodges?
-
When you get into the details of the earth... you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.
That is your faith, informed from conditioning by rote under the guise of education, yes. In reality, it is the opposite.
No, in reality, it is what he stated.
It is your blind faith and wilful ignorance that pretends the opposite.
But that faith and ignorance has no bearing on reality.
In reality, whenever water's surface at rest is measured it is flat, level, and horizontal. You have no measurements to the contrary, nor does anyone.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie. It won't make it true. It just shows that you are choosing to remain wilfully ignorant.
You ignoring all the evidence and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't magically make it not exist.
One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
See above.
The fact that weight varies with location shows it is not intrinsic.
Mass is the intrinsic property.
It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass"
Which don't require magic at all.
But suggesting there is some inante property to matter, which magically varies without cause, and which magically pushes this matter in a particular direction, violating a fundamental assumption of science, that of anisotropy, which is yet to be violated, sure seems to.
Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.
I understand why you think this, but it is wrong.
I don't merely think it, I know it.
It is a factual statement.
Ultimately, we do not know what anything is made of.
If you wish to disagree, instead of spouting a bunch of sophistry about fields, explain clearly just what matter is made of, without leaving any question of why.
Unless you can do that, your attack of fields is entirely irrational and biased.
Again, this can applied to literally everything.
You can apply ketchup to everything too, but that doesn't make it appropriate to do so.
I don't care if you don't think it is appropriate. The same argument you are making can be applied to literally everything, and it is just as correct.
The criticism is equally valid for everything.
Stop pretending it is just for fields.
While you continue it is just for fields it shows your dishonesty and bias.
After all, what is matter ultimately made of?
The presumptive answer is atoms.
No it isn't. That has long since be overturned.
And regardless, it doesn't address the question it just leaves open the question of what atoms are made of.
Can you actually explain what things are made of, without just leaving it to be more questions?
If not, your argument that we don't what X is made of therefore X is not scientific applies to all matter.
So why do YOU keep saying this nonsense?
You are the one spouting the nonsense, not me. I am showing that it is nonsense.
Fields do this by mediating interactions between matter.
The trouble being that "fields" don't exist.
That is your belief, with no basis in reality.
If they did, then we could make a scientific argument for what they cause (and how they cause it).
Again, this same argument can be applied to everything, that means according to you nothing exists.
Again, that is pure nonsense.
Do you mean aether?
No. The discussion was about the cause of the motions of the lights in the sky.
No, it was about what Newton claimed caused gravity. I can find no evidence that he ever thought it was God. But I have found sources indicating aether, where the aether between 2 objects was more rarefied and that caused the aether on the outside of the objects to push it together.
And that is just your biased opinion
No, it's just another fact. You can read about it in newton's own hand if you wish.
And can you provide that, where Newton clearly states that gravity is not scientific?
Also, even if you can, that still doesn't make it fact. It just means that Newton agrees with your opinion.
In order to make that baseless claim of yours a fact, you would need to refute the massive body of science on gravity, which shows quite clearly that it is scientific.
It is based upon plenty of experiments.
Only when you don't properly understand what an experiment is.
You mean only when I don't accept your ridiculous claims about experiments you keep on making to pretend all the science you hate is not real science.
You are yet to explain just what magically makes it not an experiment. Instead you just continually assert that it isn't based upon experiments and isn't scientific.
There is a reason that newton didn't even bother to feign a hypothesis for gravitation.
Except those he did, like I pointed out in the other thread, which you just ignored.
was why inertial mass was the same as gravitational mass. General relativity, with curved space time was actually able to address that issue.
That's incorrect, it was simply "carried over". The concept that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same is taken on faith, and as a "coincidence".
There you go with more blatant lies.
The concept of it being the same is based upon experiments showing that in a gravitational field objects accelerate at the same rate regardless of mass and density and so on, until you get to the buoyant force or air resistance causing a problem.
This shows that the 2 are the same. The big question was why.
General relativity with curved space time explains that by reframing gravity, not as a force, but as bending of space time such that an objects motion through time is converted to motion through space. This directly leads to the outcome that all objects would accelerate at the same rate in the same region of warped space-time.
So previously it was a coincidence which couldn't be explained. But with GR, it is a logical consequence.
-
In fact, mass is fiction (non-real/ exists only in equation/can not be measured or defined)
Another blatant lie.
Mass certainly appears to be real, with quite real affects and various methods exist to measure it. Sure, you might claim that these are indirect and not actually measuring mass, but the same would apply to basically all measurements.
For example, how would you measure weight directly?
Note, this means you need a magical device which just directly tells you weight. It can't rely upon say the compression of a spring, which then actually measures the compression of the spring, or the change in electrical resistance as you compress a resistive material.
Again, your position is a dishonest position of sophistry where you pretend that things you don't like are real, by dishonestly an impossible standard to it, which you don't apply to things you are happy with.
This also explained other things, such as gravitational lensing of light.
There is no such thing.
Rejecting reality wont magically change it.
Because the 2 make no sense at all being equated.
You are confused about what I said.
No, I'm not.
If you truly think I am confused, the best thing to do is to clarify your position, rather than just accuse me of being confused and suggest I ask questions.
In science everything is dismissed as non-real until it is proven to be real
If that was the case, everything would still be dismissed as being non-real, as science can't prove anything is real.
The only "proof" science can actually do is proving something isn't real, due to a contradiction.
This is because science relies primarily upon inductive reasoning, which while it can strongly support something existing, it cannot prove it.
This again shows you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to science, especially with your position of extreme sophistry.
Just what do you think an experiment is?
I don't just think it, I know it! And I know how I know it too! I'd be happy to share that with you if you have the interest!
No, you clearly aren't happy to share that.
It is clear you have no idea what an experiment actually is due to just how many experiments you dismiss.
I am not going to ask you what you know an experiment is when you clearly don't know.
Instead I will only ask what you think it is.
And I did ask just that. Yet instead of provide just what you think it is, you acted all high and mighty and didn't bother answering.
If you were happy to share what you think an experiment is, you would have done so.
If you need people to just blindly accept that you know what an experiment is before you tell them, it shows you aren't happy to give people answers, you are just happy to be treated like a omniscient god.
One of the simplest ways to define an experiment, would be an observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
It isn't just (too) simple, it's incorrect!
Says you, but you can't explain why.
Your repeated dismissals truly are pathetic.
I'm not following you. What contradiction specifically are you speaking of?
You claim that prediction is not part of science, yet then claim it is. You can't get much more contradictory than that.
For most of those you have already been given conceptualizations that do not require paradox.
From actual science, yes.
From Scepti's model, not at all.
Instead I have been provided with attempts at excuses which simply don't work, and I have explained why.
What scepti is suggesting requires directly contradicting one or both of these.
Possibly, though this isn't certain.
Unless you can explain how, it certainly does.
You claiming your excuse that I have already shown to not work, is not addressing this contradiction.
That is only one potentiality.
No, that is a direct logical conclusion based upon what we already know about how fluids work.
I'm doing neither
You certainly are.
You continually play dumb and ignorant to pretend that we don't have any idea at all and thus any wild speculation is sound.
In reality, this wild speculation is contradicted by what has been shown by experiment.
You are playing dumb and ignorant by continually ignoring that.
Just like when you pretend we have no evidence that Earth is round or that water curves.
The "field" in composition and mechanism is exactly that!
We aren't simply discussing fields, we are discussing magnetism.
But even limiting it to fields, it still isn't that.
It is only when you want to try discussing ultimately what ANYTHING is made of and ultimately what ANY mechanism is, that you get to just that, and that applies to things like matter and collisions as well.
And because we aren't simply talking about this sophistry and instead are talking about what we already have a quite well established body of knowledge, based upon rigorous experimentation, is the reason why wild speculation can't just be taken as just as good.
There are some (precious few) data sets that suggest that
No, there are plentiful datasets that strongly indicate that, leading any sane, honest person, to rationally conclude that Earth is round.
There is no need for any appeal to authority.
The only way out is to think that nature itself is conspiring to pretend Earth is round.
The ones that claim that are most often RE acolytes.
Such as you?
Because you require such a conspiracy, involving nature itself.
The FE position needs such as conspiracy.
The only other option is someone being truly ignorant of all the available data.
Magic is best left out of science/knowledge.
So stop bringing it in with your magically flat water.
Water's surface at rest is flat/level/horizontal for a variety of reasons.
It is level for one simple reason, minimising energy.
Noting that this level is an equipotential surface where water will not gain or lose energy by traversing the surfacing.
it's from rigorous and repeated measurement (most notably in the discipline of hydrostatics)!
You mean from your pathetic set of measurements which need to ignore it not being flat, and need to be done at such a small scale or with such large error you cannot measure the curve?
I wouldn't call those rigorous.
-
Hes plead spamming.
Theres no actual point being made.
-
It actually refers to quantum entanglement in its original context, not to fields, not to gravity and not to anything else you wish to dream up.
As far as I know, that is true! However, quantum entanglement is not the first nor sole example of the philosophically unsound and unscientific "spooky action at a distance" that physicists have been trying to do away with since newton invited his magical god gravity (epicurus', in point of fact) into emperical science.
-
Hes plead spamming.
Theres no actual point being made.
There are LOT's of points being made, but the words must be read and understood for that!
If you don't understand, you should ask questions!
I am not involved in any silly debate games. This is just a discussion. There is no judge nor is their any "pleading".
My words are to help the earnest understand what is being discussed, as well as my perspective.
-
No, that is commonplace with natural law. Things are "idealized", it's not a big deal.
It is a big deal when you are trying to take a measurement on a fairly short distance and apply it to a massive one.
As it stands, we haven't invalidated/refuted this
Again, ingoring reality wont help you.
And again, it has never been a natural law.
The natural law is the water is level, not flat.
You can't merely "observe". You need to MEASURE THE WATER'S SURFACE
An observation is a measurement.
There are quantitative measurements and qualitative measurements.
We don't need to get an exact number.
All we need to refute your baseless claim that the surface of water is magically flat is a qualtitative measurement which shows it isn't.
And that has been done, countless times.
You not liking it because it shows you are wrong does not magically negate that.
No, not obviously.
It bloody well ought to be.
You wanting it to be obvious so you don't need to justify your baseless position does not make it so, nor does it mean it ought to be.
Again, it is YOUR bias that is the issue here, not ours.
Instead, it is obvious that you are wrong.
One reason is that the horizon is not a physical place
It certainly seems to be.
Yes, it is a different place for each location, but it is still a physical place, on Earth, located some distance away.
It is not an optical illusion like you falsely claim.
Another is that you can't measure the world, or it's shape without MEASURING THE WORLD! It really is obvious.
So your justification for why it isn't a measurement of the world is that it isn't a measurement of the world.
Doesn't that seem a bit circular to you?
Lets try this, it IS a measurement of the world. Therefore it IS a measurement of the world.
Happy now?
Again, it is a measurement of Earth, you are measuring the angle between 2 points on earth.
You seem to just want to dismiss all these measurements which show you are wrong. That isn't being scientific. That is being religious.
Right, which can be rationalized many ways
You need to rationalise the contradiction not just 1 part of it.
You need to explain how the aether is moving relative to you while being stationary relative to you.
Sound is effectively the same as true.
Not when used properly. Sound is short for "logically sound". Logically sound is fantastically different than true.
There you go not knowing what words mean.
Are you sure you aren't confusing it for logically valid?
Valid means the conclusion follows from the premises.
Sound means that it is valid, and the premises are true (and can be shown to be true).
And with logic, if you start with true premises and use logically vaild reasoning, you MUST end up with a true conclusion.
So if a conclusion is of a sound argument that means it is true.
It is impossible for something to be sound and false.
If it is false either the logic used to support it is invalid as you can reach a false conclusion from true premises; or the premises were not true.
Either way, it isn't sound.
Now do you understand why I say sound is effectively the same as true?
The distinction is that sound applies to the argument as a whole, while true and false applies to the conclusion and the premises separately.
Wild speculation, where you have no idea if the premise is true or not at best gets logically valid ideas or internally consistent ideas. It cannot get you sound ideas.
I generally agree, however there is no wrong way to come to a hypothesis
There is if you continue to ignore things which show it is wrong.
It was an attack on the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.
That's exactly what I said! Somehow you seem to be misunderstanding me...
No, you said the exact opposite.
As clearly shown in the section I quoted, where you stated it is a criticisim of their religious ideologies/philosophies.
That is not saying it is an attack of the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.
Especially considering you were saying that in contrast to something equivalent to what I said.
No, waves exist within matter (exclusively).
That is your baseless claim you are yet to support.
Observations of matter show it has wave nature.
Not merely waves propagating in the matter, but the matter itself acting as a wave.
This means it isn't a case of light being an exception.
Yes, very strong evidence in my view!
Strong enough to refute the classical balistic model of light, but not the quantum mechanical one.
A key take away of quantum mechanics is that ALL particles have wave nature.
Exactly, the quantumnists are wrong.
No, YOU are wrong.
Matter is observed to have wave like nature. This is not simply a case of wild speculation. It is observations from experiment.
This shows that you are wrong about your idea of what a wave is an what matter is, and your claim that light is magically an exception, rather than it being like all particles.
the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" conveys it pretty well.
That certainly conveys your position:
"I hate this idea so I'm going to reject it, not for any rational, evidence based reason, but because I hate it."
But that is not scientific at all.
This presumes an aether at the outset.
Yes, and that is one of the problems with the experiment. But it works as part of a proof by contradiction, where you assume the aether exists, and reach a contradiction to show it can't.
That means it isn't circular.
I'm not using this to show aether exists. I am using it to show it doesn't.
Not if you define the world as stationary
There you go ignoring what was said.
It has no bearing on which you say is moving.
Under the aether model, one measured a speed of aether relative to Earth and the other measures no speed.
It doesn't matter if Earth is stationary, which would then require a both moving and stationary aether, or if the aether is stationary, which then requires both a moving and stationary Earth, or both move at some speed. There is a contradiction.
In order to not have a contradiction, you need to have the speed of the aether realative to Earth be the same for both.
Of course! Statistics can't establish causality.
And that means they didn't prove it, nor was what they did anything like science.
The trouble is it is done the same way, by circular logic.
Not in science. You can't use the same set of data you used to make your hypothesis to test it.
You need a different set of data.
So that is not science and is nothing like how science is actually done (the science you hate and reject).
-
Show me the pull. Explain where the pull is and I'll happily show you there isn't one.
I already did, repeatedly. Remember this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/HoVTW2S.png)
Or would you prefer the more simpler one with just the single link you can't explain?
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
There is a force pushing the right hand side of the link to the right.
But at best (and this being generous) that pushing force can only affect the dark region of the link. You need a pulling force where the right of the link pulls the left.
It has also been explained how trying to appeal to smaller links won't help your case, as it just pushes the problem back.
Now again, going to stop avoiding the real issue?
How your air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient?
Are you capable of honestly and rationally justifying your position, or are you only capable of these repeated dishonest dodges?
There is absolutely nothing in your pictures that show pull.
It's all push.
If you want to delve deeper into the actual make up of the link then understand that expansion or contraction is the key to the stress or breaking of the links. This means a push in any and all directions of force.
-
There is absolutely nothing in your pictures that show pull.
It's all push.
See what I mean? Instead of explaining how it works with pull, you just dismiss it and instead claim it is all push.
If you actually could justify your position of how it is all push, you would explain how the right side manages to push the left side to the right.
The fact that you don't explain how it works magically with only a push shows you likely know that it relies upon a pulling force and just don't want to admit it.
Likewise, the fact you keep latching onto it rather than dealing with the bigger issue of your model shows that you likely know that your model is garbage with no hope of matching reality.
Again, how does the air push things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
We know for a fact that the pressure below an object is greater than the pressure above.
This is even more apparent when the object creates a seal in a tube and compresses the air below with its weight, until the pressure difference can counter the weight.
If it was only the air, this greater pressure below will push the object up.
Likewise, if it is only the air, it doesn't matter what the object is made of, it will be pushed up by the greater pressure below.
This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.
In order to have it match reality you need to have a force act on the mass of the object to generate its weight. (and that applies to the air as well).
The air still pushes all objects up, but now it needs to overcome this weight force.
And the buoyant, upwards force from the air is based upon the density of air and the volume of air displaced. Meanwhile the downwards force is proportional to the density of the object and its volume.
That means an object denser than air has the weight win, and it falls, while an object less dense than the air has the buoyant force win and go up.
Having this force acting on mass, rather than pretending it is all the air, actually explains what is observed in reality.
Just the air doesn't.
-
There is absolutely nothing in your pictures that show pull.
It's all push.
See what I mean? Instead of explaining how it works with pull, you just dismiss it and instead claim it is all push.
If you actually could justify your position of how it is all push, you would explain how the right side manages to push the left side to the right.
The fact that you don't explain how it works magically with only a push shows you likely know that it relies upon a pulling force and just don't want to admit it.
I explained perfectly well.
You refused to accept it.
I can't force you to, so this is where you're at.
Likewise, the fact you keep latching onto it rather than dealing with the bigger issue of your model shows that you likely know that your model is garbage with no hope of matching reality.
I don't believe it is garbage but I certainly believe gravity is absolute garbage.
Again, how does the air push things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
Because it pushes up, as I explained before.
below pushes above and above pushes below. Push and resistance both ways, equally, overall.
Applied energy = returned energy, equally.
We know for a fact that the pressure below an object is greater than the pressure above.
Yep but only because it's got a greater resistance by compression from the above.
Remember this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYYVXF6h/atmospheric-stack.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This is even more apparent when the object creates a seal in a tube and compresses the air below with its weight, until the pressure difference can counter the weight.
Can you explain exactly what you mean with this?
If it was only the air, this greater pressure below will push the object up.
Pressure below can only push an object up for two reasons.
1. The object is forced up physically.
2. The object is aided by massive expansion of atmosphere by breakdown of gases. For example, a helium balloon and basket or a hot air balloon and basket, etc.
Likewise, if it is only the air, it doesn't matter what the object is made of, it will be pushed up by the greater pressure below.
Objects stay on the ground because the object itself displaces the atmosphere above and around it which clamps right back onto the objects mass and keeps it on the ground.
It sits within the stacking system.
I explained all this but you make out I didn't.
This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.
No.
I explained why.
In order to have it match reality you need to have a force act on the mass of the object to generate its weight. (and that applies to the air as well).
The force is atmospheric pressure.
It's a push on push or push against resistance to push. Whichever way you want it.
Dense mass displacing atmospheric mass.
The air still pushes all objects up, but now it needs to overcome this weight force.
When an object sits on the ground, untethered, the object is resisted by the foundation, be it water or ground or a liquid that is dense enough to hold it from sinking.
If the object sits above ground without tether, it is holding enough broken down gases to become less dense and more expanded, meaning it will be crushed up to meet its gaseous volume at whatever height that is, in the stack.
Whatever holds it will be breached and fall back to the ground because it overcomes below resistance aided by above push, in equal terms.
-
@jackblack part 1 of 2
Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.
I understand why you think this, but it is wrong. Matter is manifestly real and tangible, and the quantumnists are deluded and wrong.
Interesting opinion. Im wondering though how do you reconcile this opinion with the incredible leaps we are currently making with quantum computing?
For example -
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100052172&utm_content=deeplink
Here a modern 53 quantum bit computing structure was able to solve an incredibly difficult problem in about 10 minutes. That same problem would take the worlds largest supercomputer (at the time, it was in 2019) over a year to solve, or would take 50 TRILLION core-hours on cloud servers and consume one petawatt hour of energy!
I would ask how you imagine such an incredible machine could exist if the theory behind its operation is deluded and wrong? Did the engineers just guess how to do things and somehow ended up luckily with a 1.5 trillion times computational speed-up? Is the whole thing a sham and part of the greater science conspiracy that would be required for your worldview?
Or do you just ignore things like this, cocoon yourself into into a little box where you try not to deeply consider things that conflict with your beliefs and opinions?
Genuinely interested.
-
I explained perfectly well.
Stop lying.
You asserted it was all push and dismissed it.
If you actually had an explanation you would have provided it.
I can't force you to admit you don't' have an explanation, nor force you to do the impossible by making one up and providing, so this is where YOU are at. Blatantly lying to pretend to have explained something, because you can't actually explain it.
And using this distraction to avoid your inability to explain why things fall.
Because it pushes up, as I explained before.
If the air pushes up, that means it pushes the object up not down.
If you want to claim the object magically pushes up you need to explain what causes it to push up in the first place.
Again, it is quite simple, the pressure is greater below. That will push the object up.
To claim otherwise is claiming that you can have the air defy the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and spontaneously a region of high pressure, without cause.
Remember this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYYVXF6h/atmospheric-stack.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Your diagram which you proivide and pretend it explains something when it doesn't at all?
Yes, I remember it quite well.
It doesn't help you explain why the air pushes things down. The air at the bottom is compressed and will push up.
While we are bringing up old images, remember this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
The one that clearly shows you need something other than the atmosphere to pressure gradient in the first place?
As otherwise (i.e. without W) F=G and the force and pressure is constant?
Can you explain exactly what you mean with this?
That has already been explained, stop playing dumb.
If you place a heavy object in a tube such that it creates a seal against the wall of the tube, and the other end of the tube is sealed, it will fall down to some extent and compress the air below it.
Pressure below can only push an object up for two reasons.
1. The object is forced up physically.
2. The object is aided by massive expansion of atmosphere by breakdown of gases. For example, a helium balloon and basket or a hot air balloon and basket, etc.
1. Do you mean by the air below?
If so, that isn't surprising. If not, that isn't the air pushing it up, that is something else pushing it up.
As for 2. No, pure nonsense, any compressed air can do it.
For example, you can compress the air by pushing the object down, and then when you let go, the compressed air below pushes it back up.
The only way the air can push an object down is if the pressure below is less than the pressure above.
Objects stay on the ground
Forget the ground. Again, if you want to go down that path, the same applies to a wall and a ceiling and you are even worse shape.
I explained all this but you make out I didn't.
You mean you ignored the actual issue and tried to explain something else, with that explanation just causing you more problems.
This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.
No.
I explained why.
No, you continually avoided the explanation.
Again, if it is just the air, then both objects are effected equally.
You need something other than the air to explain why the lead weight falls and the balloon rises.
The force is atmospheric pressure.
The point is you need a force OTHER than atmospheric pressure.
It clearly is not what is causing objects to fall.
When an object sits on the ground
Deal with an object in mid air, with nothing touching it other than the air.
Again, going based upon how air is repeatedly observed to work, if that was the only force at play, as the pressure is greater below, the air would push the object up, not down. And it would push every object up.
-
Because it pushes up, as I explained before.
If the air pushes up, that means it pushes the object up not down.
Only if the object is broken down and expanded to become less dense than the molecules below, which are more tightly packed and try to crush the object but only achieve a crush up.
I explained this but clearly you didn't pay attention, as usual.
If you want to claim the object magically pushes up you need to explain what causes it to push up in the first place.
I did.
The below more dense atmospheric matter crushes it up.
It's like sitting in the bath with your wet bar of soap and trying to squeeze it in your cupped hands.
Same thing with atmosphere and objects with less dense mass against the mass below.
Again, it is quite simple, the pressure is greater below. That will push the object up.
The pressure is only greater below because of the stacked atmosphere above.
Every stack pushes the next from ground up by resistance to push.
The more compressed and more molecules are at the bottom.
The lesser are at the top due to mass breakdown and expansion with less layers making up a molecule, whereas below there are many more layers to each molecule and compressed.
To claim otherwise is claiming that you can have the air defy the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and spontaneously a region of high pressure, without cause.
Each stack of molecules defy the pressure below.
Maybe this will jog your memory, once again.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYYVXF6h/atmospheric-stack.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Remember this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYYVXF6h/atmospheric-stack.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Your diagram which you proivide and pretend it explains something when it doesn't at all?
Yes, I remember it quite well.
It doesn't help you explain why the air pushes things down. The air at the bottom is compressed and will push up.
The air at the bottom resists by push, which is why it is so compressed and under the highest psi upon us.
By pushing up it uses leverage of the ground which is its foundation to push back against the many many many stacks above, all of different states on push and compression to decompression.
While we are bringing up old images, remember this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
The one that clearly shows you need something other than the atmosphere to pressure gradient in the first place?
As otherwise (i.e. without W) F=G and the force and pressure is constant?
Yes I remember this one very well.
Take out the nonsensical G and replace it with the F (force) or R (resistance) or P (push). They all do the very same thing.
G is just a nothing added i n to make it appear that this push/resistance/force requires something magical.
It does not.
Can you explain exactly what you mean with this?
That has already been explained, stop playing dumb.
If you place a heavy object in a tube such that it creates a seal against the wall of the tube, and the other end of the tube is sealed, it will fall down to some extent and compress the air below it.
If there's no push from the top there's no movement.
If you have a minor bit of atmosphere trapped at the top, only then will you have a small bit of push which will move the object down a little.
If you were to add in a tiny pinhole at the side then your object, aided by the small bit of atmosphere above will cause a push back up of that air below, slowly but surely until your object touches the bottom, because the pressure above builds.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.
Pressure below can only push an object up for two reasons.
1. The object is forced up physically.
2. The object is aided by massive expansion of atmosphere by breakdown of gases. For example, a helium balloon and basket or a hot air balloon and basket, etc.
1. Do you mean by the air below?
If so, that isn't surprising. If not, that isn't the air pushing it up, that is something else pushing it up.
As for 2. No, pure nonsense, any compressed air can do it.
For example, you can compress the air by pushing the object down, and then when you let go, the compressed air below pushes it back up.
If you compress the air you are adding energy that wasn't there in the first place. So naturally you can push it up.
The only way the air can push an object down is if the pressure below is less than the pressure above.
Yep and this is where the above atmosphere plus the actual object itself overcomes the resistance below.
The same with the tube you mentioned, only this would be much quicker with the same object used, due ]to a push all around and a reaction alla round from below that takes it's place above to add to the downward force..
Objects stay on the ground
Forget the ground. Again, if you want to go down that path, the same applies to a wall and a ceiling and you are even worse shape.
Nope.
A ceiling means you need energy to be applied to the object to hold it there, or you need to break down the gases within the object to get it to stay on a ceiling or on a wall. Hence why window clamps work very well...also known (wrongly, in my honest opinion). as suction cups.
-
I explained all this but you make out I didn't.
You mean you ignored the actual issue and tried to explain something else, with that explanation just causing you more problems.
Nope. Just like I'm really putting in the effort once again, this is what I've done on many occasions, only for you to deny I have.
I'm trying to be nice and give you a break by seeing if you can accept I'm giving you answers/explanations from my side, whether you deny them or not.
This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.
No.
I explained why.
No, you continually avoided the explanation.
Again, if it is just the air, then both objects are effected equally.
You need something other than the air to explain why the lead weight falls and the balloon rises.
Everything is affected equally. Nothing can work unless this is the case.
Action and then immediate, equal reaction has to be the case at all times.
You only get out of something for what you put into it. Nothing more and nothing less.
The force is atmospheric pressure.
The point is you need a force OTHER than atmospheric pressure.
It clearly is not what is causing objects to fall.
No you don't need another force and in my honest opinion, it is exactly what makes things rise and fall or move horizontally.
Basically nothing works unless this is the case. Imo.
When an object sits on the ground
Deal with an object in mid air, with nothing touching it other than the air.
It depends on the object.
Give me some objects and I'll give you the scenarios and what is happening.
Again, going based upon how air is repeatedly observed to work, if that was the only force at play, as the pressure is greater below, the air would push the object up, not down. And it would push every object up.
No.
The air is all stacked.
It's like having (analogy) a stack of blankets.
The bottom blanket is not going to push the rest, up. It will resist the stack of blankets, though but it will be under the most pressure with the top blanket being under the least, if we take the blankets as being a stacked atmosphere analogy.
To push the rest up it would require energy greater than what is above.
If you were to inflate a balloon under the bottom blanket then you would create a push up of all the atmosphere above and around.
What you would be doing would be filling the balloon with some of the bottom blanket.
You would be compressing it into the balloon at that point which would make a hump. It would warp that stacking system at that point.
This would create an equal and opposite effect of having all blankets pushing back harder at that point due to that warping (bump).
And I'm under no illusions about how you will dismiss it all and claim I haven't explained.
This is for those who want to actually take the time to understand my points, so feel free to do what you wish.
-
When you get into the details of the earth... you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.
That is your faith, informed from conditioning by rote under the guise of education, yes. In reality, it is the opposite. The data you presume to exist, due to miseducation, doesn't.
Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.
Once again, in your models and belief - yes. In reality, whenever water's surface at rest is measured it is flat, level, and horizontal. You have no measurements to the contrary, nor does anyone. That is why this law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries. If you want to refute it, you (or anyone) must measure the sustained convex curvature of waters surface at rest required for the globe posit to be possible at all. This has never been done in all of human history, and whenever water's surface at rest is measured - it only has the one shape. Please do not use the "meniscus defense", as it is desperate non-sequitur.
to explain all matter imbued with weight
One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Most natural laws are this way; "scientific bedrock" more or less.
Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?
No! Nothing happens to the weight. It's the same as it ever was. It is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.
Ultimately we will have to discuss the difference between the object's intrinsic weight and the effective weight (weight with the buoyant force factored in), but it's all pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass" which exist only in equation and are in no way real/definable/measurable/manipuable), and magic is best left out of science!
No, jack. I don't need conditioning to observe a ship heading out to sea, vanishing from the bottom up, and not sinking. I also don't need conditioning to measure the horizon dip, when I climb a high mountain and look out at the horizon out to sea. No conditioning and no faith required. Just good ol common sense.
Oh, and we already have an answer to what weight is, verified by the astronauts which walked on the moon. I've been in university Laboratories where gravity on earth is measured using lasers. We can even measure the gravitational force of an atom. So, please don't waffle on like a crack head that we dont know what weight is, and how gravity affects mass and weight. Your buoyant force is too laughable for words, but might go some way to explaining why your head is stuck in the clouds.
-
When you get into the details of the earth... you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.
That is your faith, informed from conditioning by rote under the guise of education, yes. In reality, it is the opposite. The data you presume to exist, due to miseducation, doesn't.
Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.
Once again, in your models and belief - yes. In reality, whenever water's surface at rest is measured it is flat, level, and horizontal. You have no measurements to the contrary, nor does anyone. That is why this law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries. If you want to refute it, you (or anyone) must measure the sustained convex curvature of waters surface at rest required for the globe posit to be possible at all. This has never been done in all of human history, and whenever water's surface at rest is measured - it only has the one shape. Please do not use the "meniscus defense", as it is desperate non-sequitur.
to explain all matter imbued with weight
One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Most natural laws are this way; "scientific bedrock" more or less.
Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?
No! Nothing happens to the weight. It's the same as it ever was. It is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.
Ultimately we will have to discuss the difference between the object's intrinsic weight and the effective weight (weight with the buoyant force factored in), but it's all pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass" which exist only in equation and are in no way real/definable/measurable/manipuable), and magic is best left out of science!
No, jack. I don't need conditioning to observe a ship heading out to sea, vanishing from the bottom up, and not sinking. I also don't need conditioning to measure the horizon dip, when I climb a high mountain and look out at the horizon out to sea. No conditioning and no faith required. Just good ol common sense.
Oh, and we already have an answer to what weight is, verified by the astronauts which walked on the moon. I've been in university Laboratories where gravity on earth is measured using lasers. We can even measure the gravitational force of an atom. So, please don't waffle on like a crack head that we dont know what weight is, and how gravity affects mass and weight. Your buoyant force is too laughable for words, but might go some way to explaining why your head is stuck in the clouds.
Your appeals to what you believe are your authority, are mammoth.
-
Only if the object is broken down and expanded to become less dense than the molecules below
No, again it would have NOTHING to do with the object.
If it is the air pushing, it is entirely the air that determines it, not the object.
If you are appealing to the object you are effectively admitting that it is NOT the air.
Again, if it is just the air, the higher pressure below will push an object up regardless of what the object is made of.
I explained this but clearly you didn't pay attention, as usual.
No, as usual, you just spouted a bunch of nonsense which did not address the issue at all.
What you need to do is address the actual pressure gradient and how the air magically violates it.
The below more dense atmospheric matter crushes it up.
So you are saying the air below pushes the object up?
And then you are claiming pure nonsense of this magically then causing the air to push the object down, for no reason at all?
The pressure is only greater below because of the stacked atmosphere above.
It doesn't matter why it is greater below. The point it is greater below and that will push the object up.
And you still can't explain why it is greater below.
To claim otherwise is claiming that you can have the air defy the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and spontaneously a region of high pressure, without cause.
Each stack of molecules defy the pressure below.
And that is another massive problem. You have no way to justify the existence of this pressure gradient.
Your model continually contradicts how air is repeatedly observed to behave.
You need a force acting on the air to cause the pressure gradient, and that force has to be something OTHER than the air.
The air at the bottom resists by push, which is why it is so compressed and under the highest psi upon us.
By pushing up it uses leverage of the ground which is its foundation to push back against the many many many stacks above, all of different states on push and compression to decompression.
This would make it the same pressure throughout.
It is just like horizontally, we don't magically see a pressure gradient against a wall.
Yes I remember this one very well.
Take out the nonsensical G and replace it with the F (force) or R (resistance) or P (push).
There is no nonsense in my diagram, just simple logic you can't refute.
G=F+W.
If W is 0, because all there is is the air pushing down, then F=G and there is no pressure gradient.
That is a simple fact that you cannot escape.
It doesn't matter what you want to label them, the fact remains that without a force in addition to the air above pushing down, there will not be a pressure gradient.
That means you need some force, like gravity, to explain the pressure gradient in the first place.
If there's no push from the top there's no movement.
Again, pure nonsense.
If there is a net force on the object, there is movement. It doesn't matter where that force comes from.
The problem for you is that your model can't explain why it gets pushed down.
You also seem to be trying to equate this much simpler example to a barometer, which you likewise can't explain.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.
Not in the slightest.
If you compress the air you are adding energy that wasn't there in the first place. So naturally you can push it up.
And the air below is compressed even normally, meaning it has that energy to push the object up.
So naturally the more compressed air below will push an object up.
The only way the air can push an object down is if the pressure below is less than the pressure above.
Yep and this is where the above atmosphere plus the actual object itself
Again, by appealing to the object itself you are appealing to gravity or a force just like it which is acting on the object trying to move it down, rather than just the air.
Again, if it actually was pushed down by the air, and the air replaces gravity, the object doesn't matter.
A ceiling means you need energy to be applied to the object to hold it there
Which shows your argument is pure garbage.
Your argument is that the object uses its foundation to resist the air. But there is no justification for why that foundation needs to be below the object, rather than to the side or above. This means you also have no justification for why it requires a force (not energy) to hold it up, but not down.
This is especially important given the pressure gradient will try to push the object up.
-
Just like I'm really putting in the effort once again
No, you are just ignoring the same issues again and again, without actually addressing them and repeatedly contradicting yourself.
Until you actually address the issues, I'm not going to accept that you have provided an explanation, as you haven't.
For example, you need to either explain how the AIR ALONE pushes an object down even though the pressure below is greater and thus the net force from the air pushes the object up.
Or if you are going to continually appeal to the object itself, then you need to directly and explicitly admit that it is not the air pushing the object and instead it is some other force which can overcome the net upwards force from the air.
Because you are appealing to the object itself, you are claiming there is some force, other than the air, making this object try to move down. So the air is trying to make it move up with some force (lets call it the buoyant force), while some other force (lets call it gravity) tries to make the object move down.
If the former wins, such as is the case with a helium filled balloon, the object goes up. If the latter wins such as with a lead weight, the object goes down.
This additional force acting directly on the object works to explain reality, but means it isn't just the air.
You can't have it both ways.
Either it is just the air, and you can't appeal to this extra force trying to make the object go down, and thus can only appeal to the air meaning the force is the same regardless of what the object is made of; or you use this additional force, and that means you can't honestly claim it is just the air.
You appeal to gravity (without calling it that) while claiming it is fake and that everything is caused by the air and being incapable of explaining it with just the air.
That is the big issue you continually deflect from and refuse to put in the effort and honesty to address.
Everything is affected equally. Nothing can work unless this is the case.
Which means that both the lead weight and helium balloon will be pushed up by the atmosphere.
No you don't need another force and in my honest opinion
Then stop appealing to the object itself, and explain how just the air manages to push the object down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient.
Again, just baselessly dismissing the problem and ignoring the issue and asserting the same baseless, refuted claim, is not explaining anything.
It depends on the object.
No, if it is just the air pushing it, it doesn't depend on the object at all.
The air is all stacked.
Yes, because of gravity. And this stacked atmosphere causes it to push objects up, causing them to apparently weigh less.
Just like if you put it in water it weighs even less.
Don't bother appealing to an analogy which relies upon gravity in its explanation to try to pretend you have an explanation.
All that does is restate the problem you can't address.
Again, it is the same problem as in the diagram you seem to hate and dismiss as nonsense even though you have no rational objection to it:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Without a force acting on the object, other than the force from the layer above, there is no pressure gradient.
If it is just the force above, you have the same pressure throughout (or if it isn't a fluid, the same force throughout).
You need a force acting on each layer, on each blanket, to have that pressure increase and to keep that pressure there. If that force magically turned off, the bottom layer would expand, pushing the above layers up, and this would continue until the pressure/force is constant throughout.
Again, this can easily be seen by turning the entire system on its side.
You need a force like gravity to explain reality.
And I'm under no illusions about how you will dismiss it all and claim I haven't explained.
You mean how I will clearly show how you still haven't addressed the issues and thus haven't actually explained anything?
-
When you get into the details of the earth... you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.
That is your faith, informed from conditioning by rote under the guise of education, yes. In reality, it is the opposite. The data you presume to exist, due to miseducation, doesn't.
Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.
Once again, in your models and belief - yes. In reality, whenever water's surface at rest is measured it is flat, level, and horizontal. You have no measurements to the contrary, nor does anyone. That is why this law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries. If you want to refute it, you (or anyone) must measure the sustained convex curvature of waters surface at rest required for the globe posit to be possible at all. This has never been done in all of human history, and whenever water's surface at rest is measured - it only has the one shape. Please do not use the "meniscus defense", as it is desperate non-sequitur.
to explain all matter imbued with weight
One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Most natural laws are this way; "scientific bedrock" more or less.
Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?
No! Nothing happens to the weight. It's the same as it ever was. It is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.
Ultimately we will have to discuss the difference between the object's intrinsic weight and the effective weight (weight with the buoyant force factored in), but it's all pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass" which exist only in equation and are in no way real/definable/measurable/manipuable), and magic is best left out of science!
No, jack. I don't need conditioning to observe a ship heading out to sea, vanishing from the bottom up, and not sinking. I also don't need conditioning to measure the horizon dip, when I climb a high mountain and look out at the horizon out to sea. No conditioning and no faith required. Just good ol common sense.
Oh, and we already have an answer to what weight is, verified by the astronauts which walked on the moon. I've been in university Laboratories where gravity on earth is measured using lasers. We can even measure the gravitational force of an atom. So, please don't waffle on like a crack head that we dont know what weight is, and how gravity affects mass and weight. Your buoyant force is too laughable for words, but might go some way to explaining why your head is stuck in the clouds.
Your appeals to what you believe are your authority, are mammoth.
You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.
-
You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.
Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.
You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.
And fair enough. Many are like you.
I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.
-
Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.
Projection much?
The observations are quite objective. The RE explains them just fine, the FE needs to resort to all sorts of nonsense and still fails.
Just like gravity explain the motion of objects just fine, while your magic air can't.
A nice simple question to get you started:
What causes an object to fall?
Is it purely the air pushing it down, or is there some other force or property of the object which makes it go down?
-
You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.
Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.
You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.
And fair enough. Many are like you.
I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.
No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.
My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?
The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.
It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building. Everything is relative.
Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.
-
Which shows your argument is pure garbage.
Ok, feel free to carry this on.
-
No, you are just ignoring the same issues again and again, without actually addressing them and repeatedly contradicting yourself.
There's no contradictions from my side but definitely inability to grasp from your side.
-
A nice simple question to get you started:
What causes an object to fall?
Is it purely the air pushing it down, or is there some other force or property of the object which makes it go down?
Yes it is purely the air pushing it down for the mass to overcome the atmospheric resistance below which is immediately added to the push down as it's pushed out of the way and back up the sides of the object.
It's all about putting your mind to work on it instead of going into reject mode because it doesn't suit.
-
You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.
Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.
You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.
And fair enough. Many are like you.
I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.
No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.
My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?
The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.
It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building. Everything is relative.
Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.
Do I lay the dial flat?
Will it record 24 hours?
Tell me how it works on your globe, seeing as you have one on your roof.
-
You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.
Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.
You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.
And fair enough. Many are like you.
I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.
No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.
My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?
The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.
It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building. Everything is relative.
Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.
Do I lay the dial flat?
Will it record 24 hours?
Tell me how it works on your globe, seeing as you have one on your roof.
Your refusal to do experiments is noticeable. The sun dial will record from sunrise to sunset, which is why it is called a "sun" dial.
Just jam a pencil through a piece of cardboard and stand it up. It doesn't have to be fancy. A little more doing and a little less fantasizing and speculating, would do you a world of good.
-
Which shows your argument is pure garbage.
Ok, feel free to carry this on.
You are the one carrying on, continually twisting questions and situations to try to pretend your nonsense works.
How about you stop with that and start answering the simple questions and addressing the simple issues which show your model is wrong?
While you continue to ignore these issues and questions I will continue to dismiss your model as garbage.
No, you are just ignoring the same issues again and again, without actually addressing them and repeatedly contradicting yourself.
There's no contradictions from my side but definitely inability to grasp from your side.
Ignoring the contradictions wont magically make them go away. I have clearly explained the contradictions. If you want to claim there isn't any you need to explain how it isn't, and you haven't done that. Instead you just continually contradict yourself.
Again, a nice simple question to show this contradiction:
Are you claiming that the object is pushed down entirely by the air, or are you claiming there is a force or something act in addition to the air to push the object down?
Your entire argument and claim and model and the like is based upon it all being the air, and the air alone. All so you can reject gravity.
But then when push comes to shove and you need to explain how some things fall and some things float, (especially with the pressure being greater below meaning the air will push up) you instead appeal to the object itself somehow overcoming the air, meaning it isn't just the air. Instead you are appealing to another force, separate from the air, acting on the mass of the object to move it down. That force is gravity.
So yes, there is a massive contradiction.
And again, this is shown by your repeated refusal to answer simple questions.
If there weren't any contradictions you would be happy to answer those questions and stick with the answers.
It certainly isn't an issue with my ability to grasp your nonsense.
Yes it is purely the air pushing it down for the mass to overcome the atmospheric resistance below
Again, if it is purely the air pushing down, the mass doesn't matter.
It is simply the air pushing down, overcoming the resistance below.
The problem is that that resistance below is greater than the push of the air above, and that different objects act differently.
Again, if it was just the air, the air would push all objects the same.
So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.
If you appeal to anything else, like the mass of the object, then you are not having it just be the air and thus are contradicting yourself.
It's all about putting your mind to work on it instead of going into reject mode because it doesn't suit.
There you go projecting again.
I have put my mind to work. It is why I reject your model, due to the contradictions.
You should try actually putting your mind to work, and analysing your model holistically instead of in tiny parts.
-
You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.
Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.
You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.
And fair enough. Many are like you.
I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.
No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.
My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?
The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.
It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building. Everything is relative.
Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.
Do I lay the dial flat?
Will it record 24 hours?
Tell me how it works on your globe, seeing as you have one on your roof.
Your refusal to do experiments is noticeable. The sun dial will record from sunrise to sunset, which is why it is called a "sun" dial.
Just jam a pencil through a piece of cardboard and stand it up. It doesn't have to be fancy. A little more doing and a little less fantasizing and speculating, would do you a world of good.
I'm just ensuring you know what you're saying.
So the cardboard is stood up and a pencil shoved through which explained, what?
-
So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.
I already explained all this not too far back. A few posts up.
Go and read them again then get back to me.
-
So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.
I already explained all this not too far back. A few posts up.
Go and read them again then get back to me.
I have read it, and you didn't explain it, instead you directly contradicted yourself.
Instead of having it just be the air, you instead claimed that the object itself is pushing down and overcoming the air below.
So again, which is it? Is it just the air, or is the object as well?
If it is just the air, explain how the air pushes the object down, without appealing to any property of the object except its volume/the surface in contact with air.
I know you wont do that, because you can't, because it is physically impossible to do so.
And I know you wont be honest and admit that it isn't the air, because that severely weakens your irrational attack on gravity.
-
So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.
I already explained all this not too far back. A few posts up.
Go and read them again then get back to me.
I have read it, and you didn't explain it, instead you directly contradicted yourself.
Instead of having it just be the air, you instead claimed that the object itself is pushing down and overcoming the air below.
So again, which is it? Is it just the air, or is the object as well?
It's both like I explained not too far back, which you obviously didn't bother to take any notice of...or you did but will never let on you did because then you wouldn't be able to go into a frenzy.
If it is just the air, explain how the air pushes the object down, without appealing to any property of the object except its volume/the surface in contact with air.
I can't use the volume of an object is not what displaces the atmosphere, because it's already part of it.
You've been told this dozens of times, so how come you're stuck back a this?
I know you wont do that, because you can't, because it is physically impossible to do so.
And I know you wont be honest and admit that it isn't the air, because that severely weakens your irrational attack on gravity.
I don't need to attack gravity. It doesn't exist to attack.
-
Scepti, gravity is the name of the downward force, we and everything else in this world, experiences. If buoyancy were the explanation, what would make things go down, and not up, or to the sides? If density were an explanation, different objects would move at different speeds. Instead, they all fall downward at the same constant speed. Buoyancy and density are not even forces.
Gravity exists. Gravity is a force. Prove it doesn't exist.
-
Scepti, gravity is the name of the downward force, we and everything else in this world, experiences. If buoyancy were the explanation, what would make things go down, and not up, or to the sides? If density were an explanation, different objects would move at different speeds. Instead, they all fall downward at the same constant speed. Buoyancy and density are not even forces.
Gravity exists. Gravity is a force. Prove it doesn't exist.
If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.
If you paid attention you'd that the reason why this happens is due to atmospheric displacement by mass.
If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.
I'm pretty sure you won't give it a thought...maybe you can't vision it....but you're more than happy to vision something which you absolutely do not know to be any force, at all and for any reason other than to follow a mass on mass attraction in the name of gravity.
-
If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.
For most objects, when they start falling the difference in speed is negligible.
But this difference goes against your model, with denser objects accelerating slightly faster and with a greater terminal velocity.
If your nonsense was correct, the less dense objects, with lass mass to accelerate, should be accelerated faster by the air pushing them down.
If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.
Do you mean more pressurised below?
If so, unless there is a force to counter that pressure (like gravity) it will push the object up, as repeatedly explained to you.
The fact that objects fall, in complete defiance of that pressure gradient, shows it isn't the air doing it.
-
Scepti, gravity is the name of the downward force, we and everything else in this world, experiences. If buoyancy were the explanation, what would make things go down, and not up, or to the sides? If density were an explanation, different objects would move at different speeds. Instead, they all fall downward at the same constant speed. Buoyancy and density are not even forces.
Gravity exists. Gravity is a force. Prove it doesn't exist.
If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.
If you paid attention you'd that the reason why this happens is due to atmospheric displacement by mass.
If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.
I'm pretty sure you won't give it a thought...maybe you can't vision it....but you're more than happy to vision something which you absolutely do not know to be any force, at all and for any reason other than to follow a mass on mass attraction in the name of gravity.
The reason objects may vary slightly in speed falling, can be attributed to aerodynamics and air friction. Haven't you ever heard of a vacuum chamber where there is no air above or below a falling object, and it still falls downward - two falling objects with different shape and masses at exactly the same speed.
You have an explanation, sceptimatic?
-
If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.
For most objects, when they start falling the difference in speed is negligible.
But this difference goes against your model, with denser objects accelerating slightly faster and with a greater terminal velocity.
If your nonsense was correct, the less dense objects, with lass mass to accelerate, should be accelerated faster by the air pushing them down.
Absolutely not the case and you know it.
I think you have the mindset on two dense objects dropped a small distance to the ground.
The reality is most objects do fall at different rates depending on their dense mass.
Why?
It's equal reaction to energetic action.
If you push something up the effort required depends on the dense mass of the objects displacement of that atmosphere from bottom to where the energy is released from pushing it, meaning it now still compresses the atmosphere all around it.
It sits in the varying stacks from bottom to top of the object. This pushes the stack aside and up. It warps it and that stacking system has more stacks above that which has been compressed.
This reacts by pushing back onto the object against the below resistance of stacked atmosphere which creates a snap back into form as the object is pushed down and displaces atmosphere below which does the same by reacting and snapping back into shape with more force, propelling the object down into more compact atmospheric resistance and so on and so on until the object becomes equal with the force above against the denser resistance below. What people term as, terminal velocity.
That terminal velocity and where it becomes that is determined by the amount of force it took to get the dense mass of any object to a certain height and how much energy was applied, which determines the push/squeeze back down to overcome below resistance in those stacks.
If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.
Do you mean more pressurised below?
The atmosphere below is much more densely packed. More molecules per area that the stack above and the stack above that and so on and so on and so on.
Of course it's more pressurised. It also creates more resistance and also requires more effort to overcome.
This has all been explained to you but you've decided it didn't happen, right?
If so, unless there is a force to counter that pressure (like gravity) it will push the object up, as repeatedly explained to you.
The fact that objects fall, in complete defiance of that pressure gradient, shows it isn't the air doing it.
There doesn't have to be any force to counter the pressure.
The stacking system sees to that.
It's a force all on it's own which can be manipulated by energy, frequency of vibration/friction.
-
The reason objects may vary slightly in speed falling, can be attributed to aerodynamics and air friction. Haven't you ever heard of a vacuum chamber where there is no air above or below a falling object, and it still falls downward - two falling objects with different shape and masses at exactly the same speed.
You have an explanation, sceptimatic?
Yes.
The chamber is never evacuated. It still has pressure.
It still produces exactly the same reaction to energetic action against what is put into it.
Anything pushed up will be pushed back down.
The only difference is, it's against less resistance so naturally the push down will encounter much less friction below.
As simple as that.
The vacuum is nonsense.
To evacuate all atmosphere would be to cease to exist.
Have a good think on that.
-
Absolutely not the case and you know it.
You mean it absolutely is the case, and we both know it.
I think you have the mindset on two dense objects dropped a small distance to the ground.
Yes, when the effect of air is negligible.
It is only when you drop it for a long period of time, such that have enough velocity to start experiencing significant air resistance that it starts to deviate significantly, based upon the mass and shape of the object.
Why?
Because there is the force of gravity on their mass, trying to accelerate them at a constant rate, with a greater force for a more massive object, but the air does not give a damn about their mass and instead interacts based upon the shape of the object.
The reality is most objects do fall at different rates depending on their dense mass.
So with 2 objects, of the shape but different masses, the heavier object has a greater terminal velocity and will fall faster over a long period than the lighter object.
This makes perfect sense in the conventional model, but no sense at all in your model.
Again, before you even bother trying to explain anything at all which is even slightly complex like that, you need to first explain how the air manages to push an object down in the first place, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere below is much more densely packed. More molecules per area that the stack above and the stack above that and so on and so on and so on.
Of course it's more pressurised. It also creates more resistance and also requires more effort to overcome.
This has all been explained to you but you've decided it didn't happen, right?
You haven't actually explained why it is dense, but again the point is that additional pressure below will push the object up.
You need a force to cause that pressure, and you have none.
There doesn't have to be any force to counter the pressure.
The stacking system sees to that.
It's a force all on it's own which can be manipulated by energy, frequency of vibration/friction.
The stacking system relies upon a force, a force you cannot explain.
Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?
If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant. You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.
-
Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?
The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.
If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant.
You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.
Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?
-
Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?
The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.
If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant.
You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.
Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?
So youre saying the static and dynamic pressure of air that we know is the cause of "predictable downward accelleration"?
-
Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?
The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.
If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant.
You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.
Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?
So youre saying the static and dynamic pressure of air that we know is the cause of "predictable downward accelleration"?
Atmosphere is never static.
-
What type of pressure pushes us down?
-
The reason objects may vary slightly in speed falling, can be attributed to aerodynamics and air friction. Haven't you ever heard of a vacuum chamber where there is no air above or below a falling object, and it still falls downward - two falling objects with different shape and masses at exactly the same speed.
You have an explanation, sceptimatic?
Yes.
The chamber is never evacuated. It still has pressure.
It still produces exactly the same reaction to energetic action against what is put into it.
Anything pushed up will be pushed back down.
The only difference is, it's against less resistance so naturally the push down will encounter much less friction below.
As simple as that.
The vacuum is nonsense.
To evacuate all atmosphere would be to cease to exist.
Have a good think on that.
I've had a good think on that. I'm thinking there is more empty space between air molecules as your altitude increases. This is why aeroplanes have to be pressurised at 13km high. If they weren't, everybody on board, aside from freezing at -50 degrees celsius, would die from lack of oxygen.
So, the question becomes, what is the empty space between air molecules? You say it is nothing. It can't be nothing, because it is something between the air molecules.
You say a vacuum chamber is nonsense? At the risk of being too crude for school, have you never heard of a "penis pump"? How do you think that particular invention works, if a vacuum is nonsense? >:D
-
What type of pressure pushes us down?
Atmospheric pressure.
You see, back to square one again.
-
I've had a good think on that. I'm thinking there is more empty space between air molecules as your altitude increases.
There is no empty space. Everything is filled. No gaps, no scattered particles just flitting about in a nothingness.
Everything is attached, always. No exceptions.
This is why aeroplanes have to be pressurised at 13km high.
If they weren't, everybody on board, aside from freezing at -50 degrees celsius, would die from lack of oxygen.
Planes have to be pressurised because we live in a higher pressurised stacking system.
A plane must try and equal that as it flies at speed through the higher less dense atmosphere.
So, the question becomes, what is the empty space between air molecules? You say it is nothing. It can't be nothing, because it is something between the air molecules.
There is no empty space.
Molecules (in my opinion) are like layers, hence why I used the halved gobstopper to high-llght it.
You say a vacuum chamber is nonsense? At the risk of being too crude for school, have you never heard of a "penis pump"? How do you think that particular invention works, if a vacuum is nonsense? >:D
A penis pump evacuates air and creates a lower pressure.
The penis, as with any bodily tissue that is subjected to it, expands. It expands because it has to fill the lower pressure.
It's also pushed at the base by air trying to get back in to equalise that pressure.
It's the same reason why a boiled egg can be pushed through a bottle neck.
Have a think on it.
-
What is the filling of empty space between molecules? Tell me the name of that filling. What do you call it? If two molecules are separated, they are separated by something. What is that something?
It has different names. What name do you call it?
With the plane, we are talking about the cabin. We aren't talking about the materials that comprise the construction of the plane, sceptimatic. Pressurizing of a plane is the air in the cabin, only. The materials comprising the plane, does not change.
That pump, creates lower pressure via the removal of air, as it moves closer towards being a vacuum chamber.
Stop dilly dallying around, and name what the absence of air is.
-
Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?
The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.
No, that makes it compressed, but not more compressed.
As explained many times, you need an extra force acting on the layer other than the air around it.
If it is just the air around it, the pressure is constant.
Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?
Yes, the atmosphere, or an analogy of it.
You can either just measure that there is no pressure gradient against a wall horizontally, as there isn't that extra force, or you can use a piston arrangement to compress air in a container against a wall and again measure no horizontal pressure gradient, or you can use an analogy with springs, where again there is no horizontal pressure gradient.
This is because you don't have gravity, or whatever magical replacement you want to use, forcing the air sideways.
This shows you need an extra force forcing the air down.
This has to be in addition to the air above.
Without this extra force, there is no pressure gradient.
What type of pressure pushes us down?
Atmospheric pressure.
You see, back to square one again.
You mean you haven't left square 1.
Atmospheric pressure pushes us from all around, which effectively tries to crush us. Note that that isn't pushing down.
Yes, there is air above pushing us down, but there is also air below pushing us up.
The force pushing us up is greater due to the greater pressure below. So the atmosphere pushes us up, not down.
See, YOU still haven't left square 1, because you still can't explain how the atmosphere pushes us down in defiance of the pressure gradient.
There is no empty space. Everything is filled. No gaps, no scattered particles just flitting about in a nothingness.
Everything is attached, always. No exceptions.
That is your baseless claim that you are yet to substantiate in any way.
This baseless claim is contradicted by plenty of evidence, such as electron microscopes, which do not work at atmospheric pressure, because the air stops the electrons, and need a quite good vacuum to get a decent image.
Then there is the behaviour of fluids/solids, where there is a clear transition from liquid to gas. This makes perfect sense in the context of a molecule of fluid breaking away from the bulk and then flying around with negligible interactions between the rest. If instead it was always in contact, you would just expect the liquid to expand and it be a blur between gas and liquid as the liquid becomes less and less viscous and more gas like as it slowly expands.
-
What is the filling of empty space between molecules? Tell me the name of that filling. What do you call it? If two molecules are separated, they are separated by something. What is that something?
It has different names. What name do you call it?
With the plane, we are talking about the cabin. We aren't talking about the materials that comprise the construction of the plane, sceptimatic. Pressurizing of a plane is the air in the cabin, only. The materials comprising the plane, does not change.
That pump, creates lower pressure via the removal of air, as it moves closer towards being a vacuum chamber.
Stop dilly dallying around, and name what the absence of air is.
Call it atmospheric molecular cover layers if you want something to grasp.
I'm sure you saw my gobstopper analogy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq1yqPxM/gobstopper.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)All you have to think of with that picture is where in that super dense molecular set of cover layers, is air.
As for a pump creating the removal of air, the pump is merely the external air pusher that allows decompression of the container by the expansion of the air itself against each other to fill the lower pressure created by that pump by its strength in forcing the external atmosphere back from pushing into the container.
The pump is indirect to the container.
-
Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?
The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.
No, that makes it compressed, but not more compressed.
As explained many times, you need an extra force acting on the layer other than the air around it.
If it is just the air around it, the pressure is constant.
You know atmosphere is more densely packed at sea level than mountain high.
You know it has to be stacked for it to be that way.
You know that the pressure fluctuates when energy is applied or when dense mass is applied to any area.
There is absolutely no need for fictional gravity to be involved.
Your gravity is said to be a pull from the centre of your Earth.
If this was the case then all your atmosphere would be as dense at the top because it would be all pulled down to the centre of mass, according to your set up.
We won't get into your moon pulling the water up from Earth despite Earth supposedly being 4 times as big with 6 times more of your magical gravity.
The whole set up is nonsensical gobbledygook and yet people swallow it with gusto. It shocks me, to be honest.
-
Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?
The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.
No, that makes it compressed, but not more compressed.
As explained many times, you need an extra force acting on the layer other than the air around it.
If it is just the air around it, the pressure is constant.
You know atmosphere s more densely packed at sea level than mountain high.
You know it has to be stacked for it to be that way.
You know that the pressure fluctuates when energy is applied or when dense mass is applied to any area.
There is absolutely no need for fictional gravity to be involved.
Your gravity is said to be a pull from the centre of your Earth.
If this was the case then all your atmosphere would be as dense at the top because it would be all pulled down to the centre of mass, according to your set up.
We won't get into your moon pulling the water up from Earth despite Earth supposedly being 4 times as big with 6 times more of your magical gravity.
The whole set up is nonsensical gobbledygook and yet people swallow it with gusto. It shocks me, to be honest.
Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic. Did your flat earth teacher give you that gobstopper to stop your gob from asking questions? You have skirted around naming what the fabric is, which separates molecules and atoms. Your gobstopper analogy, leaves me gobsmacked.
You mention the tides, and how fictional gravity of the moon could not possibly be the explanation. So, what is YOUR explanation for tides? Is it your magical gobstopper again?
It's a funny situation, isn't it, the way everything falls down towards earth, and air is strangely densest at earth's surface? These are indisputable facts that even you agree upon.
So, what force is stopping all that dense air moving upward, and every living creature on earth dying from lack of oxygen? By your own reasoning, storms and especially tornadoes, should suck and stir up all that dense air, to the point the air is evenly distributed inside the snow globe. By your own reckoning, gravity does not exist. So, why does it all happen?
Tell me what the space between atoms is, and then tell me the force that does everything the "fictional" gravity of earth achieves.
Your gobstopper explanation might work in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, but not here.
-
Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic. Did your flat earth teacher give you that gobstopper to stop your gob from asking questions? You have skirted around naming what the fabric is, which separates molecules and atoms.
Molecules will suffice, just to keep it normal for you people.
Your gobstopper analogy, leaves me gobsmacked.
It will do if you look at it as a simple sweet and don't have the brains to think what the analogy is.
You mention the tides, and how fictional gravity of the moon could not possibly be the explanation. So, what is YOUR explanation for tides? Is it your magical gobstopper again?
Pressure. Fluctuating pressure as the reflected energy moves over and around Earth's dome.
It's a funny situation, isn't it, the way everything falls down towards earth, and air is strangely densest at earth's surface? These are indisputable facts that even you agree upon.
It makes perfect sense to me.
It certainly would not on a globe.
For anything to stack it has to be under more pressure at the bottom than the top.
You being unable to grasp that is your issue.
So, what force is stopping all that dense air moving upward, and every living creature on earth dying from lack of oxygen?
Atmospheric stacking.
By your own reasoning, storms and especially tornadoes, should suck and stir up all that dense air, to the point the air is evenly distributed inside the snow globe.
First of all there is no sucking up.
Secondly tornado's come from above to the ground.
Thirdly the atmosphere at those point is what's largely impacted and the rest of it is marginal to minor to unnoticeable.
It's just having the ability to understand what's been said, which you can't.
By your own reckoning, gravity does not exist. So, why does it all happen?
Simple atmospheric stacking and any object that displaces that stacking at whatever point.
Tell me what the space between atoms is, and then tell me the force that does everything the "fictional" gravity of earth achieves.
There is no space. There cannot be space. Everything has to be filled.
Gravity is just a fictional name given to create space and have a working energy within that space.
It should be seen as nonsensical by those who spend a small time looking at it all....but, narratives and adherence to official lines, is strong with many people....sooooo....
Your gobstopper explanation might work in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, but not here.
When you think like granpa Joe, this would naturally be your conclusion.
It's like talking to people on a spectrum or simply just very dense.
-
Sceptimatic, your flat earth model invention, for the real world, doesn't work. You must know this already.
There is no air pressure from above keeping you or I on the earth. There is no stacking. There is layering in it's crude form, better described as a gradient. Molecules do not separate molecules. Molecules move freely around, which means there is a fabric different to molecules, between molecules.
Now you say there is a fluctuating pressure that moves magically around the ceiling of the dome to move the world's oceans? You just make this up as you go, don't you?
Did I miss your post where this is all just testing for an alternate reality virtual reality game you are creating, aka Alice in Wonderland style? If it is, bravo! Great invention, I'm sure you will make a lot of money from your idea where people have the ultimate escape from reality.
If you haven't slapped a copyright on it all, I might do it myself!
-
You just make this up as you go
Literally every scientific hypothesis so what's the problem?
-
You know atmosphere is more densely packed at sea level than mountain high.
Yes, the question is why. That is what you continually fail to provide.
Gravity explains it as a force acting on all matter trying to make it go down.
That provides the necessary force to make the air a greater pressure as you go further down.
Your model of it just being the air magically pushing down doesn't.
This is the issue you continually fail to address.
There is absolutely no need for fictional gravity to be involved.
If you don't want to involve very real gravity, you need to have something else to take its place, and the air simply doesn't cut it.
Your gravity is said to be a pull from the centre of your Earth.
If this was the case then all your atmosphere would be as dense at the top because it would be all pulled down to the centre of mass, according to your set up.
Pure BS, as repeatedly explained.
Including by the simple graphic you seem to hate as it so clearly shows the problem with your model:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
The air right at the top of the stack is just being pulled down by gravity, without anything above it.
However, when it falls down, it hits the air below. This means not only is the air below being pulled down by gravity, it is also being pushed down by the air above.
This layer in turn pushes down on the layer below with an even greater force.
For the simple case of the diagram, all the air above is pushing down with a force of F.
The middle layer transfers this force to the bottom, but also pushes down with its own weight of W. This means it pushes down on the bottom with a total force of F+W, the force due to the weight of air above pushing it down and the force due to gravity pulling it down.
All of this pushes down on the air below making the pressure greater below.
You can also understand it from the force balance.
The air is at a greater pressure below. This tries to push the air above up, due to the pressure gradient, but this is balanced out by the weight of that air above being pulled down by gravity.
This also matches the pressure gradient in a fluid.
For example, if you go ~ 10 m below the surface in water, you will have increased the pressure by roughly ~1 bar
That is because the density of water is roughly 1 000 kg/m^3.
So if you consider a 1 m^2 column of water, that is 10 m high, that has a total mass of ~10 000 kg. With g being ~ 10 m/s^2, this gives a weight/force of ~100 000 kg m/s^2 or ~100 000 N.
Thus the pressure due to this weight is ~ 100 kPa = 1 bar.
So gravity explained perfectly well why there is this pressure gradient.
Conversely your pure nonsense with no gravity and just magical air, can't explain it at all.
Again, turning the system sideways shows this.
If your nonsense was true, there would be sideways pressure gradients as well.
You need a force acting on each layer of air, separate from the air above and below, or you can't have a pressure gradient in a non-accelerating system.
And as I have told you before, you can even simulate gravity by an equivalent acceleration, and see the effects of this now horizontal pressure gradient, such as the buoyant force making a helium filled balloon move forwards in a vehicle which accelerates forwards, instead of more dense objects, which appear to accelerate backwards to an observer in the vehicle.
We won't get into your moon pulling the water up from Earth despite Earth supposedly being 4 times as big with 6 times more of your magical gravity.
Good, because you clearly don't understand that either.
The whole set up is nonsensical gobbledygook
Only for people like you, who want it to be fake so you can pretend your fantasy is correct.
For any honest, rational person, who honestly and rationally analyses, they find it makes perfect sense, and unlike your garbage, it actually explains what is observed in reality.
-
Sceptimatic, your flat earth model invention, for the real world, doesn't work. You must know this already.
wouldn't expect people like you to say any other. Why would you?
Your indoctrinated mindset is, globe. My mindset is not.
There is no air pressure from above keeping you or I on the earth.
Absolutely there is.
You just refuse to accept it because gravity has to be a massive part, even though you have absolutely no clue as to what it is.
There is no stacking.
Everything stacks, including atmosphere.
There is layering in it's crude form, better described as a gradient.
Layering in its crude form?
Maybe you can explain this layering in crude form and explain why.
Molecules do not separate molecules. Molecules move freely around, which means there is a fabric different to molecules, between molecules.
Molecules/matter can never move freely around.
Everything requires a medium to move in, which means everything is against resistance to motion, always. No free movement, at all.
Now you say there is a fluctuating pressure that moves magically around the ceiling of the dome to move the world's oceans? You just make this up as you go, don't you?
That depends.
What is anything if its not made up?
It's my theory, made up because I see how the potential works from simple experiments and doing my own jigsaw.
Fluctuating pressure is due to applied energy to any area.
Read what I said and absorb it. It seems you missed this.
Did I miss your post where this is all just testing for an alternate reality virtual reality game you are creating, aka Alice in Wonderland style?
No. I think you're getting mixed up with the fantasy stories told to you about living on a spinning global Earth.
If it is, bravo! Great invention, I'm sure you will make a lot of money from your idea where people have the ultimate escape from reality.
I'd say I'm escaping from being drawn into a lifelong global indoctrination. I'd honestly say that you are in a belief you are living in a reality that has on going storylines, like a soap and like many soap fans, will talk about it as a reality.
I genuinely believe that and I could've been doing it still if I'd never allowed myself to actually question all this stuff.
If you haven't slapped a copyright on it all, I might do it myself!
You feel free to do whatever you wish.
-
What type of pressure pushes us down?
Atmospheric pressure.
You see, back to square one again.
Square one - define atmospheric pressure and how it differs from regular air pressure.
Its been asked many times.
Keep avoiding the question and ill keep asking it.
-
Pure BS, as repeatedly explained.
Including by the simple graphic you seem to hate as it so clearly shows the problem with your model:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Is the W, weight?
If so, weight is an end product of measured mass against a foundation of a scale plate or anything that holds a scale off the ground with dense mass within or hooked on...etc.
Atmospheric stacking is very simply push against resistance equally in all directions.
Action and equal and opposite reaction.
Take away the G and the W and simply replace with P (push) and R(resistance).
This works above and below all the way up the stacks with each layer.
-
What type of pressure pushes us down?
Atmospheric pressure.
You see, back to square one again.
Square one - define atmospheric pressure and how it differs from regular air pressure.
Its been asked many times.
Keep avoiding the question and ill keep asking it.
Remember the gobstopper and its tight layers, right?
Imagine taking most of those layers away and having a set amount.
This would be our survivable air.
Reduce that and it becomes less dense as it sits a bit higher in the atmosphere because layers peel away and expand out to sit in the stack due to dense squeeze below trying to crush it back but succeeding in squeezing it up.
The higher the stacking system the more layers are peeled off and expand, or decompress...whichever way you want to visualise it.
No doubt you'll go right back to square one but what the hell.
-
None of that is a defintion of "atmosphere is..."
Try again
The word atomsphere means this and that and that and this, owed by a oicture of said taht of this of this of that.
Try it out
See if that aids your ability to communicate words so rhat others undedstand said words and are able to repeat, in theirbown words, back to you, in a sort of feedbakc loop, so that we all are in agreement to the definition of the common words used.
Now of course as previously mentioned by me and otheds, if your intent is to be a pos and cloud any sensible undersrand of YOUR words, then byall mwans, troll away
Sidenote
Pinhole?
Eyeball?
-
Pure BS, as repeatedly explained.
Including by the simple graphic you seem to hate as it so clearly shows the problem with your model:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Is the W, weight?
It can be considered the weight and would be by any sane person. But for this diagram, to avoid your nonsense about weight magically not being real, it is whatever force is acting on the air in addition to the air around it, which is trying to move it towards Earth which explains the pressure gradient.
Without this W you have F=G and thus there is no pressure gradient.
You need an extra force, no matter how much you want to pretend you don't.
Gravity provides this force and explains why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
Your air does not.
Atmospheric stacking is very simply push against resistance equally in all directions.
That is the key part, EQUAL!
That means it is the same force pushing up as pushing down. There would be no gradient. There would be no preferred directionality. Either of those requires it to be unequal.
Take away the G and the W and simply replace with P (push) and R(resistance).
No, you would need 2 separate ones.
You can take away F and replace it with P1, then take away -F and replace it with R1.
Then you do the same with G, making it P2, and with -G making it R2.
The air above pushes down, and it resists it, pushing back. Likewise, it pushes down on the air below, and it resists it.
But again, without this W, this force is the same and there is no gradient.
This push and resistance only works to explain a constant pressure from the bottom to the top, just like we can create sideways, where there is a constant pressure from left to right.
Again, you need an extra force to make the gradient.
There is no air pressure from above keeping you or I on the earth.
Absolutely there is.
Until you can explain how the air magically defies the pressure which should push things upwards, there certainly is no air holding us to Earth.
Molecules/matter can never move freely around.
Everything requires a medium to move in, which means everything is against resistance to motion, always. No free movement, at all.
This is just your baseless claim you have no hope of justifying. Repeating the same lie wont make it true.
Again, the way things boil and things like SEMs show that is not the case at all.
-
Without this W you have F=G and thus there is no pressure gradient.
The W (weight) is only a thing when mass can be placed on a person made measuring scale to measure mass displacement of atmosphere and using the scale plate as the foundation resistance to that.
Other than this, weight does not exist, so placing it in atmosphere without a solid foundation, does not work, except in fantasy, just like the G (so called gravity).
-
Weight only exists when measured?
-
Weight only exists when measured?
Yep.
On a scale that shows allocated numbers for the resistance of mass against atmosphere.
-
Does my displacement (denp) only exist when it is measured?
If i found a bag of rocks equal to my displacement(denp) when weighed, do we cease to be equal afterwards?
-
Does my displacement (denp) only exist when it is measured?
If i found a bag of rocks equal to my displacement(denp) when weighed, do we cease to be equal afterwards?
A bag of rocks has to be measured to have a weight. You have to be measured to have a weight.
No measurement, no weight.
All you would be, would be a dense mass in atmosphere with a resistance against whatever solid it is you are on.
Pretty simple but difficult for you because you are right back to the start, once again.
-
well you say the value of the weight is only valid when measured.
i am either always displacing(denP) this air or not.
the air is pushing me down with the same consistency or not?
if it is, then the measured value, as soon as i step off the scale is still the same freaking value and - so back to square one - your ISSUE with existence of weight is irrelevant.
glad we cleared that one up.
-
Without this W you have F=G and thus there is no pressure gradient.
The W (weight) is only a thing when mass can be placed on a person made measuring scale
Like we have been over countless times, if that garbage was true, unless you put a mass onto a scale, it wouldn't fall.
Things continue to exist, even when not measured.
The fact that things fall, even when they aren't measured shows that weight isn't just that reading on a scale.
But I already dealt with that, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, that force needs to exist in order to get your pressure gradient.
If you want to pretend that this force magically isn't weight and magically only becomes weight when you put it on a scale, go ahead, but it doesn't change the argument.
You need that force, a force acting on each layer other than a force from the air around it, to cause it to have a pressure gradient.
Without this force you have no pressure gradient.
And this is something you continually refuse to address, likely because you know that it kills your nonsense, because as soon as you have this, you have a force acting on mass other than air trying to move it towards Earth, meaning there is no need for your magical atmosphere.
so placing it in atmosphere without a solid foundation
Means that the object will fall because of this weight.
-
when a tree falls in the forest, and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?
-
You just make this up as you go
Literally every scientific hypothesis so what's the problem?
Lol! Nice to see you can climb out of the dungeon when scg releases your shackles.
The problem is a scientific hypothesis is subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable and testable. 'Nuff said.
Sceptimatic's lunacy is suitable for a children's book series or video game platform, where you dont have to worry about scientific evaluation.
-
well you say the value of the weight is only valid when measured.
i am either always displacing(denP) this air or not.
the air is pushing me down with the same consistency or not?
if it is, then the measured value, as soon as i step off the scale is still the same freaking value and - so back to square one - your ISSUE with existence of weight is irrelevant.
glad we cleared that one up.
You don't know your mass until you measure it to call it weight.
Simple as that.
-
Like we have been over countless times, if that garbage was true, unless you put a mass onto a scale, it wouldn't fall.
Things continue to exist, even when not measured.
Things do exist but only as mass, not weight, until they measure a weight on a person made scale that gives out a person made reading of that mass.
You would never be able to tell anyone how much you weigh if there were no scales.
All you would know is, this is heavier than that or this feels heavier and more dense than that.
Nothing more.
The scale is a resistance to mass placed upon it due to atmospheric displacement by that mass, which will give a reading of that resistance we call, weight.
-
well you say the value of the weight is only valid when measured.
i am either always displacing(denP) this air or not.
the air is pushing me down with the same consistency or not?
if it is, then the measured value, as soon as i step off the scale is still the same freaking value and - so back to square one - your ISSUE with existence of weight is irrelevant.
glad we cleared that one up.
You don't know your mass until you measure it to call it weight.
Simple as that.
But it exists nontheless.
So once again
Your point is a nonpoint.
It is irrelevant to any argument regarding gravity or denP.
The equivalent bag of rocks that your air(denp) makes is there whether or not you ever determine how many rocks it is in the first place.
It has as much relevance to your denP idea as your choice of bag colour.
Next time you bring up "weight" im going to tell you what colour my bag of rocks will be.
-
But it exists nontheless.
So once again
Your point is a nonpoint.
It is irrelevant to any argument regarding gravity or denP.
The equivalent bag of rocks that your air(denp) makes is there whether or not you ever determine how many rocks it is in the first place.
It has as much relevance to your denP idea as your choice of bag colour.
Next time you bring up "weight" im going to tell you what colour my bag of rocks will be.
Without a measuring tool like a scale, weight does not exist.
Get that firmly into your head.
The fact that measuring tools for the resistance of dense mass displacement against atmosphere, being made, we can measure a reading to give out a weight for mass.
Like I explained before but you don't ever seem to get, which never surprises me, anymore.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
-
But it exists nontheless.
So once again
Your point is a nonpoint.
It is irrelevant to any argument regarding gravity or denP.
The equivalent bag of rocks that your air(denp) makes is there whether or not you ever determine how many rocks it is in the first place.
It has as much relevance to your denP idea as your choice of bag colour.
Next time you bring up "weight" im going to tell you what colour my bag of rocks will be.
Without a measuring tool like a scale, weight does not exist.
Get that firmly into your head.
The fact that measuring tools for the resistance of dense mass displacement against atmosphere, being made, we can measure a reading to give out a weight for mass.
Like I explained before but you don't ever seem to get, which never surprises me, anymore.
Only applies to purple bags, not yellow
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration
This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say. What makes you think that’s actually how things work?
-
You don't know your mass until you measure it
Knowing it, and it existing, are 2 different things.
Just because you don't know the value of something until it is measured doesn't mean it only exists when you measure it.
Like we have been over countless times, if that garbage was true, unless you put a mass onto a scale, it wouldn't fall.
Things continue to exist, even when not measured.
Things do exist but only as mass, not weight, until they measure a weight on a person made scale that gives out a person made reading of that mass.
No, mass and weight are separate.
Mass is your resistance to motion. Weight is the downwards force trying to make you go to Earth.
The relationship between mass and weight varies as you move around Earth.
Again, without weight, things would not fall.
You would never be able to tell anyone how much you weigh if there were no scales.
But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have weight.
And yet again, you have tried to run off on a train of semantics to avoid the main point.
Once more, as clearly shown in this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, without that force of W, which has to act on the layer of air/whatever, in addition to the force from the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration
This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say. What makes you think that’s actually how things work?
By observation and simple experiments.
-
You don't know your mass until you measure it
Knowing it, and it existing, are 2 different things.
Just because you don't know the value of something until it is measured doesn't mean it only exists when you measure it.
Mass obviously exists. Measuring it to show a weight reading requires person made scales to show resistance of that mass against atmospheric pressure upon it.
Like we have been over countless times, if that garbage was true, unless you put a mass onto a scale, it wouldn't fall.
Things continue to exist, even when not measured.
Things do exist but only as mass, not weight, until they measure a weight on a person made scale that gives out a person made reading of that mass.
No, mass and weight are separate.
Mass is mass. Weight is the reading of it, as above.
Weight is the downwards force trying to make you go to Earth.
No.
Weight is a person made numbered reading of mass resistance to atmospheric pressure.
The relationship between mass and weight varies as you move around Earth.
Yep due to varying pressures.
Again, without weight, things would not fall.
Things only fall if energy is applied to raise the object up. Opposite reaction to that action, equally.
You would never be able to tell anyone how much you weigh if there were no scales.
But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have weight.
If you have no way to measure mass you have zero weight. You can understand that you're heavier than another object, or lighter but you have no weight.
And yet again, you have tried to run off on a train of semantics to avoid the main point.
Not at all.
I'm simply telling you that weight is merely a person made measurement of mass by using a scale to show numbered movements due to applied pressure of that mass by atmosphere that mass displaces upon that scale.
Once more, as clearly shown in this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
That diagram should read force against force or push against push or resistance against push.
No need for weight nor gravity, so you can omit them.
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, without that force of W, which has to act on the layer of air/whatever, in addition to the force from the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
The force is atmospheric pressure. That's it. Nothing works without it.
Once again, weight is a reading of atmospheric force.
And a pressure gradient in my case is the stacking system, so there is a pressure gradient.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say. What makes you think that’s actually how things work?
By observation and simple experiments.
Oh really. What experiments have you done?
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say. What makes you think that’s actually how things work?
By observation and simple experiments.
Oh really. What experiments have you done?
Many.
-
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.
Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
-
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.
Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?
Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?
-
Green bag of rocks weigh less than blue bags of rocks due to absorption of photons.
-
Green bag of rocks weigh less than blue bags of rocks due to absorption of photons.
Good for you.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say. What makes you think that’s actually how things work?
By observation and simple experiments.
Oh really. What experiments have you done?
Many.
No details then? After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
-
By observation and simple experiments.
You mean like observing things fall, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, clearly showing it isn't the air making them fall?
Clearly showing your model is pure garbage?
Mass obviously exists.
The fact that objects fall also shows that weight obviously exists, without any need for any scale.
Now again, stop with the pathetic semantic BS and deal with massive problem you need to continually deflect from.
And yet again, you have tried to run off on a train of semantics to avoid the main point.
Not at all.
I'm simply telling you that weight is
I.e. you are running off on a pathetic tangent to try to avoid the actual issue.
Rather than address the issue, you do whatever you can to deflect from it, such as by continually spouting semantic BS.
Once more, as clearly shown in this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
That diagram should read
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, you need a force in addition to the air.
It doesn't' matter what you want to call that force.
It doesn't matter if you want to pretend it isn't gravity and it isn't weight.
That has no bearing on the fact you need an additional force.
That is the issue you need to deal with.
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, you need a force in addition to the air.
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, without that force of W, which has to act on the layer of air/whatever, in addition to the force from the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
The force is atmospheric pressure
You don't seem to be good at understanding extremely simple concepts.
Again, if it is just the atmosphere, you don't get a pressure gradient.
If it is just the atmosphere, then the top layer pushes the middle layer down with a force of F,
This middle layer then tries to move down but is stopped by the layer below, it transfers this force and applies a force of F to the bottom layer.
There is no pressure gradient as there is no extra force acting on the middle layer.
Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout. There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.
Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.
And a pressure gradient in my case is the stacking system, so there is a pressure gradient.
I know there is a pressure gradient. That is the problem for your BS. You can't explain the pressure gradient.
Until you have an explanation for just what magic keeps this pressure gradient in tact, rather than the air balancing itself out, your claims will remain pure BS and you will remain at square 1.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration
This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.
I mopped the floor with you last time you claimed that. Let’s not do it again.
-
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.
Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?
Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?
Extra accelleration.
The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.
Roller coasters are real.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration
This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.
Theoritcally - yes.
Practically - no.
No system is perfect and there are always resistive forces to overcome.
It doesnot prove anything against existence of accelleration.
So whats your point?
-
Youve been asked many times
Define atmospheric pressure amd how/if it differs from regular air pressure
-
No details then? After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.
The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.
Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.
-
By observation and simple experiments.
You mean like observing things fall, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, clearly showing it isn't the air making them fall?
Clearly showing your model is pure garbage?
Clearly you don't think like me.
Clearly you don't believe in logic.
Clearly you believe atmosphere can simply envelope a ball and just stay there with no encasement, at all.
That's what magical fantasy suggests, which is what you go with and you're welcome to it.
Mine fits, yours does not.
Mass obviously exists.
The fact that objects fall also shows that weight obviously exists, without any need for any scale.
Things falling has nothing whatsoever to do with weight and everything to do with mass.
You don't seem to be good at understanding extremely simple concepts.
Again, if it is just the atmosphere, you don't get a pressure gradient.
I've already explained the pressure gradient by stacking.
Each stacked layer is less compact than the one below.
Alllllllllllll the way up.
If it is just the atmosphere, then the top layer pushes the middle layer down with a force of F,
This middle layer then tries to move down but is stopped by the layer below, it transfers this force and applies a force of F to the bottom layer.
There is no pressure gradient as there is no extra force acting on the middle layer.
Each singular stacked layer pushes and resists the one above.
Each layer of molecules are more condensed than the layer above those layers.
This means more compression at sea level and less compression at the top with ever lessening compression all the way up to that top.
Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout.
There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.
A sideways force is can be the effects of an object placed into the atmosphere to compress it at that area which can create a ripple/wave/crash effect.
The sea will give you massive clues to this.
There is no constant pressure, anywhere. It's forever changing because the central energy never stops moving which always creates different strengths of force.
Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
Keep thinking on these lines.
That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.
I certainly can and I do and I will continue to do so.
It fits perfectly. You just don't have the thought process to understand why.
And a pressure gradient in my case is the stacking system, so there is a pressure gradient.
I know there is a pressure gradient. That is the problem for your BS. You can't explain the pressure gradient.
I just have but I'm more than sure you'll dismiss it, which is fine and always expected.
-
I mopped the floor with you last time you claimed that. Let’s not do it again.
Next time dip it in the bucket and use a detergent. Don't do a dry run and expect to clean up.
-
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.
Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?
Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?
Extra accelleration.
The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.
Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration
This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.
Theoritcally - yes.
Practically - no.
No system is perfect and there are always resistive forces to overcome.
It doesnot prove anything against existence of accelleration.
So whats your point?
If you have any resistant force you cannot have constant velocity without force.
-
Youve been asked many times
Define atmospheric pressure and how/if it differs from regular air pressure
Atmospheric pressure is a range of pressures from the ground up. From sea level, up.
It's a change and breakdown of molecular matter within that atmosphere.
Go back to the gobstopper analogy in terms of using one for sea level to dome atmosphere.
Take out so many layers from that one molecule holding more molecules compressed within.
Stack them by having below layers peel away from a molecules to sit above which will have molecules with a layer less as they stack, not to mention the fill in of layers not quite compressing back into a molecules but instead adhering to it, just like a sink full of washing up bubbles, as another simple analogy.
No free space. No gaps between.
Have a good think on it.
I'm sure you'll use washing up bubbles as molecules and pretend you don't grasp it, which will set you right back once again.
I'm too familiar with how you work.
-
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.
Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?
Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?
Extra accelleration.
The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.
Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.
By means of up and down.
You ever seen a rollercoaster?
Youre making yourself out to be real ignorant.
-
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration
This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.
Theoritcally - yes.
Practically - no.
No system is perfect and there are always resistive forces to overcome.
It doesnot prove anything against existence of accelleration.
So whats your point?
If you have any resistant force you cannot have constant velocity without force.
Ok
Weve agreed.
See how communication works?
Where we use words with commonly understood definitoons and then repeat back qhat the other was saying in our own words to convey common understanding.
-
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.
Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?
Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?
Extra accelleration.
The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.
Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.
By means of up and down.
You ever seen a rollercoaster?
Youre making yourself out to be real ignorant.
So you can't tell me why it accelerates going down?
If you can't then just say you can't.
-
Ok
Weve agreed.
See how communication works?
Where we use words with commonly understood definitoons and then repeat back qhat the other was saying in our own words to convey common understanding.
So now you know that constant velocity is not a thing.
There is no need to use it in any scientific way.
It is fine if it's used in a fictional fantasy of something but it has no place in reality.
You know this and so does many.
-
Ok
Weve agreed.
See how communication works?
Where we use words with commonly understood definitoons and then repeat back qhat the other was saying in our own words to convey common understanding.
So now you know that constant velocity is not a thing.
There is no need to use it in any scientific way.
It is fine if it's used in a fictional fantasy of something but it has no place in reality.
You know this and so does many.
No we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.
Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
-
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.
Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?
Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?
Extra accelleration.
The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.
Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.
By means of up and down.
You ever seen a rollercoaster?
Youre making yourself out to be real ignorant.
So you can't tell me why it accelerates going down?
If you can't then just say you can't.
I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.
But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
-
No we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.
Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.
Now you disagree?
Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.
-
I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.
But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?
You seem to be struggling.
-
No details then? After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.
The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.
Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.
I only asked about the experiments you said you did and thought it funny that suddenly you resort to one word answers.
I don’t really care that you are obviously wrong about all this, I’m just curious why you believe it?
So you didn’t do any experiments then?
PS I have nothing more to do with the other people here than I do with you. There’s no “you people”.
-
No we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.
Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.
Now you disagree?
Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.
You really are stupid.
A car hits 100km/h constant velocity.
Air drag slows the car down unless the driver maintains the added gas force needed to cancel out drag and maintain 100.
There
Constant V is achieved while satisfying your criteria and maintaining my original statement.
Be less stupid.
-
I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.
But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?
You seem to be struggling.
How and why doesnt matter for this particular part except that it does.
At this particular point of time, we re discussing weight and why poka dot bags of rocks arent more popular.
Although we do seem to be transitioning to velocity...
Either way
If you want to discuss how and why things fall
We can start by defining atmospheric pressurre.
What is it?
Is it different from air pressure?
What about static and dynamic?
-
I don't know better.
You act like you do.
You act like everyone is a complete moron that just can't understand anything.
You act like you know everyone else is wrong.
Even though you cannot justify any of your claims.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.
Except those "reasons" are pure garbage based upon a complete strawman of the globe and "backed up" by just more lies and strawmen.
It seems to be more that you actually do not agree with the globe due to an irrational hatred of it, and make up excuses to pretend you have reasons, when you clearly have none.
Clearly you don't think like me.
No, unlike you, I actually care about the truth and reason, and evidence.
You are quite happy to just throw that out the window and go with wild speculation, refuted by logic and reason, and so on.
Clearly you believe atmosphere can simply envelope a ball and just stay there with no encasement, at all.
This directly ties back to the issue we have been discussing.
It shows the problem with your garbage.
With your garbage there is no reason for any pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
This would cause the high pressure atmosphere below to push all the atmosphere above up and away, meaning you need something to contain the gas and keep that CONSTANT pressure in.
But in reality, when you start using logic, you realise there is a force acting on all matter to try to move it towards Earth (i.e. down).
This will create a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is the container.
All the weight of the atmosphere above is what causes the high pressure at the surface.
So no, I'm not the one clinging to magical fantasy. That would be you.
Your garbage does not fit reality at all, as you cannot explain the pressure gradient.
You claiming that you need a container shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or are blatantly lying to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
I've already explained the pressure gradient by stacking.
No, you haven't.
You have effectively just restated the fact that there is a pressure gradient.
You have not explained it at all.
You need to explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
Again, gravity explains this pressure gradient just fine. Your nonsense doesn't.
Each singular stacked layer pushes and resists the one above.
And it pushes and resists the one below.
There is no preferred directionality and no way to build up a pressure gradient.
Each layer of molecules are more condensed than the layer above those layers.
Again, this is the observation you can't explain.
Again, the force diagram is quite simple, without that force W, the force pushing each layer down is the same.
You can't get the lower layers more compressed unless you add an extra force.
Remember, you are claiming that
Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout.
There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.
A sideways force is can be the effects of an object placed into the atmosphere to compress it
There you go ignoring the point again.
Once more, if your nonsense was true, and the force is magically increased without any extra force, then we should observe the same for a sideways force, where the pressure increases as you get closer to a wall.
Instead, there is no increase in pressure sideways.
This shows that air doesn't just magically create a pressure gradient.
Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
Keep thinking on these lines.
I will, until you refute it, as that is what logic indicates.
You can keep thinking the opposite, and I will keep calling you out on your BS.
That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.
I certainly can and I do and I will continue to do so.
Well technically you can try to appeal to it but it wont convince any rational, honest person as it simply doesn't work.
The fact remains that that without an extra force, the pressure remains constant. You cannot get this extra force from the air, that is the force already present which doesn't explain the pressure gradient.
If you want to try to appeal to the air around it pushing it, you need to explain how that magically causes it to push the air below down more, and that is something you simply can't do. The closest you have ever come to explaining it is by implicitly appealing to gravity by appealing to the mass of the air/object itself trying to go down.
Again, the simple diagram you continually avoid and try to escape with semantic BS shows you are wrong.
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
You need that extra force W, which isn't come from the air (the only vertical forces coming from the air around are F and -G), in order to get a pressure gradient.
If you reject that force, you end up with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ebOi4yu.png)
Where there is no pressure gradient.
It fits perfectly. You just don't have the thought process to understand why.
You mean I have the thought process to understand it is pure BS.
That is your problem not mine.
-
No details then? After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.
The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.
Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.
I only asked about the experiments you said you did and thought it funny that suddenly you resort to one word answers.
I don’t really care that you are obviously wrong about all this, I’m just curious why you believe it?
So you didn’t do any experiments then?
PS I have nothing more to do with the other people here than I do with you. There’s no “you people”.
Why are you curious?
-
No we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.
Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.
Now you disagree?
Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.
You really are stupid.
A car hits 100km/h constant velocity.
Air drag slows the car down unless the driver maintains the added gas force needed to cancel out drag and maintain 100.
There
Constant V is achieved while satisfying your criteria and maintaining my original statement.
Be less stupid.
I don't think you've been paying attention.
I'll make it bigger.
You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.
In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.
In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.
The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.
It's as simple as that, really.
-
I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.
But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?
You seem to be struggling.
How and why doesnt matter for this particular part except that it does.
At this particular point of time, we re discussing weight and why poka dot bags of rocks arent more popular.
Although we do seem to be transitioning to velocity...
Either way
If you want to discuss how and why things fall
We can start by defining atmospheric pressurre.
What is it?
Is it different from air pressure?
What about static and dynamic?
Atmospheric pressure is never static.
It's always dynamic.
-
If you reject that force, you end up with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ebOi4yu.png)
Where there is no pressure gradient.
This is a better set up. If you just use F without any minus then this is the deal.
No need for any W or G. It's just nonsense.
As you can see below I've used colour for clarity of the atmospheric stacking system. The stacked layers.
As you can also see, each layer rests on the next and each layer uses the below layer as its foundation.
You can see this as a push and resistance to push in below and above aspect.
The bottom layer is under immense pressure from all the above layers that are stacked upon it.
The next layer above that is also under immense pressure but not quite the same as the below.
And so on and so on and so on, all the way up.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fT80xsg7/RP.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Basically you end up with this type of scenario, below, when imagined in a more closer molecular stacking system.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wxhrxfbY/atmospheric-stack.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I'm absolutely sure you'll reject it and also claim I don't explain anything.
This isn't directly for you, it's just conveying the message through you. It's for those who actually want to try and understand.
-
No we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.
Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.
Now you disagree?
Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.
You really are stupid.
A car hits 100km/h constant velocity.
Air drag slows the car down unless the driver maintains the added gas force needed to cancel out drag and maintain 100.
There
Constant V is achieved while satisfying your criteria and maintaining my original statement.
Be less stupid.
I don't think you've been paying attention.
I'll make it bigger.
You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.
In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.
In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.
The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.
It's as simple as that, really.
Constant - being the same and not changing.
Velocity - crossing a distance over time in a direction, aka speed in a direction.
Constant velocity - having an unchanging speed in a direction.
Acelleration - increasing changing rate of speed over time (km per hr per hr).
Decelleration - decreasong changing rate of speed ovee time (km per hr per hr)
Speed minus drag plus gas = ??
100km/hr minus 5km/hr/hr plus 5km/hr/hr = 100km/hr
Maintaing 100km/h = constant velocity.
You sir are very stupid.
-
If you reject that force, you end up with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ebOi4yu.png)
Where there is no pressure gradient.
This is a better set up. If you just use F without any minus then this is the deal.
No need for any W or G. It's just nonsense.
Again, you are the one spouting nonsense.
If you just use F, there is no gradient.
The pressure is constant throughout.
You need that extra force, which you dismiss as nonsense to create the pressure gradient.
The bottom layer is under immense pressure from all the above layers that are stacked upon it.
The next layer above that is also under immense pressure but not quite the same as the below.
Why?
That is the big issue you can NEVER explain.
The only thing in your model pushing that bottom layer down is the air above.
The only thing in your model pushing the above layer down is the air above.
There is no extra force to make that intermediate layer push down more.
Again, you can try this by turning the system sideways, and using ANYTHING as an analogy.
If you push a bunch of springs or sponges or whatever against a wall, the pressure is the same throughout.
With the wall on the right:
The right layer is under the "immense pressure" from the left layers pushing it into the wall.
The next left layer is also under "immense pressure", and that is the same pressure as that on the right most layer.
It doesn't matter how many layers you have, or how much force you use, there is no magical gradient.
It can also be clear to go from the other way.
The left most layer is just being pushed by you or whatever. This uses the layer to the right as resistance, by pushing on it.
This transfer the push you are applying to that layer, effectively pushing it with the SAME force, not a magical increase like you want to pretend.
The layer
This continues all the way to the wall.
The push and resistance are balanced, and there is no increase in force/pressure at all.
Now, as a different analogy, one which actually uses the W you dismiss as nonsense:
You have a bunch of people pushing right into the wall.
They are now using the ground as resistance to push to the right.
Now the person furthest to the left has no one pushing them, but they push against the ground into the next person along.
This next person along is being pushed by the person behind, and is also pushing off the ground. This allows them to push with even greater force into the next person.
You could consider them as pushing on the people to the left using the people to the right AND THE GROUND as resistance.
Now this continues, with the force building until the person next to the wall gets crushed from the force.
As each person is using the ground to apply an additional force, the pressure builds.
Again, no extra force, no pressure gradient.
So this extra force is what you need to explain, or you need to explain how the air magically pushes down with a force greater than the force pushing the air down.
I'm absolutely sure you'll reject it and also claim I don't explain anything.
Perhaps when you stop with the pathetic dismissal and actual deal with the issue I will stop pointing out that you are continually deflecting from the issue.
This isn't directly for you, it's just conveying the message through you. It's for those who actually want to try and understand.
Again, the fact I repeatedly explain why you are wrong, and you continually deflect from that shows I do understand.
What it seems to be is for those you hope will just blindly accept whatever garbage is put forwards to pretend the globe is wrong.
-
You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.
In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.
In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.
The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.
It's as simple as that, really.
Constant - being the same and not changing.
Which is impossible.
Velocity - crossing a distance over time in a direction, aka speed in a direction.
Yep, no issue with that.
Constant velocity - having an unchanging speed in a direction.
Impossible.
Acelleration - increasing changing rate of speed over time (km per hr per hr).
No problem with that.
Decelleration - decreasong changing rate of speed ovee time (km per hr per hr)
I don't accept it but I won't argue it.
Speed minus drag plus gas = ??
There's always a force so resistance is the enemy of constant velocity, which means constant velocity is nothing more than a saying to describe a fiction/fantasy.
100km/hr minus 5km/hr/hr plus 5km/hr/hr = 100km/hr
Not constant, is it?
Maintaing 100km/h = constant velocity.
Maintaining 100 km/h kills constant velocity.
Everything changes. Nothing is perfectly set up to accept constant velocity....ever, unless you say there is zero resistance acting on the vehicle in motion but there is always changing resistance so never a constant velocity.
If you put your mind to it, you'll agree, if you want to be honest.
You sir are very stupid.
Feel free to think what you like about me but it does not heighten your understanding of what you're arguing against me with.
-
Terminal velocity for a falling object is also a constant velocity. Where air resistance is equal to acceleration due to gravity (or due to gobstopper sponge crush if you prefer)
Nope.
Terminal velocity cannot be constant, either.
Terminal velocity would be the slowing of the fall of an object from its maximum rate of fall to an ever changing resistance to that rate of fall, all the way to the ground/foundation.
You can never hit constant velocity...ever.
-
If you reject that force, you end up with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ebOi4yu.png)
Where there is no pressure gradient.
This is a better set up. If you just use F without any minus then this is the deal.
No need for any W or G. It's just nonsense.
Again, you are the one spouting nonsense.
If you just use F, there is no gradient.
The pressure is constant throughout.
You need that extra force, which you dismiss as nonsense to create the pressure gradient.
If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.
You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.
-
This is AMAZING!
-
If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.
And if you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would know that is dodging yet again.
Again, I know that there is a gradient.
I have never rejected that fact.
The problem is your complete inability to explain this gradient.
You have no justification at all for why each layer should push down more than the layer above, given you claim it is the layer above pushing down which causes everything to fall.
Again, it is in the simple diagram you accept:
(https://i.imgur.com/ebOi4yu.png)
Without an extra force, the force is constant throughout the stack. There is no gradient.
You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.
You mean I repeatedly bring it up to show how your model is garbage and how gravity explains it just fine?
Again, here is the diagram which you hate, which includes gravity (which is why you hate it; but you can pretend it is some pure magic that is making objects fall instead of gravity):
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Now, there IS an extra force.
This means each layer will be pushing down on the layer below with a slightly greater force than the air above is pushing it down.
This will cause a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
Again, gravity, the thing you hate so much, explains the pressure gradient just fine, and you can find no fault with it.
But with your rejection of gravity and instead pretending air is what is making everything fall, you completely fail to explain the pressure gradient.
That is why yet again, you have made no attempt at all to explain the pressure gradient, you have made no attempt at all to explain why each layer pushes down more than the layer above.
Instead you just appeal to the existence of the pressure gradient as if that magically means your model is fine.
But guess what? It doesn't.
Instead it shows your model is garbage.
Appealing to the existence of the gradient does not help you at all.
Likewise, appealing to analogies showing the existence of the gradient due to gravity, in air or other fluids, or even using objects, doesn't help you at all.
All this shows is that there is such a gradient.
It in no way helps you to explain why there is a gradient.
Appealing to the existence of the gradient will just continue to show your model is garbage until you can actually explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
That doesn't mean simply stating a pressure gradient exists. It means actually explain why the force increases as you go further down, and why this extra pressure doesn't push the air up to remove the pressure gradient.
So stop with the deflection and explain why there is a gradient. Why the pressure increases as you go down.
-
...
I'll make it bigger.
You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.
In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.
In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.
The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.
It's as simple as that, really.
Glad you finally agree inertia exists. You said it yourself "A force is required to slow down a moving object.'
Terminal velocity for a falling object is also a constant velocity. Where air resistance is equal to acceleration due to gravity (or due to gobstopper sponge crush if you prefer)
Nope.
Terminal velocity cannot be constant, either.
Terminal velocity would be the slowing of the fall of an object from its maximum rate of fall to an ever changing resistance to that rate of fall, all the way to the ground/foundation.
...
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
-
Terminal velocity for a falling object is also a constant velocity. Where air resistance is equal to acceleration due to gravity (or due to gobstopper sponge crush if you prefer)
Nope.
Terminal velocity cannot be constant, either.
Terminal velocity would be the slowing of the fall of an object from its maximum rate of fall to an ever changing resistance to that rate of fall, all the way to the ground/foundation.
You can never hit constant velocity...ever.
What about if I'm stationary on the stationary flat earth. Then I have a constant velocity of 0.
You are never stationary.
-
If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.
And if you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would know that is dodging yet again.
Again, I know that there is a gradient.
I have never rejected that fact.
The problem is your complete inability to explain this gradient.
You have no justification at all for why each layer should push down more than the layer above, given you claim it is the layer above pushing down which causes everything to fall.
Again, it is in the simple diagram you accept:
(https://i.imgur.com/ebOi4yu.png)
Without an extra force, the force is constant throughout the stack. There is no gradient.
You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.
You mean I repeatedly bring it up to show how your model is garbage and how gravity explains it just fine?
Again, here is the diagram which you hate, which includes gravity (which is why you hate it; but you can pretend it is some pure magic that is making objects fall instead of gravity):
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Now, there IS an extra force.
This means each layer will be pushing down on the layer below with a slightly greater force than the air above is pushing it down.
This will cause a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
Again, gravity, the thing you hate so much, explains the pressure gradient just fine, and you can find no fault with it.
But with your rejection of gravity and instead pretending air is what is making everything fall, you completely fail to explain the pressure gradient.
That is why yet again, you have made no attempt at all to explain the pressure gradient, you have made no attempt at all to explain why each layer pushes down more than the layer above.
Instead you just appeal to the existence of the pressure gradient as if that magically means your model is fine.
But guess what? It doesn't.
Instead it shows your model is garbage.
Appealing to the existence of the gradient does not help you at all.
Likewise, appealing to analogies showing the existence of the gradient due to gravity, in air or other fluids, or even using objects, doesn't help you at all.
All this shows is that there is such a gradient.
It in no way helps you to explain why there is a gradient.
Appealing to the existence of the gradient will just continue to show your model is garbage until you can actually explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
That doesn't mean simply stating a pressure gradient exists. It means actually explain why the force increases as you go further down, and why this extra pressure doesn't push the air up to remove the pressure gradient.
So stop with the deflection and explain why there is a gradient. Why the pressure increases as you go down.
If you won't or can't grasp what I've said then the problem is entirely yours.
-
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.
What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.
If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.
-
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.
What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.
If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.
Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.
-
If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.
And if you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would know that is dodging yet again.
Again, I know that there is a gradient.
I have never rejected that fact.
The problem is your complete inability to explain this gradient.
You have no justification at all for why each layer should push down more than the layer above, given you claim it is the layer above pushing down which causes everything to fall.
Again, it is in the simple diagram you accept:
(https://i.imgur.com/ebOi4yu.png)
Without an extra force, the force is constant throughout the stack. There is no gradient.
You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.
You mean I repeatedly bring it up to show how your model is garbage and how gravity explains it just fine?
Again, here is the diagram which you hate, which includes gravity (which is why you hate it; but you can pretend it is some pure magic that is making objects fall instead of gravity):
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Now, there IS an extra force.
This means each layer will be pushing down on the layer below with a slightly greater force than the air above is pushing it down.
This will cause a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
Again, gravity, the thing you hate so much, explains the pressure gradient just fine, and you can find no fault with it.
But with your rejection of gravity and instead pretending air is what is making everything fall, you completely fail to explain the pressure gradient.
That is why yet again, you have made no attempt at all to explain the pressure gradient, you have made no attempt at all to explain why each layer pushes down more than the layer above.
Instead you just appeal to the existence of the pressure gradient as if that magically means your model is fine.
But guess what? It doesn't.
Instead it shows your model is garbage.
Appealing to the existence of the gradient does not help you at all.
Likewise, appealing to analogies showing the existence of the gradient due to gravity, in air or other fluids, or even using objects, doesn't help you at all.
All this shows is that there is such a gradient.
It in no way helps you to explain why there is a gradient.
Appealing to the existence of the gradient will just continue to show your model is garbage until you can actually explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
That doesn't mean simply stating a pressure gradient exists. It means actually explain why the force increases as you go further down, and why this extra pressure doesn't push the air up to remove the pressure gradient.
So stop with the deflection and explain why there is a gradient. Why the pressure increases as you go down.
If you won't or can't grasp what I've said then the problem is entirely yours.
I have shown quite clearly that I can and do grasp what you have said.
If you are unable to explain why the pressure increases such that each layer pushes down more than the layer above, that problem is entirely yours.
And that is where we are at.
You are unable to explain why the pressure increases.
You appeal to the gradient existing as if it helps you, while you are unable to explain it or justify its existence in your model.
So again, the problem is entirely yours.
Now can you answer the simple questions?
Again, why does each layer push down more than the layer above?
Especially when you claim that the only thing pushing it down is the air above.
-
What would happen to an object sitting on the top of your stack, squashed up against the inside of the dome? Would it get stuck there, or would something push it down?
-
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.
What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.
If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.
Amazing!
-
@scepti
Although I'm somewhat loathe to admit it, jackblack does seem to have a valid point.
In my view, the gradient is caused by the weight (an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter) of the matter in the layer(s) above.
In terms of pressure, pascal's law, it is the weight of a theoretical 2D column of matter above the pressure measurement point.
It seems clear that the pressure is additive in your view, and that above layers literally sit upon the layers below and push in an additive way.
In the case of your diagram, is the downward F always greater than the upward (resistance to the compression that the pressure from the above layer(s) causes) in some fundamental way?
-
Guy
He just stated that any object falling will be push up by air, then the air will wrap around it to push it down.
By this - airplanes and helium ballons shouldnt exist.
-
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.
What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.
If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.
Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.
No slipping here.
You can't even explain what inertia is without resorting to fantasy.
-
I have shown quite clearly that I can and do grasp what you have said.
Seriously, you haven't.
-
What would happen to an object sitting on the top of your stack, squashed up against the inside of the dome? Would it get stuck there, or would something push it down?
An object, such as?
-
I have shown quite clearly that I can and do grasp what you have said.
Seriously, you haven't.
Again, if that was the case you would easily be able to address the issue raised.
The fact you continue to deflect, as you have done now, and even ignore the post from jack44556677 who is typically on your side, shows clearly that the issues is yours, not mine.
Again, you are unable to provide any explanation for why the pressure increases as you get closer to Earth.
Again, if it is just the air pushing things down, then the pressure should be constant.
The fact that the pressure is not constant shows that it isn't simply the air pushing things down and instead there is something else causing the air to try to move down.
As you cannot address this massive issue for your model, you just do whatever you can to deflect.
-
@scepti
Although I'm somewhat loathe to admit it, jackblack does seem to have a valid point.
In my view, the gradient is caused by the weight (an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter) of the matter in the layer(s) above.
In terms of pressure, pascal's law, it is the weight of a theoretical 2D column of matter above the pressure measurement point.
It seems clear that the pressure is additive in your view, and that above layers literally sit upon the layers below and push in an additive way.
In the case of your diagram, is the downward F always greater than the upward (resistance to the compression that the pressure from the above layer(s) causes) in some fundamental way?
The below resistance is always greater than above.
Everything has to push up before it takes its place within a layer of a stacking system.
The atmospheric build is from the bottom.
The reason why the stack happens is energetic push oe expansion of dense matter, as in my gobstopper analogy.
All expanded gases (in this case) are a peel off from the dense make up of gases.
Think of it like Russian dolls.
If you lose a doll it is squeezed up because there is many Russian dolls still packing inside each other.
Like the gobstopper analogy.
This is why helium, hydrogen and what not end up high above, because their molecular breakdown is not dense enough to stake any place below. It is squeezed up. Pushed up, if you like.
These broken down molecules will only be stopped getting crushed up once there is no more dense atmosphere strong enough to do that.
Those gases then sit in that stacked layer.
This happens in different densities from bottom to top.
I'll be more than happy to explain further if you require it.
-
Guy
He just stated that any object falling will be push up by air, then the air will wrap around it to push it down.
By this - airplanes and helium ballons shouldnt exist.
If you seriously paid attention you'd get to understand what's been said instead of not having a clue, after all this time.
I'm still hoping you're playing games because that would make more sense.
-
Again, if that was the case you would easily be able to address the issue raised.
I have but it's impossible with people like you.
You have absolutely no intention of trying to understand from my side...and fair enough.
Keep saying never answer question for as long as you like and I'll just tell you I do....because I actually do.
You may not like the answers but that's your issue.
-
Again, if that was the case you would easily be able to address the issue raised.
I have but it's impossible with people like you.
No, you haven't.
You have continually dodged it using whatever dishonest BS you can.
The problem is you can't explain it so you need to make up excuses.
Keep saying never answer question for as long as you like and I'll just tell you I do
Because you can't actually answer them. If you could answer them, you would, rather than just saying you have.
You may not like the fact that you can't answer these simple questions, but that is your issue.
Again, why is the pressure greater?
Why doesn't the higher pressure atmosphere below push the lower pressure atmosphere above up and out of the way, so it can decompress and be at a lower pressure?
You object to the idea of pressure being there without a container, but that is exactly what your model has.
Everything has to push up before it takes its place within a layer of a stacking system.
Is that to establish the stacking system, or only once it is already there.
The reason why the stack happens is energetic push oe expansion of dense matter, as in my gobstopper analogy.
So not because something is pushing them down?
Why should expansion cause a stack?
Again, why vertical?
it is squeezed up because there is many Russian dolls still packing inside each other.
Why up?
There is no justification for the directionality.
Like the gobstopper analogy.
That might work, if you instead have Earth being round and the layers on the outside are the atmosphere, but that still requires completely ignoring what matter actually is.
This is why helium, hydrogen and what not end up high above, because their molecular breakdown is not dense enough to stake any place below.
But you have no justification for why density should play a role at all.
This requires a force acting on mass.
It is squeezed up. Pushed up, if you like.
By what?
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere?
Again, why isn't that pushing EVERYTHING up?
Again you contradict yourself, switching between the atmosphere pushing things down and pushing them up.
You can't have it both ways.
-
Guy
He just stated that any object falling will be push up by air, then the air will wrap around it to push it down.
By this - airplanes and helium ballons shouldnt exist.
If you seriously paid attention you'd get to understand what's been said instead of not having a clue, after all this time.
I'm still hoping you're playing games because that would make more sense.
The below resistance is always greater than above.
Everything has to push up before it takes its place within a layer of a stacking system.
The atmospheric build is from the bottom.
The reason why the stack happens is energetic push oe expansion of dense matter, as in my gobstopper analogy.
All expanded gases (in this case) are a peel off from the dense make up of gases.
Think of it like Russian dolls.
If you lose a doll it is squeezed up because there is many Russian dolls still packing inside each other.
Like the gobstopper analogy.
This is why helium, hydrogen and what not end up high above, because their molecular breakdown is not dense enough to stake any place below. It is squeezed up. Pushed up, if you like.
These broken down molecules will only be stopped getting crushed up once there is no more dense atmosphere strong enough to do that.
Those gases then sit in that stacked layer.
This happens in different densities from bottom to top.
I'll be more than happy to explain further if you require it.
so things have to be pushed up to be pushed down?
draw it
explain how atmospheric air differs from the other known static and dynamic air pressures.
you already cliamed static doesn't exist, but a pop can of coke proves otherwise.
if atmospheric pressure is something different than air pressure define it
go for it.
you've been asked enough times.
educate us instead of hand waving.
oh woe is sceppy, no one listens to him.
woe woe woe
a lot of pleading but everytime you're asked to present or define your points, poooof - nothing.
-
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.
What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.
If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.
Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.
No slipping here.
You can't even explain what inertia is without resorting to fantasy.
unlike your constant word salad of misuse of commonly understood and defined words - inertia is very eloquently put.
you, who can't even contemplate basic physics, are trying to convince us your model is the most logical.
basic physics which do NOT rely on the shpae of the earth.
you've yet to even understand triangles and circles in the other thread.
fantasy.
right...
-
What would happen to an object sitting on the top of your stack, squashed up against the inside of the dome? Would it get stuck there, or would something push it down?
An object, such as?
such as a suction cup
theoretically
your theory
how would a suction cup perform at the top of the dome?
a normal suction cup is pushed against a glass/ smooth surface and can even hang things upsidedown.
take this, and put it allllllllllllllllll the way up to the dome's surface.
how would it behave?
-
But you have no justification for why density should play a role at all.
This requires a force acting on mass.
There is always a force acting on mass....at all times.
-
What would happen to an object sitting on the top of your stack, squashed up against the inside of the dome? Would it get stuck there, or would something push it down?
An object, such as?
such as a suction cup
theoretically
your theory
how would a suction cup perform at the top of the dome?
a normal suction cup is pushed against a glass/ smooth surface and can even hang things upsidedown.
take this, and put it allllllllllllllllll the way up to the dome's surface.
how would it behave?
It wouldn't work.
-
why not?
why does it work here on ground level but not waaaay up at dome level?
-
There is always a force acting on mass....at all times.
Correct - it's called gravity. That's how you get weight. Otherwise where does the force come from?
-
But you have no justification for why density should play a role at all.
This requires a force acting on mass.
There is always a force acting on mass....at all times.
Yes, called gravity.
The important part is that it needs to act on mass, not the amount of displaced atmosphere.
This means you have a downwards force based upon mass, and an upwards force based upon the amount of atmosphere displaced.
If the downwards force is greater, as it is for most materials, the object falls.
If the upwards force is greater, as it is for things like helium, the object rises.
Without this force acting on mass, there is no reason at all for the atmosphere to magically push some objects down and magically push other objects up.
Likewise, without this force, there is no reason for there to be the vertical pressure gradient of the atmosphere, or pressure gradients in fluids like water and so on.
So are you now saying that there is a force acting on mass, or are you still going to say there isn't and instead it is magically the atmosphere pushing things up and down?
If the latter, have you figured out how to explain why the pressure is greater as you go down?
It wouldn't work.
So even though there is no air above it to push it down, it would still fall?
-
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.
What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.
If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.
Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.
No slipping here.
You can't even explain what inertia is without resorting to fantasy.
I’m not out to derail this fine thread or get into a pointless argument with you. But I can answer your concern with your own post.
“ In a magical world of no resistance to initial push”
Agreed. The initial resistance to movement is attributed to inertia. Just like the residence to stopping one you are moving. Inertia.
-
why not?
why does it work here on ground level but not waaaay up at dome level?
It works because of extreme pressure, as much as you like to think the pressure at sea level is nothing to us.
The very reason anything gets clamped, like your suction cup is because of the amount of atmospheric pressure you push away from that cup which adds to the external pressure upon it.
I've told you this so many times and you come back to ask again.
-
There is always a force acting on mass....at all times.
Correct - it's called gravity. That's how you get weight. Otherwise where does the force come from?
Push on push of molecules of different densities from ground up, in terms of atmosphere, with the ground/sea acting as the foundation resistance to it all..
-
But you have no justification for why density should play a role at all.
This requires a force acting on mass.
There is always a force acting on mass....at all times.
Yes, called gravity.
No such thing as gravity.
It's atmospheric pressure upon any dense mass that displaces it.
Denpressure.
-
So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?
Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.
What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.
If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.
Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.
No slipping here.
You can't even explain what inertia is without resorting to fantasy.
I’m not out to derail this fine thread or get into a pointless argument with you. But I can answer your concern with your own post.
“ In a magical world of no resistance to initial push”
Agreed. The initial resistance to movement is attributed to inertia. Just like the residence to stopping one you are moving. Inertia.
If it's resistance to push then why not just call it, resistance?
Any resistance to applied energy on a mass is merely just that....resistance.
Or does inertia work in some other way?
-
Push on push of molecules of different densities from ground up, in terms of atmosphere, with the ground/sea acting as the foundation resistance to it all..
So what is the root cause of all this pushing between molecules then? And why does all this pushing always seem to result in everything getting pushed in the same direction.. i.e. towards the ground?
-
It works because of extreme pressure, as much as you like to think the pressure at sea level is nothing to us.
But that requires the air to push up, directly opposite what you claim happens.
But you have no justification for why density should play a role at all.
This requires a force acting on mass.
There is always a force acting on mass....at all times.
Yes, called gravity.
No such thing as gravity.
You hating gravity due to your irrational hatred of the RE won't magically make it not real.
But there you go ignoring the point yet again.
Here is a nice simple question for you, does the air apply a force based upon area, volume or mass?
Because the point you were ignoring requires the force to act upon mass, i.e. apply a force to the object based upon the objects mass.
This is nothing like what happens with air or any pressure.
But that is what you need to explain reality, a force acting on mass, not the air pressure acting based upon the volume displaced or the area.
And importantly, this needs to act in addition to a force based upon displacing a certain volume of air.
i.e. there is a force, like gravity, trying to move objects down, and a buoyant force from the air pushing things up.
Again, this kills your model, just like your inability to explain the pressure gradient kills your model.
You, without a force acting on mass, have no explanation for why the pressure increases.
Unlike your nonsense, gravity can explain the pressure gradient, and why some objects fall and some objects rise.
If it's resistance to push then why not just call it, resistance?
As has been explained to you many times, it is not simply RESISTANCE!
There are many different types of resistance which exists.
Stop playing dumb, when you have had this explained to you so many times it isn't funny.
You KNOW why it isn't simply resistance, and why simply calling it resistance is dishonest garbage.
-
Push on push of molecules of different densities from ground up, in terms of atmosphere, with the ground/sea acting as the foundation resistance to it all..
All this amounts to is a load of waffle based on nothing more than your own opinions. How and when has any of this been independently tested and verified?
Gravity on the other hand has been tested by different groups all over the world time and time again to very high levels of precision. But obviously you not liking gravity and therefore living in complete denial that it exists changes all that doesn't it. You are so obviously right and everyone else is so blatantly wrong.
Anything that contains mass also has an associated gravitational field. Why? I couldn't give you an answer to that but that's exactly what makes physics so fascinating.
-
why not?
why does it work here on ground level but not waaaay up at dome level?
It works because of extreme pressure, as much as you like to think the pressure at sea level is nothing to us.
The very reason anything gets clamped, like your suction cup is because of the amount of atmospheric pressure you push away from that cup which adds to the external pressure upon it.
I've told you this so many times and you come back to ask again.
Like you said
The push down comes from above.
If the pressure is so low up there that suction cups no longer work - then why will things still fall?
Pay attention and put the jigsaw together
-
Push on push of molecules of different densities from ground up, in terms of atmosphere, with the ground/sea acting as the foundation resistance to it all..
So what is the root cause of all this pushing between molecules then? And why does all this pushing always seem to result in everything getting pushed in the same direction.. i.e. towards the ground?
It doesn't.
-
It works because of extreme pressure, as much as you like to think the pressure at sea level is nothing to us.
But that requires the air to push up, directly opposite what you claim happens.
Do you ever remember me saying it's a push on push and push on resistance, all ways?
I'm sure you have, so why go through this all the time?
Carry on by all means but you'll get the same answers as I've always gave.
-
Push on push of molecules of different densities from ground up, in terms of atmosphere, with the ground/sea acting as the foundation resistance to it all..
All this amounts to is a load of waffle based on nothing more than your own opinions. How and when has any of this been independently tested and verified?
How and when has most of the stuff given out for a spinning globe been independently tested and verified, legitimately?
Gravity on the other hand has been tested by different groups all over the world time and time again to very high levels of precision.
No it hasn't.
You simply say it because you read books and stuff.
You have no clue what gravity is.
But obviously you not liking gravity and therefore living in complete denial that it exists changes all that doesn't it.
I don't believe it exists so liking it or not is irrelevant.
You are so obviously right and everyone else is so blatantly wrong.
Nope.
You say this because you're frustrated that I won't back down.
Anything that contains mass also has an associated gravitational field.
Nope.
You believe it because you read up on it or were told so. You have absolutely no realistic clue...and you know it.
Why? I couldn't give you an answer to that but that's exactly what makes physics so fascinating.
Of course you don't know why and of course you can't give an answer...but here you are telling me I can't give answers.
Strange as all hell.
Jack sold his cow for some beans and grew a big bean stalk, then climbed it, only to meet a big giant....and so on and so on....That's what makes fairy stories so fascinating.
That's your global physics fairy stories. They're fascinating but when looked at closely, they are fantasy.
Fairy stories.
Fairy tales.
-
why not?
why does it work here on ground level but not waaaay up at dome level?
It works because of extreme pressure, as much as you like to think the pressure at sea level is nothing to us.
The very reason anything gets clamped, like your suction cup is because of the amount of atmospheric pressure you push away from that cup which adds to the external pressure upon it.
I've told you this so many times and you come back to ask again.
Like you said
The push down comes from above.
If the pressure is so low up there that suction cups no longer work - then why will things still fall?
Pay attention and put the jigsaw together
The push comes from everywhere.
The push down only comes from above when energy apllied to a mass overcomes the atmospheric pressure upon it.
Once that mass loses the energy to push up, it is pushed back down as it pushes through the resistance to it in the stacked layers below it.
It's been well explained and yet you won't grasp it because it kills gravity...and killing gravity also kills the global model....etc.
-
No it hasn't.
You simply say it because you read books and stuff.
You have no clue what gravity is.
Not quite. I have stood in front of a very sensitive gravitometer and watched it measure the Earth gravity.
Do you need to know what something is to know what it does? Does not knowing everything about something make it non-existent? As I have said before you don't need to know everything about how a car works to drive one.
I haven't read anything in books about your pushing of molecules theory as your alternative to gravity. Why would that be? You haven't said anything about what causes the pushing.
I don't believe it exists so liking it or not is irrelevant.
Fair enough. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But your belief seems to be shared only by you up to now. Probably because the details of how gravity works are a bit beyond you.
You say this because you're frustrated that I won't back down.
Me frustrated? Don't flatter yourself. I don't give a #£$*! whether you back down or not. I would just like you to explain a bit more about your molecule pushing ideas because up to now you can't seem to explain how any of it works. Until you can do that you are doing nothing apart from making something up because you think you are clever by denying conventional physics.
I'm not here to take part in tit for tat discussions that prove nothing and go nowhere. I just want to know the facts. So tell me more about how this pushing of molecules creates the same effect that I attribute to gravity. Explain for instance why the pushing always seems to mean that objects fall to the ground.
The push down only comes from above when energy apllied to a mass overcomes the atmospheric pressure upon it.
Once that mass loses the energy to push up, it is pushed back down as it pushes through the resistance to it in the stacked layers below it.
And you figured all of that (whatever it means) all by yourself did you?!? What causes the pushing? How does mass lose energy?
I find it ironic that someone who is so dead-set against the idea of the Earth being a globe can even bring themselves to so much as mention the world atmosphere as in sphere meaning a globe. I would have thought you would have invented another word to describe the layer of air that surrounds the globe.
Jack sold his cow for some beans and grew a big bean stalk, then climbed it, only to meet a big giant....and so on and so on....That's what makes fairy stories so fascinating.
I can tell you find fairy stories so fascinating. Your mind is full of them. I prefer to deal with physics in the real world though. I grew beyond fairy stories many, many years ago. You obviously have yet to make that progression.
-
why not?
why does it work here on ground level but not waaaay up at dome level?
It works because of extreme pressure, as much as you like to think the pressure at sea level is nothing to us.
The very reason anything gets clamped, like your suction cup is because of the amount of atmospheric pressure you push away from that cup which adds to the external pressure upon it.
I've told you this so many times and you come back to ask again.
Like you said
The push down comes from above.
If the pressure is so low up there that suction cups no longer work - then why will things still fall?
Pay attention and put the jigsaw together
The push comes from everywhere.
The push down only comes from above when energy apllied to a mass overcomes the atmospheric pressure upon it.
Once that mass loses the energy to push up, it is pushed back down as it pushes through the resistance to it in the stacked layers below it.
It's been well explained and yet you won't grasp it because it kills gravity...and killing gravity also kills the global model....etc.
in two separate comments in the same post, you've contradicted yourself.
if the push is everywhere, as mentioned over and over by JackB - then laterally we should be pushed around too!
and if the push is everywhere, then we should be pushed up just as much as we are pushed down.
so you've just negated your own reason for down.
-
Push on push of molecules of different densities from ground up, in terms of atmosphere, with the ground/sea acting as the foundation resistance to it all..
All this amounts to is a load of waffle based on nothing more than your own opinions. How and when has any of this been independently tested and verified?
How and when has most of the stuff given out for a spinning globe been independently tested and verified, legitimately?
key word legitimate...
-
How and when has most of the stuff given out for a spinning globe been independently tested and verified, legitimately?
Bob seemed to do a pretty good job independently, legitimately, testing and verifying it:
-
There you go ignoring simple questions yet again.
Again, what magic causes the pressure to increase?
Again, without an extra force, the pressure should be constant.
You need a force to cause the pressure to increase.
What is this force in your model?
Again, it can't be the air. If it was, that is just the force above pushing it down, causing the next layer to push down with the exact same force.
Again, we can set up the same system sideways with plenty of different things and clearly see that there is no pressure gradient sideways.
Again, by having an extra force applies to each layer in this sideways system we can see a pressure gradient formed.
This shows that you need an extra force.
Again, the fact that there is a pressure gradient at all kills your nonsense.
Likewise, again, why does the air push an object down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the greater pressure below push the object up?
Again, the fact that the air pressure is greater below an object kills your nonsense claim that the air magically pushes the object down.
Do you ever remember me saying it's a push on push and push on resistance, all ways?
I also remember you saying that the air below doesn't push up.
Again, the issue is you repeatedly contradicting yourself and repeatedly ignoring simple questions and massive issues with your model to pretend your delusional garbage works.
You have no justification at all for why the air should magically almost always push things down, even when they are against a wall or a ceiling, but then magically stop and start pushing things up.
How and when has most of the stuff given out for a spinning globe been independently tested and verified, legitimately?
The last word shows your true colours.
You know it has been tested and verified repeatedly, but you dismiss all that as fake because it shows Earth is round and you hate that.
To you, "legitimately" means done in a way which agrees with your delusional BS.
So you dismiss all the actual testing and verifying as it shows you are wrong.
You have repeatedly shown you are completely unwilling to to accept any evidence that shows you are wrong, so why be dishonest and ask for any?
The push down only comes from above when energy apllied to a mass overcomes the atmospheric pressure upon it.
Why?
The air is always there.
If you try blowing an object with a jet of air, you don't need to apply any extra energy to the object. The air does that.
Why is it so magically different for your air?
Why does air behave like it is pure magic?
It's been well explained
No, it has never been explained. You just spout vague nonsense and pretend it has been explained.
Just like you have NEVER explained why there is a pressure gradient. You have never explained how the air is at a greater pressure as you go further down.
You have NEVER explained why the air doesn't remove this pressure gradient, by the higher pressure air below pushing the air above upwards.
You have NEVER explained how the higher air pressure below doesn't push the object upwards and instead the air magically violates this pressure gradient and simple logic and instead magically pushes the object down.
Again, the closest you have come to explaining these phenomenon is appealing to the object itself trying to move down, as if acted by a force like gravity, independent of the air.
because it kills gravity...and killing gravity also kills the global model....etc.
Your delusional ramblings have no impact on gravity.
Like I said, the closest you have come to explaining anything implicitly relied upon gravity, so you have no hope of killing it off.
We have gravity, which can actually explain what is observed in reality, including why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere and other fluids, why some objects fall and some objects rise, and so on; vs your nonsense which can't explain anything except why the air pushes an object sitting on the floor with no air below it downwards.
As for killing the globe, as you have no justification at all for your directionality, as has been explained to your repeatedly, your delusional nonsense works just as well on the globe.
Just like you can't explain anything, you can't explain why your nonsense requires a FE, rather than a RE.
So no, we don't "grasp" (by which you really mean just blindly accept) it because it is not explained at all and defies simple logic and reason and what is observed in reality.
-
No it hasn't.
You simply say it because you read books and stuff.
You have no clue what gravity is.
Not quite. I have stood in front of a very sensitive gravitometer and watched it measure the Earth gravity.
I'm sure you can explain what happened then. Tell me what was happening that convinced you you were seeing gravity working.
Also can you explain how this gravimeter works?
Do you need to know what something is to know what it does? Does not knowing everything about something make it non-existent? As I have said before you don't need to know everything about how a car works to drive one.
If you want to argue it as fact you do need to know.
For instance, if you tell me the car you drive has a cheetah running on a treadmill under your bonnet/hood because you were told this, then I would like to take a look under your bonnet/hood.
If you tell me it runs by turning a key which starts up your car with the aid of fuel and air into pistons to combust because someone told you and I said " is this fact and can I sue you if it isn't" You would naturally go and get the facts before answering the question or you would refuse to give it out as factual based on your reliance on information fed to you.
If you were a mechanic then you are armed with a lot of factual info which you can happily show to be fact and be willing to prove it.
This is where you try and fail to back yourself up, because for all you know you could very well be spouting off gravity and such as factual without actually know what the hell it is you are spouting off, other than, I was told and accepted it.
I haven't read anything in books about your pushing of molecules theory as your alternative to gravity. Why would that be? You haven't said anything about what causes the pushing.
I've said plenty but you people absolutely refuse to try to understand it.
As for reading it in books. It's my theory so I don't think you'll get it out of books.
I don't believe it exists so liking it or not is irrelevant.
Fair enough. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But your belief seems to be shared only by you up to now. Probably because the details of how gravity works are a bit beyond you.
My thoughts on my theory are obviously my own. I'm not asking you lot to believe anything I say.
You people ask questions and I give answers.
You may not like the answers because it goes against the stories you believe, unconditionally...and fair enough.
I honestly don't care if you believe everything you're told by officials and what you believe is your authority.
I only know that I question a lot of it and do not believe many many things about this whole shebang.
As for details of gravity being beyond me. No need to use this line of reasoning to try and big yourself up. You have absolutely no clue what it is.
You argue for it on the back of other people.
The cheetah is your motor because you believe it and haven't looked under the bonnet/hood because your authority has welded it shut and you are told to just accept it.
You say this because you're frustrated that I won't back down.
Me frustrated? Don't flatter yourself. I don't give a #£$*! whether you back down or not. I would just like you to explain a bit more about your molecule pushing ideas because up to now you can't seem to explain how any of it works. Until you can do that you are doing nothing apart from making something up because you think you are clever by denying conventional physics.
I've more than explained, as I've said.
As for denying conventional physics. I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics or scientific facts.
What I am doing questioning and not believing what is put out in terms of what I'm arguing, because it's pseudo-science, in my honest opinion.....and misinformation and disinformation.
I'm not here to take part in tit for tat discussions that prove nothing and go nowhere. I just want to know the facts.
You don't know the facts of the model you adhere to. You're reliant on being told that they are facts, without genuine proof.
As for me giving facts.
How many times do you need to be told?
I can't directly prove a lot of stuff I say. But what I do as experiments in the simplest forms, shows this Earth to be nothing like the spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.
What exactly it is in its entirety is open to question.
I believe I have many theories leading up to what it potentially is and it makes perfect sense to me. It may be as nutty as a fruitcake to you people and I would expect nothing less, such is the strong indoctrination of the global model.
Like I said before. When I give out stuff as factual, I'll back it up.
There's a few simple one's to back up that the world is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon. I've said it time and again and you know it, so deal with that in any way you wish.
So tell me more about how this pushing of molecules creates the same effect that I attribute to gravity.
Explain for instance why the pushing always seems to mean that objects fall to the ground.
It doesn't always mean objects fall to the ground.
That's dependent on molecular breakdown into less dense elements. A helium balloon is one such case.
The push down only comes from above when energy applied to a mass overcomes the atmospheric pressure upon it.
Once that mass loses the energy to push up, it is pushed back down as it pushes through the resistance to it in the stacked layers below it.
And you figured all of that (whatever it means) all by yourself did you?!? What causes the pushing? How does mass lose energy?
Mass will lose energy if mass if pushing against a resistance to break through it, unless more energy is consistently applied to break through.
Once that energy is spent then that mass will pushed/crushed back against by what the mass displaces at whatever part of the stacked layers it is in, which then overcomes the resistance below which creates a crush down all the way to the bottom.
I find it ironic that someone who is so dead-set against the idea of the Earth being a globe can even bring themselves to so much as mention the world atmosphere as in sphere meaning a globe. I would have thought you would have invented another word to describe the layer of air that surrounds the globe.
I could easily...but I keep it as atmosphere because I believe we are under a dome which is half a sphere.
I could call it halfasphere but you lot complain about me using different words so let's keep a bit of clarity.
Jack sold his cow for some beans and grew a big bean stalk, then climbed it, only to meet a big giant....and so on and so on....That's what makes fairy stories so fascinating.
I can tell you find fairy stories so fascinating. Your mind is full of them. I prefer to deal with physics in the real world though. I grew beyond fairy stories many, many years ago. You obviously have yet to make that progression.
But you are dealing with fairy stories, in my honest opinion.
-
You chose to use "atmosphere" because its what we re accustomed to?
Aaaaahahaha oh my goodnesss!!!
Thanks for the consideration.
Please use all other words in their commonly undedstood definitions as well.
If you want to redefine a word, suffix it with ***denP and provide us wih a definiton
Would save tons of time and confusion.
Wow youre a pos.
-
why not?
why does it work here on ground level but not waaaay up at dome level?
It works because of extreme pressure, as much as you like to think the pressure at sea level is nothing to us.
The very reason anything gets clamped, like your suction cup is because of the amount of atmospheric pressure you push away from that cup which adds to the external pressure upon it.
I've told you this so many times and you come back to ask again.
Like you said
The push down comes from above.
If the pressure is so low up there that suction cups no longer work - then why will things still fall?
Pay attention and put the jigsaw together
The push comes from everywhere.
The push down only comes from above when energy apllied to a mass overcomes the atmospheric pressure upon it.
Once that mass loses the energy to push up, it is pushed back down as it pushes through the resistance to it in the stacked layers below it.
It's been well explained and yet you won't grasp it because it kills gravity...and killing gravity also kills the global model....etc.
in two separate comments in the same post, you've contradicted yourself.
if the push is everywhere, as mentioned over and over by JackB - then laterally we should be pushed around too!
and if the push is everywhere, then we should be pushed up just as much as we are pushed down.
so you've just negated your own reason for down.
We are pushed around laterally. What do you think wind is?
There's absolutely no contradictions from my side but definitely massive misunderstanding from your side.
-
There you go ignoring simple questions yet again.
I'm not ignoring simple questions.
I've answered every one many times but you continue to deny it. I'm afraid that's your issue.
I overlook a lot of what you say because you just repeat the same stuff.
You waste your own time by spending far too much of it in a frenzy or simply going into lalalalalalala mode when anything is said against your global mindset/belief's.
-
Wind is dynamic pressure.
There is even a predictable formula for the way it behaves.
Computational fluid dynamics can reasonably predict its affects.
Wind tunnels are a thing.
Feel free to ket me know the lateral pushes when im standing still in my room with no wind.
Why down, but not left right back front?
Maybe next time dont use an example thats so extreeeemely easy to discount.
-
You chose to use "atmosphere" because its what we re accustomed to?
Aaaaahahaha oh my goodnesss!!!
Thanks for the consideration.
Please use all other words in their commonly undedstood definitions as well.
If you want to redefine a word, suffix it with ***denP and provide us wih a definiton
Would save tons of time and confusion.
Wow youre a pos.
I can't use all the other words in their supposed correct definitions because I don't believe they are, which is why I use my own version.
-
Wind is dynamic pressure.
There is even a predictable formula for the way it behaves.
Computational fluid dynamics can reasonably predict its affects.
Wind tunnels are a thing.
Feel free to ket me know the lateral pushes when im standing still in my room with no wind.
Why down, but not left right back front?
Maybe next time dont use an example thats so extreeeemely easy to discount.
When you're standing in your room with no wind you are still under pressure movements, laterally . You just don't feel them.
This is why static means nothing because static does not exist. Everything is always dynamic.
Soooo, let's get back to your bedroom (chill out...not in that way, you saucy git) ;)
Ok, in your room your body simply displaces the air in it, laterally and vertically, while your feet simply use the floor as the foundation (assuming standing). Basically very little air underfoot as it's mostly been displaced.
Soooo, you're standing there (let's assume as still as possible) with your body displacing the air. Compressing it away from your body.
That air is pushing right back against your body's resistance to it.
That air is forever agitating due to expansion and contraction around you and above you and marginally below your feet in terms of under your arches.
This means the air is moving. It's vibrating due to friction creating pressure changes.
Because this is happening all around your body, your body stays in position. It is clamped almost evenly around it, depending on symmetrical stance.
The pressure above you adds to a push down against the resistance of feet to floor.
To significant change lateral pressure, you have to move, or something has to alter pressure within the room. This could be a door opened and a rush in of pressure.
You've had this many a time by having a back door or window open when you open your front door.
Immediate pressure change and a lateral push against you.
I'm pretty sure you'll go right back to square one and say you can't grasp it.
-
You chose to use "atmosphere" because its what we re accustomed to?
Aaaaahahaha oh my goodnesss!!!
Thanks for the consideration.
Please use all other words in their commonly undedstood definitions as well.
If you want to redefine a word, suffix it with ***denP and provide us wih a definiton
Would save tons of time and confusion.
Wow youre a pos.
I can't use all the other words in their supposed correct definitions because I don't believe they are, which is why I use my own version.
Feel free to use your own version.
For communication purposes - feel free to TELL us what those version's definitions are so that we re all speaking the same language.
-
Wind is dynamic pressure.
There is even a predictable formula for the way it behaves.
Computational fluid dynamics can reasonably predict its affects.
Wind tunnels are a thing.
Feel free to ket me know the lateral pushes when im standing still in my room with no wind.
Why down, but not left right back front?
Maybe next time dont use an example thats so extreeeemely easy to discount.
When you're standing in your room with no wind you are still under pressure movements, laterally . You just don't feel them.
This is why static means nothing because static does not exist. Everything is always dynamic.
Soooo, let's get back to your bedroom (chill out...not in that way, you saucy git) ;)
Ok, in your room your body simply displaces the air in it, laterally and vertically, while your feet simply use the floor as the foundation (assuming standing). Basically very little air underfoot as it's mostly been displaced.
Soooo, you're standing there (let's assume as still as possible) with your body displacing the air. Compressing it away from your body.
That air is pushing right back against your body's resistance to it.
That air is forever agitating due to expansion and contraction around you and above you and marginally below your feet in terms of under your arches.
This means the air is moving. It's vibrating due to friction creating pressure changes.
Because this is happening all around your body, your body stays in position. It is clamped almost evenly around it, depending on symmetrical stance.
The pressure above you adds to a push down against the resistance of feet to floor.
To significant change lateral pressure, you have to move, or something has to alter pressure within the room. This could be a door opened and a rush in of pressure.
You've had this many a time by having a back door or window open when you open your front door.
Immediate pressure change and a lateral push against you.
I'm pretty sure you'll go right back to square one and say you can't grasp it.
Woooord salad.
Gist - unless i move lateeally then laterally i wont be pushed?
Ill jump ahead because we ve been over this befire.
If i dont move vertically - why am i still pushed down?
If i move left 2 steps, ive now increased my position 2steps away from the dome in the right, i should now be pushed my displaced amount.
If you say no,
Realise then rhat the same rules apply to the up-down as the left-right unless you can give some other reason (not including foundation).
Because air shouldnt care about foundation.
Maybe define a rules.
-
If you read between the lines of everything Sceptimatic says, he is actually coming up with absolutely nothing new. He is simply using his own ways of describing everything science and physics already knows and everything we all experience. OK he doesn't 'believe' in gravity. Yet throughout his life he has always experienced gravity in exactly the same way that everyone else has. He had simply made up his own interpretation of it.
I could hold an apple or indeed a grate of apples and let it fall to the ground and so can Sceptimatic. We will see and experience the same thing. To everyone else on the planet the reason why they fall to the ground is gravity. We will note that a single apple or indeed a crate of apples take the same time to fall to the ground as long as they are dropped from the same height. Sceptimatic would prefer to say it is due to molecules of air pushing against one another or something like that. Fair enough.
Underlying everything that Sceptimatic believes or doesn't believe is a massive distrust. It is the root cause and scope of that distrust that I am interested in rather than what he thinks is real and true or not. Distrust of anyone in 'authority' seems to be at the root of all conspiracy theorists. I have often heard people say they don't 'believe' in something simply because they find it difficult or impossible to understand it.
-
I've said plenty but you people absolutely refuse to try to understand it.
No, we do understand and realise that you are repeatedly contradicting yourself, such as not even being able to make up your mind on if the object itself is trying to fall, if it just the air pushing it, or if it is some magic based upon energy.
But you have never explained why the air pushes objects down.
You have repeatedly claimed to have provided such an explanation, but you never provide it.
It isn't a case of us not understanding, it is a case of you not explaining, because you can't.
A helium balloon is one such case.
Yes, one case which shows your model is garbage.
If it was just the air pushing objects down, it shouldn't matter what the object is.
The fact that some things fall while others rise shows your model is garbage, just like so many other things do.
As for denying conventional physics. I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics or scientific facts.
Just like you believe all sorts of BS.
But the simple fact is you are.
Conventional physics, backed up by mountains of evidence clearly indicates that the atmosphere will apply a force to an object based upon the pressure and the area.
Due to the pressure gradient of the atmosphere this will result in a net upwards force from the air on all objects in the atmosphere.
Conventional physics clearly indicates that the pressure gradient will make things rise.
You outright reject that and instead claim the air magically pushes objects down in complete defiance of that pressure gradient.
So regardless of what lies you want to believe, the simple fact is your claims outright defy and deny conventional physics.
You even outright reject basic, conventional physics which you misuse to attack the globe.
For example, you claim that the air magically needs a container, based upon the well known fact that pressure gradients try to eliminate themselves, where a high pressure will try to push into a low pressure region, compressing the low pressure fluid to increase its pressure and decompressing the high pressure region to lower its pressure until the pressure is balanced.
You misuse this fact to argue against the globe and gravity, when gravity explains why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
But without gravity, with it just all being the air, this simple conventional physics dictates that there cannot be any pressure gradient in the atmosphere like we observe.
A pressure gradient like that observed in the atmosphere, without gravity or something equivalent to it, would result in the high pressure air near the surface flowing upwards to attempt to eliminate that pressure gradient.
But you outright deny this, and instead pretend the air is magically enough.
Mass will lose energy if mass if pushing against a resistance to break through it, unless more energy is consistently applied to break through.
You mean like the extra energy from the greater pressure below will continue to allow the mass to push upwards through the atmosphere, without something else like gravity to stop it?
Or how this greater resistance below should stop any object from falling unless there is some force like gravity to keep it falling?
which then overcomes the resistance below
HOW?
What magic allows it to overcome the resistance below, given that resistance below is GREATER than the push down from above?
Again, if your delusion garbage was true, things should be pushed up to the top.
That is because the push from the air below is more than enough to overcome the resistance of the air above.
Again, you need something OTHER THAN THE AIR to explain it.
But you are dealing with fairy stories, in my honest opinion.
You have made it quite clear that it isn't your honest opinion.
It is your blatant lie.
We are pushed around laterally. What do you think wind is?
And notice how it pushes you from the high pressure side to the low pressure side?
Why does your atmosphere magically defy that (that is one of the massive contradictions from you).
The point that you are avoiding is that on a calm day, in an environment without any significant wind, you claim the air magically pushes things down, for no reason at all and more importantly, defying all reason which indicates it should push up.
The question you continually refuse to answer is WHY?
Why does the air magically push things down?
I'm not ignoring simple questions.
So you say, when you completely ignore the vast majority of the post, because it contains the same questions you continue to ignore because you cannot answer them without exposing that your model is garbage.
You haven't answered my questions, and just lying by claiming you have will not magically answer them.
If you had actually answered them it would be trivial for you to provide the answers.
But the problem is that you have no answers, but instead of admitting that you just lie and claim to have already answered them.
It is truly pathetic.
Ok, in your room your body simply displaces the air in it, laterally and vertically, while your feet simply use the floor as the foundation (assuming standing). Basically very little air underfoot as it's mostly been displaced.
As has been pointed out to you countless times, this line of reasoning means if you place your body or an object against a wall you should be pushed into that wall; if you place an object on the ceiling, it should be pushed up into the ceiling, and an object in mid-air should just sit there, floating; or at best being pushed back into your hand with you unable to release it.
If you claim we should be pushed down if we lift something up because we have moved the air, the same applies for any lateral movement, if you push away from a wall the same complete absence of reasoning indicates the air should crush you back into that wall. But that isn't what happens.
Because of this it shows it cannot be the reason and thus it doesn't explain anything.
I'm pretty sure you'll go right back to square one and say you can't grasp it.
Again, the problem is you aren't leaving square one as you continually refuse to provide an explanation for why the air magically pushes things down, except this complete failure which requires an object to already be on the ground, and which would indicate the air just pushes objects towards any solid surface.
If you want this to be square one and to move on from it you need to claim that if you are up against a wall, the air will push you into the wall, and if you push away from the wall the air will push you back into it, making you "fall" into the wall.
Or, you need to provide a justification which actually explains the directionality, without needing to have a floor below you.
-
I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics
Well you are constantly denying that gravity exists so if that is not denying anything to do with conventional physics I don't know what else you would call it.
-
If you read between the lines of everything Sceptimatic says, he is actually coming up with absolutely nothing new. He is simply using his own ways of describing everything science and physics already knows and everything we all experience. OK he doesn't 'believe' in gravity. Yet throughout his life he has always experienced gravity in exactly the same way that everyone else has. He had simply made up his own interpretation of it.
I could hold an apple or indeed a grate of apples and let it fall to the ground and so can Sceptimatic. We will see and experience the same thing. To everyone else on the planet the reason why they fall to the ground is gravity. We will note that a single apple or indeed a crate of apples take the same time to fall to the ground as long as they are dropped from the same height. Sceptimatic would prefer to say it is due to molecules of air pushing against one another or something like that. Fair enough.
Underlying everything that Sceptimatic believes or doesn't believe is a massive distrust. It is the root cause and scope of that distrust that I am interested in rather than what he thinks is real and true or not. Distrust of anyone in 'authority' seems to be at the root of all conspiracy theorists. I have often heard people say they don't 'believe' in something simply because they find it difficult or impossible to understand it.
Corrdct
and incorrect.
There are som massive flaws in logic and fails at basic math and geometry and basic communication skills.
Its amazing!
-
I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics
Well you are constantly denying that gravity exists so if that is not denying anything to do with conventional physics I don't know what else you would call it.
I wouldn't call it conventional physics, I'd call it conventional acceptance of fairy stories.
To call it physics or science, is wrong when it doesn't exist.
-
No, we do understand and realise that you are repeatedly contradicting yourself
No, I'm not.
-
Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics. Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data. Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.
-
Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics. Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data. Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.
Nobody has debunked it because nobody would be allowed to.
Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.
It's only used to keep alive a fantasy of a spinning globe in a supposed vacuum of space with all the rest of the so called space nonsense.
Simple experiments prove what's really happening but it gets overlooked and discarded, for obvious reasons.
For atmospheric pressure to be the lone reason for all life and happenings would instantly kill off everything that was put out about Earth and space as being a supposed big spinning spectacle.
-
by "prove" you mean not done.
agreed - overlooked and discarded for obvious reason in that not done therefore not proved.
-
I wouldn't call it conventional physics, I'd call it conventional acceptance of fairy stories.
To call it physics or science, is wrong when it doesn't exist.
Are you telling us that as fact or just giving us your opinion? Because remember you have said many times that you are not here to pass on what you say as factual but merely your opinion. But given you deny as true anything apart from what you believe then that is basically putting things over as factual.
Conventional physics includes gravity. So you denying that gravity exists is also you denying conventional physics. Yet you deny that you do that as well. Your whole life just seems to be filled with denial and distrust.
I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics
Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.
I think most people would agree that is heading for a classic Sceptimatic example of both denial and contradiction. You deny that gravity exists do you not? The theory of gravitation is a core part of conventional and classical physics so you denying gravity is also you denying conventional physics.
-
I wouldn't call it conventional physics
Right, so when you say you don't deny "conventional physics" you don't mean that at all.
Instead you mean you don't deny what agrees with your delusional BS, and you deny loads of conventional physics which should your delusional BS is just that, delusional BS.
Nobody has debunked it because nobody would be allowed to.
Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.
There you go with the pathetic lies and projection again.
Everyone is allowed to try to debunk gravity. But no one has succeeded because it almost certainly is real.
It is backed up by mountains of evidence which you simply dismiss as fake and stories because you reject everything that is related to the globe because of your irrational hatred of the globe.
As far as you are concerned, if something shows you are wrong, it must be fake.
It's only used
Because that is what all the available evidence shows and because it actually works to explain reality, unlike your delusional BS.
You can't even explain why some things fall and other things float.
You can't explain why there is a pressure gradient in anything.
Simple experiments prove what's really happening but it gets overlooked and discarded, for obvious reasons.
Yes, very obvious reason. It shows your claims are pure BS, so you overlook it and discard it.
But don't worry, we aren't as dishonest as you.
We don't overlook these simple experiments.
We accept them, and accept that they show you are wrong.
For atmospheric pressure to be the lone reason for all life and happenings would instantly kill off everything that was put out about Earth
Yes, such as a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, some objects falling while others float, and so on.
Fortunately, it is delusional BS.
So we don't need to worry about that.
Now again, care to stop with the pathetic deflections and distractions and just answer the trivial questions about your delusional BS?
Care to explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
Remember, simple experiments will show that if you merely have interactions between the layers there is no gradient.
Again, turning the system on its side, such that you have layers stacked against a wall to the right and pushing the left most layer from the left to the right will result in the pressure being consistent throughout. There is no magical build up of pressure such that it increases as you get closer to the wall. However if you have something apply a force to each layer directly, rather than through all the layers to the left as well, then the pressure does increase.
Again, this shows that contrary to your garbage, there is a force acting on each layer of air directly, rather than acting through the air above and below. This shows it isn't simply the air pushing down.
Likewise, simple experiments with pressure gradients show that if you have a pressure gradient any object inside it will be pushed by this pressure gradient from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side. The force is proportional to the area and the pressure gradient, and for a fluid where the pressure gradient is caused by gravity, that works out to be the weight of the fluid displaced.
This can also be observed by seeing how the weight of an object changes in various fluids.
If you take an object in air and weigh it and then reduce the pressure, you also reduce the pressure gradient and this causes the object to appear to weigh MORE as the buoyant force is reduced.
Conversely if you put an object in a denser fluid such that the pressure gradient is larger, the buoyant force increases and the object appears to weigh less.
Again, these simple experiments show quite clearly that the air pushes objects up, and that another force (lets call it gravity for simplicity) makes things fall.
This also explains why some objects fall and some float (unlike your garbage). If the buoyant force is greater, the object floats. If the gravitational force is greater, the object falls.
Why would any sane person reject gravity and accept your delusional nonsense when gravity is backed up by so much evidence and actually works to explain reality; while your nonsense is refuted by so much evidence and you cannot even explain some of the most trivial things in reality?
-
Simple experiments prove what's really happening
I quite agree. Simple experiments which show how things fall to the ground when released. We all observe the same thing. It is the interpretation of that observation which varies between individuals.
-
by "prove" you mean not done.
agreed - overlooked and discarded for obvious reason in that not done therefore not proved.
Not done and not proved. Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
There's a very good reason for that.
-
I wouldn't call it conventional physics, I'd call it conventional acceptance of fairy stories.
To call it physics or science, is wrong when it doesn't exist.
Are you telling us that as fact or just giving us your opinion?
Because remember you have said many times that you are not here to pass on what you say as factual but merely your opinion.
Anything I do give out is my opinion based on my own interpretations. That's all you need to know.
When I mention facts I'll be sure to give proof of them just as I expect you people to but I see nothing of proof but many instances of spouted fact based on nothing more than acceptance without proof.
But given you deny as true anything apart from what you believe then that is basically putting things over as factual.
No I'm not. I'm putting things over by how I perceive things to potentially be . My theories or hypotheses or musings or thoughts or whatever you people want to think of it.
I've told you people this, many many times but you keep coming back t this factuaL stuff because you think it gives you some kind of leeway in your arguments.
Conventional physics includes gravity. So you denying that gravity exists is also you denying conventional physics.
Not in my book.
Conventional acceptance of something that does not exist (in my book) is not conventional physics. It's conventional fiction/fantasy/mis/disinformation. In my honest opinion.
Yet you deny that you do that as well. Your whole life just seems to be filled with denial and distrust.
question a lot of stuff and I basically work on a , Believe nothing and question everything mindset.
I feel this is the better way given all the absolute gunk we are fed throughout out lives.
I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics
Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.
I think most people would agree that is heading for a classic Sceptimatic example of both denial and contradiction.
Feel free to think what you want but there's one way to stop me questioning and refusing to accept gravity. Prove it exists and tell me what it is.
Can you do that?
As for contradiction. Only in your mind.
You deny that gravity exists do you not?
No.
I don't believe gravity is a thing, other than a meaningless word.
The theory of gravitation is a core part of conventional and classical physics so you denying gravity is also you denying conventional physics.
The theory of gravity?
Why a theory?
It's codswallop.
-
There you go with the pathetic lies and projection again.
Feel free to keep thinking that.
-
Simple experiments prove what's really happening
I quite agree. Simple experiments which show how things fall to the ground when released. We all observe the same thing. It is the interpretation of that observation which varies between individuals.
All you have to do is to explain what gravity is.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
Anything I do give out is my opinion based on my own interpretations.
No it isn't.
You claim things with 100% certainty, that is not an opinion.
That is you stating something as a fact.
There you go with the pathetic lies and projection again.
Feel free to keep thinking that.
And I will continue thinking that until you actually start answering the questions which expose your BS.
Again, what magic causes the pressure gradient of the atmosphere?
What magic causes the air to directly defy this pressure gradient and push objects down?
Can you actually answer any of these simple questions you have been asked, or can you just lie and deflect?
-
by "prove" you mean not done.
agreed - overlooked and discarded for obvious reason in that not done therefore not proved.
Not done and not proved. Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
There's a very good reason for that.
The irony...
Remind us once again where the arc reactor center cell sun is?
Show us the photo of your tutube and point to us what you mean (because clearly we cant understand your misused word jumble).
-
Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics. Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data. Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.
Nobody has debunked it because nobody would be allowed to.
<snip>
I'm sorry but that statement is nothing but a bullshit cop out. A lame excuse to handwave away peer reviewed, published data without having to address any of it.
Claiming it doesn't exist in the face of volumes of peer reviewed data without evidence to support that claim is hypocritical. If globe deniers are going to ask us to back up our claims then you should have to do the same.
Mike
-
All you have to do is to explain what gravity is
That is like explaining what time is.
-
I'll be more than happy to explain further if you require it.
That is much appreciated! I am trying to "sponge" it up currently.
I think I mostly get it - that the property of the density is what pushes the other layers upwards.
There is always another way to conceptualize things and still effectively describe what we observe.
It is certainly a wild idea to (more or less) remove weight entirely and describe everything with pressures (as it appears you are doing), but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it.
-
All you have to do is to explain what gravity is
That is like explaining what time is.
That’s not exactly true. It is true that we don’t know what the exact mechanism by which gravity causes masses to accelerate toward each other; space to warp. However, how that mechanism operates is very well understood. In fact, it’s so well understood that its effects are quantifiable, measurable, and predictable and have been successfully tested over and over again.
It is a stone-cold fact there is no other explanation for the observations we attribute to gravity that can say the same thing.
Mike
-
Fundamentally wrong because air can be isolated as a variable and shown to have no effect affect
Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.
He has ignored these with a simple wave of the hand.
-
No.
I don't believe gravity is a thing, other than a meaningless word.
Agree on the first, but gravity is undoubtedly a word with a meaning. Just look it up in the OED for that meaning. What is meaningless and essentially irrelevant to everyone else is whether you choose to acknowledge that meaning. I don't think anyone has ever suggested gravity is a 'thing' that you can reach out and touch.
Sceptimatic you simply like playing with words so you can (in your mind at least) keep winning arguments and discussions. That in turn perhaps makes you feel somehow special in whatever way you are looking for. Maybe you like to think you are right all the time while everyone else has been brainwashed, indoctrinated or whatever word you want to use.
Up until the early 20th century gravity was regarded as a force between any two objects with mass. In 99% of situations that description worked. But then Einstein re-modelled gravity so that it became not a force but a curvature of space-time. This of course is when it all starts to go over your head and so you immediately slam the door and refuse to accept anything to do with it. In other words whenever you meet anything you don't understand you enter that deep, dark tunnel of denial.
You want me to explain gravity to you.. Fine,OK I will. Or should I say I will describe my understanding of gravity. But first you explain to me everything you know about this dome of yours.
If someone who had spent their career in geodysics came up to you and said 'Hey Sceptimatic - the Earth really is a sphere!' you would no doubt say 'OK prove it - I won't believe it you unless you can prove it. If you can't prove it then you must be lying.'
I have no doubt that no matter what figures or data they put in front of you, you would not accept any of it as proof. But could you provide any better proof that your belief of the world is right and theirs is wrong? Proof at least beyond water looking level. Which of course it does over the sort of distances we can see directly.
What I would like to know is why you are so sure in your mind that all those involved in science professionally (or should I say anyone in 'authority') and who tell us the Earth is spherical are lying. Why would they have a need to lie? Is that your mindset? People are lying if they say anything other than what you believe?
Take another scenario. You and I head up to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, each carrying a cannonball. On the count of 3 we both release the cannonballs (making sure there is no one standing at the bottom first of course) and then observe what happens. We observe both cannonballs fall to the ground. No surprises there. Your cannonball is made of lead while mine is made of aluminium. Yet they both hit the ground at the same time.
The conventional explanation of why the cannonballs fall to the ground is gravity. But you would disagree. What evidence then is available purely from what we observe that indicates that gravity is not the cause of the cannonballs falling?
-
It is certainly a wild idea to (more or less) remove weight entirely and describe everything with pressures (as it appears you are doing), but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it.
Because you want to help any attack on the RE.
The fundamental issues are quite apparent, including a big one you already addressed and which I hoped meant you would stop just trying to prop him up.
The way air pressure/fluids in general work is quite well understood, from loads and loads of experiments. Some would even say they are natural laws.
Yet his claims outright defy them.
For example, it is quite well known that fluids will naturally try to eliminate any pressure gradient, that is even the basis for why water always finds its level.
Yet he outright rejects that idea and instead claims the pressure will magically exist for no reason at all.
Likewise, it is quite well known that a pressure gradient in a fluid will push an object from the high pressure side to the low pressure side. But again, he outright rejects this, instead claiming that the air will magically push most objects down, in complete defiance of the pressure gradient.
Likewise, the fluid doesn't care what the mass of the object is or what it is made of (with the sole exception of the fluid interacting at the surface due to friction and relative motion of the fluids), so a helium filled balloon should interact with the air in the same way as a lead filled balloon or a water filled balloon and so on. Yet he claims the air will magically push the lead down and the helium up.
I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point. There are so many things fundamentally wrong with his claims it isn't funny. You are just choosing to overlook them.
Anyone who honestly looks at his claims and actually thinks about them can see plenty fundamentally wrong with them. And that isn't just limited to his claims regarding gravity and air.
It also applies to plenty of others he has made, like his claim that everything is magically a push, or that you magically can't see the RE through a level tube.
-
Fundamentally wrong because air can be isolated as a variable and shown to have no effect affect
Ah, but what if there were something smaller and more permeable in that air (or something, as Scepti has described that air breaks down into)? Something that no amount of pumping could ever evacuate because the containers we use are too porous for this, theoretical, "ultra-fine" fluid? There are most certainly other conceptions that would accommodate this apparent contradiction as well.
Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.
But push IS from top down, in the traditional conception (pascal's law) of pressure. The push is cumulative.
In regards to the hair, it got me noodling. What density of surrounding fluid (and what type of fluid specifically) would be required to get all hair to "stand up"? I'm pretty certain that even at the bottom of the ocean this wouldn't happen, though I've never asked/researched it. The effects caused by van de graff (static) and mousse/gel/oil/hair "stay" are certainly different. However if there was a significant pressure differential, between your head and hair, you are right - your hair would never stand up.
He has ignored these with a simple wave of the hand.
The wave of the hand/wand is always a crowd pleaser :)
In regards to the vacuum chamber idea, they have directly addressed that one - though that doesn't mean you have to buy the answer.
In terms of hair, they have said repeatedly that if there is no imbalance - then there is no push. If the hair can stand up on its own and the pressure is more or less equal on all sides of it - why would it be pushed down? Why would your conception of Scepti's view preclude hair standing up?
-
Ah, but what if there were something smaller and more permeable in that air
Then we are no longer discussing the air.
If you want to claim it is something like a flow aether pushing everything down, go ahead. But that is nothing like what he is claiming.
Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.
But push IS from top down, in the traditional conception (pascal's law) of pressure. The push is cumulative.
In regards to the hair, it got me noodling. What density of surrounding fluid (and what type of fluid specifically) would be required to get all hair to "stand up"? I'm pretty certain that even at the bottom of the ocean this wouldn't happen, though I've never asked/researched it. The effects caused by van de graff (static) and mousse/gel/oil/hair "stay" are certainly different. However if there was a significant pressure differential, between your head and hair, you are right - your hair would never stand up.
You are entirely missing the point.
The point is that if it is the air pushing you down, the air is pushing you down from above. This means all the force pushing you down needs to come from above.
i.e. all the force pushing all of your body below your hair down comes from above your hair. Your hair is not capable of supporting that force and would collapse and be crushed to your head, quite like if you were standing on your head.
This also applies to stacks of objects, where if the air is pushing from the top, then the force should be constant as the very top has all the force pushing down to hold the entire stack down.
This means it shouldn't matter if you put a fragile object at the top or bottom of the stack, the force pushing the stack down should crush it either way.
But again, that isn't what happens in reality. Instead we observed that the force increases as you go down the stack, showing a fundamental problem with his ideas.
In regards to the vacuum chamber idea, they have directly addressed that one - though that doesn't mean you have to buy the answer.
No, he hasn't. He has appealed to there still being some air in there, but he hasn't explained why heavy objects still apparently fall at basically the same rate, and why the weight of an object increases.
How does lowering the air pressure dramatically to only a tiny portion of what it was originally, make the object heavier? How does it still accelerate the object at roughly the same rate?
He has not explained this, because it makes no sense.
In terms of hair, they have said repeatedly that if there is no imbalance - then there is no push. If the hair can stand up on its own and the pressure is more or less equal on all sides of it - why would it be pushed down? Why would your conception of Scepti's view preclude hair standing up?
Have you paid attention at all to what he is claiming.
Again, this is another fundamental problem with his claims.
If you have an object in mid air, with roughly equal pressure all around, why should it be pushed DOWN?
That is what he claims, that somehow the air magically pushes these objects down.
Yet if you actually look at the pressure you find the pressure is slightly higher BELOW the object, meaning it should be pushed up, not down.
The point is that if you ignore that massive problem and instead accept his wild idea that the air is magically pushing things down in complete defiance of all reason, you then have the issue of why it doesn't crush the hair on your head down as it pushes down to push you down.
It is quite clear to any honest sane individual that has thought about it for more than a few seconds that the air is not pushing things down and there are so many things fundamentally wrong with such an idea it isn't funny.
-
He said its the same air we breath.
Hes been asked many times about properties of airand what is it.
He has provided no info.
Yet cavendish experiment shows two masses attractig to each other.
So quit giving sceppy credit.
Feel free to find out more, but he doesnt get credit.
-
Because you want to help any attack on the RE.
Lol. Is that what we are doing in this thread? Attacking? I'm trying to understand, and am talking about something quite tangential to the shape of the world.
The fundamental issues are quite apparent, including a big one you already addressed and which I hoped meant you would stop just trying to prop him up.
I still think your point is somewhat valid. My next question regarding that will be about gradient that occurs in a uniform media. I'm just trying to understand; not prop up.
Yet his claims outright defy them.
Possibly, though I'm not certain about that yet.
For example, it is quite well known that fluids will naturally try to eliminate any pressure gradient, that is even the basis for why water always finds its level.
True.
Yet he outright rejects that idea and instead claims the pressure will magically exist for no reason at all.
Their most recent answer to me (assuming I am understanding it properly) was that the varying density of the matter is the cause of the gradient. The most dense matter pushes the less dense matter up above it (etc.), and the layers above them exert pressure (I think, uniformly as we / the laws expect) on each layer which ultimately effects the layer on the bottom (as well as the top, however the "top" has less cumulative pressure due to its lesser density/matter).
But again, he outright rejects this, instead claiming that the air will magically push most objects down, in complete defiance of the pressure gradient.
I think they are describing the process of falling, and cause thereof, in different terms - but not necessarily a contradictory one. The reason for the density seperation is not fully explained in any case (even when you handwave "gravity" at it), but I agree that that pressure gradient exists in one singular media (not mixed, as all air tends to be) - so my next question will be along those lines.
Yet he claims the air will magically push the lead down and the helium up.
I don't think they are contradicting archemides' principle, and are saying the air is pushing down (and all directions?) in an attempt to crush the balloon. The balloon can only resist the pressure of the surrounding fluid so much, and this dictates whether or not the object will rise (pushed up by the denser and higher pressure below, into the lower pressure as expected), fall (to join the more dense matter below of which it matches outward "push"), or neither (already found its "proper" place in the "stacking system"). If it contradicts archimedes principle then I might agree with you that it "breaks laws". However, "To say an object violates a law is to elevate it to a person, and even a citizen" and laws were made to be broken anyhow!
It also applies to plenty of others he has made, like his claim that everything is magically a push, or that you magically can't see the RE through a level tube.
Possibly, though I think the claims about gravity actually being pressure which is misunderstood are worthy of seperate consideration in any case - though you could still be right.
The "everything is push" perspective is a great example because it is similar to considering archemides principle using only pressure. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with doing so, and it is still a conception that can describe what we observe. Many such conceptions are not right (I.e. Indicitave of / consistent with actual reality) - but this does not preclude them from being useful or logical/consistent/sound.
-
Lol. Is that what we are doing in this thread? Attacking?
Yes, this entire thread started as an attack on the RE, and Scepti still tries to make it one.
Because of that you want to support him, and even stated you loathe to admit that I have a valid point.
If you were just trying to understand, you would have no reason to loathe to admit that. You would just happily accept that I had a valid point to improve understanding and clarify a significant problem for his model.
I still think your point is somewhat valid.
Why only some what?
Yet his claims outright defy them.
Possibly, though I'm not certain about that yet.
Why?
The denial of the known laws regarding how fluids work is quite apparent.
Their most recent answer to me (assuming I am understanding it properly) was that the varying density of the matter is the cause of the gradient.
But all that really says is that there is a gradient, it doesn't explain why?
The most dense matter pushes the less dense matter up above it (etc.), and the layers above them exert pressure (I think, uniformly as we / the laws expect) on each layer which ultimately effects the layer on the bottom (as well as the top, however the "top" has less cumulative pressure due to its lesser density/matter).
Pressure doesn't care about how much matter or density is there.
This explanation would only explain it temporarily, as the more dense mater expands to push the less dens matter up and compress it.
That would then result in no pressure gradient.
I think they are describing the process of falling, and cause thereof, in different terms - but not necessarily a contradictory one.
It is a direct contradiction. He claims the air pushes objects down in direct defiance of the known pressure gradient of the atmosphere, and in direct of the known behaviour of fluids where the fluid pushes from the high pressure region towards the low pressure region.
That is inherently contradictory.
The reason for the density seperation is not fully explained in any case
This depends on just how you define "fully explained".
As we have been over repeatedly, a strict definition means NOTHING is, so bringing it up is irrelevant.
But for a simple definition, gravity and its effects, and the behaviour of fluids fully explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
but I agree that that pressure gradient exists in one singular media (not mixed, as all air tends to be)
It exists in all media.
I don't think they are contradicting archemides' principle
I never said he did. I said he is contradicting the very basics of how fluids work.
But that principle is based upon 2 separate forces, one trying to make things fall and one trying to make things rise.
But to some extent, he does directly contradict that.
He claims an object is pushed down by displacing air, that the more air it displaces, the more it is pushed down. He claims that heavier objects are heavier because they displace more air. He claims that if you take 2 objects of the same apparent volume, but of different weight, that difference is due to the lighter object being more porous and thus displacing less air.
Whereas Archimedes' principle states that the more of a fluid an object displaces, the more the fluid pushes the object up. The only exception would be to have a fluid with a negative weight or 0 weight, but we know that air does have a weight as we can condense it and weigh it.
and are saying the air is pushing down (and all directions?) in an attempt to crush the balloon.
He claims it magically pushes most objects down, for no reason at all.
The balloon can only resist the pressure of the surrounding fluid so much, and this dictates whether or not the object will rise
No it doesn't. It would dictate whether or not the object is crushed or not.
If the object can resist, it retains its volume. If it can't, it is crushed by the air.
This is because the pressure is pushing inwards.
Rising or not comes down to the pressure gradient, which pushes things up.
And that then means you need a force acting on the object to resist that, which can't just be the air.
If the weight of the object is great enough to resist the buoyant force, it falls. If it isn't, it rises.
If it contradicts archimedes principle then I might agree with you that it "breaks laws"
There is far more than just that 1 principle.
Showing it doesn't violate 1 doesn't mean it doesn't violate any.
Possibly, though I think the claims about gravity actually being pressure which is misunderstood are worthy of seperate consideration in any case
And trying to explain gravity through a fluid fundamentally different to air which permeates all matter would be a fundamentally different discussion.
The "everything is push" perspective is a great example because it is similar to considering archemides principle using only pressure. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with doing so, and it is still a conception that can describe what we observe.
We have been over this before. There is plenty that cannot be explained just by using push.
Not unless you want to invoke objects making fields and then those fields pushing things.
Solids are a simple example where you need a pull. Especially with the distinction between a solid, a liquid and a gas and tensile/cohesive forces dependent upon the material.
Many such conceptions are not right (I.e. Indicitave of / consistent with actual reality) - but this does not preclude them from being useful or logical/consistent/sound.
If something is not consistent with reality, by definition it isn't sound. Sound requires it to be true.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
There's a reason why it's still passed about as a theory.
That's the beauty about so called scientists doing this nonsense. They pass it out as a theory so they can change it all at a later date when something happens that renders it as fictional as some already knew.
You have absolutely no clue but you think reliance on stories as your facts, are valid to me.
They're not...not by a long long way.
-
All you have to do is to explain what gravity is
That is like explaining what time is.
So you can't explain it....right?
You're in acceptance of it because you were told it is fact and you use it as your fact...right?
-
Fundamentally wrong because air can be isolated as a variable and shown to have no effect affect
Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.
He has ignored these with a simple wave of the hand.
None were ignored and all were answered but you chose to ignore what was said as me not explaining. That's on you, not me.
-
No.
I don't believe gravity is a thing, other than a meaningless word.
Agree on the first, but gravity is undoubtedly a word with a meaning. Just look it up in the OED for that meaning. What is meaningless and essentially irrelevant to everyone else is whether you choose to acknowledge that meaning. I don't think anyone has ever suggested gravity is a 'thing' that you can reach out and touch.
Sceptimatic you simply like playing with words so you can (in your mind at least) keep winning arguments and discussions. That in turn perhaps makes you feel somehow special in whatever way you are looking for. Maybe you like to think you are right all the time while everyone else has been brainwashed, indoctrinated or whatever word you want to use.
I use what words best describe my side of things. My thoughts. My musings. My hypotheses....against words which I do not agree with. It's as simple as that.
Don't take the indoctrinated and brainwashed stuff to heart. I include myself in with this. We are all under t for varying reasons.
And finally I certainly don't think I'm anyone special. No more special than the next person. I have a different mindset than many in some aspects but generally the same as most in many aspects of ongoing life.
I certainly don't think I'm right and everyone is wrong. I think I have my reasons to go against some stuff but proving it in a real physical way is only possible with some stuff but mostly it relies on searching in the logical filing cabinet of the brain which many of us refuse to do when presented with stuff that is just easier to just follow.
When I pass stuff off as factual, then you have a case if I can't back it up. Until then I merely have a process I follow by my own logic and thought, along with small experiments.
Up until the early 20th century gravity was regarded as a force between any two objects with mass. In 99% of situations that description worked. But then Einstein re-modelled gravity so that it became not a force but a curvature of space-time. This of course is when it all starts to go over your head and so you immediately slam the door and refuse to accept anything to do with it. In other words whenever you meet anything you don't understand you enter that deep, dark tunnel of denial.
A force between two objects with mass is fine....but explaining the force is what I want to know. I explain it from my side but it's never explained from the global side.
As for changing it to warped space-time.
What in the hell is warped space-time?
I can explain mass warping atmosphere by simple mass displacement of it. Simple and easy to explain for those who are willing to listen.
The problem is, gravity is merely mentioned as mass attracting mass but no reason for it.
It's used in a so called vacuum of mass attracting mass, in so called space...but what space can you warp and where does time come into it?
You want me to explain gravity to you.. Fine,OK I will. Or should I say I will describe my understanding of gravity. But first you explain to me everything you know about this dome of yours.
Can you explain it in a simple way instead of saying it's over my head?
I've explained plenty on the dome but it's waved away...and fair enough....but....waving it away does not mean me not explaining it from my side.
If someone who had spent their career in geodysics came up to you and said 'Hey Sceptimatic - the Earth really is a sphere!' you would no doubt say 'OK prove it - I won't believe it you unless you can prove it. If you can't prove it then you must be lying.'
No.
If they can't prove it then I'd say they have no business in calling it factual.
You lot argue with me as if you are privy to the facts but the truth is you are merely regurgitating what has been trained into you. It's a human trait.
We're a bunch of mimics who do have the ability to step outside of that, set in our ways, box, yet most choose not to.
I don't spout off facts unless I know them to be facts, or somethin shows a massive potential for facts over other arguments supposedly contrary to them.
I have no doubt that no matter what figures or data they put in front of you, you would not accept any of it as proof.
That all depends on what the figures and data actually represent in terms of legitimate physical proof as an end product..
But could you provide any better proof that your belief of the world is right and theirs is wrong?
No.
I can't present any proof that my world is correct but I can present proof that the spinning globe is wrong.
However, me presenting the simplicity of it, is never enough for changing any mind of someone who is unconditional to the global model we were massively indoctrinated into.
Proof at least beyond water looking level. Which of course it does over the sort of distances we can see directly.
You say at least beyond water looking level.
Why do you need to take this out of the equation?
It's a simple simple simple physical proof that we do not live on a spinning globe. Nothing about it tells us anything other than, it sits in its surroundings and conforms to the barriers that keep it there, with an end product of a level surface to the eye on a mild day, plus a level surface by spirit level or by many other means.
For people to actually argue that it acts on a convex curve as level and without massive disruption is a classic case of unconditional acceptance of a story that allows fictional forces to supposedly set it out as a truth but always hidden behind the word, theory....just in case change is required to brainwash again.
-
What I would like to know is why you are so sure in your mind that all those involved in science professionally (or should I say anyone in 'authority') and who tell us the Earth is spherical are lying.
I don't think they're all lying.
I don't think you're lying.
You can't go into so called space and look back.
You can only follow set out procedures with well rehearsed answers to fit the jigsaw picture you were given as your supposed facts.
Some are lying in mammoth proportions and some are merely following the sort of protocol of that for monetary gain.
That's my opinion and you are under no obligation to do anything other than laugh at it if you feel the need.
Why would they have a need to lie?
Why does anyone feel the need to lie about anything?
Is that your mindset? People are lying if they say anything other than what you believe?
That's your mindset. You decide to think this. I simply question stuff.
You could spend all year telling me what you've studied in books and I could be willing to let you teach me what you learned from those books.
If you teach me that they're all factual without you even knowing this is the case, then you're doing nothing more than giving me your belief system that what you are reading, is fact, which I can then go on to teach someone else as my fact based on me accepting that you are telling me facts......and so on.
If someone comes along one day and asks us to show them the facts, not just tell them, then what do we say?
Do we tell them we only know what we were taught?
Only know what we read up on?
Go bezerk and try and belittle the person into just acceptance, just as we have?
Some people are in awe of quiz masters. Many people will naturally feel inferior to them and would likely have no qualms about accepting, as truth, anything told by them.
Yet the quiz masters are merely regurgitating exactly what they read. What is fed into them.
All the answers are their truth's but only the truth's in many cases based on acceptance by reading and word or mouth...not physical reality of proof.
Yet those people are claimed to be geniuses for nothing more than regurgitation.
Take another scenario. You and I head up to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, each carrying a cannonball. On the count of 3 we both release the cannonballs (making sure there is no one standing at the bottom first of course) and then observe what happens. We observe both cannonballs fall to the ground. No surprises there. Your cannonball is made of lead while mine is made of aluminium. Yet they both hit the ground at the same time.
They don't.
You think they do because the height and resistance to the mass, is small but the resistance to that mass is still there and the more dense mass will always out do the less dense mass.
The cannon ball will always hit the ground first against a similar sized aluminium ball.
However, the drop is so small and resistance to above push, the results are not as easy to see by eye.
Flatten out the very same balls into equal sized small plates and drop them flat side down, then you get to see the acting resistance to the mass change to a degree where, by eye, you will notice.
The conventional explanation of why the cannonballs fall to the ground is gravity. But you would disagree. What evidence then is available purely from what we observe that indicates that gravity is not the cause of the cannonballs falling?
The feel of resistance to mass by atmospheric pressure is displaces is a massive indication...and by porosity of any mass.
There's absolutely nothing that shows gravity.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
You not liking relaity wont magically change it.
Now why don't you stop with the pathetic deflection and address the massive issues which show your claims to be pure garbage?
Again, what magic causes the atmosphere to have a pressure gradient when you claim it is just the air pushing down?
Again, what magic causes the atmosphere to push objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
-
I can't present any proof that my world is correct but I can present proof that the spinning globe is wrong.
Really, how can you do that? That makes you the first person in history then who can. That must surely make you feel very proud of yourself and justly so. If only that were true. In reality all you can do is present what you think is proof and individual 'proofs' have a nasty habit of being based heavily on personal interpretation and belief.
Such as the old favorite of flat Earth believers insisting that the flat horizon provides 'proof' that the Earth is flat. Which of course it doesn't.
They don't.
You think they do because the height and resistance to the mass, is small but the resistance to that mass is still there and the more dense mass will always out do the less dense mass.
The cannon ball will always hit the ground first against a similar sized aluminium ball.
So is watching them fall at the same rate the same as thinking they do then? In my mind I can make a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate but in reality I know they wouldn't due to air resistance. This is something you can easily check out for yourself. You don't need cannonballs.
Perhaps that is where you are going wrong. You think air resistance and gravity are one and the same thing. Which of course they are definitely not.
Why does anyone feel the need to lie about anything?
Exactly. So all the scientists, engineers, geophysicists, cartographers etc etc who say the Earth is an oblate spheroid are not lying then are they. As is your own admission..
I don't think they're all lying.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
-
I can't present any proof that my world is correct but I can present proof that the spinning globe is wrong.
Really, how can you do that? That makes you the first person in history then who can. That must surely make you feel very proud of yourself and justly so. If only that were true. In reality all you can do is present what you think is proof and individual 'proofs' have a nasty habit of being based heavily on personal interpretation and belief.
Such as the old favorite of flat Earth believers insisting that the flat horizon provides 'proof' that the Earth is flat. Which of course it doesn't.
There's a good few things but water level is one thing that nails it.
There's no real need to argue for anything else...but, it's all about debate and bringing up as many inconsistencies, which is easy for anyone other than those who are severely indoctrinated into a system.
They don't.
You think they do because the height and resistance to the mass, is small but the resistance to that mass is still there and the more dense mass will always out do the less dense mass.
The cannon ball will always hit the ground first against a similar sized aluminium ball.
So is watching them fall at the same rate the same as thinking they do then? In my mind I can make a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate but in reality I know they wouldn't due to air resistance. This is something you can easily check out for yourself. You don't need cannonballs.
Exactly. In your mind you can make a hammer and feather fall at the exact same rate but in reality it wouldn't happen without the use of manipulated footage/special effects/CGI....etc..
Perhaps that is where you are going wrong. You think air resistance and gravity are one and the same thing. Which of course they are definitely not.
Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens. Gravity is just a word made up to keep fictional space vacuums alive so is integrated into the workings of atmosphere as a massive dupe.
There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
It does not exist.
It's fantasy and serves a purpose for fantasy stories...no for reality.
Why does anyone feel the need to lie about anything?
Exactly. So all the scientists, engineers, geophysicists, cartographers etc etc who say the Earth is an oblate spheroid are not lying then are they. As is your own admission..
I don't think they're all lying.
Like I said; I don't think they're all lying. Most are just following protocol and picking up a pay cheque.
I'd hazard a guess that many would know something wasn't right with many things, yet I can't prove that any more than you can prove the opposite.
-
There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
It does not exist.
It's fantasy and serves a purpose for fantasy stories...no for reality.
It depends on what you mean by 'explained'. There are quite a few things about your own theory that you don't seem to be able to explain either fully or at all. That doesn't seem to stop you believing them though does it. You say you have but no one seems to be able to find those explanations. I could take a leaf out of your book and say I could explain a few things about gravity to you but they may not be to your liking. But they would be explanations nonetheless.
As for all the rest, that is ultimately just your opinion. At no point in any of your posts have you ever actually come up with anything new or ground breaking. Just different ways of explaining what we already know and experience. I can see it now in the historical timeline of major scientific progress. Late 17th Century: Newton publishes his law of universal gravitation. Early 20th century: Einstein publishes his General Theory of relativity, remodelling how physicists view gravitation. Early 21st Century: Sceptimatic overturns the both Newton and Einstein by casting out gravity and explaining 'everything' through atmospheric pressure. And discarding the existence of the Universe at the same time. Wow. That really is another level!
There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
I don't think anyone has 'cast out' any theory of gravity.. apart from you.
Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens.
Really.. the reason why everything happens eh. Wow that is a pretty broad and wide sweeping statement. And where did the atmosphere come from in the first place then? Did it just magically appear at some point in the past?
-
He is right , he doesn't deserve this.
So you would believe someone who claims that the Sun and Moon are nothing but holographic reflections on the surface of a dome, coming from some Earth based crystal tower that no one has ever seen would you? Someone with imagination like that deserves everything that is thrown at him.
Sceppy always carries on about people just give the mainstream accepted answers to his 'questions'.
You think mainstream science is just about accepting mainstream answers do you? Have you noticed how much the 'accepted answers' in mainstream science have been changed and been modified over the years? How has that come about... as new evidence comes to light. Sceptimatic might claim that he 'knows' the Earth is not a globe. But that is just his opinion based on his own beliefs that have been sculpted from the same evidence that is available to you and me. None of they physicists that I know would claim to 'know' anything for 100% certainty.
Even the ancient Greeks using the limited resources available to them were able to figure out what shape the Earth was. They didn't have any 'mainstream accepted answers' to go by. Instead they used their unprejudiced minds to work it out for themselves. Those who did historically believe the Earth was flat almost without exception came from the less well educated sections of society. Nowadays science has moved on a bit and is looking for the answers to slightly more complex questions.
-
It is always difficult to tell in forums whether someone is genuine in their beliefs based on what they say or whether they are purposely trying to play 'devils advocate' and deliberately throwing way out theories into the circle.
I'm all for 'alternative thinkers' as Sceppy has described himself several times. I would be the first to say we don't know 100% for sure how every aspect of nature works. It would be a boring life if there was nothing left for us to work out. We didn't write the rules or laws of nature after all. We can only try to understand more about them through observation and experiment.
We all experience what we call gravity. Asked to explain gravity fully though is difficult. Did Neanderthal man experience gravity as we do today? Of course he did. Could he explain what he observed? Of course it couldn't. He would throw a spear to kill a dear and notice that it followed a curved path through the air towards its target. He would notice that the harder he threw it the further it would travel and the greater angle he threw it into the air, the higher it would go. He could then use this knowledge to better his chances of killing the dear and therefore providing dinner for his family.
How does a force manifest itself between two objects with mass? Newton described it as a force while Einstein used curvature or warping in the fabric of space-time to describe it. All we know is that we can change magnitude of the gravitational attraction either by altering the masses or altering the distance between them. Or both. Whether you would describe what we refer to as gravity as a force or a 'warping' is down to the individual I guess. For everyday situations we can use Newtons equations or Einsteins and get the same answer.
The effect of 'gravity' however is not purely down to atmospheric pressure though as gravity exists everywhere in the Universe while atmospheric pressure does not exist everywhere in the Universe. Sceptimatic would dismiss that outright though because he is of the opinion that nothing exists beyond the Earths atmosphere. Every man to his own. His philosophy of life seems to be rely only on what you can prove to yourself to define what is true and real. How his crystal tower producing holographic reflections to account for the existence of the Sun and Moon in the sky fits into that philosophy I have got no idea.
-
There's a good few things but water level is one thing that nails it.
Yes, it nails that Earth is round.
Again, the fact that the water obscures the view to the bottom of a distant object, even though both the observer and the object are well above the water, shows that the water is curved.
You not liking that will not change that fact.
You not being able to measure the insignificant curvature in your sink will not change that fact.
There's no real need to argue for anything else...but, it's all about debate and bringing up as many inconsistencies
Yes, as we bring up all the times with your delusional claims, which you are completely incapable of addressing.
You are yet to bring up an actual inconsistency with the globe. Instead you just brings up lies and strawmen.
in reality it wouldn't happen without the use of manipulated footage/special effects/CGI....etc..
Or tools to eliminate the effect of air resistance and buoyancy, e.g. a vacuum chamber. (them not being perfect doesn't mean they don't exist, it still produce a completley insignificant difference in fall time, which would occur anyway due to the release not being perfectly identical doesn't change it either).
Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens.
No, that is just your baseless lie which you continually use to reject anything that shows you are wrong.
You are yet to explain how it explains basically anything.
There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
It can be explained, you just reject the explanation.
The reason it is stated as a theory, is because unlike you most scientists are honest.
Science produces theories, which are the best explanations we have of how the world works.
If you want to claim it doesn't exist, show a problem with it, or provide a better alternative. Such as one which can actually explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or why objects fall towards a higher pressure.
You know, something your delusional BS can't.
Again, why is there a pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
Why do things fall towards the higher pressure? (Except those things which instead go up)
If it was all just the atmosphere, the higher pressure below would push everything upwards, including the air above, until the pressure was uniform. The only way to sustain such a pressure gradient is to pump the air from the top of the stack to the bottom, and then have a continual upwards flow of air, which would need to continually accelerate.
But this would only help with the gradient. That would still cause all objects to be blown upwards by the air.
Now compare it with gravity, gravity attracts everything towards Earth. The simplest way to state that is a force based upon the mass of the object directing it towards Earth.
This explains why the vast majority of things fall.
If there was no air, everything would fall.
But there is air, so the air tries to fall to Earth, but it hits the air below.
This pressurises the air below due to all the weight of the air above. Just like as repeatedly shown in the diagram.
If you consider 3 layers:
The top layer pushes down on the middle layer with some force.
The middle layer transfers the force down to the bottom layer, pushing it down.
But in addition to the force above, this middle layer is also being forced down by gravity.
This means the middle layer is pushing the bottom layer down more than the top layer is pushing the middle layer down.
That means the bottom layer is under a greater pressure than the middle layer.
So that explains the pressure gradient.
But now that there is a pressure gradient, we can now explain why some objects fall and others float.
Each object is immersed in the air.
The air has a greater pressure at the bottom than the top. The pressure pushes on the object. This means the object is pushed up.
Doing some simple math you find out that the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
That is given by the volume displaced and the density of the air.
So each object in the air has 2 forces, gravity pulling it down with a force based upon its weight, and the buoyant force pushing it up.
If the buoyant force is greater, it is pushed up. If the weight is greater, the net force is downwards.
And this applies to any fluid, explaining why the apparent weight of an object is reduced when it is immersed in a fluid.
So when gravity explains it so well, with you unable to find a fault with it, and you completely incapable of explaining even the most basic things why would anyone accept your delusional nonsense?
-
There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
It does not exist.
It's fantasy and serves a purpose for fantasy stories...no for reality.
It depends on what you mean by 'explained'. There are quite a few things about your own theory that you don't seem to be able to explain either fully or at all.
I'll likely never explain my theory in full. There's far too much about Earth that I won't be able to explain and pass off as anything factual.
To do that I would need to physically prove everything and I can't...but I admit I can't.
It still doesn't stop me theorising and doing simple little experiments that give me potentials.
This isn't about you or anyone else. It's about my own stuff. You people ask me about it and I try and explain it from my side. You people don't get it or make out you do and then totally don't.
All I know is, my experiments prove there is no spinning globe in a space vacuum.
What you decide it proves, is entirely up to you.
Feel free to spit on what I say and feel free to adhere like a limpet to your globe and every added extra, over time.
I think it's absolute nonsense but don't take that as a personal dig. It's the global set up that I have a dig at, nt those who choose to believe it.
All I will say is, I find it odd how people who've had the time to actually logically look at the global set up, don't massively question it.....but, I could also see how people who accept authority figures as purveyors of the stories relating to whatever, can adhere to them as their truth's and happily pass that on as a matter of ongoing tutorials to willing participants.
That doesn't seem to stop you believing them though does it.
I have to believe there's something to what I think, otherwise what is the point of thinking?
Until my thoughts become unsustainable, only then will I tread a detoured path.
To get to this stage has been a detoured journey through small and simple experiments borne out of the questioning of something that I bought into for many many of my young years. The globe you adhere to now.
I used to be a globe believer and now I'm not. Not because I decided it wasn't for me but because I actually started to nibble away at it to realise things just didn't add up in so many ways.
You say you have but no one seems to be able to find those explanations. I could take a leaf out of your book and say I could explain a few things about gravity to you but they may not be to your liking. But they would be explanations nonetheless.
If I have my theory and nobody else seems to have the same theory then it's likely you won' find it other than from me....right?
As for you explaining gravity. Let's have it. Explain it and let me see where you go with it to be something meaningful and provable from your side......or...... accept that you are reliant on the story without proof.
As for all the rest, that is ultimately just your opinion.
We all have opinions. Life is about opinions.
I've stated many many times about my opinion, so what's the issue?
At no point in any of your posts have you ever actually come up with anything new or ground breaking.
So therefore why are you arguing against me?
Just different ways of explaining what we already know and experience.
So there there's no need for you to argue against me.
If what I'm saying is just different wording then I must be speaking of something you believe to be truth.
I can see it now in the historical timeline of major scientific progress. Late 17th Century: Newton publishes his law of universal gravitation. Early 20th century: Einstein publishes his General Theory of relativity, remodelling how physicists view gravitation. Early 21st Century: Sceptimatic overturns the both Newton and Einstein by casting out gravity and explaining 'everything' through atmospheric pressure. And discarding the existence of the Universe at the same time. Wow. That really is another level!
Of course t would be another level.
Anyone who has a theory against what the old timers came out with, would be on another level.
None of what the old timers have said, is proven to be a truth. They are just theories passed off as truth's.
There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
I don't think anyone has 'cast out' any theory of gravity.. apart from you.
Gravity is cast out as a theory. It's not cast out as an absolute truth. It's hidden behind that word, theory.
It's what's classed as contingency methods just in case they need to come up with other stuff as they regularly have done over time.
Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens.
Really.. the reason why everything happens eh. Wow that is a pretty broad and wide sweeping statement.
It is but I believe it's a reality.
You see, when you think of atmospheric you think of the sky.
However, I think of it as part of the entire cell system in massively different densities that take on visual mass differences from solids to liquids to gases, from out perceivement.
A big vibrating cell with a big vibrating energy from its centre.
And where did the atmosphere come from in the first place then? Did it just magically appear at some point in the past?
It simply grows as all cells do and then dies as all cells do.
One day ur cell will die.
It's dying right now.
It's also replenishing as it dies.
Just like we do as babies....our cells replenish and as we get older they die more and replenish. They break down and rebuild but by less and less each time a full growth has been achieved, just like we do as babies to adult and as adults we break down slowly but surely until we disappear and are replaced by similar.
I believe we are just one cell full of cells as part of something much bigger.
It makes perfect sense to me and what I see of Earth shows me the decay and replenishing as our man made time goes on.
I know I know...how absurd, eh?
We should just be a big ball of rock and water and a titchy bit of an envelope of atmosphere just spinning in a vacuum and kept going by a big 93 million mile, near one million mile diameter ball of super fire/heat that just happens to travel through the vacuum and keep us all nice and comfy for living.
That's the absurdity.
-
Gotta love the double standard.
-
You think mainstream science is just about accepting mainstream answers do you? Have you noticed how much the 'accepted answers' in mainstream science have been changed and been modified over the years?
Exactly, they've been changed more times than a babies nappy.
How has that come about... as new evidence comes to light.
New evidence? Maybe...or the theories/misinfo/disinfo has been rumbled and shown up...maybe.
Sceptimatic might claim that he 'knows' the Earth is not a globe. But that is just his opinion based on his own beliefs that have been sculpted from the same evidence that is available to you and me. None of they physicists that I know would claim to 'know' anything for 100% certainty.
Just remember that.
If you're not certain of anything then nothing can be pushed out as fact.
Even the ancient Greeks using the limited resources available to them were able to figure out what shape the Earth was.
Is there any documentation of that time to show us how it was all worked out?
I mean real workings of those people of that time?
They didn't have any 'mainstream accepted answers' to go by.
People are gullible today, in many many ways. Bigger mainstream stories sold by many script writers, told by many script readers
Imagine in teh times where word of mouth became wise words from a wise man who told interesting stories to those who simply fed off them?
Pass it on, pass it on.
And so it came to pass.
Instead they used their unprejudiced minds to work it out for themselves.
Unprejudiced minds?
I suppose any person who can tell a story of originality may be looked upon as having an unprejudiced mind, only in terms of not being influenced by outside sources.
However, they themselves would be bestowing their stories onto others to take as their facts and actually creating the very thing that appears to be not attributed to the original teller.
Those who did historically believe the Earth was flat almost without exception came from the less well educated sections of society.
Why would anyone believe Earth was flat due to being less well educated?
Do you mean they looked around them and saw flatness and level water...etc and logically understood that it made sense to be flat in a way, amid lumps and bumps?
Or the educated who were told they were spinning about in a vacuum on a big wobbling misshaped ball around a massive ball of fire......etc?
I'd say we go back to the story teller with that one. The supposed unprejudiced story teller to the masses of eventual global folklore.
Nowadays science has moved on a bit and is looking for the answers to slightly more complex questions.
Hmmm, moved on a bit but still adamant on shoving old names from times gone by, to the fore when it comes to the set up of how a globe supposedly was and supposedly still is, with a bit of tweaking, of course.
-
This isn't about you or anyone else. It's about my own stuff. You people ask me about it and I try and explain it from my side. You people don't get it or make out you do and then totally don't.
No, we do get it, and then clearly explain how what you are claiming doesn't match reality.
Us realising your nonsense does not match reality does not mean we don't grasp it.
We show that we do understand it, and then show that that does not match reality.
All I know is, my experiments prove there is no spinning globe in a space vacuum.
No, that is just your repeated lie.
You are yet to provide anything which refutes the spinning globe.
What you decide it proves, is entirely up to you.
All I will say is, I find it odd how people who've had the time to actually logically look at the global set up, don't massively question it
What you should find odd is why you reject it, even though you have no basis to do so.
Those who have had time to actually look at it honestly and logically, have questioned it and found it matches reality.
Again, there is a big difference between questioning, which is what honest, rational people would do, where they accept the logical answers from the globe that match reality; and your outright rejection at all costs.
Likewise, people accept gravity because it actually explains reality and is backed up by evidence, unlike your nonsense which can't explain reality at all, and which is backed by nothing.
Gravity is cast out as a theory. It's not cast out as an absolute truth. It's hidden behind that word, theory.
You mean it is honestly presented as a scientific theory rather than being claimed as an absolute truth.
I thought you liked such honesty, but no, instead you pretend everyone treats it as a perfect fact which must be backed up by absolute proof which no one can simply dismiss as fake, which then allows you to continually dismiss all the evidence as fake and lie and claim gravity isn't real, while apply a completley different standard to your delusional nonsense.
Scientific theories are the closest things to facts you will get for anything more complicated than a direct observation.
Again, gravity explains what we observe so well.
Your delusional garbage can't even explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or why things fall in direct defiance of that pressure gradient.
Why should anyone accept your delusional garbage when you can't even address those simple issues and instead need to continually deflect and hide from them?
-
This isn't about you or anyone else. It's about my own stuff. You people ask me about it and I try and explain it from my side. You people don't get it or make out you do and then totally don't.
No, we do get it, and then clearly explain how what you are claiming doesn't match reality.
You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.
-
You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.
You mean you falsely accuse me of not getting it, due to me repeatedly showing that you are wrong, and you being completely incapable of addressing the issues I raise, so you just lie and insult me and dismiss me instead of even attempting to address these issues.
Again, if it was simply a case of me not getting it, you would explain your BS and answer the simple questions which you are completely incapable of doing.
Again, me clearly explaining why your nonsense is wrong doesn't mean I don't get it.
You continually being completely incapable of explaining how there is a pressure gradient and how the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient and in direct defiance of simple logic and reason, shows quite clearly that I do understand and that your claims are pure garbage.
Again, why is there a pressure gradient?
Simple experiments on fluids show that they will naturally act to eliminate any pressure gradient in them.
So why does the air magically not eliminate that pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the high pressure air at the bottom push the lower pressure air up to compress and thus pressurise the low pressure air above and depressurise the high pressure air at the bottom?
If it was just the air, that is exactly what we would expect.
Instead, what is observed is that the pressure gradient that exists is based upon the weight of the fluid, as if it isn't the air pushing down but instead something other than the air gives the fluid its weight and thus pressurises the fluid due to the fluid below needing to support the weight of the fluid above.
Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS.
Likewise, simple experiments clearly demonstrates that if you have a pressure gradient on an object, the air will push the object from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side, like what occurs with the wind. This is also backed up by the simple logic of the high pressure side applying a greater force than the low pressure side, causing a net force on the object.
That means the pressure gradient of the atmosphere should push everything up. But you claim that the air magically defies all reason and instead magically pushes things down.
Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain how the air can push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS. And no, that doesn't mean you can just appeal to an object sitting on the ground with no air below it. You need to explain how the air pushes an object in mid-air or against a wall or against a ceiling down, in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And then once you manage to do that, you need to directly contradict yourself and explain how it then magically pushes some things up.
-
You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.
You mean you falsely accuse me of not getting it, due to me repeatedly showing that you are wrong, and you being completely incapable of addressing the issues I raise, so you just lie and insult me and dismiss me instead of even attempting to address these issues.
Again, if it was simply a case of me not getting it, you would explain your BS and answer the simple questions which you are completely incapable of doing.
Again, me clearly explaining why your nonsense is wrong doesn't mean I don't get it.
You continually being completely incapable of explaining how there is a pressure gradient and how the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient and in direct defiance of simple logic and reason, shows quite clearly that I do understand and that your claims are pure garbage.
Again, why is there a pressure gradient?
Simple experiments on fluids show that they will naturally act to eliminate any pressure gradient in them.
So why does the air magically not eliminate that pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the high pressure air at the bottom push the lower pressure air up to compress and thus pressurise the low pressure air above and depressurise the high pressure air at the bottom?
If it was just the air, that is exactly what we would expect.
Instead, what is observed is that the pressure gradient that exists is based upon the weight of the fluid, as if it isn't the air pushing down but instead something other than the air gives the fluid its weight and thus pressurises the fluid due to the fluid below needing to support the weight of the fluid above.
Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS.
Likewise, simple experiments clearly demonstrates that if you have a pressure gradient on an object, the air will push the object from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side, like what occurs with the wind. This is also backed up by the simple logic of the high pressure side applying a greater force than the low pressure side, causing a net force on the object.
That means the pressure gradient of the atmosphere should push everything up. But you claim that the air magically defies all reason and instead magically pushes things down.
Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain how the air can push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS. And no, that doesn't mean you can just appeal to an object sitting on the ground with no air below it. You need to explain how the air pushes an object in mid-air or against a wall or against a ceiling down, in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And then once you manage to do that, you need to directly contradict yourself and explain how it then magically pushes some things up.
It's been explained. Pay attention instead of always being angry.
-
You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.
You mean you falsely accuse me of not getting it, due to me repeatedly showing that you are wrong, and you being completely incapable of addressing the issues I raise, so you just lie and insult me and dismiss me instead of even attempting to address these issues.
Again, if it was simply a case of me not getting it, you would explain your BS and answer the simple questions which you are completely incapable of doing.
Again, me clearly explaining why your nonsense is wrong doesn't mean I don't get it.
You continually being completely incapable of explaining how there is a pressure gradient and how the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient and in direct defiance of simple logic and reason, shows quite clearly that I do understand and that your claims are pure garbage.
Again, why is there a pressure gradient?
Simple experiments on fluids show that they will naturally act to eliminate any pressure gradient in them.
So why does the air magically not eliminate that pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the high pressure air at the bottom push the lower pressure air up to compress and thus pressurise the low pressure air above and depressurise the high pressure air at the bottom?
If it was just the air, that is exactly what we would expect.
Instead, what is observed is that the pressure gradient that exists is based upon the weight of the fluid, as if it isn't the air pushing down but instead something other than the air gives the fluid its weight and thus pressurises the fluid due to the fluid below needing to support the weight of the fluid above.
Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS.
Likewise, simple experiments clearly demonstrates that if you have a pressure gradient on an object, the air will push the object from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side, like what occurs with the wind. This is also backed up by the simple logic of the high pressure side applying a greater force than the low pressure side, causing a net force on the object.
That means the pressure gradient of the atmosphere should push everything up. But you claim that the air magically defies all reason and instead magically pushes things down.
Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain how the air can push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS. And no, that doesn't mean you can just appeal to an object sitting on the ground with no air below it. You need to explain how the air pushes an object in mid-air or against a wall or against a ceiling down, in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And then once you manage to do that, you need to directly contradict yourself and explain how it then magically pushes some things up.
It's been explained. Pay attention instead of always being angry.
There you go deflecting and insulting yet again.
I'm not angry.
Calling you out on your BS does not require me to be angry.
You have NEVER explained these trivial issues, because your model simply can't.
As you can't explain it, you instead just repeatedly assert that you already have.
Again, if you actually could explain it, you would.
So again, what magic causes the pressure gradient in the atmosphere in direct defiance of simple logic and what is repeatedly observed with how air pressure works?
What magic causes the air to push things down towards a higher pressure, again in direct defiance of simple logic and what is repeatedly observed with how air pressure works?
Stop just claiming you have explained it and actually explain it or admit you can't.
-
There you go deflecting and insulting yet again.
I'm not angry.
Calling you out on your BS does not require me to be angry.
Stop just claiming you have explained it and actually explain it or admit you can't.
You come across as angry all the time. Calm down and try and get a grip and also get it into your head that my answers are not to your liking but are answers, anyway....meaning, I do explain and your refusal to acknowledge that is entirely your own issue and frustration.
You have to deal with that but my advice would be to pay attention more instead of waiting like a bull to a waving rag to just jump in in a frenzy.
-
You come across as angry all the time.
To you, because I keep on refuting you.
get it into your head that my answers are not to your liking but are answers
No, they aren't. They do not address the issues raised at all. As such, they are not answers, they are deflections.
So my refusal to acknowledge them is entirely your own issue, not mine.
my advice would be to pay attention more instead of waiting like a bull to a waving rag to just jump in in a frenzy.
Perhaps you should try following your own advice and actually pay attention to what the issue is and try to actually address it.
Again, how do you explain the continued existence of the pressure gradient?
Why hasn't the air just removed this pressure gradient?
Just what acts to keep this pressure gradient in place?
Again, how do you explain how the air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the greater pressure below push things up as high pressure are observed to push things towards lower pressure.
-
Can you explain it in a simple way instead of saying it's over my head?
I don't know. I can explain it in a simple way which is consistent with my experience of it. Whether that goes over your head or not I cannot say. My experience of what I call gravity is exactly the same as yours. Gravity is just a label. I could decide to call a car something other than 'car' and then say cars don't exist. Same thing. What you call it, attribute it to and how you interpret it is entirely up to you.
All I know is, my experiments prove there is no spinning globe in a space vacuum.
I'm sure they do prove it to you. Would those same 'experiments' prove it to me as well? I don't know because I don't know what your experiments were or how to do them. The existence of birds, trees and flowers 'prove' Gods existence to some who believe in that interpretation of creation.
-
rose is a rose by any other name...
call it "predictable rate of falling" if you don't like gravity.
but whatever it's called, it's not coming from above.
-
You come across as angry all the time.
To you, because I keep on refuting you.
But you don't. You think you do, but you don't.
You just appear angry and a bit frenzied.
-
Can you explain it in a simple way instead of saying it's over my head?
I don't know. I can explain it in a simple way which is consistent with my experience of it. Whether that goes over your head or not I cannot say. My experience of what I call gravity is exactly the same as yours. Gravity is just a label. I could decide to call a car something other than 'car' and then say cars don't exist. Same thing. What you call it, attribute it to and how you interpret it is entirely up to you.
So you can't explain it.
That's fine.
-
rose is a rose by any other name...
call it "predictable rate of falling" if you don't like gravity.
but whatever it's called, it's not coming from above.
Predictable rate of falling as in, what environment?
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
-
So you can't explain it.
That's fine.
Did you read beyond the first three words I said? What I said was I don't know if I can explain gravity in a way which doesn't 'go above your head'. Which I thought is obvious. It depends on how much space there is in your little mind.
What sort of mental age group would you like me to set my explanation at so it doesn't go above your head? I ask that because if you consider your mental age to be that of an adult then I will provide an explanation that any normal adult should understand. You wouldn't explain gravity to a 5 year old in the same way that you would to say a 17/18 year old.
In any case it seems irrelevant because my explanation would only be what I am telling them and you are forever saying we shouldn't just accept what we are told.
-
You come across as angry all the time.
To you, because I keep on refuting you.
But you don't. You think you do, but you don't.
You just appear angry and a bit frenzied.
No, you claim I do. I don't think I come across as angry to any honest rational person.
It is just to those who keep getting refuted, like you.
To YOU I just appear angry and frenzied, because you need some pathetic excuse to keep dismissing these massive flaws in your ridiculous claims.
So you can't explain it.
No, he can, but you just continually reject everything you don't like.
You claim all sorts of blatant lies about gravity all because you cannot allow any part of it to be correct.
You can't even admit that gravity explains why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
Instead you lie and claim that with gravity (the very thing which causes the pressure gradient) there magically would be no gradient, yet you can find no fault with the explanation provided.
You either ignore them, or dismiss it as nonsense. What you are never able to do is show a fault with that explanation.
The one who can't explain things is you. You are yet to provide an explanation for loads of the massive problems with your model.
Again, why is there a pressure gradient in the atmosphere at all?
Again, without a force to keep that pressure gradient there (which means a force in addition to any force from the air) you will have the high pressure region compress the low pressure region to even out the pressure. That means without an extra force, even if you initially had a pressure gradient, it would vanish.
This is what you need to address. How this pressure gradient continues to exist, without anything producing it or sustaining it.
Likewise, again, why does the air magically push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
It is well known based upon countless experiments, that air and other fluids will push objects from a region of high pressure towards a region of low pressure.
That means the air in the atmosphere will push things up, from the high pressure below to the low pressure above. It will not push down.
Yet you falsely claim it does, even though you have no explanation for how or why.
You then go and contradict that by claiming some things are pushed up.
But if it is just air pushing it, there is no reason at all for it to push some things one way and other things the other way.
If you get a jet of air (i.e. a nice high pressure outlet) you will see this high pressure push everything away, regardless of if it is more or less dense than the air.
You simply can't explain ANY of these massive problems for your model.
These problems use simple logic to show your model defies reason.
Until you can actually explain them, your model is DOA.
Until you can explain just what is wrong with the explanation from gravity, you have no reason at all to reject it or say it is fantasy.
Gravity is vastly superior to your delusional nonsense.
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.
Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
Unless you can clarify.
-
So you can't explain it.
That's fine.
Did you read beyond the first three words I said? What I said was I don't know if I can explain gravity in a way which doesn't 'go above your head'. Which I thought is obvious. It depends on how much space there is in your little mind.
What sort of mental age group would you like me to set my explanation at so it doesn't go above your head? I ask that because if you consider your mental age to be that of an adult then I will provide an explanation that any normal adult should understand. You wouldn't explain gravity to a 5 year old in the same way that you would to say a 17/18 year old.
In any case it seems irrelevant because my explanation would only be what I am telling them and you are forever saying we shouldn't just accept what we are told.
How about catering for a variation of age groups and mental abilities?
Or just explain what gravity is.
It seems you can't do it just by the immediate way you go on the attack and the defensive.
I know why you can't explain it and you know why. It's because you cannot explain a reality of something that does not exist.
-
Gravity is vastly superior to your delusional nonsense.
And yet you cannot explain it.
I can explain mine whether you agree or not. You absolutely cannot explain your side even with the back up of peers and reliance on authority.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the fiction of gravity.
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.
Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
Unless you can clarify.
Per second per second.
Theres two of them.
Yes
Very real and predictable and measruable.
Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.
Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist
It has nothing to do with gravity.
If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.
Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner????
Amazing!!!
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.
Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
Unless you can clarify.
Per second per second.
Theres two of them.
Yes
Very real and predictable and measruable.
Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.
Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist
It has nothing to do with gravity.
If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.
Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner????
Amazing!!!
Ok, per second per second means you have zero resistance to mass which means zero matter for mass to actually work in, yet it falls?
The gravity nonsense is just that. It makes zero sense.
The 9.8 m/s/s is a rough measurement based on a small drop in atmosphere, not in a vacuum.
Resistance is always a barrier and resistance to mass will determine the fall of that mass, whether it's a massive cannon ball or bowling ball or football or polystyrene ball or a air balloon/helium balloon, all of the same /similar dimension.
There is absolutely no set predictable rate for the fall of all.
Now you can argue that air resistance would change stuff. It certainly would and is the entire point as to why there is no overall predictable rate of fall.
Granted I can drop a few objects from head height or even house height...and by eye they will appear to hit the ground at the same time...especially if their dimensions are similar and mass is enough to overcome air resistance, in short order.
In a low pressure chamber you may get a similar thing with a drop against little air resistance but there will always be resistance to mass and a resistance build to mass over height distance.
A predictable rate of fall for a cannon ball in the same environment with the same effort applied, I'd agree with, in atmosphere.
Then you have a bowling ball which will have a different rate of fall.
Then a football will also have a different rate of fall.
All can be predicted under the right conditions after repeated testing but all will have separate outcomes of those predictions.
Atmospheric resistance sees to that.
Gravity sees to nothing because gravity does not exist.
-
I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.
Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.
Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?
Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.
Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?
-
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
Except repeated experiments showing that.
Yes, there is some variability, as g is not constant all over Earth.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
No, it is still predictable, it just isn't as simple.
But either way, what it certainly isn't, is the air magically pushing things down.
And yet you cannot explain it.
I can explain mine whether you agree or not.
And there you go with the same old pathetic lies.
You can't explain your nonsense.
If you could, you would have done so.
Instead you just do whatever you can to avoid it.
Again, gravity explains why objects fall just fine.
Matter distorts space time such that motion through time is converted into motion through space. i.e. it accelerates an object towards the mass.
This means everything on and near Earth is accelerated by gravity towards Earth.
This can be simply expressed as gravity applies a force to all objects towards the Earth, with the force proportional to the mass.
Likewise, gravity explains air pressure just fine.
The air is attracted to Earth, just like all other matter.
This causes it to fall to Earth, and press down on the air below.
As it does this is compresses the air below until the air below puts up enough resistance (happy, I even used your word) to stop the air above falling.
This resistance needs to match the weight of all the air above.
It is gravity that provides the needed extra force to create the pressure gradient.
Now compare that to your delusional garbage.
Things are pushed down by pure magic, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere that should push them up. Except some things which are less dense than air and are instead magically pushed up by the air, for no reason at all.
And the pressure gradient simply exists without cause and with nothing to sustain it.
So it is quite clear which side has the explanation, and it isn't yours.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the fiction of gravity.
It certainty strongly indicates the reality of gravity, and tells me everything anyone really needs to know about your delusional BS.
You cannot explain your delusional BS as it has no basis in reality.
We both know why you aren't explaining it.
YOU CAN'T as your model is not based upon reality.
The pathetic excuses you have tried have failed and you know that I can easily show just what is wrong with them.
So instead you don't even attempt to explain it, you just claim to have already done so and claim to be able to do so.
If you could, you would stop asserting that you can explain it and claiming that you have explained it and instead start actually explaining it.
Ok, per second per second means you have zero resistance to mass which means zero matter for mass to actually work in, yet it falls?
No it doesn't.
In what way does acceleration mean no matter?
The gravity nonsense is just that. It makes zero sense.
No, just your claims about it.
But notice a key part of your claims, repeatedly appealing to atmospheric resistance, not the atmosphere magically pushing things down.
This variance in the rate of acceleration makes absolutely no sense in your "model".
Why is the downwards force based upon mass while the air resistance clearly isn't?
Again, this shows it isn't the air pushing things down.
-
I can explain mine whether you agree or not.
So being able to 'explain' something makes it better and more reliable or believable than something you can't explain does it?
-
I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.
Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.
Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?
Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.
Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?
Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?
-
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
Except repeated experiments showing that.
Yes, there is some variability, as g is not constant all over Earth.
Repeated experiments showing what?
-
I can explain mine whether you agree or not.
So being able to 'explain' something makes it better and more reliable or believable than something you can't explain does it?
No, it doesn't have to make it believable it just means it is explained. Something which you are failing to do with gravity and instead want to sidestep it...which is fine but it does nothing for your model.
-
So if I can't explain every single thing about something, that makes it not true does it? OK that includes your model then I guess.
We all still live in the same world into which we were born. At the moment of our birth we knew nothing and could explain nothing. As we grow up we learn things about the world we live in. The accumulation of that learning is what we call 'knowledge'. If what we are told, read, watch or otherwise doesn't seem to make sense to us or provide a valid explanation for our own personal life experiences we ask questions. Otherwise we accept it as a valid and true explanation.
When the day comes that our current theories and models of gravity do not provide a valid and true explanation of everything I attribute to gravity then I will try to find an alternative. Up to now though that day hasn't come and so I don't find it necessary to search for that alternative explanation. Those models and theories of course are continually being tested and re-tested. That is what science is all about.
Your experience is no doubt the same as mine so why do you feel it necessary to find an alternative explanation? Just to be different or does gravity behave somehow differently where you are compared to everywhere else?
-
I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.
Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.
Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?
Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.
Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?
Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?
Nope
Disregarding gracity entriely
Things fall at a preditcable rate.
Please let us know when it doesnt.
*** which "predictable" includes when taking vsribales such as wind rwsistance into account... because "predirable" by definition mwans we can forsee it happening.
-
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
Except repeated experiments showing that.
Yes, there is some variability, as g is not constant all over Earth.
Repeated experiments showing what?
Even a complete moron could understand what it is showing. Stop playing dumb.
Try dealing with the massive problems for your model.
Explain what magic keeps the pressure gradient in place in direct of all reason.
Explain what magic causes the air to push things down towards a region of higher pressure, again in direct defiance of all reason.
Again, until you actually have an explanation, your model is DOA.
You can't even get past square 1 in explaining why things fall.
Why should anyone accept your delusional nonsense instead of gravity which actually makes sense and is backed up by mountains of evidence?
Something which you are failing to do with gravity and instead want to sidestep it...which is fine but it does nothing for your model.
That's rich coming from you considering all you ever do is sidestep and make baseless (typically false) assertions.
-
So if I can't explain every single thing about something, that makes it not true does it? OK that includes your model then I guess.
If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth. Even if you can explain something it doesn't mean you're explaining a truth, unless you physically know what you're explaining, is the truth.
And yes, the same does apply to me.
We all still live in the same world into which we were born. At the moment of our birth we knew nothing and could explain nothing. As we grow up we learn things about the world we live in. The accumulation of that learning is what we call 'knowledge'.
Learning is fine. Gaining knowledge from that, is fine. As long as what you're learning, is truth, otherwise you're not learning anything that has a bearing on physical reality. Unless that learning is in how to tell fantasy stories and dupe the masses.
If what we are told, read, watch or otherwise doesn't seem to make sense to us or provide a valid explanation for our own personal life experiences we ask questions. Otherwise we accept it as a valid and true explanation.
Yep. And I ask questions and do not accept. You do accept and that's where we massively differ.
When the day comes that our current theories and models of gravity do not provide a valid and true explanation of everything I attribute to gravity then I will try to find an alternative.
I already have found the alternative to the fantasy story of gravity. It's called atmospheric pressure and it makes massive sense.
Up to now though that day hasn't come and so I don't find it necessary to search for that alternative explanation.
Course you don't.
You adhere to authority figures. Official lines and don't want to question them because you know to do so would carry a massive unwanted stigma.
Those models and theories of course are continually being tested and re-tested.
Real science is about real things. Real scientific theories are about testing for reality. That's fine.
The problem arises when pseudo-science comes to the fore or simply just utter fantasy, mis-info and dis-info, which is what I believe the globe and its trimmings, to be..
That is what science is all about.
Not your science with a globe. It's not science.
Your experience is no doubt the same as mine so why do you feel it necessary to find an alternative explanation?
Because the one that I've been shown, is false. It's a load of bull, in my honest opinion and simple experiments and observations show it to be nonsense.
Just to be different or does gravity behave somehow differently where you are compared to everywhere else?
Gravity doesn't exist to behave as anything.
-
I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.
Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.
Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?
Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.
Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?
Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?
Nope
Disregarding gracity entriely
Things fall at a preditcable rate.
Please let us know when it doesnt.
*** which "predictable" includes when taking vsribales such as wind rwsistance into account... because "predirable" by definition mwans we can forsee it happening.
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
-
Even a complete moron could understand what it is showing. Stop playing dumb.
I'm not playing dumb. Maybe I really am dumb.......you choose....or maybe you could offer explanations.
Can you?
-
Learning is fine. Gaining knowledge from that, is fine. As long as what you're learning, is truth, otherwise you're not learning anything that has a bearing on physical reality. Unless that learning is in how to tell fantasy stories and dupe the masses.
You are obsessed by being duped and distrusting everyone aren't you. Why? Is it a case of you think anyone who has different beliefs to you are trying to dupe you?
It's only a few posts ago that you said you accepted that the scientific community are not lying to us. So which is it? Duping/lying it kind of means the same thing? Why would so many people want to dupe you? What on earth happened to you in the past? Something terrible obviously if it caused you to lose all trust in humanity.
-
You are obsessed by being duped and distrusting everyone aren't you.
Nope, not everyone. Just what I'm arguing against.
However I have a mindset of believe nothing and question everything in terms of stuff that does not ring true.
In life with people I can accept a lot and trust those who deserve it.
As simple as that. No issues.
Why? Is it a case of you think anyone who has different beliefs to you are trying to dupe you?
Not at all.
I have absolutely nothing against you. I only know you as a forum name but I have ill will towards you and absolutely do not know your status in life in terms of stance and honesty.
However, I can surmise that you have been duped and you argue for something that you firmly believe is your truth.
I have no issue with that and have no issue if you stand up and tell me you know for a fact that you are right and you know or believe I'm wrong.
You are comforted by mass opinion and adherence to it by peer pressure to stay in line with the status quo. I get it but I do not follow it in many many aspects, yet I do in others.
It's only a few posts ago that you said you accepted that the scientific community are not lying to us.
I don't believe they are.
The one's that are deliberately handing out disinfo, are not doing science, in my opinion.The one's that are will be doing their utmost to unravel the science they partake in.
So which is it? Duping/lying it kind of means the same thing?
Those who deliberately give out mis-info or dis-info or deliberately dupe or lie or whatever name you think suits people who deliberately sway opinion without handing out truth's.
Why would so many people want to dupe you?
Dupe me?
I think the duping is a collective by those who have the power to do so.
What on earth happened to you in the past?
I grew up and realised that stories claimed as fact, did not add up. I gained the ability to want to question it all and then gained the ability to see through some of the absolute junk we were all indoctrinated into.
That's what happened.
Something terrible obviously if it caused you to lose all trust in humanity.
I haven't lost all trust in humanity.
Don't mix up humanity with a section of people who want us to follow their stories with no reality on offer but thrown out as must adhere to, facts.
-
I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.
Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.
Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?
Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.
Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?
Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?
Nope
Disregarding gracity entriely
Things fall at a preditcable rate.
Please let us know when it doesnt.
*** which "predictable" includes when taking vsribales such as wind rwsistance into account... because "predirable" by definition mwans we can forsee it happening.
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
-
If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth
And that means you don't know the truth.
So stop pretending you do.
You do accept and that's where we massively differ.
Yes, we accept the evidence that shows beyond any sane doubt that gravity is real, while you continue to reject it without any justification.
That is where we massively differ.
We care about the truth and having our beliefs match relaity.
You just care about rejecting the globe at all costs.
I already have found the alternative to the fantasy story of gravity. It's called atmospheric pressure
He meant an alternative which actually makes sense and actually works to explain reality rather than one that is DOA.
Again, simple logic and experiments show beyond any sane doubt that atmospheric pressure is not the reason things fall.
Your complete inability to address the massive issues raised by your claims also supports that fact.
Again, why does the air magically push things down?
What we observe the air to do repeatedly and consistently is push objects from a region of high pressure to a region of low pressure.
This occurs in all fluids.
As the pressure of the atmosphere is greater the lower you are, this means the air will push everything UPWARDS, not down.
Again, your nonsense defies simple logic and experimentation.
There is no reason at all for anyone to believe the air will magically push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And it is even more nonsense when you claim that the air will only magically push some things down and instead it will then magically change its mind and push some things up.
You have never been able to actually address this massive flaw in your model.
The closest you have ever been able to get is by appealing to the object itself trying to go down, i.e. implicitly appealing to gravity.
Likewise, without gravity or something viable to replace it, there is no reason for a pressure gradient to exist in the atmosphere.
Instead, the high pressure at the bottom would push the low pressure air up, compressing it while decompressing itself to eliminate the pressure gradient.
But in reality, the pressure gradient remains, as it does in any fluid, with that pressure gradient based upon the weight of the fluid.
Again, until you can actually explain these issues, and other simple issues, like why reducing the air pressure increases weight, your model is DOA, and thus is not a viable alternative for gravity.
Continually ignoring these massive problem will not make them go away.
Instead it just shows that you know your model is garbage and are dishonestly pretending it is fine.
The problem arises when pseudo-science comes to the fore or simply just utter fantasy, mis-info and dis-info
Which is what you are continually spouting with your irrational attack on the globe you pretend is scientific.
It's a load of bull, in my honest opinion and simple experiments and observations show it to be nonsense.
As has been pointed out plenty of times, that "opinion" of yours is in no way honest.
It is based upon wilful rejection of reality and mountains and mountains of lies.
You are yet to provide a single thing which shows an actual fault with gravity or the RE model.
Instead all you do is dismiss it as nonsense and blatantly lie about it and/or reality.
I'm not playing dumb. Maybe I really am dumb
I find it impossible to believe someone could actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be.
You were asking a question which was answered in the tiny snippet of the post you were quoting.
You are just being dishonest to pretend gravity is nonsense and your nonsense is viable.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
-
If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth
And that means you don't know the truth.
So stop pretending you do.
I'm certainly not pretending I do.
The problem you have is in not understanding that I don't give out anything I say for my theories, as fact.
I don't know the truth of what Earth is in it's entirety or anywhere close to that.
The things is, you do not know the truth of your Earth, you just accept it as truth because your indoctrination is strong and your adherence to mass acceptance of it, is also your comfort blanket, as it is with many.
-
If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth
If you want to look at it like that then what is the truth about anything? Do we need to know the truth? Truth I would always say is relative and subjective not general and universal.
Which truth do you want to know. The truth as it really is or as you would wish it to be?
-
If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth
And that means you don't know the truth.
So stop pretending you do.
I'm certainly not pretending I do.
Yes you do.
Every time you make bold claims like saying Earth isn't a globe, that is you pretending to know the truth (even though it is an outright lie, which means you are also pretending that a lie is the truth).
If you didn't want to pretend to know the truth then the appropriate thing to say is you have absolutely no idea if Earth is round or not.
The things is, you do not know the truth of your Earth, you just accept it as truth because your indoctrination is strong and your adherence to mass acceptance of it, is also your comfort blanket, as it is with many.
And there you go with more pathetic lies.
Not everyone is as wilfully ignorant as you.
I know the truth of Earth due to observations I have made myself.
I don't need to be indoctrinated to accept the truth that Earth is round.
Just like I don't need to be indoctrinated to realise that gravity is real and your claims about it and your alternative are pure nonsense.
Again, what magic sustains this pressure gradient in your delusional model?
Why is the pressure gradient based upon the weight of the substance?
Why does the air then push objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?
-
If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth
If you want to look at it like that then what is the truth about anything? Do we need to know the truth? Truth I would always say is relative and subjective not general and universal.
Which truth do you want to know. The truth as it really is or as you would wish it to be?
You make a very good point (in bold).
Do we need to know the truth.
The answer is, not in everything.
We can happily go about our lives regardless of whether any of us now the trueness of Earth, space, afterlife, gods...etc....etc....etc.
Having said that.....the search for a potential for the truth is always preferential for some, including myself.
That does not mean I'll find that truth but it does mean I can counter those that pass off, as truth, something in which they know they cannot verify to prove it.
This is the crux and this is where we're all at on these forums.
-
Every time you make bold claims like saying Earth isn't a globe, that is you pretending to know the truth (even though it is an outright lie, which means you are also pretending that a lie is the truth).
If you didn't want to pretend to know the truth then the appropriate thing to say is you have absolutely no idea if Earth is round or not.
But I do have a idea that Earth is not a spinning globe.
My alternate to that does not mean I'm pushing it out as factual.
So, no....I'm not lying.
If you pass of your Earth model as factual then you are lying.
Do you pass of your spinning global model as factual or do you simply ride on the back of authority that says it is?
-
That does not mean I'll find that truth but it does mean I can counter those that pass off, as truth, something in which they know they cannot verify to prove it.
So what you are really saying is that we are all guilty in our own individual way of only being willing to accept 'the truth' as we believe it to be.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
-
But I do have a idea that Earth is not a spinning globe.
As just wild speculation, or do you claim to know that as truth?
Make up your mind.
I'm not lying.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that you are lying.
Lying about lying wont save you.
Again, what magic sustains this pressure gradient in your delusional model?
Why is the pressure gradient based upon the weight of the substance?
Why does the air then push objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?
-
That does not mean I'll find that truth but it does mean I can counter those that pass off, as truth, something in which they know they cannot verify to prove it.
So what you are really saying is that we are all guilty in our own individual way of only being willing to accept 'the truth' as we believe it to be.
Of course we're all guilty of it.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
-
But I do have a idea that Earth is not a spinning globe.
As just wild speculation, or do you claim to know that as truth?
Make up your mind.
The one thing I can say as fact is the Earth model you go with, is nonsense and simple experiments show it to be just that.
No wild speculation required.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Roughly 9.81m/s/s.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Are you suggesting that mass doesn't fall at a predictable rate?
-
The one thing I can say as fact is the Earth model you go with, is nonsense and simple experiments show it to be just that.
No wild speculation required.
And do you know what that means?
You are claiming a truth. The fact that what you claim is truth is a blatant lie has no bearing on that.
So stop acting like you are just presenting your opinion when you claim things as fact.
Now why don't you try to justify this blatant lie of yours?
You are yet to present experiment that shows anything wrong with the globe.
Instead you just continually repeat the same pathetic lies like you do in the other thread.
Just like you can't justify your lie that there is any problem with gravity. Instead you just continually dismiss it as nonsense and blatantly lie about it like claiming that it can't explain the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, when it is exactly what explains it.
So even though you pretend you have facts, while denying that you do, all you actually have is wild speculation and wilful rejection of reality.
Again, can you justify why the pressure exists in the first place and is magically sustained, with no extra force required?
Can you justify why this gradient is based on the weight of the fluid?
Can you justify why the air doesn't remove this gradient by the high pressure air pushing the low pressure air up?
Can you justify how and why the air then magically pushes things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?
Can you explain why the high pressure air below doesn't just push objects up towards the low pressure air above?
Can you explain why the air then decides to magically change its mind and push some objects up?
NO!
You have no explanation nor justification. All you have is baseless assertion where you wilfully ignore what air and other fluids have been shown to repeatedly do.
All so you can pretend you have a viable alternative for gravity so you can pretend your irrational attack on the globe isn't just wilful rejection of reality.
Conversely, gravity actually explains it.
Gravity means each object has weight, trying to move it down.
This includes the air (and other fluids), with the air being crushed down by the weight of the air above.
This causes the air (and other fluids) to have a pressure gradient based upon the weight of the fluid.
This causes the air (and other fluids) to push objects up. This is known as buoyancy.
If weight is greater, the object falls.
If buoyancy is greater, the object goes up.
Even if the weight is greater, the apparent weight that is recorded on a scale is reduced by the buoyant force.
This is most easy to see by evacuating a container, causing it to displace more air and thus have a greater buoyant force, reducing its apparent weight.
Again, gravity makes sense, matches what is observed in reality, and can actually explain it.
Your nonsense makes no sense, defies simple logic and experiments, and doesn't match reality at all.
-
The one thing I can say as fact is the Earth model you go with, is nonsense and simple experiments show it to be just that.
No you can't because the Earth model that we go with is the true one and yours is nonsense.
Of course your 'simple experiments' prove to you your model is correct because that's exactly what you designed them to do. So in your mind they show you what you want them to. The fact that no one can verify the results from those experiments themselves because you have never explained them immediately nullifies them as showing anything.
Conspiracy theorists are always harking on about finding 'the truth'. In your mind your experiments are showing you the truth but only the truth that you want to believe.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Roughly 9.81m/s/s.
Took your time but you got there.
Soooo, this 9.81m/s/s is thrown out in any set up, whether it's dropped from head height or in a supposed vacuum.
And yet terminal velocity is always argued. Why?
You can't have terminal velocity for 9.81 m/s/s.
You can't have terminal velocity at all but that's another argument.
You see, predictable fall is specific to similar masses of similar shapes, only.
Atmospheric pressure resisting that falling mass changes any predictability.
The only thing you can argue for predictability of all mass, (which I think you are trying to do) is to appeal to a vacuum, which cannot be achieved.
Your next best argument is to appeal to extreme low pressure which also has no validity over elevated distance.
-
But I do have a idea that Earth is not a spinning globe.
As just wild speculation, or do you claim to know that as truth?
Make up your mind.
The one thing I can say as fact is the Earth model you go with, is nonsense and simple experiments show it to be just that.
No wild speculation required.
What are these simple experiments?
Looking through a level tube and simply denying that you can see the ground on a downward curve, due to your strawman globe being tiny.
Do you got anything else? or is the rest just wild speculation.
I'll let you know it all after you get to 500 posts.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Are you suggesting that mass doesn't fall at a predictable rate?
It depends on the mass.
-
The one thing I can say as fact is the Earth model you go with, is nonsense and simple experiments show it to be just that.
No wild speculation required.
And do you know what that means?
You are claiming a truth. The fact that what you claim is truth is a blatant lie has no bearing on that.
I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.
I backed up my facts with simple water level.
So, no....it's not a blatant lie, at all.
BUT......you are free t think what you want .
-
The one thing I can say as fact is the Earth model you go with, is nonsense and simple experiments show it to be just that.
No wild speculation required.
And do you know what that means?
You are claiming a truth. The fact that what you claim is truth is a blatant lie has no bearing on that.
I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.
I backed up my facts with simple water level.
So, no....it's not a blatant lie, at all.
BUT......you are free t think what you want .
But, do you even believe the earth is flat? I thought your cell shaped earth was like in your avatar, or have you changed your mind yet again?
I'll let you know when you reach 100 posts.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Roughly 9.81m/s/s.
Took your time but you got there.
Soooo, this 9.81m/s/s is thrown out in any set up, whether it's dropped from head height or in a supposed vacuum.
And yet terminal velocity is always argued. Why?
You can't have terminal velocity for 9.81 m/s/s.
You can't have terminal velocity at all but that's another argument.
You see, predictable fall is specific to similar masses of similar shapes, only.
Atmospheric pressure resisting that falling mass changes any predictability.
The only thing you can argue for predictability of all mass, (which I think you are trying to do) is to appeal to a vacuum, which cannot be achieved.
Your next best argument is to appeal to extreme low pressure which also has no validity over elevated distance.
You really are a pos.
You said 9.8 long time ago and i corrected your units.
Keep playing games.
I wasnt sure what you were asking because it was very open ended question - as i specifically asked you to sepcifcially ask.
Yes
Terminal velocity sums up the net forces where the drag effect cancels out the "predictable fall rate" and woohooo - a constant velocity is acheived.
This was already discussed and shows you still havent caught up or "got there yet".
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.
Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
Unless you can clarify.
Per second per second.
Theres two of them.
Yes
Very real and predictable and measruable.
Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.
Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist
It has nothing to do with gravity.
If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.
Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner????
Amazing!!!
-
you really are a pos.
You said 9.8 long time ago and i corrected your units.
Keep playing games.
I wasnt sure what you were asking because it was very open ended question - as i specifically asked you to sepcifcially ask.
You're struggling.
Yes
Terminal velocity sums up the net forces where the drag effect cancels out the "predictable fall rate" and woohooo - a constant velocity is acheived.
Constant velocity can never be a thing. It's absolutely impossible.
This was already discussed and shows you still havent caught up or "got there yet".
I'm more than caught up.
Your argument is built from acceptance without knowing the truth.
-
It was only 3days ago.
Keep failing at basic math and easily observable reality which have no bearing on whether thers an ice dome or not.
-
It was only 3days ago.
Keep failing at basic math and easily observable reality which have no bearing on whether thers an ice dome or not.
What are you actually talking about?
-
I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.
Yet you refuse to provide anything to back up that blatant lie of yours.
Instead you just appeal to things which show you are wrong, like water.
Water level clearly shows that Earth is round, beyond any sane doubt.
The fact that the bottom of distant obscured are obscured by the water, even though both the observer and the object are above the water, shows beyond any sane doubt, that the surface of water is curved.
So yes, it IS a blatant lie.
No matter how much you want to pretend that blatant lie of yours is the truth, it will remain a blatant lie.
You have NOTHING to justify your blatant lie that Earth is not round.
Just like you have NOTHING to justify your blatant lie that gravity is a fantasy.
Just like you have NOTHING to justify your blatant lie that air is a viable alternative for gravity.
Again, the simple questions you continue to avoid show that your alternative is not viable at all. Instead it is DOA.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Again, all of these wild claims of your defy simple logic and experimental evidence of how air works.
You're struggling.
Says the one who still can't address simple questions and still can't provide anything to justify their lies.
It is quite clear that you are the one struggling here.
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.
Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
Unless you can clarify.
Per second per second.
Theres two of them.
Yes
Very real and predictable and measruable.
Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.
Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist
It has nothing to do with gravity.
If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.
Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner????
Amazing!!!
This the, date april27, was three days ago when 9.81 was brought up.
No one is struggling but you and your gall to talk down to me while missing this is what im pointing out.
Youve yet to drawn a simple circle and triangle.
Lets go.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Are you suggesting that mass doesn't fall at a predictable rate?
It depends on the mass.
So different mass falls at different rates?
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Are you suggesting that mass doesn't fall at a predictable rate?
It depends on the mass.
So different mass falls at different rates?
i'll jump the gun here and go to, yes, a bowling ball vs a balloon of similar SIZE (in measured diameter - no games playing) will fall faster because of AIR DRAG.
drag can be accounted for.
drag can be isolated in a wind tunnel test or even removed in a vaccuum chamber (he'll say it doesn't exist because vaccuums don't exist) so we'l call it an "extremely low pressure, small sponges" chamber.
don't give sceppy any outs.
he will string it along playing his stupid games.
-
Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.
they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?
What is this predictable rate?
Whata the value?
Whata the cause?
Ask a more specific question and be less of a pos.
You said mass falls at a predictable rate, so tell me what the predictable rate is.
Are you suggesting that mass doesn't fall at a predictable rate?
It depends on the mass.
So different mass falls at different rates?
i'll jump the gun here and go to, yes, a bowling ball vs a balloon of similar SIZE (in measured diameter - no games playing) will fall faster because of AIR DRAG.
drag can be accounted for.
drag can be isolated in a wind tunnel test or even removed in a vaccuum chamber (he'll say it doesn't exist because vaccuums don't exist) so we'l call it an "extremely low pressure, small sponges" chamber.
don't give sceppy any outs.
he will string it along playing his stupid games.
I know how scepti operates.
This isn't my first rodeo.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like. I start with just a few.
This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory". It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source. All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Here are a few more. All peer reviewed. When you're done with they I have more for you. Or, you can learn to do your own research because data like this is easily available.
Infrasound and gravity waves over the Andes observed by a pressure sensor on board a stratospheric balloon
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1605726
Black Holes and Other Clues to the Quantum Structure of Gravity
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/9/1/16
General approach to the Lagrangian ambiguity in f(R, T) gravity
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08920-4.pdf
Topics in soft collinear effective theory for gravity
https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.066019
Probing gravity and growth of structure with gravitational waves and galaxies’ peculiar velocity
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2020/pub/fermilab-pub-20-185-ae.pdf
Convectively Forced Diurnal Gravity Waves in the Maritime Continent
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/77/3/jas-d-19-0236.1.xml
-
I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.
Yet you refuse to provide anything to back up that blatant lie of yours.
I did but you decided water wasn't level and could curve around a ball.
I can't help you with that if that's what you want to believe.
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.
Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
Unless you can clarify.
Per second per second.
Theres two of them.
Yes
Very real and predictable and measruable.
Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.
Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist
It has nothing to do with gravity.
If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.
Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner????
Amazing!!!
This the, date april27, was three days ago when 9.81 was brought up.
No one is struggling but you and your gall to talk down to me while missing this is what im pointing out.
Youve yet to drawn a simple circle and triangle.
Lets go.
It's easy to draw a circle or a triangle. I don't see what it's going to prove to you other than seeing a circle and a triangle.
-
So different mass falls at different rates?
Of course.
-
I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.
Yet you refuse to provide anything to back up that blatant lie of yours.
I did but you decided water wasn't level and could curve around a ball.
I can't help you with that if that's what you want to believe.
Level doesn’t mean flat.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like. I start with just a few.
This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory". It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source. All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?
Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
Here are a few more. All peer reviewed. When you're done with they I have more for you. Or, you can learn to do your own research because data like this is easily available.
Infrasound and gravity waves over the Andes observed by a pressure sensor on board a stratospheric balloon
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1605726
Can you explain this nice and simple for a dummy like me. Tell me how you know it to be a truth and why it shows, to you....and the peers who reviewed it.
Black Holes and Other Clues to the Quantum Structure of Gravity
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/9/1/16
Same again, can you provide proof for dummies or is this just for you people to know and us to accept without argument?
General approach to the Lagrangian ambiguity in f(R, T) gravity
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08920-4.pdf
As above. Nice and simple explanation.
Topics in soft collinear effective theory for gravity
https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.066019
Same once again. A nice and simple explanation of the reality.
Probing gravity and growth of structure with gravitational waves and galaxies’ peculiar velocity
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2020/pub/fermilab-pub-20-185-ae.pdf
Once again, can you do as above?
Convectively Forced Diurnal Gravity Waves in the Maritime Continent
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/77/3/jas-d-19-0236.1.xml
And finally, same as above. If you can dumb it all down so it shows the facts you claim or the facts the peers claim it to be for which you accept, I'll appreciate that.
Any more you want to put out, feel free but expect the same as above.
Fair enough?
I'm being serious.
-
I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.
Yet you refuse to provide anything to back up that blatant lie of yours.
I did but you decided water wasn't level and could curve around a ball.
I can't help you with that if that's what you want to believe.
Level doesn’t mean flat.
Good, then we can account for small water ripples.
So we are back to water being essentially, level.
-
I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.
Yet you refuse to provide anything to back up that blatant lie of yours.
I did but you decided water wasn't level and could curve around a ball.
No, all you have provided is your blatant lie, even that is yet another blatant lie of yours.
Water is level, which means it curves around Earth.
You have nothing to justify your blatant lie that level water magically means Earth can't be a globe, while you have been provided evidence of level water clearly showing Earth is round.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Again, all of these wild claims of your defy simple logic and experimental evidence of how air works.
-
So different mass falls at different rates?
Of course.
I just tried a simple experiment to try this out. I have a set of weights like they used to use in shops to weigh things out. One of them is labelled 250g and the other 500g. They are both made of the same material and so both have the same density.
I took a weight in each hand and held them out at the same height and let them go. Both fell to the ground as I predicted. Now one weight is twice the mass of the other so one should should have hit the ground before the other one did if Sceptis statement above is true. But that is not what happened. Both hit the ground at the same time. How come?
My hypothesis is this. From physics S=ut + (at^2)/2 where S is the distance travelled u is initial velocity. t is the time to fall and a is the acceleration. In this case since both weights are initially at rest, u=o and since they are falling under the influence of what I will call gravity, I can say a = g = 9.8m/s^2. So that gives us S = (gt^2)/2 since 0xt = 0.
There is no term for mass in this equation so the time of fall from a given height is independent of mass providing the rate of acceleration doesn't change. Anyone can easily test this with everyday objects. Which is exactly what I did.
You see, predictable fall is specific to similar masses of similar shapes, only.
Mass is independent of rate of fall as the above equation shows so the 'shape' of the mass is also completely irrelevant.
-
the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.
You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.
Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?
If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.
Unless you can clarify.
Per second per second.
Theres two of them.
Yes
Very real and predictable and measruable.
Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.
Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist
It has nothing to do with gravity.
If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.
Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner????
Amazing!!!
This the, date april27, was three days ago when 9.81 was brought up.
No one is struggling but you and your gall to talk down to me while missing this is what im pointing out.
Youve yet to drawn a simple circle and triangle.
Lets go.
It's easy to draw a circle or a triangle. I don't see what it's going to prove to you other than seeing a circle and a triangle.
Good.
Draw it.
Ita going to prove your theory.
Its going to orive us wrong that our model, as is, dot not match observed reality but instead leoce your thoughts and hypothesis.
Lets go
Draw it.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like. I start with just a few.
This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory". It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source. All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?
Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
No I won't. You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you. It is up to you to refute it.
This is data produce using the scientific method. The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.
These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines.
It doesn't get any more authoritative than this. To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
You asked for the data and I provided it. The ball is in your court to debunk it.
Mike
-
But that is not what happened. Both hit the ground at the same time. How come?
He is appealing to the tiny variations due to air drag in this case.
They are far to small to notice for significant masses and the only way to really see it over a short distance is to use a very low density object, like a feather or balloon.
-
In other words he is selectively taking into account only those situations or conditions which can make it appear that he is right. 500g mass v feather. 500g mass hits the ground first because it is less affected by air resistance. If you take polystyrene ball which is the same mass as a feather it will hit the ground at the same time as the 500g mass when dropped from the same height.
Nothing to do with mass (classic myth) but the ball will experience less air resistance than will the feather. If it was to do with mass it different fall rates would apply to any different masses regardless of shape or structure.
-
In other words he is selectively taking into account only those situations or conditions which can make it appear that he is right. 500g mass v feather. 500g mass hits the ground first because it is less affected by air resistance. If you take polystyrene ball which is the same mass as a feather it will hit the ground at the same time as the 500g mass when dropped from the same height.
Nothing to do with mass (classic myth) but the ball will experience less air resistance than will the feather. If it was to do with mass it different fall rates would apply to any different masses regardless of shape or structure.
He doesn't understand how shape can affect things apparently.
Try it with this 500kg object. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/TTf4Ezf.jpeg)
-
Water is level, which means it curves around Earth....................... ::)
You're not really going to get anywhere with that mindset, other than just following the pied pipers of the story telling world of fairy tales.
-
So different mass falls at different rates?
Of course.
I just tried a simple experiment to try this out. I have a set of weights like they used to use in shops to weigh things out. One of them is labelled 250g and the other 500g. They are both made of the same material and so both have the same density.
I took a weight in each hand and held them out at the same height and let them go. Both fell to the ground as I predicted. Now one weight is twice the mass of the other so one should should have hit the ground before the other one did if Sceptis statement above is true. But that is not what happened. Both hit the ground at the same time. How come?
My hypothesis is this. From physics S=ut + (at^2)/2 where S is the distance travelled u is initial velocity. t is the time to fall and a is the acceleration. In this case since both weights are initially at rest, u=o and since they are falling under the influence of what I will call gravity, I can say a = g = 9.8m/s^2. So that gives us S = (gt^2)/2 since 0xt = 0.
There is no term for mass in this equation so the time of fall from a given height is independent of mass providing the rate of acceleration doesn't change. Anyone can easily test this with everyday objects. Which is exactly what I did.
You see, predictable fall is specific to similar masses of similar shapes, only.
Mass is independent of rate of fall as the above equation shows so the 'shape' of the mass is also completely irrelevant.
Why did you bother with those?
Why not just use a kitchen sink and a tennis ball and drop them from head height.
Or drop a brick and a tennis ball.
Or drop a football and a tennis ball, all from head height.
You'll see the same thing. They will both appear to hit the ground at the same time...by eye.
Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?
Probably you will think that.
Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.
You all know this.
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like. I start with just a few.
This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory". It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source. All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?
Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
No I won't. You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you. It is up to you to refute it.
This is data produce using the scientific method. The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.
These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines.
It doesn't get any more authoritative than this. To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
You asked for the data and I provided it. The ball is in your court to debunk it.
Mike
I don't need to refute it. You cannot prove it. You are simply reliant on what it says, as your truth but you know fine well you cannot stand there and hand it out as truth from your own workings because you've never tested any of it out to prove anything.
You can't debunk fantasy you can just claim it to be fantasy.
You can argue for it being real but your real and fantasy are indistinguishable if you can't back it up yourself.
-
Water is level, which means it curves around Earth....................... ::)
You're not really going to get anywhere with that mindset
Other than accepting reality.
If you want to show that level water is magically flat water, go ahead and substantiate that claim.
Because so far, it is just your baseless assertion, contradicted by plentiful evidence.
Or, why don't you stop with that and deal with the questions actually related to this thread which also show your claims are pure BS?
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.
Get this into your head:
This shows your claims about the air magically pushing things down is pure BS.
How can you account for the air apparently accelerating all objects of any significant mass basically the same initially, but then magically slowing them down at different rates, depending on their area?
The simple reality is YOU CAN'T.
This is because in situations like that there are 2 forces involved. There is gravity pulling the object down, and the air pushing the object up.
Again, mainstream science can explain it just fine.
Your nonsense can't.
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like. I start with just a few.
This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory". It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source. All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?
Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
No I won't. You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you. It is up to you to refute it.
This is data produce using the scientific method. The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.
These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines.
It doesn't get any more authoritative than this. To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
You asked for the data and I provided it. The ball is in your court to debunk it.
Mike
I don't need to refute it.
Yes, you do.
You claimed there was no evidence, but there is, there is plenty.
Or you can just admit your prior claim was just another blatant lie of yours.
-
Water is level, which means it curves around Earth....................... ::)
You're not really going to get anywhere with that mindset
Other than accepting reality.
You may think you're accepting reality. I think you're accepting a lot of fantasy as your reality.
That's not entirely your fault, of course.
We were all massively indoctrinated into this fantasy world and it takes a hell of a lot to change that perception.
-
Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.
Get this into your head:
This shows your claims about the air magically pushing things down is pure BS.
Air doesn't magically push things down. It has to have something to push against to push things down, as has been explained many times, to you.
How can you account for the air apparently accelerating all objects of any significant mass basically the same initially, but then magically slowing them down at different rates, depending on their area?
The simple reality is YOU CAN'T.
It doesn't accelerate all masses at the same rate.
It depends on the masses displacement of the atmosphere which determines how much reactive pressure is pushed against that mass and the resistance of it by what is below it.
You simply never took the time to bother to look at it because your mindset was frenzied and all you were after doing was to go on the attack.
-
You may think you're accepting reality. I think you're accepting a lot of fantasy as your reality.
That's not entirely your fault, of course.
That's right, it's your fault, for your complete inability to defend any of your claims or answer trivial questions.
Air doesn't magically push things down.
That's right, it pushes up.
The problem is that you claim it magically pushes things down, and you have never been able to explain it. Instead you just claim you have.
The only time you have been able to present anything even remotely plausible is when you have an object pressed against the ground with no air under it.
How can you account for the air apparently accelerating all objects of any significant mass basically the same initially, but then magically slowing them down at different rates, depending on their area?
The simple reality is YOU CAN'T.
It doesn't accelerate all masses at the same rate.
It depends on the masses displacement of the atmosphere which determines how much reactive pressure is pushed against that mass and the resistance of it by what is below it.
You simply never took the time to bother to look at it because your mindset was frenzied and all you were after doing was to go on the attack.
And yet again you ignore the actual issue and just resort to pathetic insults.
I'm not the one in a frenzy here, if anyone is, it would be you with your frenzied rejection of reality.
I did take the time to look at it, and found flaws at almost every point you have made.
Again, the issue you ignore here is how the air acts so vastly different between objects such that it appears that there is a force trying to move everything down with a force proportional to mass, and then the air also applies a force that is proportional to volume, and then to shape and size.
If it was just the air, you wouldn't expect such vastly different results.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
-
Why did you bother with those?
Why not just use a kitchen sink and a tennis ball and drop them from head height.
Or drop a brick and a tennis ball.
Or drop a football and a tennis ball, all from head height.
You'll see the same thing. They will both appear to hit the ground at the same time...by eye.
Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?
Probably you will think that.
Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.
You all know this.
By eye!!!
The greatest measuring device known to man!!!
And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!
What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?
Anothee great sceppy exoperiemnt
Amazing idsas from the master of logic.
Lets now al believe him on his other theories.
Top of a building?
Grwat.
Drag resistence can be accounted for as already acknowledged and discussed - its the VELOCITY SHAPE and AIR DENSITY that factora against resistence as per conventional physics.
All predictablyle testable provable.
Not mass.
Whats YOUR point?
-
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like. I start with just a few.
This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory". It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source. All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?
Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
No I won't. You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you. It is up to you to refute it.
This is data produce using the scientific method. The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.
These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines.
It doesn't get any more authoritative than this. To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
You asked for the data and I provided it. The ball is in your court to debunk it.
Mike
I don't need to refute it. You cannot prove it. You are simply reliant on what it says, as your truth but you know fine well you cannot stand there and hand it out as truth from your own workings because you've never tested any of it out to prove anything.
You can't debunk fantasy you can just claim it to be fantasy.
You can argue for it being real but your real and fantasy are indistinguishable if you can't back it up yourself.
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
-
Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?
No I don't think they will hit the ground at the same time. I know they will because I have watched exactly that experiment done. Have you?
I understand where your logic lies and you are falling into exactly the same trap that many other people do. But there's no telling you that is there because you will continue to believe whatever your mindset tells you is the truth.
How high is 'very high' anyway? The rate of acceleration is the same (i.e. 'g') and mass doesn't come into it so the height is irrelevant. You could drop your tennis ball and stone (how big a stone?) from the top of your house or the top of the Burj Kalifa and they would still hit the ground at the same time.
-
Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?
No I don't think they will hit the ground at the same time. I know they will because I have watched exactly that experiment done. Have you?
I understand where your logic lies and you are falling into exactly the same trap that many other people do. But there's no telling you that is there because you will continue to believe whatever your mindset tells you is the truth.
How high is 'very high' anyway? The rate of acceleration is the same (i.e. 'g') and mass doesn't come into it so the height is irrelevant. You could drop your tennis ball and stone (how big a stone?) from the top of your house or the top of the Burj Kalifa and they would still hit the ground at the same time.
You are just further falling into his trap and playing his game.
According to some sites, the terminal velocity of a tennis ball is 100 km/hr, which is roughly 28 m/s.
If you drop it from the top of Kalifa tower, ignoring air resistance, it would hit the ground at roughly 11 seconds, travelling roughly 127 m/s.
In reality, it would accelerate and reach its terminal and then fall at a rate of roughly 28 m/s, taking significantly longer.
The stone would have a larger terminal velocity due to its larger mass and same volume.
So if you were to drop them both from a very significant height, like the top of Kalifa tower, then they would not hit the ground at the same time.
The question you should be asking him is why this is the case?
Why does the air produce different terminal velocities for different objects?
Why does the air produce a terminal velocity in the first place?
He claims it is the air pushing the object down. So why does it then resist that and try to push it back up?
How come the push down is based upon the mass of the object, while the push up is not?
-
That's right, it's your fault, for your complete inability to defend any of your claims or answer trivial questions.
Defended very well and all answered.
Of course it doesn't suit you but then again that's really your issue, not mine.
-
And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!
What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?
Then don't argue from this point of view.
SHow me your argument with something much higher.
I've seen the silly attempt of a bowling ball and feather in a so called massive vacuum chamber with all the open mouths of so called scientists/operators and rattling pipes....etc.
An absolute joke.
I've seen the coin and the feather drop in a tube supposedly measuring????
I've seen the ball from waist height and drop.
Where's your proof?
Do you have any proof?
-
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.
It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
-
Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?
No I don't think they will hit the ground at the same time. I know they will because I have watched exactly that experiment done. Have you?
I'm sure you can explain it and show me what it is...right?
I understand where your logic lies and you are falling into exactly the same trap that many other people do. But there's no telling you that is there because you will continue to believe whatever your mindset tells you is the truth.
My logic lies where it should. By knowing atmospheric pressure has a different resistance to all unequal masses.
How high is 'very high' anyway? The rate of acceleration is the same (i.e. 'g') and mass doesn't come into it so the height is irrelevant.
Mass certainly does come into it...massively and height is massively relevant for clearer observation.
You could drop your tennis ball and stone (how big a stone?) from the top of your house or the top of the Burj Kalifa and they would still hit the ground at the same time.
No, you couldn't.
Atmospheric resistance stops that and you know this but for some reason deny it.
-
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.
It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Ohhh the hypocracy
-
And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!
What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?
Then don't argue from this point of view.
SHow me your argument with something much higher.
I've seen the silly attempt of a bowling ball and feather in a so called massive vacuum chamber with all the open mouths of so called scientists/operators and rattling pipes....etc.
An absolute joke.
I've seen the coin and the feather drop in a tube supposedly measuring????
I've seen the ball from waist height and drop.
Where's your proof?
Do you have any proof?
Wheres the proof?
The proof was the well documented well repeatable experiments listed above that you nahnahnnee'd away wihtout anything more that "it dotn make sense to me".
The feather doesnt flutter.
Its been said many times and shows "predictable rate of fall" is a thing.
Yoy thinkings you can refute measurbale motion, youve yet to show anything.
-
And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!
What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?
Then don't argue from this point of view.
SHow me your argument with something much higher.
I've seen the silly attempt of a bowling ball and feather in a so called massive vacuum chamber with all the open mouths of so called scientists/operators and rattling pipes....etc.
An absolute joke.
I've seen the coin and the feather drop in a tube supposedly measuring????
I've seen the ball from waist height and drop.
Where's your proof?
Do you have any proof?
Wheres the proof?
The proof was the well documented well repeatable experiments listed above that you nahnahnnee'd away wihtout anything more that "it dotn make sense to me".
The feather doesnt flutter.
Its been said many times and shows "predictable rate of fall" is a thing.
Yoy thinkings you can refute measurbale motion, youve yet to show anything.
Neither have you.
-
Oh look
Another
"Nahnahnnee"
The proof was provided.
Youve seen a feather-coin-tube before?
With your own eyes?
Provide a reason for its existence - other than "trickery".
-
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.
It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight. You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research? Really?
Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you. You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.
Mike
-
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.
It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight. You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research? Really?
Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you. You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.
Mike
Calm down. You can obviously do as you please...but, if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.
-
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.
It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight. You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research? Really?
Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you. You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.
Mike
Calm down. You can obviously do as you please...but, if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.
I don't expect you to believe anything. I expect you will do your own work. I expect you to read data presented, as you requested BTW, and do you own research. I said there was peer reviewed data, you said "name one", and I did. Read it, don't read it, ignore it; whatever. However, stop trying to shift the burden.
Mike
-
That's right, it's your fault, for your complete inability to defend any of your claims or answer trivial questions.
Defended very well and all answered.
No, deflected, not defended.
Defending would require you to actually address the issues.
But you can't, so you deflect however you can.
Again, the issue is entirely yours, because you keep on spouting nonsense which you cannot defend.
Yet again you avoid trivial questions.
If you could defend your BS you would answer these questions.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
I certainly don't accept it
And that doesn't matter in the slightest.
Your refusal to accept the plentiful evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means you are choosing to remain wilfully ignorant so you can try to prop up your irrational hatred of the globe.
And it just means every time you claim there is no evidence of gravity, you are just lying to everyone.
My logic lies where it should. By knowing atmospheric pressure has a different resistance to all unequal masses.
You have no logic, as clearly shown by your avoidance of the massive issue this causes.
Again, why does the air behave so differently when slowing an object down than when pushing it down?
Why does the push down just seem to depend on mass, while the push up depends upon volume and shape?
Mass certainly does come into it
If your delusional BS was correct, it shouldn't.
You claim it is just the air. So just what role does mass play?
if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.
And if you want to claim there is no evidence of gravity, then you need to deal with all that evidence of gravity and refute it all.
If your not interested in disproving all that evidence, don't lie and claim that no evidence exists.
Or if you want, make it clear that in your delusional and wilfully ignorant opinion, no evidence exists.
-
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.
It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight. You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research? Really?
Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you. You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.
Mike
Calm down. You can obviously do as you please...but, if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.
I don't expect you to believe anything. I expect you will do your own work. I expect you to read data presented, as you requested BTW, and do you own research. I said there was peer reviewed data, you said "name one", and I did. Read it, don't read it, ignore it; whatever. However, stop trying to shift the burden.
Mike
Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
-
That's right, it's your fault, for your complete inability to defend any of your claims or answer trivial questions.
Defended very well and all answered.
No, deflected, not defended.
You said, defended.
I answered.
-
Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?
You asked for peer reviewed, published data. Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it. What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided. That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
Mike
I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.
It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?
Let me get this straight. You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research? Really?
Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you. You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.
Mike
Calm down. You can obviously do as you please...but, if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.
I don't expect you to believe anything. I expect you will do your own work. I expect you to read data presented, as you requested BTW, and do you own research. I said there was peer reviewed data, you said "name one", and I did. Read it, don't read it, ignore it; whatever. However, stop trying to shift the burden.
Mike
Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. In science this is the highest level of evidence. If you won't accept that fact then this is not worth discussing. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy. I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
-
Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy. I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
-
That's right, it's your fault, for your complete inability to defend any of your claims or answer trivial questions.
Defended very well and all answered.
No, deflected, not defended.
You said, defended.
I answered.
You mean you lied.
You are yet to defend your claims.
Instead you just continually deflect, just like you have now, again avoiding trivial questions which expose your BS.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Again, what role does mass play?
All trivial question, which show your claims are pure BS, and which you refuse to answer, because you know that they show your claims to be pure BS.
-
You mean you lied.
I lied about, what?
-
Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy. I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
Let's do it this way.
These studies provides all the conditions, assumptions, equipment used, data collected, analysis techniques used, summary of results, conclusions, and citations to the sources for information/data used.
With everything you need already contained in the information that you asked for, why is the onus now on me to break it down for you?
Mike
-
You mean you lied.
I lied about, what?
About defending (and plenty of other things), when all you can do is deflect, as you have done yet again.
Grow up and either address the issues with your claims or stop making them.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Again, what role does mass play?
-
Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy. I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
Let's do it this way.
These studies provides all the conditions, assumptions, equipment used, data collected, analysis techniques used, summary of results, conclusions, and citations to the sources for information/data used.
With everything you need already contained in the information that you asked for, why is the onus now on me to break it down for you?
Mike
The onus isn't on you to break it down.
I asked you two simple questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
You answer was: 1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
I then asked you: If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
You answered: 2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
I then went on to say:
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
So. basically you can refuse to answer and refuse to prove what you know to be factual but then again it just sets you right back into a corner where you cannot reason your way out of.
You don't know any facts.
What you do know is, you rely on papers that claim facts and accept them as your facts, without physical proof and absolutely without the ability to put anything in front of anyone to show your side to be correct.
If you want to argue that you are stating facts and you could supply those facts to a court of law, if asked to do so, then surely you would be only too happy to lay them out on here and shut me up.....right?
-
You mean you lied.
I lied about, what?
About defending (and plenty of other things), when all you can do is deflect, as you have done yet again.
Grow up and either address the issues with your claims or stop making them.
I lied about defending? I lied about deflecting?
What are you talking about?
-
Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy. I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
Let's do it this way.
These studies provides all the conditions, assumptions, equipment used, data collected, analysis techniques used, summary of results, conclusions, and citations to the sources for information/data used.
With everything you need already contained in the information that you asked for, why is the onus now on me to break it down for you?
Mike
The onus isn't on you to break it down.
I asked you two simple questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
You answer was: 1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
I then asked you: If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
You answered: 2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
I then went on to say:
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
So. basically you can refuse to answer and refuse to prove what you know to be factual but then again it just sets you right back into a corner where you cannot reason your way out of.
You don't know any facts.
What you do know is, you rely on papers that claim facts and accept them as your facts, without physical proof and absolutely without the ability to put anything in front of anyone to show your side to be correct.
If you want to argue that you are stating facts and you could supply those facts to a court of law, if asked to do so, then surely you would be only too happy to lay them out on here and shut me up.....right?
Amazing hypocracy continues
You cant say for a fact, for fact this is what yoyve said, that globe is debunked and false when yoy yoyrself have yet to provide a single shrsd of debunkery.
I mean at this pont even danag's photo - of the sun without a time or mapped location amd direction for verification - is more proof than what youve provided
Seriously
THink about that one.
-
Amazing hypocracy continues
You cant say for a fact, for fact this is what yoyve said, that globe is debunked and false when yoy yoyrself have yet to provide a single shrsd of debunkery.
I mean at this pont even danag's photo - of the sun without a time or mapped location amd direction for verification - is more proof than what youve provided
Seriously
THink about that one.
What in the hell are you talking about?
-
Amazing hypocracy continues
You cant say for a fact, for fact this is what yoyve said, that globe is debunked and false when yoy yoyrself have yet to provide a single shrsd of debunkery.
I mean at this pont even danag's photo - of the sun without a time or mapped location amd direction for verification - is more proof than what youve provided
Seriously
THink about that one.
What in the hell are you talking about?
The fact that you have not once, provided any evidence for any of your claims.. other than you 'just know'.
I hate to break it to you, but stuff you make up isn't actually evidence, or proof, or anything at all.
-
Amazing hypocracy continues
You cant say for a fact, for fact this is what yoyve said, that globe is debunked and false when yoy yoyrself have yet to provide a single shrsd of debunkery.
I mean at this pont even danag's photo - of the sun without a time or mapped location amd direction for verification - is more proof than what youve provided
Seriously
THink about that one.
What in the hell are you talking about?
The fact that you have not once, provided any evidence for any of your claims.. other than you 'just know'.
I hate to break it to you, but stuff you make up isn't actually evidence, or proof, or anything at all.
Yep....but....the difference between me and the likes of you is, I don't pass my stuff off as fact. I pass it off as theory.
You do not know the facts of what we're arguing but you pretend you do.
As for providing evidence against your globe. I have supplied that as easy as anything.
You denying it when it's in your face and physically true is your way of simply denying legitimate observable, testable and repeatable experiments.
But you carry on doing that, I'm fine with it.
-
Amazing hypocracy continues
You cant say for a fact, for fact this is what yoyve said, that globe is debunked and false when yoy yoyrself have yet to provide a single shrsd of debunkery.
I mean at this pont even danag's photo - of the sun without a time or mapped location amd direction for verification - is more proof than what youve provided
Seriously
THink about that one.
What in the hell are you talking about?
The fact that you have not once, provided any evidence for any of your claims.. other than you 'just know'.
I hate to break it to you, but stuff you make up isn't actually evidence, or proof, or anything at all.
Yep....but....the difference between me and the likes of you is, I don't pass my stuff off as fact. I pass it off as theory.
You do not know the facts of what we're arguing but you pretend you do.
As for providing evidence against your globe. I have supplied that as easy as anything.
You denying it when it's in your face and physically true is your way of simply denying legitimate observable, testable and repeatable experiments.
But you carry on doing that, I'm fine with it.
nono
you've definitely passed your DEBUNK AS FACT.
so fact away and draw the circles or show us a coin-feather-tube is fake by repeating the experiment.
waving it away as "it's fake" doesn't mean anything unless you back it up.
you've yet to bakc anything up.
"sceppy can't concieve" is not a back up.
-
The onus isn't on you to break it down.
No, the onus is on you.
You falsely claimed there is no evidence for gravity.
When that was counted by pointing out the fact that there is loads of peer reviewed data on gravity you asked for him to name one, and he did.
So the onus is on you to refute the peer reviewed data and show there is no evidence for gravity.
Just like the onus is on you to answer the simple questions you continue to avoid as they destroy your nonsense.
I lied about defending? I lied about deflecting?
What are you talking about?
Stop playing dumb. Stop deflecting.
Answer the questions, or admit your model is a complete failure.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Again, what role does mass play?
the difference between me and the likes of you is, I don't pass my stuff off as fact.
And there you go with more lies.
You continually attempt to pass of your blatant lies as facts, yet you never offer anything to justify these lies of yours.
As for providing evidence against your globe. I have supplied that as easy as anything.
No, you haven't.
You have continually dismissed it as nonsense and continually misrepresented it, pretending like it is a tiny ball you could hold in your hand.
You are yet to present anything which in any way challenges or refutes the globe.
You not liking that fact will not change it.
-
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
Expansion = breakdown of molecules.
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
Simple resistance to mass of atmospheric molecules.
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Breakdown of molecules into their lesser mass against the more mass that tries to crush them but cannot crush them down due to the density being lower, so they get crushed up into the stacked layers they are now pushed into.
Again, what role does mass play?
Mass is everything, it's just a case of how tightly packed it is which determines its displacement of other mass.
-
"sceppy can't concieve" is not a back up.
Do you actually know what it is you're arguing about?
-
Yss
As stated by the part you deleted....
Either way.
This sounds new -
What does break down if atmoapheric molecules due to expansion mean?
A sponge grows and grows under low preaaure unitl it bursts?
Bursta into smaller sponges?
-
Yss
As stated by the part you deleted....
Either way.
This sounds new -
What does break down if atmoapheric molecules due to expansion mean?
A sponge grows and grows under low preaaure unitl it bursts?
Bursta into smaller sponges?
Peeling the gobstopper.
Let's see if you can cast your mind back a bit.
-
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
Expansion = breakdown of molecules.
This does not answer the question.
Are you trying to say there is a continuous breakdown of molecules such that the pressure gradient is maintained?
IF not, ANSWER THE QUESTION!
I don't care what you want to describe compression as.
It is well observed that with the sole exception of the pressure gradient caused by gravity, that if you have a high pressure region of a fluid next to a low pressure region, the high pressure region compresses that low pressure region or just pushes it out of the way, such that the high pressure region can decompress and expand.
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
Simple resistance to mass of atmospheric molecules.
Again, this does not answer the question.
You need to explain how the air is pushing the object down.
Saying that the air is resisting mass is not saying how it is pushing down.
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Breakdown of molecules into their lesser mass against the more mass that tries to crush them but cannot crush them down due to the density being lower, so they get crushed up into the stacked layers they are now pushed into.
While this is more wordy, it still isn't an answer, but it depends upon the prior answer.
Why should the air be crushing an object down?
How does an object resist this crush?
Why does the density matter at all?
Again, what role does mass play?
Mass is everything, it's just a case of how tightly packed it is which determines its displacement of other mass.
Well now you are getting somewhere.
When it comes to objects falling, mass is almost everything.
What certainly isn't is the air.
But again, that still doesn't actually address the question.
Why do 2 objects of the same mass but different densities behave so differently?
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
If it is just the air, at least one set of these should behave identically.
-
Are you trying to say there is a continuous breakdown of molecules such that the pressure gradient is maintained?
IF not, ANSWER THE QUESTION!
I don't care what you want to describe compression as.
It is well observed that with the sole exception of the pressure gradient caused by gravity, that if you have a high pressure region of a fluid next to a low pressure region, the high pressure region compresses that low pressure region or just pushes it out of the way, such that the high pressure region can decompress and expand.
Give me an example of what you're talking about and I'll answer it.
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
Simple resistance to mass of atmospheric molecules.
Again, this does not answer the question.
You need to explain how the air is pushing the object down.
Saying that the air is resisting mass is not saying how it is pushing down.
The air is pushing the object down because the object is pushing up into the stacked layers which crush back upon the dense mass of the object.
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Breakdown of molecules into their lesser mass against the more mass that tries to crush them but cannot crush them down due to the density being lower, so they get crushed up into the stacked layers they are now pushed into.
While this is more wordy, it still isn't an answer, but it depends upon the prior answer.
Why should the air be crushing an object down?
Because the objects dense mass is compressing the atmosphere it pushes into.
How does an object resist this crush?
Its dense mass being equal to the pressure upon it by its own displacement of it.
Why does the density matter at all?
It's what creates a resistance to other mass it is put up against.
Again, what role does mass play?
Mass is everything, it's just a case of how tightly packed it is which determines its displacement of other mass.
Well now you are getting somewhere.
When it comes to objects falling, mass is almost everything.
Mass is everything. Without mass you have nothing/no existence of anything.
The whole reason why you can never have a true vacuum.
What certainly isn't is the air.
Air/atmosphere has mass. Everything does, like I said.
But again, that still doesn't actually address the question.
Why do 2 objects of the same mass but different densities behave so differently?
Give me an example of what you're meaning by the same mass but different densities, so we know we are on the same page.
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
If it is just the air, at least one set of these should behave identically.
Well, let's see what your set up would be in explanation to me and I'll see if I can answer it.
-
Are you trying to say there is a continuous breakdown of molecules such that the pressure gradient is maintained?
IF not, ANSWER THE QUESTION!
I don't care what you want to describe compression as.
It is well observed that with the sole exception of the pressure gradient caused by gravity, that if you have a high pressure region of a fluid next to a low pressure region, the high pressure region compresses that low pressure region or just pushes it out of the way, such that the high pressure region can decompress and expand.
Give me an example of what you're talking about and I'll answer it.
It is pretty simple, you have a high pressure region of air, and a low pressure region of air. If you remove a barrier, the high pressure region pushes into the low pressure region.
A simple example is a helium filled balloon, or a gas tank.
So what magic does your air have that stops this and keeps the pressure gradient there?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
Simple resistance to mass of atmospheric molecules.
Again, this does not answer the question.
You need to explain how the air is pushing the object down.
Saying that the air is resisting mass is not saying how it is pushing down.
The air is pushing the object down because the object is pushing up into the stacked layers which crush back upon the dense mass of the object.
What is causing the object to push up? Especially noting the direction of up as opposed to any other direction.
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Breakdown of molecules into their lesser mass against the more mass that tries to crush them but cannot crush them down due to the density being lower, so they get crushed up into the stacked layers they are now pushed into.
While this is more wordy, it still isn't an answer, but it depends upon the prior answer.
Why should the air be crushing an object down?
Because the objects dense mass is compressing the atmosphere it pushes into.
Again, no justification of directionality.
The air crushing an object crushes it inwards, not down.
How does an object resist this crush?
Its dense mass being equal to the pressure upon it by its own displacement of it.
Why does the density matter at all?
It's what creates a resistance to other mass it is put up against.
How? Why density?
Why not just mass?
That sure seems to be what resists change in motion.
2 objects of equal density but vastly different sizes resist quite differently.
Conversely, 2 objects of roughly equal mass but different densities resist quite comparably.
But it is more complex for resisting forces trying to crush it or stretch it, which doesn't seem to depend on density at all.
Give me an example of what you're meaning by the same mass but different densities, so we know we are on the same page.
A feather, and a spherical lead weight of equal mass.
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
-
Why density?
Why not just mass?
Mass is density. Dense mass.
2 objects of equal density but vastly different sizes resist quite differently.
Yep. Area counts massively where resistance comes into it.
Conversely, 2 objects of roughly equal mass but different densities resist quite comparably.
equal mass equals, equal density.
But it is more complex for resisting forces trying to crush it or stretch it, which doesn't seem to depend on density at all.
Nope.
It depends on the area of dense masses.
If one mass is a dense ball but the other is equal, yet in a sheet metal form, they're both displacing the exact same atmosphere.
The only difference would be the resistance of it against both by area, meaning drop the sheet flat out against dropping the ball and the ball overcomes resistance much easier.
Give me an example of what you're meaning by the same mass but different densities, so we know we are on the same page.
A feather, and a spherical lead weight of equal mass.
It would have to be one tiny piece of lead.
It would still fall faster because the feather has a lot of area against below resistance.
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
-
Please note density is defined as mass over volume.
-
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
So scepti doesn't know what volume means.
2 spheres of equal radius have the same volume, genius.
-
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
So scepti doesn't know what volume means.
2 spheres of equal radius have the same volume, genius.
I know what volume is with my theory.
You appear not to.
-
Volume-denP.
Density-denP.
Mass-denP.
You have to play his games.
-
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
So scepti doesn't know what volume means.
2 spheres of equal radius have the same volume, genius.
I know what volume is with my theory.
You appear not to.
So volume in your fantasy is not volume in reality. Makes sense.
-
I noticed you skipped over the pressure gradient.
Again, for a simple case of a helium filled balloon or a gas tank, we clearly observe the high pressure fluid pushing the low pressure fluid out of the way to remove the pressure gradient.
The only time we observe a pressure gradient which is stable is in the pressure gradient due to gravity or due to acceleration of a system, and in both cases the pressure gradient is then proportional to the density of the fluid.
Why? Without gravity, what is causing this vertical pressure gradient to be stable?
Why doesn't the high pressure fluid push the low pressure fluid until the pressure is equal?
Likewise, you also skipped over why the air pushes things down in the first place.
Again, if it is crushing it, it crushes inwards, not down.
You have no justification for why it should be pushed down.
Instead you just deflect to the object magically pushing up for no reason, but what is causing the object to push up, especially it being up rather than just outwards, and especially if this object has fallen at all which means it is pushing down from above.
And likewise, you haven't explained what then magically causes it to push some objects up.
You pretend that you will answer the questions, continually providing non-answers, until you can't think of any more excuses, and then you just ignore them.
The questions are still there. They are still unanswered.
Why density?
Why not just mass?
Mass is density. Dense mass.
There you go ignoring the meaning of more words.
Mass is not density.
Mass is an extensive property based upon how much of the substance there is.
Density is an intensive property, which is the same regardless of how much you have (note some things, like air, will have a density that varies with altitude).
It doesn't matter if you have 1 kg or 2 kg of steel, the density is the same, but the mass is different.
On the basis of that, rather than your own pretend definitions, address the issues raised.
Gravity explains it just fine with a fundamentally different force causing things to fall to the force of the air resisting that falling.
But you want to claim that it is the same.
So address why these sets of objects behave so differently.
It depends on the area of dense masses.
No, it depends on the material properties of the object which do not depend on mass or density.
There are some very light weight materials which are incredibly strong, and some quite dense materials which are much weaker.
The only difference would be the resistance of it against both by area, meaning drop the sheet flat out against dropping the ball and the ball overcomes resistance much easier.
Which also means it would be much easier for the ball to overcome the air pushing down, so it should be pushed down less than the flat sheet.
Again, this is one of the massive issues you can't explain.
Again, with gravity, having a force act directly on the mass to move the object down, while air then acts on the surface of the object, this makes perfect sense.
But with your nonsense of the air doing both, you have no justification for why the air seems to push down on both objects the same, but then resists that downwards motion so vastly different between the objects.
It would still fall faster because the feather has a lot of area against below resistance.
Which also means it has a lot of area against the air pushing it down.
Again, why the massive difference in behviour?
You claim the air pushes the object down, and the air is resisting it.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
No, we have the same volume due to the same radius.
I don't care if you want to accept the actual definition of words, or want to make up your own and pretend it is some property other than volume which is the same.
Deal with the issue rather than trying to escape it due to semantics.
-
So volume in your fantasy is not volume in reality. Makes sense.
Volume is what a mass holds within it, whether it's a closed box or a cube that holds atmosphere within its porous inner, it's all volume.
-
I noticed you skipped over the pressure gradient.
Again, for a simple case of a helium filled balloon or a gas tank, we clearly observe the high pressure fluid pushing the low pressure fluid out of the way to remove the pressure gradient.
You're never removing any pressure gradient, you're just changing it.
-
So volume in your fantasy is not volume in reality. Makes sense.
Volume is what a mass holds within it, whether it's a closed box or a cube that holds atmosphere within its porous inner, it's all volume.
So is it possible in your fantasy to calculate an objects volume?
For example what is the volume of a cube with sides of 1ft length?
What difference does it make? We aren't arguing calculating volumes, so what purpose has this got?
-
So volume in your fantasy is not volume in reality. Makes sense.
Volume is what a mass holds within it, whether it's a closed box or a cube that holds atmosphere within its porous inner, it's all volume.
So is it possible in your fantasy to calculate an objects volume?
For example what is the volume of a cube with sides of 1ft length?
What difference does it make? We aren't arguing calculating volumes, so what purpose has this got?
You claim that two objects of the same dimensions have differing volumes. So I ask how you would calculate the volume, seems a reasonable question to me.
If a cube of solid lead and sides of 1ft length has a volume of 1 cubic feet. Does a cube of balsa wood of 1ft length also have a volume of 1 cubic foot?
None of them do.
They both have a visual area of 1 cubic foot.
-
So volume in your fantasy is not volume in reality. Makes sense.
Volume is what a mass holds within it, whether it's a closed box or a cube that holds atmosphere within its porous inner, it's all volume.
So is it possible in your fantasy to calculate an objects volume?
For example what is the volume of a cube with sides of 1ft length?
What difference does it make? We aren't arguing calculating volumes, so what purpose has this got?
You claim that two objects of the same dimensions have differing volumes. So I ask how you would calculate the volume, seems a reasonable question to me.
If a cube of solid lead and sides of 1ft length has a volume of 1 cubic feet. Does a cube of balsa wood of 1ft length also have a volume of 1 cubic foot?
None of them do.
They both have a visual area of 1 cubic foot.
WTF is visual area? Area is only 2 dimensions. Do you think that everything is flat?
If they don't have a volume of 1 cubic foot, what is their volume? How do you calculate it?
What is the 'visual area' of a solid block 1ft high, 2ft wide and 3ft long?
What do you think you'll get out of this carry on?
Try and understand my side and if you can't then sit and watch until you do and if you can't, then just sit back.
-
I am trying to understand your side, but you are unable to explain your side.
I asked about what I don't understand and you just burst into tears with an angry frenzy of 'Don't ask me questions I can't answer', because I'm making you look the fool.
You're not trying to understand anything and also you could never make me look a fool. You can believe you do and are welcome to that...but...as for me, I just smile at your typing when you resort to this gunk.
-
So volume in your fantasy is not volume in reality. Makes sense.
Volume is what a mass holds within it, whether it's a closed box or a cube that holds atmosphere within its porous inner, it's all volume.
Volume is the area of a 3 dimensional object. It doesn't have to have any mass in it. It is the space that is occupied by that object. Density is how much mass is in that volume. Volume does not need mass. Mass needs volume outside a singularity. Just because something is more dense doesn't mean it has more volume. Like Jack asked, two spheres, both with the same radius, one solid lead and the other is solid wood. Do you still disagree that they have the same volume but different mass therefore different densities?
-
I noticed you skipped over the pressure gradient.
Again, for a simple case of a helium filled balloon or a gas tank, we clearly observe the high pressure fluid pushing the low pressure fluid out of the way to remove the pressure gradient.
You're never removing any pressure gradient, you're just changing it.
The air removes it.
Now stop avoiding the questions and answer them.
And that also means stop with the pathetic semantics as well.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
You're correct about one thing. You don't need me to make you look a fool.
You are correct in that assumption.
-
So volume in your fantasy is not volume in reality. Makes sense.
Volume is what a mass holds within it, whether it's a closed box or a cube that holds atmosphere within its porous inner, it's all volume.
Volume is the area of a 3 dimensional object. It doesn't have to have any mass in it. It is the space that is occupied by that object. Density is how much mass is in that volume. Volume does not need mass. Mass needs volume outside a singularity. Just because something is more dense doesn't mean it has more volume. Like Jack asked, two spheres, both with the same radius, one solid lead and the other is solid wood. Do you still disagree that they have the same volume but different mass therefore different densities?
Well, let me tell you where I'm at with my theory and how and why it works for me.
Mass is the amount of structure in any object.
Density is the amount of structure that can displace atmosphere. Essentially dense mass is the structure, which is why I use the two words together, because they essentially mean the same.
Some masses are more dense than others but both are dense mass.
Volume is atmosphere that the dense mass holds within it, that makes up its visual size of structure of dense mass.
By all means have a pop but you won't get it from my side by doing so.
-
I noticed you skipped over the pressure gradient.
Again, for a simple case of a helium filled balloon or a gas tank, we clearly observe the high pressure fluid pushing the low pressure fluid out of the way to remove the pressure gradient.
You're never removing any pressure gradient, you're just changing it.
The air removes it.
The air can only change it, not remove it.
-
Nobody wants or needs to get it from your side, your side is wrong and mostly contradicts itself and reality.
Then don't take up your time trying to correspond to me.
Just sit there and back up those that do and you can pipe in with things like "yeah" and " good on you (insert favourite forum name(s)" to back slap....).
Physics, Maths, Geometry and even the English language all work absolutely fine as they are. We don't need your fantasy, it has no application in the real world.
What is the real world in which this is applicable?
Builders use volume to estimate material required and it works fine despite you claiming they are all doing it wrong.
Why are they doing it wrong?
What are they calculating?
Real world engineers use real world engineering and it works fine despite you claiming they are all doing it wrong.
I'm not claiming anyone is doing anything wrong with how they work in the real world, which is the one we all live in.
Aircraft designers design aircraft despite you claiming you are the only person in the world who knows how they fly.
Nooo, not at all. I believe plenty know how they fly but we aren't told the entire truth on it all because certain things are substituted for fictional forces. Gravity being one.
What have you ever achieved?
Whatever you feel I've achieved. If you think that's nothing, then there's the answer that suits you.
And you're very welcome to that.
What is your benefit to society?
As much or as little as you think it is.
You require pacifying, so pacify yourself with a thought that I don't benefit society, at all..... and you can go about your life with more ease and less strain.
Your not even entertaining, you just spout the same BS over and over like a broken record.
Then I suggest you lift up the needle and get out of the sticking groove. Do not ride it.
That's the best advice I can give you and I think you should take it.....but, it is obviously your choice.
-
Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy. I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
Let's do it this way.
These studies provides all the conditions, assumptions, equipment used, data collected, analysis techniques used, summary of results, conclusions, and citations to the sources for information/data used.
With everything you need already contained in the information that you asked for, why is the onus now on me to break it down for you?
Mike
The onus isn't on you to break it down.
I asked you two simple questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
You answer was: 1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
I then asked you: If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
You answered: 2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
I then went on to say:
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
So. basically you can refuse to answer and refuse to prove what you know to be factual but then again it just sets you right back into a corner where you cannot reason your way out of.
You don't know any facts.
What you do know is, you rely on papers that claim facts and accept them as your facts, without physical proof and absolutely without the ability to put anything in front of anyone to show your side to be correct.
If you want to argue that you are stating facts and you could supply those facts to a court of law, if asked to do so, then surely you would be only too happy to lay them out on here and shut me up.....right?
Yes. I do refuse and I'll tell you why. One of your most well-known tactics is comments similar to "you don't know", "you just believe", “you haven’t done it yourself”; usually followed by some form of “you only have faith without evidence” kind of statement.
The whole goal here is to discredit the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. It's called an Appeal to Accomplishment logical fallacy. And, it is your primary go to reply in every single discussion. Your scripted narrative is designed to NEVER address any argument presented. You always make it about the person making the argument and never, ever the argument itself. I refuse to play your game.
The simple fact is, when I brought up peer reviewed published research you said "Name one.". I named 7 and provided links to the sources for all of them. I literally answered the question you asked and proved that such peer reviewed data exists. But rather than concede it exists, you jump right into your script.
Here’s the thing though. In a court of law, peer reviewed, published data like this would be considered prima facie evidence. You can’t allow that because you know you have no answers for any of it. Here’s a clue for you...your personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
So, your only options to accept the data, refute the data, or ignore the data...and everyone reading this knows which you’ll do. Rejecting it because you don’t believe is on you but don’t put the burden on me to justify your Argument From Incredulity because it’s not going to happen.
On a side note: Let me be clear on one thing. I will never, and nobody should ever have to, reanalyze, reperform, rehash, or otherwise justify peer reviewed, properly published, and accepted research. It stands on its own merit. That is literally the whole point of the peer review process. Once presented the burden is on you; not me and all your handwaving word salad isn’t going to change that.
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
-
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
And, you cannot provide anything close to a verifiable technical rationale to support this nonsense.
Mike
-
Yes. I do refuse and I'll tell you why. One of your most well-known tactics is comments similar to "you don't know", "you just believe", “you haven’t done it yourself”; usually followed by some form of “you only have faith without evidence” kind of statement.
Seeing as you brought this up. Do you know the facts to what I'm arguing against?
Have you performed experiments yourself that you can claim as fact and actually back that claim up?
Or do you just believe what you're told because you trusted in authority/official lines?
It's not a tactic, it's a genuine ask and I think I'm entitled to ask.
You are certainly not obliged to answer but by not answering you leave the questions open.
The whole goal here is to discredit the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
The whole goal is to get some real proof. If you have it then shut me up. If you haven't got it then your reliance is upon those who you believe do have it and yet you have not seen it to verify the truth of it.
It's called an Appeal to Accomplishment logical fallacy.
It's call an appeal for truthful and provable answers or truthful answers that the proof does not exist...only theory and pseudoscience.....etc.
And, it is your primary go to reply in every single discussion. Your scripted narrative is designed to NEVER address any argument presented.
That depends on how you want to see it.
It seems to me the primary goals of people like yourself are to dismiss questions that ask for your proof and answer those questions by using massive appeals to authority.
You always make it about the person making the argument and never, ever the argument itself. I refuse to play your game.
If you spout off facts and I asked for proof from you, then yes, it is about you and your argument with me.
As for refusing to play my game. There is no game but that's something people like you use to try and slither away from the issues, which you're well entitled to do but it gives you no credence with me.
The simple fact is, when I brought up peer reviewed published research you said "Name one.". I named 7 and provided links to the sources for all of them. I literally answered the question you asked and proved that such peer reviewed data exists. But rather than concede it exists, you jump right into your script.
I didn't deny you brought up what I asked for.
I simply further questioned and asked how you know they're a proof. That's it.
I expected you to come back with reasons why you know those peer reviews are based on fact. You seem to not have an answer.
Here’s the thing though. In a court of law, peer reviewed, published data like this would be considered prima facie evidence.
No doubt...but then again the testimony of 10 police officers who saw a man kill someone, even if the man was innocent, will gain the required result in the innocent man going to prison for life.
However, in a legitimate fair hearing, me against the peers. I ask for proof.
The court will require those peers to put forward that truth.
That's when the issues really start, because that proof has to be provided, physically to the court.
Could you provide it to a court of their behalf, as a sort of guarantor of truth?
You can’t allow that because you know you have no answers for any of it. Here’s a clue for you...your personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
It is if no proof is provided to shut it down.
So, your only options to accept the data, refute the data, or ignore the data...and everyone reading this knows which you’ll do.
You missed one. Question the data and ask for proof that the data shows realism.
Rejecting it because you don’t believe is on you but don’t put the burden on me to justify your Argument From Incredulity because it’s not going to happen.
There is no burden on you. You are under no obligation to answer anything I ask. You are under no obligation to type one word to me but you feel you have to.
If you can provide proof then let's see it. If you can't, then there's nothing you've achieved. You've strengthened my hand from my side, regardless of what you think, from your side.
On a side note: Let me be clear on one thing. I will never, and nobody should ever have to, reanalyze, reperform, rehash, or otherwise justify peer reviewed, properly published, and accepted research. It stands on its own merit. That is literally the whole point of the peer review process. Once presented the burden is on you; not me and all your handwaving word salad isn’t going to change that.
I believe you do need to justify peer reviewed data if you're going to hand it out as being a purveyor of facts.
Otherwise you're just arguing by simple appeals to your believed authority.
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
Don't forget the 4th one.
QUESTION.
-
Why do 2 objects of the same volume but different mass behave so differently?
Also give me an example of this one so, again, we know we are on the same page.
A solid 1 lead sphere vs a hollow paper sphere, where the radius of the 2 spheres are equal.
For a less dramatic comparison you could replace the paper sphere with a balsawood sphere.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
And, you cannot provide anything close to a verifiable technical rationale to support this nonsense.
Mike
Pretty simple, really, for many objects when looked at in closer detail.
Some are observable by eye.
Soooooo.......yes.....I.....can.
-
I believe you do need to justify peer reviewed data if you're going to hand it out as being a purveyor of facts.
Otherwise you're just arguing by simple appeals to your believed authority.
You're correct about one thing. You don't need me to make you look a fool.
You are correct in that assumption.
The experiments are also repeatable.
-
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
Don't forget the 4th one.
QUESTION.
Of course, you can question the data. I expect you to question the data otherwise what's the point of the discussion?
As I said, peer reviewed, published data stands on it's own merit so if have a question about something specific ask and if I can, I'll reply. If I can't answer I'll tell you. However, asking me to explain hundreds of pages to you is not questioning the data. That's laziness on your part which also fits you scripted narrative of discrediting the person not the argument.
-
On a side note: Let me be clear on one thing. I will never, and nobody should ever have to, reanalyze, reperform, rehash, or otherwise justify peer reviewed, properly published, and accepted research. It stands on its own merit. That is literally the whole point of the peer review process. Once presented the burden is on you; not me and all your handwaving word salad isn’t going to change that.
I believe you do need to justify peer reviewed data if you're going to hand it out as being a purveyor of facts.
Otherwise you're just arguing by simple appeals to your believed authority.
What part about peer reviewed stands on it's own merit don't you understand?
Let me help you out. Peer reviewed literally, and literally is not an exaggeration here, ...literally means it has already been justified to the peers in that field and accepted by the discipline as a whole.
So, unless you are an accepted expert in that field you are not entitled to any further justification than that. And, if you were an expert in that field you would take your concerns the authors of that paper. No matter how much you want it to conform to your personal whims, that is how science works. IOW, you don't get to make your own rules and expect everyone to follow them.
And, let me explain how burden works. When something stands on it's own merit, in order to shift the burden you MUST have a reasonable testable counter argument. That does NOT mean asking for justification for what has already been justified.
-
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
Don't forget the 4th one.
QUESTION.
Of course, you can question the data. I expect you to question the data otherwise what's the point of the discussion?
As I said, peer reviewed, published data stands on it's own merit so if have a question about something specific ask and if I can, I'll reply. If I can't answer I'll tell you. However, asking me to explain hundreds of pages to you is not questioning the data. That's laziness on your part which also fits you scripted narrative of discrediting the person not the argument.
I'm not asking you to explain hundreds of pages of anything to me.
I asked you if you can verify the peer review in terms of showing me the facts.
After all, you do believe they're facts, right?
If that's the case you must be able to show me they are.
Or....
Are you simply accepting them as facts but have no proof of them being facts?
-
On a side note: Let me be clear on one thing. I will never, and nobody should ever have to, reanalyze, reperform, rehash, or otherwise justify peer reviewed, properly published, and accepted research. It stands on its own merit. That is literally the whole point of the peer review process. Once presented the burden is on you; not me and all your handwaving word salad isn’t going to change that.
I believe you do need to justify peer reviewed data if you're going to hand it out as being a purveyor of facts.
Otherwise you're just arguing by simple appeals to your believed authority.
What part about peer reviewed stands on it's own merit don't you understand?
The bit where there is no facts shown.
Standing on its own merit means nothing other than a group of people have decided this is their truth.
Let me help you out. Peer reviewed literally, and literally is not an exaggeration here, ...literally means it has already been justified to the peers in that field and accepted by the discipline as a whole.
Justified by who? Experts?
Experts in what?
If they're experts then they would have zero problems with showing the truth.
There has been none and all you're doing is trying to tell me there are facts, yet you know you can't back that up.
So, unless you are an accepted expert in that field you are not entitled to any further justification than that.
I'm entitled to ask for the facts and if I don't get them, I'm entitled to carry on calling it out.
And, if you were an expert in that field you would take your concerns the authors of that paper.
An expert is what field? Bullcrap?
If the so called experts in their field had the facts, they would lay them out. How come they never do?
No matter how much you want it to conform to your personal whims, that is how science works.
Your right, that's not how science works.
Science works on legitimate end products from theory to fact.
This is pseudoscience and I'm being kind in saying that.
IOW, you don't get to make your own rules and expect everyone to follow them.
Nobody has to follow anything I say and as for rules. I make my own to my own theories and if anyone wants to understand them they have to follow them or struggle to understand them.
Pretty simple.
And, let me explain how burden works. When something stands on it's own merit, in order to shift the burden you MUST have a reasonable testable counter argument.
I do.
I know the Earth is not a spinning globe and water level nails it as just one counter.
Because of that, the dominoes start to fall with everything used to back up the so called spinning ball in so called space.
That does NOT mean asking for justification for what has already been justified.
It hasn't been justified. It's been more of bullified into people. Accept it or else you are a tin foil hat nutter and everyone will jump on that bandwagon and make you conform.
What a crock of karap.
-
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
Don't forget the 4th one.
QUESTION.
Of course, you can question the data. I expect you to question the data otherwise what's the point of the discussion?
As I said, peer reviewed, published data stands on it's own merit so if have a question about something specific ask and if I can, I'll reply. If I can't answer I'll tell you. However, asking me to explain hundreds of pages to you is not questioning the data. That's laziness on your part which also fits you scripted narrative of discrediting the person not the argument.
I'm not asking you to explain hundreds of pages of anything to me.
I asked you if you can verify the peer review in terms of showing me the facts.
After all, you do believe they're facts, right?
If that's the case you must be able to show me they are.
Or....
Are you simply accepting them as facts but have no proof of them being facts?
yes
fact, north hem stars make a pattern vs south hem stars and ships disappear bottom up, not lightondark compression.
your opinion and word salads are meaningless.
if you want, prove these wrong
draw the triange and the circle
show us the massive tilt
draw how light reaches the eye from the far away horizon and how someone at ground level sees differently from someone 100ft up in the air.
draw it
draw what the air is doing to the light
teach us something
-
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
Don't forget the 4th one.
QUESTION.
Of course, you can question the data. I expect you to question the data otherwise what's the point of the discussion?
As I said, peer reviewed, published data stands on it's own merit so if have a question about something specific ask and if I can, I'll reply. If I can't answer I'll tell you. However, asking me to explain hundreds of pages to you is not questioning the data. That's laziness on your part which also fits you scripted narrative of discrediting the person not the argument.
I'm not asking you to explain hundreds of pages of anything to me.
I asked you if you can verify the peer review in terms of showing me the facts.
After all, you do believe they're facts, right?
If that's the case you must be able to show me they are.
Or....
Are you simply accepting them as facts but have no proof of them being facts?
yes
fact, north hem stars make a pattern vs south hem stars and ships disappear bottom up, not lightondark compression.
your opinion and word salads are meaningless.
if you want, prove these wrong
draw the triange and the circle
show us the massive tilt
draw how light reaches the eye from the far away horizon and how someone at ground level sees differently from someone 100ft up in the air.
draw it
draw what the air is doing to the light
teach us something
I can't teach you anything.
Your mind is made up and I accept that.
My mind is made up and you'll have to accept that.
-
Volume is atmosphere that the dense mass holds within it, that makes up its visual size of structure of dense mass.
So if an object has a volume of 1 cubic inch, there is a cubic inch of atmosphere within the object?
-
Volume is atmosphere that the dense mass holds within it, that makes up its visual size of structure of dense mass.
So if an object has a volume of 1 cubic inch, there is a cubic inch of atmosphere within the object?
Let's make this a bit clearer.
If you had an empty box and the empty part of the box was a cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever, then the volume of that box would be 1 cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever.
However, you then have the structure of the box itself which holds volume within that.
-
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
Don't forget the 4th one.
QUESTION.
Of course, you can question the data. I expect you to question the data otherwise what's the point of the discussion?
As I said, peer reviewed, published data stands on it's own merit so if have a question about something specific ask and if I can, I'll reply. If I can't answer I'll tell you. However, asking me to explain hundreds of pages to you is not questioning the data. That's laziness on your part which also fits you scripted narrative of discrediting the person not the argument.
I'm not asking you to explain hundreds of pages of anything to me.
I asked you if you can verify the peer review in terms of showing me the facts.
After all, you do believe they're facts, right?
If that's the case you must be able to show me they are.
Or....
Are you simply accepting them as facts but have no proof of them being facts?
yes
fact, north hem stars make a pattern vs south hem stars and ships disappear bottom up, not lightondark compression.
your opinion and word salads are meaningless.
if you want, prove these wrong
draw the triange and the circle
show us the massive tilt
draw how light reaches the eye from the far away horizon and how someone at ground level sees differently from someone 100ft up in the air.
draw it
draw what the air is doing to the light
teach us something
I can't teach you anything.
Your mind is made up and I accept that.
My mind is made up and you'll have to accept that.
nothing can be taught whne you refuse to provide answers
nice attempt at a cop out
admit you can't draw a basic diagram that shows off your theory or shows the globe eareth to be inaccurate
-
Volume is atmosphere that the dense mass holds within it, that makes up its visual size of structure of dense mass.
So if an object has a volume of 1 cubic inch, there is a cubic inch of atmosphere within the object?
Let's make this a bit clearer.
If you had an empty box and the empty part of the box was a cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever, then the volume of that box would be 1 cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever.
However, you then have the structure of the box itself which holds volume within that.
So if I have a a cube of lead measuring 1 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch. How much atmosphere is in it?
-
I noticed you skipped over the pressure gradient.
Again, for a simple case of a helium filled balloon or a gas tank, we clearly observe the high pressure fluid pushing the low pressure fluid out of the way to remove the pressure gradient.
You're never removing any pressure gradient, you're just changing it.
The air removes it.
The air can only change it, not remove it.
And if the air "changes it" to get it to 0, that is removing it.
Again, stop with the pathetic semantics and address the issues with the nonsense you claim is a viable alternative to gravity.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
nothing can be taught whne you refuse to provide answers
nice attempt at a cop out
admit you can't draw a basic diagram that shows off your theory or shows the globe eareth to be inaccurate
It seems you can't draw what you're asking me to draw.
Typical kabool.
-
Volume is atmosphere that the dense mass holds within it, that makes up its visual size of structure of dense mass.
So if an object has a volume of 1 cubic inch, there is a cubic inch of atmosphere within the object?
Let's make this a bit clearer.
If you had an empty box and the empty part of the box was a cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever, then the volume of that box would be 1 cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever.
However, you then have the structure of the box itself which holds volume within that.
So if I have a a cube of lead measuring 1 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch. How much atmosphere is in it?
Whatever is trapped within it and what sits withing the pores of it.
-
And if the air "changes it" to get it to 0, that is removing it.
It's never going to happen. Pay attention.
-
nothing can be taught whne you refuse to provide answers
nice attempt at a cop out
admit you can't draw a basic diagram that shows off your theory or shows the globe eareth to be inaccurate
It seems you can't draw what you're asking me to draw.
Typical kabool.
Whaa?
I did.
I got a circle and determeined roughly 0.6 degrees for 50km which is very close to jackBs 0.27degrees for 30km.
Extremely close estimate consdiering my compounded rounding on rounding error.
Again
Are you stupid?
You must be stupid.
-
Volume is atmosphere that the dense mass holds within it, that makes up its visual size of structure of dense mass.
So if an object has a volume of 1 cubic inch, there is a cubic inch of atmosphere within the object?
Let's make this a bit clearer.
If you had an empty box and the empty part of the box was a cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever, then the volume of that box would be 1 cubic inch, foot, metre or whatever.
However, you then have the structure of the box itself which holds volume within that.
So if I have a a cube of lead measuring 1 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch. How much atmosphere is in it?
Whatever is trapped within it and what sits withing the pores of it.
Amazing nonanswer.
13words to say nothing.
Heres an equally useless response but wiht less words.
Q: How much atmosphere is in it?
A: That much.
-
Again
Are you stupid?
You must be stupid.
Are you asking me or telling me?
-
Keep dodging the actual point made and instead focus on the irrelevant.
Side note.... if you dont know if youre stupid well... ya.
-
And if the air "changes it" to get it to 0, that is removing it.
It's never going to happen. Pay attention.
Again, you are playing semantics.
Deal with the issues raised. Unless you can address them, your model is DOA:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Jack, you know he is never going to answer. He plays the same stupid games all the time. It's fun to watch and occasionally poke at though.
-
Jack is the only guy who can argue for 10 hours straight.
-
Deal with the issues raised. Unless you can address them, your model is DOA:
They're dealt with. You refusing to accept I gave answers is not my problem.
A little tip for you. Accept I'm giving answers and try and solve them by making your questions more and more clear as to what you want explaining, if you are struggling.
Going into frenzy will not get you anywhere.
-
Deal with the issues raised. Unless you can address them, your model is DOA:
They're dealt with.
No, they aren't.
You pretended to be willing to deal with them, but then when you couldn't come up with more excuses you dodged.
You have dealt with the issues at all.
Until you do, they will continue to mean your model is DOA.
It isn't a case of me refusing to accept your answers, it is a case of you refusing to actually address the issues and instead just using whatever dishonest BS you can to deflect from these issues because you know they refute your nonsense.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Deal with the issues raised. Unless you can address them, your model is DOA:
They're dealt with.
No, they aren't.
Absolutely, they are.
-
Deal with the issues raised. Unless you can address them, your model is DOA:
They're dealt with.
No, they aren't.
Absolutely, they are.
such enlightening discussion...
draw the circle to scale
-
such enlightening discussion...
draw the circle to scale
How about you draw the circle to your scale seeing as you keep asking.
Can't you do it?
-
I did
What?
Did anyone else not see the circle?
-
I did
What?
Did anyone else not see the circle?
I'm sure you could bring it up quite easily of you did one.
Let's see it and you can explain it.
-
89 to go, come on, you can do it.
-
A word of advice, bored. Be careful with what you're doing or the mods will moderate and deservedly so.
-
Deal with the issues raised. Unless you can address them, your model is DOA:
They're dealt with.
No, they aren't.
Absolutely, they are.
If they had been, you would be able to provide the answers trivially.
Instead all you can do is claim they have been answered, or play dumb and pretend you don't know what the questions are, or just provide a word as if it answers, even though it in no way addresses the point.
So rather than claiming they have been addressed or "dealt with", actually deal with them and explain how your DOA model can actually address these issues so they are not a problem for your model.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Deal with the issues raised. Unless you can address them, your model is DOA:
They're dealt with.
No, they aren't.
Absolutely, they are.
If they had been, you would be able to provide the answers trivially.
Instead all you can do is claim they have been answered, or play dumb and pretend you don't know what the questions are, or just provide a word as if it answers, even though it in no way addresses the point.
So rather than claiming they have been addressed or "dealt with", actually deal with them and explain how your DOA model can actually address these issues so they are not a problem for your model.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
All the questioned were addressed and fully answered. You know this and I know this and so do those who are honest who know I have.
However, if you can't accept nor understand the answers then you have to either, try harder to do so or accept you can't or won't and just move on.
If you hit me with one question at a time and accept that I give and answer, I'll deal with it.
Next time you pretend I haven't given an answer, you'll be overlooked when further questions are asked on the same thing.
You seem to put a lot of effort in with long posts, so try and understand answers so you don't have to keep doing that.
Don't come at me with so many questions to answer at once. One at a time and do not move on until you understand the answer from my side.
I'm trying to be nice.
-
Antoher sceppy defintion
Experiment = hypothesis
Answered = word salad circular reasoning repsonse followed by dismissals
-
Antoher sceppy defintion
Experiment = hypothesis
Answered = word salad circular reasoning repsonse followed by dismissals
What are you trying to say?
-
Antoher sceppy defintion
Experiment = hypothesis
Answered = word salad circular reasoning repsonse followed by dismissals
What are you trying to say?
That you are full of shit.
-
Antoher sceppy defintion
Experiment = hypothesis
Answered = word salad circular reasoning repsonse followed by dismissals
What are you trying to say?
That you are full of shit.
Did Kabool ask you to say that for him or did you manage that all by yourself?
-
I think your pathetic dodging and continued dodging is starting to be noticbaly pathetic.
No
I did not telk him to anything.
The only one i am telling to do soemthing is you.
Prove your tilt.
In a hypotehtical globe, What would it be of the turbine at that 30km distance?
Draw the circle.
-
I think your pathetic dodging and continued dodging is starting to be noticbaly pathetic.
No
I did not telk him to anything.
The only one i am telling to do soemthing is you.
Prove your tilt.
In a hypotehtical globe, What would it be of the turbine at that 30km distance?
Draw the circle.
I've drew a circle and you said nothing.
-
Antoher sceppy defintion
Experiment = hypothesis
Answered = word salad circular reasoning repsonse followed by dismissals
What are you trying to say?
That you are full of shit.
Did Kabool ask you to say that for him or did you manage that all by yourself?
Oh no all by my little self, aren't you so proud of me.
-
I think your pathetic dodging and continued dodging is starting to be noticbaly pathetic.
No
I did not telk him to anything.
The only one i am telling to do soemthing is you.
Prove your tilt.
In a hypotehtical globe, What would it be of the turbine at that 30km distance?
Draw the circle.
I've drew a circle and you said nothing.
Kepp playing games
I did say something.
The circle and the triangle together to match the reported massive tilt.
Show us the tilt.
Troll on, king of the trolls.
Jackson should star you in the hobbit prequels.
-
All the questioned were addressed and fully answered.
No they weren't.
You provided non-answers, pretending to actually engage, until you couldn't actually address the issue.
You know this and I know this and so do those who are honest who know you haven't.
For example, in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2315728#msg2315728
As you couldn't explain why the pressure gradient is magically maintained in your model, you asked for an example.
I gave one here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2315729#msg2315729
Because it was so clear, you really didn't have any way to object, so you just ignored it.
In this post, where you responded to that post, you just completely ignored the issue:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2315737#msg2315737
So I brought it back up:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2315810#msg2315810
And then you just keep on dodging:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2315822#msg2315822
Trying to play semantics, continually refusing to address the issue.
Like I said, if you have already answered these questions in full it would be trivial for you to provide the answer or link to the post where you had.
The fact you don't shows that you haven't answered and have no answer.
These questions kill your model and you simply can't answer them, so your model remains dead.
But instead of accepting that, you just continually lie and claim to have answered.
If you hit me with one question at a time and accept that I give and answer, I'll deal with it.
We have played this game before far too many times. You continue down that path until you can't actually deal with it, then you complain when I don't run off on a tangent with you and instead try to get you to actually focus on the issue.
That is one your tactics, you continually switch topics to avoid actually dealing with the issues.
You aren't trying to be nice, and I'm not pretending.
You are doing whatever you can to avoid these massive issues which clearly show your model is pure garbage.
If you want to be nice, actually answer the questions.
No pathetic dodging, no claiming you have already answered, just actually answer them.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Like i said.
Sceppy has "responded" to your questions.
But "responding" doesnt equate to "answering".
Q: Sceppy, why do things fall down?
R: things fall down because that is the direction they fall.
-
Buoyancy bro
-
Buoyancy bro
Is an upwards force. What is down? Why that direction? Buoyancy doesn't cut it... bro.
-
Buoyancy bro
Do you mean the upwards force caused by the pressure gradient which is itself caused by gravity?
-
Oh no all by my little self, aren't you so proud of me.
In a way, yes.
-
I think your pathetic dodging and continued dodging is starting to be noticbaly pathetic.
No
I did not telk him to anything.
The only one i am telling to do soemthing is you.
Prove your tilt.
In a hypotehtical globe, What would it be of the turbine at that 30km distance?
Draw the circle.
I've drew a circle and you said nothing.
Kepp playing games
I did say something.
The circle and the triangle together to match the reported massive tilt.
Show us the tilt.
Troll on, king of the trolls.
Jackson should star you in the hobbit prequels.
The way you're going on, it's you that's game playing.
Put some effort in, man.
-
No they weren't.
If you want answers then ask the right questions and stick to one question at a time and understand it before moving on.
I'm trying to save you wasting your own time saturating questions.
This is for your benefit and to save you getting frustrated.
Learn to understand what answers are, even if you do not accept them.
-
Buoyancy bro
Do you mean the upwards force caused by the pressure gradient which is itself caused by gravity?
I thought you people said gravity was a downward force?
-
Buoyancy bro
Do you mean the upwards force caused by the pressure gradient which is itself caused by gravity?
I thought you people said gravity was a downward force?
Try reading the post before jumping into a frenzy.
And it is. Buoyancy is upwards force caused by the pressure gradient which is itself caused by gravity
Reading isn't the problem, indoctrination screws with your comprehension. Scepti is fully indoctrinated in his FE cult.
It's been explained thousands of times to him but he refuses to accept anything that doesn't make him feel like the rebel cult member fighting the "man".
-
Hes a cult of one.
Circles are the enemy.
Triangles dont add up to 180.
People are incapable of looking down.
Horizontal atmosphere crops view meanwhile seeing airplanes is perfectly reasonable.
-
Hes a cult of one.
Circles are the enemy.
Triangles dont add up to 180.
People are incapable of looking down.
Horizontal atmosphere crops view meanwhile seeing airplanes is perfectly reasonable.
Don't forget, per "Scepti the fool", the volume of sphere does not depend on it's radius. Yeah he admitted to that one too
-
No they weren't.
If you want answers then ask the right questions and stick to one question at a time and understand it before moving on.
I'm trying to save you wasting your own time saturating questions.
This is for your benefit and to save you getting frustrated.
Learn to understand what answers are, even if you do not accept them.
What are the "right" questions? Apparently explanation of claims isn't it for you. Not only do you have your own definitions, now you have your own discussion rules.
Your claims are null and void then. At least until you can actually use normal discussion rules and explain claims made.
-
If you want answers then ask the right questions and stick to one question at a time and understand it before moving on.
You mean just ask questions you can answer which don't show any problem with your model, rather than the questions which show the actual problems, which you will continue to refuse to answer as they clearly show you are wrong.
Do you want me to ask questions like how the air pushes down an object which is sitting on the ground? And then ignore the logical implications of what would then happen for an object on a wall or ceiling or in mid air?
No thanks.
I'm interested in questions which actually try to determine if your claims can explain reality, if it can explain why things fall and so on.
If anyone is actually honestly interested in if your model is a viable alternative for gravity, they are the right questions.
You only think they aren't the right questions because they show you are wrong and you hate that.
Again, you have played the game of demanding 1 issue or 1 question at a time before, you do it so you can continually run off on a tangent and run through all the different issues never actually dealing with any of them.
You have had your chance at it plenty of times, and you ruined it each time.
You have already had far too many chances.
I'm not going to play your pathetic run around game again.
Answer the simple questions which show your model is pure BS, or stop pretending your model is a viable alternative for gravity.
And stop blatantly lying to everyone by claiming they have already been answered when you cannot answer them.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Buoyancy bro
Do you mean the upwards force caused by the pressure gradient which is itself caused by gravity?
I thought you people said gravity was a downward force?
Try reading and understanding what you are responding to, and then actually respond to it rather than just spouting more irrational garbage in your quest to attack the globe at all costs.
Yes, gravity is a downwards force.
It is the very force you need to explain the pressure gradient.
You know, that thing you have been failing to explain with your delusional magic air?
Remember this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Notice how the weight of the air increases the pressure as you get further down as the lower layers of air need to hold up the weight of the middle layer in addition to the top?
So like I said, and you clearly ignored, the pressure gradient is caused by gravity.
The DOWNWARDS force of gravity makes the pressure greater the lower down you are.
Then, as all logical thought and experiment shows, this pressure gradient then causes an UPWARDS force on all objects.
If you would like a simpler example, consider a see-saw.
Putting something heavy on one side results in gravity moving it down and as a result it moves the other side up.
That doesn't mean gravity is no longer a downwards force.
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
You're not yet ready to learn about gravity.
You fail at maths.
You fail at geometry.
You barely pass in English.
Because you do not understand it, you are not in a position to refute it.
You cannot even grasp the simple concept that everything falls toward the centre of the earth.
Ok then here's a question for you.
If you could dig a hole right through to the centre of your Earth from your north pole and your south pole, to meet. Would you fall down the hole and how far would you fall because you couldn't fall all the way through your Earth because the other side of it would be the same falls.
Soooooo, how far do you fall and what happens after you fall?
I'm sure you can help me understand it....right?
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
You're not yet ready to learn about gravity.
You fail at maths.
You fail at geometry.
You barely pass in English.
Because you do not understand it, you are not in a position to refute it.
You cannot even grasp the simple concept that everything falls toward the centre of the earth.
Ok then here's a question for you.
If you could dig a hole right through to the centre of your Earth from your north pole and your south pole, to meet. Would you fall down the hole and how far would you fall because you couldn't fall all the way through your Earth because the other side of it would be the same falls.
Soooooo, how far do you fall and what happens after you fall?
I'm sure you can help me understand it....right?
I really should make you rephrase this question a few times, while pretending to not know what you're asking.
I don't know what would happen if you jumped into a hole through the earth, I've never done it and am not aware of anyone who claims to have done this.
I could guess.
That would continue to accelerate until you get to the middle where you now be going 'up'. (My guess is that you're acceleration would become less as you get closer to the centre, so there is no abrupt change in acceleration.)
You will now be decelerating until you stop (somewhere below the ground on the opposite side of the earth from which you started, assuming there is some friction/air resistance).
You would then begin falling again and would bounce back and forth until any resistance stops you in the middle.
If there was no friction/air resistance you would fall all the way through and stop at the same height you jumped from on the opposite side. If you don't grab hold of something you will fall back to where you started.
I could of course look it up, I'm sure this question has been posed many times (probably even on this forum, possibly by you).
What do the so called experts say?
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
No.
For starters you yet again completely misrepresent it.
Gravity is not pressure.
Pressure cannot explain what is observed.
Pressure applies a force based upon area.
Gravity applies a force based upon mass.
But more importantly, why should I bother answering any of your questions, when you just ignore any answers provided to you and you continually refuse to answer simple questions addressed to you.
Again, you claim to have a viable alternative for gravity, yet continually refuse to provide any answers to any of the questions which shows that your model defies basic logic.
Perhaps once you have actually answered these questions or admit that you have no answer, I will explain gravity to you yet again.
Can you even admit that you were completely wrong in your latest irrational attack on gravity where you pretended buoyancy meant that gravity was an upwards force?
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
what 'so called experts', I doubt anyone is an expert on this, no one has ever done it.
You could look it up, yourself, if you want something to disagree with without any justification for doing so.
So you don't know and can' find any info on it....right?
There's a good reason for my asking and I think many know what it is which is why they're avoiding it.
Is this one of your simple experiments, that you've done? What was your result?
Which bit of my guess do you not understand? Which bit of my guess do you think is wrong? and why?
I'll let you give me an answer to my question before I tell you.
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
No.
For starters you yet again completely misrepresent it.
Gravity is not pressure.
Pressure cannot explain what is observed.
Pressure applies a force based upon area.
Gravity applies a force based upon mass.
Surely you can explain this.
If gravity applies a force upon mass then what is gravity as this force?
-
what 'so called experts', I doubt anyone is an expert on this, no one has ever done it.
You could look it up, yourself, if you want something to disagree with without any justification for doing so.
So you don't know and can' find any info on it....right?
There's a good reason for my asking and I think many know what it is which is why they're avoiding it.
Is this one of your simple experiments, that you've done? What was your result?
Which bit of my guess do you not understand? Which bit of my guess do you think is wrong? and why?
I'll let you give me an answer to my question before I tell you.
I gave an answer. Most of what happens depends on whether you choose to include atmosphere or not, is this what you wanted to hear? So now you can link it to your denpressure nonsense? Or do you have yet another strawman?
I accept you don't know. I was just wondering what you think the so called experts think about it.
-
Is this one of your simple experiments, that you've done? What was your result?
Which bit of my guess do you not understand? Which bit of my guess do you think is wrong? and why?
I'll let you give me an answer to my question before I tell you.
What experiment(s) have you done and what were the results?
Quick question regarding experiments. There's one that is commonly done that I can't figure out how denpressure would explain. It's where fluids ( in this case, air) are pumped into a membrane (in this case a soap bubble - Sometimes balloons are used). On one side the membrane is filled to a larger amount on one side of a tube connected to another membrane that is filled to a lesser extent. When the valve is opened between the two, the larger membrane of air gets larger whereas the smaller membrane of air gets smaller.
In denpressure, I would expect the opposite: The larger membrane, the larger stack, should push through to the smaller membrane, the smaller stack. Yet that does not occur. How does denpressure explain this?
(https://i.imgur.com/KhmUfpw.gif)
-
Surely you can explain this.
Surely you can answer the trivial questions asked about your alleged alternative, that you have been continuing to avoid and are still trying to avoid by now trying to ask questions back.
Again, answer the questions or admit you have no answer and that your model defies reason, and then we can move on.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
There's a good reason for my asking and I think many know what it is which is why they're avoiding it.
No, there is an extremely dishonest reason for you asking, and many people likely know what it is.
You are deflecting from your complete inability to rationally defend your model, and dishonestly pretending there is a problem with gravity.
That is not a good reason.
If you had a good reason you would clearly express just what you think the problem is and ask a question.
You know like I have done with your nonsense repeatedly, like how I have explained that if it is just the air, there should be no pressure gradient, that a pressure gradient requires an extra force; and how the pressure gradient would cause the air to push everything upwards.
And because it is nothing more than a pathetic deflection and baseless attack on gravity, I am avoiding it.
-
Is this one of your simple experiments, that you've done? What was your result?
Which bit of my guess do you not understand? Which bit of my guess do you think is wrong? and why?
I'll let you give me an answer to my question before I tell you.
What experiment(s) have you done and what were the results?
Quick question regarding experiments. There's one that is commonly done that I can't figure out how denpressure would explain. It's where fluids ( in this case, air) are pumped into a membrane (in this case a soap bubble - Sometimes balloons are used). On one side the membrane is filled to a larger amount on one side of a tube connected to another membrane that is filled to a lesser extent. When the valve is opened between the two, the larger membrane of air gets larger whereas the smaller membrane of air gets smaller.
In denpressure, I would expect the opposite: The larger membrane, the larger stack, should push through to the smaller membrane, the smaller stack. Yet that does not occur. How does denpressure explain this?
(https://i.imgur.com/KhmUfpw.gif)
I'm not exactly sure what's happening in this set up.
Explain it fully and explain what it is you're puzzled with.
I see syringes, so what's happening?
-
Surely you can explain this.
Surely you can answer the trivial questions asked about your alleged alternative, that you have been continuing to avoid and are still trying to avoid by now trying to ask questions back.
Course I can and I have and this is your go to retort, that I haven't answered.
You know I have answered but you have decided my answers don't suit you so you make out I haven't answered.
That's your issue.
-
Is this one of your simple experiments, that you've done? What was your result?
Which bit of my guess do you not understand? Which bit of my guess do you think is wrong? and why?
I'll let you give me an answer to my question before I tell you.
What experiment(s) have you done and what were the results?
Quick question regarding experiments. There's one that is commonly done that I can't figure out how denpressure would explain. It's where fluids ( in this case, air) are pumped into a membrane (in this case a soap bubble - Sometimes balloons are used). On one side the membrane is filled to a larger amount on one side of a tube connected to another membrane that is filled to a lesser extent. When the valve is opened between the two, the larger membrane of air gets larger whereas the smaller membrane of air gets smaller.
In denpressure, I would expect the opposite: The larger membrane, the larger stack, should push through to the smaller membrane, the smaller stack. Yet that does not occur. How does denpressure explain this?
(https://i.imgur.com/KhmUfpw.gif)
I'm not exactly sure what's happening in this set up.
Explain it fully and explain what it is you're puzzled with.
I see syringes, so what's happening?
At least read what I wrote. The gif is just a visual of the experiment that I wrote out.
-
Is this one of your simple experiments, that you've done? What was your result?
Which bit of my guess do you not understand? Which bit of my guess do you think is wrong? and why?
I'll let you give me an answer to my question before I tell you.
What experiment(s) have you done and what were the results?
Quick question regarding experiments. There's one that is commonly done that I can't figure out how denpressure would explain. It's where fluids ( in this case, air) are pumped into a membrane (in this case a soap bubble - Sometimes balloons are used). On one side the membrane is filled to a larger amount on one side of a tube connected to another membrane that is filled to a lesser extent. When the valve is opened between the two, the larger membrane of air gets larger whereas the smaller membrane of air gets smaller.
In denpressure, I would expect the opposite: The larger membrane, the larger stack, should push through to the smaller membrane, the smaller stack. Yet that does not occur. How does denpressure explain this?
(https://i.imgur.com/KhmUfpw.gif)
I'm not exactly sure what's happening in this set up.
Explain it fully and explain what it is you're puzzled with.
I see syringes, so what's happening?
At least read what I wrote. The gif is just a visual of the experiment that I wrote out.
What is it you're not getting?
Explain it with gravity first so I know what you're trying to say and then explain what you think should be happening in denpressure, just so I get a full understanding of what you're trying to put forward.
I have to be careful with you people because you twist stuff so I'm just wanting to be clear on what's what.
-
I managed to find it.
What is happening is, a low pressure is created along the horizontal tube because the left syringe has more pressure applied to fill the bubble which sits in a lower set of stacked layers and is adding slight displacement of the air by the actual bubble itself which transfers to the other smaller bubble which cannot resist that extra pressure, as small as it seems to you.
Basically it causes the air to squeeze the smaller bubble, up.
-
I managed to find it.
What is happening is, a low pressure is created along the horizontal tube because the left syringe has more pressure applied to fill the bubble which sits in a lower set of stacked layers and is adding slight displacement of the air by the actual bubble itself which transfers to the other smaller bubble which cannot resist that extra pressure, as small as it seems to you.
Basically it causes the air to squeeze the smaller bubble, up.
Sorry, I should have included a link to the original video for clarity. I thought the description and gif for visual brevity would be enough.
I'm not quite following. The syringes are not really in the equation anymore. They were just used to blow up the soap bobbles. The "System" is closed in the sense that each bubble is filled with air, one more than the other with that tube in-between the two which has air in it as well. in other words, any pressure is in the bubbles, the syringes don't matter at this point.
See in this experiment, it's just two balloons and a tube between the two. That's what I mean by a closed system:
When he opens the valve on the tube connected to the small bubble, as we see, the small bubble evacuates it's air and sends it through the tube making the larger bubble on the left even larger.
Laplace's law states that the pressure inside an inflated elastic container with a curved surface, e.g., a soap bubble or a balloon, is inversely proportional to the radius as long as the surface tension is presumed to change little. In essence, the smaller the radius of the curved container the greater the pressure.
So the smaller bubble with greater pressure pushes its air into the larger bubble with the lower pressure. Bubble-to-bubble. No atmospheric displacement outside the bubble is required.
Does Laplace's Law agree with how denpressure works?
-
I managed to find it.
What is happening is, a low pressure is created along the horizontal tube because the left syringe has more pressure applied to fill the bubble which sits in a lower set of stacked layers and is adding slight displacement of the air by the actual bubble itself which transfers to the other smaller bubble which cannot resist that extra pressure, as small as it seems to you.
Basically it causes the air to squeeze the smaller bubble, up.
Sorry, I should have included a link to the original video for clarity. I thought the description and gif for visual brevity would be enough.
I'm not quite following. The syringes are not really in the equation anymore. They were just used to blow up the soap bobbles. The "System" is closed in the sense that each bubble is filled with air, one more than the other with that tube in-between the two which has air in it as well. in other words, any pressure is in the bubbles, the syringes don't matter at this point.
See in this experiment, it's just two balloons and a tube between the two. That's what I mean by a closed system:
When he opens the valve on the tube connected to the small bubble, as we see, the small bubble evacuates it's air and sends it through the tube making the larger bubble on the left even larger.
Laplace's law states that the pressure inside an inflated elastic container with a curved surface, e.g., a soap bubble or a balloon, is inversely proportional to the radius as long as the surface tension is presumed to change little. In essence, the smaller the radius of the curved container the greater the pressure.
So the smaller bubble with greater pressure pushes its air into the larger bubble with the lower pressure. Bubble-to-bubble. No atmospheric displacement outside the bubble is required.
Does Laplace's Law agree with how denpressure works?
Density beats volume in terms of overcoming it.
The bigger balloon is holding much much more volume than the smaller balloon. This stretches the balloon and makes it less dense over area than the smaller balloon.
This means the air inside the smaller balloon is more compressed by the air around it which pushes that air into the weaker skinned (larger) balloon.
-
Surely you can explain this.
Surely you can answer the trivial questions asked about your alleged alternative, that you have been continuing to avoid and are still trying to avoid by now trying to ask questions back.
Course I can and I have
Then stop claiming you can and actually do it.
The reason I keep saying you haven't answered, is because you haven't.
Instead you use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid answering, because you know you don't have an answer.
I will stop "making out" that you haven't answered when you actually provide an answer.
Your inability to provide answers is entirely your issue, not mine.
Me pointing out your non-answers do not answer the issue is entirely your issue, not mine.
Again, if you actually had answers you would have provided them.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
The reason I keep saying you haven't answered, is because you haven't.
The reason I say I have, is because I have.
-
You're not yet ready to learn about gravity.
Ok, I'll take that as you having no clue.
-
You're not yet ready to learn about gravity.
Ok, I'll take that as you having no clue.
And your equal refusal to show us anything of substance wih your theory leads us to the same conclusion.
-
You're not yet ready to learn about gravity.
Ok, I'll take that as you having no clue.
NO, take it as you won't understand it because it involves maths, geometry and plain old English words. As you lack understanding in these underlying concepts, you are not yet ready to try to understand gravity.
You won't understand it, you don't want to understand it.
And its a deflection to avoid answering his alternative theory.
-
you are not yet ready to try to understand gravity.
You are clearly not ready to understand it either, because you know it's nonsense and can't be explained with anything meaningful.
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
As stupidly simply as I can put it.
Energy warps spacetime, matter is effectively concentrated energy, spacetime is what matter exists in, so matter follows spacetime, so in effect matter attracts matter. More matter/energy occupying less spacetime warps spacetime more.
-
The reason I keep saying you haven't answered, is because you haven't.
The reason I say I have, is because I have.
The reason you say you have, rather than actually providing these answers, is because you have no answers, you cannot answer the simple questions which show your claims are BS.
Again, if you actually had answers you would provide them rather than merely claiming to have already done so.
Stop claiming to have already provided the answers and actually provide them.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
As stupidly simply as I can put it.
Energy warps spacetime, matter is effectively concentrated energy, spacetime is what matter exists in, so matter follows spacetime, so in effect matter attracts matter. More matter/energy occupying less spacetime warps spacetime more.
Too abstract
Focus on denP
Hes deflecting
-
You're not yet ready to learn about gravity.
Ok, I'll take that as you having no clue.
And your equal refusal to show us anything of substance wih your theory leads us to the same conclusion.
That's absolutely fine.
-
So nice and simple for you:
Gravity is downwards force.
Buoyancy, which is caused by the downwards force of gravity, is an upwards force.
Ok then, very simply explain what the downward pressure is that you call, gravity.
As stupidly simply as I can put it.
Energy warps spacetime, matter is effectively concentrated energy, spacetime is what matter exists in, so matter follows spacetime, so in effect matter attracts matter. More matter/energy occupying less spacetime warps spacetime more.
You absolutely do not know what the hell you are typing except to copy the books.
You do not even know what any of that means in terms of reality.
Let's see if you do.
You say, energy warps space time.
Just explain nice and simple how energy (what form) warps (what is warped?) space time (what is space time?).
-
The reason I keep saying you haven't answered, is because you haven't.
The reason I say I have, is because I have.
The reason you say you have, rather than actually providing these answers, is because you have no answers, you cannot answer the simple questions which show your claims are BS.
All answered.
-
This has all been answered.
Do you understand the concept of inertia? Do you agree with the following definition?
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its velocity. This includes changes to the object's speed, or direction of motion.
Ok so inertia is simply a resistance to motion.
I'm absolutely fine with that.
An aspect of this property is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed, when no forces act upon them.
Well, this does not and cannot happen so if inertia is included in this then it's nonsense.
I accept inertia in the first instance but not in this one.
Constant velocity can not and never will be a thing. It defies the laws of physics and goes into the realms of story telling magical fantasy.
or will you just go into a hysterical rant of claiming it doesn't exist?
No ranting here, nor hysterical. I'm merely pointing out the flaws you hand out.
Do you understand the concept of momentum? Do you agree with the following definition?
Momentum can be defined as "mass in motion." All objects have mass; so if an object is moving, then it has momentum - it has its mass in motion. The amount of momentum that an object has is dependent upon two variables: how much stuff is moving and how fast the stuff is moving.
or will you just go into a frantic diatribe of claiming it doesn't exist?
Momentum is fine but you only get momentum if enough energy is applied to create it and you get an exact amount of reaction to the action.
Do you understand the concept of Constant velocity?
There is no reality in it.
I understand the fantasy/magic of the story.
It's depicting any mass being able to stay a supposed constant motion without any resistance to that motion.
It's fantasy.
Do you even accept mass as a thing?
Yep. Mass is everything, so I have no issue going along with that.
and yet you think you're ready to learn about gravity.
I have no clue what gravity is. Do you?
Is it so complicated that you think I can't learn it or is it that you have no clue what it is and are just trying your best to side step it?
-
I have no clue what gravity is. Do you?
Is it so complicated that you think I can't learn it or is it that you have no clue what it is and are just trying your best to side step it?
Yes, I think it so complicated that I think you can't learn it, because you're already arguing the definitions of the words used in a description of gravity.
As long as I know you do not know what gravity is then I'm happy with that.
You are free to argue against my theory but you have nothing to back it up.
Constant velocity can not and never will be a thing. It defies the laws of physics and goes into the realms of story telling magical fantasy.
Explain this, what law of physics does this break?
It depends on what you deem as, a law of physics.
If you think a group of people decide the law then that law can be made to cater for anything and everything, whether it's a truth of a fiction/fantasy.
Do you believe the laws of physics hold true?
If the laws of physics are natural laws then yes they hold true, only for the truth of them.
In the case of constant velocity, it does not hold true so is not a natural law of physics.
No I don't know what gravity is, No one does. There are theories, yours is that it's air pressure.
Yep, they are theories but are passed off as fact and you go with that based on nothing more than the story.
Atmospheric pressure is real and can be shown to work in many many ways, physically.
What people like you decide to accept is entirely your choice.
Gravity is nothing more than an allegiance to a faith.
Newton thought it was because mass attracts mass.
Mass attracting mass means nothing unless it's explained.
Einstein thought it was because space-time became warped in the presence of mass.
Warped space can easily be construed as displaced atmosphere.
What the hell space-time is, is anyone's guess unless you can simply explain it.
If warped space is to do with the so called vacuum, then explain how a vacuum can be warped.
Both Newtons and Einsteins theories define mathematical equations that can be used to make predictions that can be tested.
Mathematical equations as in, how?....what?
What are these equations and how do they account for the argument?
Can your model predict anything?
It all depends.
I'd say my experiments can destroy a spinning globe quite easily and also the notion of so called, space....etc.
-
As long as I know you do not know what gravity is then I'm happy with that.
Gravity is something we experience and all of our observations to date suggest that gravity is a property of mass which pulls on other masses by an amount which is proportional to the product of the masses concerned and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. That is something we can test.
We don't need to know what gravity is to experience it and not knowing everything about what something is or isn't doesn't mean (as you are so eloquently telling us all the time) that gravity is a load of nonsense.
-
As long as I know you do not know what gravity is then I'm happy with that.
Gravity is something we experience and all of our observations to date suggest that gravity is a property of mass which pulls on other masses by an amount which is proportional to the product of the masses concerned and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. That is something we can test.
How about giving me an example of how you would go out and test this to show me gravity exists.
We don't need to know what gravity is to experience it and not knowing everything about what something is or isn't doesn't mean (as you are so eloquently telling us all the time) that gravity is a load of nonsense.
Actually you do need to know if you're calculating it and supposedly being so accurate with it.
-
Three laws of physics, the laws of motion.
*An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force.
This is totally fiction.
This is a made up law that has no realistic bearing on anything and I mean, anything.
Two reasons.
1. No object/mass is ever at rest and is always acted upon by an external force.
2. An object cannot stay in any motion unless it is acted upon by an external force and an object cannot stay in uniform motion because it is always acted upon by an external. force.
There is always resistance, no matter what.
*Force is equal to the change in momentum (mass times velocity) over time. In other words, the rate of change is directly proportional to the amount of force applied.
Basically if you apply a force to a mass you move that mass.
The more force applied the more movement of the mass.
I have no issue with this.
*For every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
I have absolutely no issue with this, either.
Your claim is that constant velocity defies the laws of physics, you cited the 'laws of physics'. Which of the 'laws of physics' does constant velocity defy?
The natural laws of physics.
-
Three laws of physics, the laws of motion.
*An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force.
This is totally fiction.
This is a made up law that has no realistic bearing on anything and I mean, anything.
Two reasons.
1. No object/mass is ever at rest and is always acted upon by an external force.
2. An object cannot stay in any motion unless it is acted upon by an external force and an object cannot stay in uniform motion because it is always acted upon by an external. force.
There is always resistance, no matter what.
Do you agree with the definition or not? No one said there isn't "always acted upon by an external force".
There is no unless.
-
Bored
Youve been trolled into trying to talk advanced phd on phd physcis with a guy who cant make a circle.
KISS.
-
Explain this, what law of physics does this break?
It depends on what you deem as, a law of physics.
If you think a group of people decide the law then that law can be made to cater for anything and everything, whether it's a truth of a fiction/fantasy.
We don't get to decide what the laws of physics are. They are immutable. IOW, you can't just redefine something to suit you narrative.
Mike
-
Three laws of physics, the laws of motion.
*An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force.
This is totally fiction.
This is a made up law that has no realistic bearing on anything and I mean, anything.
Two reasons.
1. No object/mass is ever at rest and is always acted upon by an external force.
2. An object cannot stay in any motion unless it is acted upon by an external force and an object cannot stay in uniform motion because it is always acted upon by an external. force.
There is always resistance, no matter what.
Do you agree with the definition or not? No one said there isn't "always acted upon by an external force".
There is no unless.
Your inability to imagine a hypothetical situation where there are no external forces acting on an object is a serious problem that you really should address some time soon. The ability to identify and isolate individual forces acting on an object is absolutely critical to the physical sciences and engineering.
-
How about giving me an example of how you would go out and test this to show me gravity exists.
I did that ages ago but as always and as usual, as you do with everyone else who attempts to give you an example, you dismissed it. It's even easier than one of your 'simple experiments'.
I get it that you believe you can explain 'gravity' as atmospheric pressure and you are welcome to that opinion. But the full picture is just a bit bigger than that. Too big it seems for your simple little mind to comprehend.
I say simple little mind because you are always asking for 'simple explanations' that 'this dummy' can understand. So there is evidence in those words to support the belief that you have a simple little mind. Unfortunately not everything in life is as simple to understand or explain as we might like it to be.
-
An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion that state is changed by an external force.
That doesn't make sense.
Do you understand velocity? Does your house have a velocity, with respect to the ground it is on?
I consider that to be at rest, with a velocity of 0. Even though both your house and the ground it's on are moving.(spinning and hurtling through SPACE.)
The ground and the house is always moving and never at constant velocity.
-
Explain this, what law of physics does this break?
It depends on what you deem as, a law of physics.
If you think a group of people decide the law then that law can be made to cater for anything and everything, whether it's a truth of a fiction/fantasy.
We don't get to decide what the laws of physics are. They are immutable. IOW, you can't just redefine something to suit you narrative.
Mike
Correct.
Now you need to understand that and apply it to something that cannot be done, which is constant velocity,
It does not exist so isn't obviously any law of physics.
-
Your inability to imagine a hypothetical situation where there are no external forces acting on an object is a serious problem that you really should address some time soon.
Already addressed.
Imagining a hypothetical situation is all well and good but you cannot apply it to real physics.
The ability to identify and isolate individual forces acting on an object is absolutely critical to the physical sciences and engineering.
No issue with that but you need to identify those forces actually acting on an object, which is then ideal for physical sciences and engineering.
Your constant velocity imagines a so called environment where there are no resistant forces.
It's no good for reality but fantastic for fantasy.
-
Velocity is a vector quantity comprising of speed in a given direction. So if something is moving at constant speed in a a constant direction then it is moving by definition with constant velocity.
-
How about giving me an example of how you would go out and test this to show me gravity exists.
I did that ages ago but as always and as usual, as you do with everyone else who attempts to give you an example, you dismissed it. It's even easier than one of your 'simple experiments'.
I get it that you believe you can explain 'gravity' as atmospheric pressure and you are welcome to that opinion. But the full picture is just a bit bigger than that. Too big it seems for your simple little mind to comprehend.
I say simple little mind because you are always asking for 'simple explanations' that 'this dummy' can understand. So there is evidence in those words to support the belief that you have a simple little mind. Unfortunately not everything in life is as simple to understand or explain as we might like it to be.
Another one who can't explain, so goes into this mode.
Honestly, I just sit back and ....well....I don't know whether I'm smirking or sitting bemused, or whatever.
-
Velocity is a vector quantity comprising of speed in a given direction. So if something is moving at constant speed in a a constant direction then it is moving by definition with constant velocity.
But nothing is moving at a constant speed in a constant direction so there is no constant velocity.
-
Honestly, I just sit back and ....well....I don't know whether I'm smirking or sitting bemused, or whatever.
Well I just hope you are sitting comfortably with your smirking, bemusement or whatever. I'm actually bordering on a smile whenever I read whatever it is you are going to come up with next.
-
So is your house moving with respect to the ground it is on?
Yep.
How fast does it go?
How fast is expansion and contraction?
Can you steer it?
Only if I put it on the back of a big truck.
Does it go up and down?
Yep and horizontally all around it.
Does it make it hard for the mailman?
Only if I lock the gate or install a strong spring on the letter box.
-
Honestly, I just sit back and ....well....I don't know whether I'm smirking or sitting bemused, or whatever.
Well I just hope you are sitting comfortably with your smirking, bemusement or whatever. I'm actually bordering on a smile whenever I read whatever it is you are going to come up with next.
I wouldn't have known that so thanks for letting me know.
-
You are more than welcome.
And perhaps when you start to provide full explanations behind many aspects of your model then others might doing the same from our side. But as you say, what you believe is only your own personal theory. And a theory in its very early stages at that. So perhaps it is not unreasonable that you cannot provide full explanations about anything yet.
-
So is your house moving with respect to the ground it is on?
Yep.
How fast does it go?
How fast is expansion and contraction?
I don't know. How fast is expansion and contraction? How many times per second/minute/hour/day?
I'd say it was slow. How much does it expand and contract?
To our naked eye, not much.
Can you actually see it happening?
You could if you set up a timelapse at the right places.
How do you know it's happening?
You can see the result.
By all means argue against this but you'll find your friends won't agree with you.
-
So when you are prepared to stop immediately dropping into the nuh uhh, claiming people don't know what they are talking about, and claiming things are copy pasted then we can have an actual discussion.
Also I am still waiting on an explanation of pressure gradients in the atmosphere and what mechanism in your "model" causes what we see in reality.
-
Ok it's vibrating.
That isn't actually moving.
It is. Ask your friends.
If you measure from your back fence to your house, does that measurement ever change?
Yep.
By how much? Can it actually be measured, assuming you can read a tape measure to with 1/2 an inch?
Yep and it'll be very minor but that's not an issue.
You're struggling.
-
So when you are prepared to stop immediately dropping into the nuh uhh, claiming people don't know what they are talking about, and claiming things are copy pasted then we can have an actual discussion.
Also I am still waiting on an explanation of pressure gradients in the atmosphere and what mechanism in your "model" causes what we see in reality.
You spent far too much time imagining me dancing for you so don't be coming that old bit of nonsense.
-
So when you are prepared to stop immediately dropping into the nuh uhh, claiming people don't know what they are talking about, and claiming things are copy pasted then we can have an actual discussion.
Also I am still waiting on an explanation of pressure gradients in the atmosphere and what mechanism in your "model" causes what we see in reality.
You spent far too much time imagining me dancing for you so don't be coming that old bit of nonsense.
I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story. But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me.
-
I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story. But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me.
No problem.
-
I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story. But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me.
No problem.
Great you again accept your role, this makes me happy.
-
I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story. But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me.
No problem.
Great you again accept your role, this makes me happy.
Great stuff.
-
It isn't, and my friends have nothing to do with it or do you mean the other forum members?
In bold. Or ask your friends who are in the know.
yes, I'm struggling to believe that your house bounces back and forth by 1/2 inch!
How quickly is this happening, again?
I never mentioned half an inch.... you did.
-
Explain this, what law of physics does this break?
It depends on what you deem as, a law of physics.
If you think a group of people decide the law then that law can be made to cater for anything and everything, whether it's a truth of a fiction/fantasy.
We don't get to decide what the laws of physics are. They are immutable. IOW, you can't just redefine something to suit you narrative.
Mike
Correct.
Now you need to understand that and apply it to something that cannot be done, which is constant velocity,
It does not exist so isn't obviously any law of physics.
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
To quote Newton directly:
- The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Mike
-
Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?
I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!
Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults
-
The reason I keep saying you haven't answered, is because you haven't.
The reason I say I have, is because I have.
The reason you say you have, rather than actually providing these answers, is because you have no answers, you cannot answer the simple questions which show your claims are BS.
All answered.
Again, if it was you would provide them.
Stop stalling and either provide the answers or admit you don't have them:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Ok so inertia is simply a resistance to motion.
And there you go failing basic comprehension yet again.
It is not resistance to motion. It is resistance to CHANGE in motion.
Do you understand the difference?
Two reasons.
2. An object cannot stay in any motion unless it is acted upon by an external force
This shows your complete lack of understanding of how motion actually works.
If an object was in motion and had no force acting on it, it would remain in motion.
This is trivial to see by the fact that if you take your foot of the accelerator in a car you don't instantly come to a stop.
Instead if you want to stop quickly you need to use the beaks.
And the fact that it takes significantly more force to accelerate a car, than it does to overcome the relatively small force of air resistance trying to stop the car moving relative to it.
The more force applied the more movement of the mass.
I have no issue with this.
And again you get it completely wrong.
The more force, the faster it accelerates, not the more movement.
When you fail so hard at such simple mechanics, how can you hope to grasp anything more complex?
And a key part of actually understanding reality is hypotheticals. You seem to just use them as a cop out against defending any of your outright lies.
-
By how much? Can it actually be measured, assuming you can read a tape measure to within 1/2 an inch?
So not 1/2 an inch. How far?
How quickly?
It doesn't matter how far or how quickly. You're trying to skirt around the fact that constant velocity cannot happen.
The fact there is movement and resistance shows that.
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
-
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.
To quote Newton directly:
- The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
-
Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?
I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!
Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults
Experiments prove a few things.
Simple evacuation chamber tests prove a few things.
One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.
So any experiments supposedly done to show a globe, are story book fiction.
-
Again, if it was you would provide them.
Already done.
-
I'm not trying to skirt around anything.
You made a claim that you have no proof for. If you had proof you be able to say how far and how fast it moves, but you can't, because it's not true.
My claim is you can't have constant velocity.
My claim is not to know how fast expansion moves, just that there is always expansion and contraction and always vibration, which means there is always a force and resistance, which means constant velocity and the supposed law of physics for it, is not only wrong, it simply does not exist and cannot exist.
By all means sit and argue over how far an expansion goes f that floats your boat but you're skirting around the real issue you have.
-
I don't have an issue, you are the one living in a fantasy.
If you can't measure how far or how fast, that is because it is not happening.
You are practically reduced to tears wanting me to accept what you say without wanting proof to back it up.
So you think builders put expansion gaps in brickwork and floor work just for the hell of it?
You've never had a sticking door due to weather changes?
You've never had a fence open up and close depending on the dry or wet weather?
And so on.
Everything vibrates/moves....is under pressure and resistance, whether it's extremely minor to extremely major.
If you want to deny this then feel free.
Your friends won't come in to this because they would need to tell you you are wrong and that would play into my hands...and they would not want that.
-
Yes, Thing expand and contract, but it happens slowly, and can be ignored for short term measurements. Yes, it is happening continuously but again on a short time frame the amount of 'movement' is so it can be ignored for short term measurements.
I know you don't understand scale, but it's a real thing, I don't use a micrometre to measure the length of my back fence.
You're just not getting it, are you?
This is what you people go by.
An object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Here's the key so absorb it and remember it.
unless acted upon by an external force
There is never a time when any object is not acted upon by an external force. Never.
This means the actual saying and supposed law, is nonsense. It does not exist as anything because the attempted meaning is nothing other than fantasy.
It's basically saying if you set something in motion it will just carry on in that motion until some force slows it down or alters its course.
First of all to set something in motion requires a force. It requires the resistance of that force to the resistance of the mass the force pushes to gain a momentum.
The mass that gains momentum will never not be acted upon. It will always be acted upon by a force/resistance to its mass.
It doesn't matter whether it takes 50 years for something to move 10 feet, or whether it takes 1 second for it to move 10 feet, the mass will always be under force and resistance.
Constant velocity could only be possible in story books of fantasy.
No resistance to force means no force, at all.
You cannot apply a force and then have that force offer zero reaction. It has to be equal.
Action and equal and opposite, reaction.
You are under no obligation to accept this.
If you believe in magic then go with it. I'm just showing you how nonsensical it is.
-
Maybe one of your forum friends will help you out in what I'm saying because you clearly don't get it.
-
Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?
I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!
Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults
Experiments prove a few things.
Simple evacuation chamber tests prove a few things.
One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.
So any experiments supposedly done to show a globe, are story book fiction.
Constant velocity - physics
A heavy pendulum will start to wobble because of the big balls spin - physics
Star patterns rotations in the hemisphere are because of the big ball spin - geometry
Ships mountainz towers dissapearing bottom up - goemtry
Using a 3ft hardwarestore water level - shows that 3ft is level but not flat because the world is 40,000,000m around and 1m is not a big deal - geomtry
Stacking gobstopper sponges - analogy
Rises to eye level - it doesnt and it doesnt - pure bullshit
Light on dark refraction through compressed atmosphere - a salad
-
Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?
I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!
Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults
Experiments prove a few things.
Simple evacuation chamber tests prove a few things.
One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.
So any experiments supposedly done to show a globe, are story book fiction.
Constant velocity - physics
A heavy pendulum will start to wobble because of the big balls spin - physics
Star patterns rotations in the hemisphere are because of the big ball spin - geometry
Ships mountainz towers dissapearing bottom up - goemtry
Using a 3ft hardwarestore water level - shows that 3ft is level but not flat because the world is 40,000,000m around and 1m is not a big deal - geomtry
Stacking gobstopper sponges - analogy
Rises to eye level - it doesnt and it doesnt - pure bullshit
Light on dark refraction through compressed atmosphere - a salad
You're not really saying anything, are you.
-
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.
So how about you stick to the simple claims about your model instead, and then try to understand some basic mechanics after that?
And I'll say it again.
And you will be just as wrong each time you say it.
You do not need a force to keep something in motion.
Again, inertia is a resistance to change in motion, not to motion.
If inertia was simply resistance to motion, we would not need seat belts or breaks.
If you wanted to stop a car you would simply take your foot off the accelerator and the car, and all its occupants would immediately come to an abrupt stop.
The fact it does not shows that a force is not needed to continue motion.
The fact that in order to slow a car down at a decent rate you need to use brakes to apply a force, shows that a force is needed to bring something to a stop when it is in motion.
The fact that when you do so, the occupants and objects (excluding those lower in density than the air in the vehicle) appear to move forwards relative to the vehicle, unless something (like a seatbelt) restrains them and applies a force to slow them down, again shows that you need a force to stop motion.
There is no magical resistance to motion. Instead you have resistance to changes in motion.
The closest you get to resistance to motion is in things like air resistance, which resist relative motion.
One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.
You sure do love to spout the same pathetic lies again and again.
Care to explain just why you repeat this lie?
Can you justify your claim at all?
Or can you only just continually claim things refute the globe and the fact that it spins?
And while you are at it, answer the simple questions which destroy the garbage you continually preach:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
You're not really saying anything, are you.
There you go projecting your own inadequacies again.
-
To dismiss gravity as silly nonsense is no small claim since it is seen as force that has sculpted the whole universe into the form that it is today. So for one person to come forward and claim they have a better alternative theory is a pretty bold move. That person had also better make sure they have answers to the barrage of questions that are sure to come their way from the whole of the physics community when it comes to making the landmark announcement. Sceptis claims about 'atmospheric pressure' and his 'simple experiments' are not going to convince anyone up to now.
Up to now though all the descriptions of gravity that we have seem to meet with our everyday experience quite well though so I don't see a need for any alternative theory myself. Some obscure person who feels a personal need to feed their otherwise obviously bored ego is not a reason to change physics.
-
Here's the key so absorb it and remember it.
unless acted upon by an external force
There is never a time when any object is not acted upon by an external force. Never.
This means the actual saying and supposed law, is nonsense. It does not exist as anything because the attempted meaning is nothing other than fantasy.
*sigh* Never underestimate how useful fantasy can be as a tool for helping one to better understand the nuances of the real world.
Perhaps you are the one who should absorb the notion that these laws are so that we can treat motion as a math problem.
Yes, we all know that there are countless forces acting on everything in the real world. But we also understand that it helps to simplify the situation as much as possible in order to better understand what's going on. For example, it's very useful to start with an understand how an object behaves in a friction free environment so that we can better understand how different types of friction affect the behavior of that object.
-
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.
I don't think you could.
-
Here's the key so absorb it and remember it.
unless acted upon by an external force
There is never a time when any object is not acted upon by an external force. Never.
This means the actual saying and supposed law, is nonsense. It does not exist as anything because the attempted meaning is nothing other than fantasy.
*sigh* Never underestimate how useful fantasy can be as a tool for helping one to better understand the nuances of the real world.
There's nothing wrong with fantasy as long as it's not pushed out as factual.
Perhaps you are the one who should absorb the notion that these laws are so that we can treat motion as a math problem.
Treating motion as a math problem is all well and good. I have no issue with motion under/against force.
Yes, we all know that there are countless forces acting on everything in the real world. But we also understand that it helps to simplify the situation as much as possible in order to better understand what's going on.
No it doesn't simplify it.
It adds nothing to it.
All it's doing is giving people the notion that objects can basically travel at constant velocity without any force applied or any resistance against.
It's fantasy and help nobody in terms of realism.
If it's told as fantasy then there's no issue.
For example, it's very useful to start with an understand how an object behaves in a friction free environment so that we can better understand how different types of friction affect the behavior of that object.
No.
If you want to better understand how different types of friction affect the behaviour of an object then you do what is normal and that's to actually test against varying friction forces....not a zero friction/force which is impossible.
-
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.
I don't think you could.
You wouldn’t know but air tables and air rails are used in physics labs to lower force from friction. It helps in experiments.
-
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.
I don't think you could.
You wouldn’t know but air tables and air rails are used in physics labs to lower force from friction. It helps in experiments.
I'm not arguing about lower force.
I'm arguing against the notion of no force/friction.
-
There are forces acting on an object.
Always.
To identify those forces you need a reference point. The chosen reference point is an object with no forces acting on it.
That can never happen so it can never be any reference point.
Motion works the same way.
You need a point of reference to measure position or velocity. You are then going to treat that reference point as being stationary.
In normal everyday person made readings of speed and direction to gain a basic acceptance of velocity...it's fine.
What is not fne is constant velocity.
You are claiming it is impossible to have any point of reference?
No I'm not.
You're trying to claim I'm claiming that.
This is why you refuse to answer :
*What forces are always acting on an object?
Atmosphere and whatever other physical forces are applied along with it.
*Can the forces always acting on an object be measured?
Not likely. I don't think we have the equipment to fully measure right down to the initial molecular set up.
*How do you determine an objects velocity, if you don't have a reference point if nothing can be stationary?
You determine is how we always do, by taking an average for speed and direction, meaning a specific reading over time and an average velocity from that.
I'm happy to go along with that but constant velocity is not a reality.
If you want to argue constant as in consistent, as in keeping up a velocity, then I'll accept that but that kills off the notion of any argument of something moving at a set velocity forever if nothing alters that, as in, with your no external force...because it simply cannot happen and cannot be used to gauge anything other than a fantasy.
-
I don't think you could.
You could have just left it as you don't think.
Again, the fact you need a seatbelt and brakes to quickly stop a car and occupants shows that you do not need a force to continue motion. You might need a force to overcome another force, but that is an entirely separate issue.
Again, inertia is resistance to a CHANGE in motion, not simply resistance to motion.
Nothing has a magical property of resistance to motion. The closest you get is resistance to change in motion and resistance to relative motion.
But if your delusional garbage was correct, and somehow the air magically pushes in direct defiance of a pressure gradient, that air resistance should result in the object massively speeding up, not slowing down relative to the air.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
I don't think you could.
You could have just left it as you don't think.
Again, the fact you need a seatbelt and brakes to quickly stop a car and occupants shows that you do not need a force to continue motion.
The fact you need a seat belt and brakes to stop a car is of no consequence to what I've just said.
We can argue this bit at any time but first try and verify constant velocity and the words of "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force."
You must have spent a little bit of time trying to think of how to twist this before you come back in.
A poor attempt.
You might need a force to overcome another force, but that is an entirely separate issue.
It is a separate issue if you are hanging onto the fantasy of no force and no resistance.
Again, inertia is resistance to a CHANGE in motion, not simply resistance to motion.
Nothing has a magical property of resistance to motion. The closest you get is resistance to change in motion and resistance to relative motion.
A resistance to motion is a change in motion by that resistance.
Your twisting techniques are inadequate.
-
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.
I don't think you could.
You wouldn’t know but air tables and air rails are used in physics labs to lower force from friction. It helps in experiments.
I'm not arguing about lower force.
I'm arguing against the notion of no force/friction.
The lack of an object with zero force on it does not nullify the saying.
There are plenty of objects close to zero force.
-
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.
I don't think you could.
You wouldn’t know but air tables and air rails are used in physics labs to lower force from friction. It helps in experiments.
I'm not arguing about lower force.
I'm arguing against the notion of no force/friction.
The lack of an object with zero force on it does not nullify the saying.
There are plenty of objects close to zero force.
Not the answer, is it?
-
The fact you need a seat belt and brakes to stop a car is of no consequence to what I've just said.
It shows that your claim that a force is needed to keep an object in motion is pure garbage.
If that was the case, as soon you stop applying a force, it would stop.
Again, inertia is resistance to a CHANGE in motion, not simply resistance to motion.
Nothing has a magical property of resistance to motion. The closest you get is resistance to change in motion and resistance to relative motion.
A resistance to motion is a change in motion by that resistance.
Which in no way addresses what I said.
Inertia is NOT resistance to motion. It is resistance to CHANGE in motion. This is shown by needing a force to slow down a car, and a seatbelt to stop the occupant flying through the window.
Air resistance is NOT resistance to motion. It is resistance to RELATIVE motion. This is shown by the wind moving objects.
Your twisting techniques are inadequate.
There you go projecting your own inadequacies again.
Have you thought of answers to the simple questions which show your model is BS yet?
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.
We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.
I don't think you could.
You wouldn’t know but air tables and air rails are used in physics labs to lower force from friction. It helps in experiments.
I'm not arguing about lower force.
I'm arguing against the notion of no force/friction.
The lack of an object with zero force on it does not nullify the saying.
There are plenty of objects close to zero force.
Not the answer, is it?
Do you even know what forces act on objects in space?
-
Here's the key so absorb it and remember it.
unless acted upon by an external force
There is never a time when any object is not acted upon by an external force. Never.
This means the actual saying and supposed law, is nonsense. It does not exist as anything because the attempted meaning is nothing other than fantasy.
*sigh* Never underestimate how useful fantasy can be as a tool for helping one to better understand the nuances of the real world.
There's nothing wrong with fantasy as long as it's not pushed out as factual.
No one is claiming that an environment with no external forces is factual. We're just saying that this is how an object would act if such an environment could exist.
-
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.
To quote Newton directly:
- The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
Wow. You really don't know what that means do you? Of course, a force would have to be applied to the object to start it moving.
It literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving. However, once an object is moving, another force is required to change it's direction or stop it.
Nowhere does it say or imply that an object can move on its own...to reiterate, it literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving.
You demonstrated you do not understand what the laws of motion mean.
Mike
-
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.
To quote Newton directly:
- The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
Wow. You really don't know what that means do you? Of course, a force would have to be applied to the object to start it moving.
It literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving. However, once an object is moving, another force is required to change it's direction or stop it.
Nowhere does it say or imply that an object can move on its own...to reiterate, it literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving.
You demonstrated you do not understand what the laws of motion mean.
Mike
Dude. are you surprised? His entire life is denial. If I cared more, I might feel sorry for him, but I do "suffer" from intense bouts of Schadenfreude when the victims are con artists, liars, and the self deluded asshats. Schadenfreude (/ˈʃɑːdənfrɔɪdə/; German: [ˈʃaːdn̩ˌfʁɔʏ̯də]; lit. 'harm-joy') is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another.
-
I'm pretty sure hot gas rises.
-
I'm pretty sure hot gas rises.
Some hot gases rise. Hot/more energetic molecules move around more, thus spread out, thus occupying more volume without changing mass, becoming less dense and can get to a point to where it's density is low enough to achieve enough buoyancy to float in the atmospheric density. The lower it's density the higher it will float, it will not however float on a density layer that is lower than it is. The atmosphere is arranged in a pressure gradient from near vacuum down to sea level pressure. If a balloon is filled with hot air and that hot air has enough energy imparted on it from the heating to make it about as dense as the atmosphere is at say 1000 ft above sea level then the hot air balloon will float near that level depending on how much payload it may be carrying, i.e. the material of the balloon itself.
So yes, for the simple minded "hot air float"
-
I'm pretty sure hot gas rises.
Some hot gases rise. Hot/more energetic molecules move around more, thus spread out, thus occupying more volume without changing mass, becoming less dense and can get to a point to where it's density is low enough to achieve enough buoyancy to float in the atmospheric density. The lower it's density the higher it will float, it will not however float on a density layer that is lower than it is. The atmosphere is arranged in a pressure gradient from near vacuum down to sea level pressure. If a balloon is filled with hot air and that hot air has enough energy imparted on it from the heating to make it about as dense as the atmosphere is at say 1000 ft above sea level then the hot air balloon will float near that level depending on how much payload it may be carrying, i.e. the material of the balloon itself.
So yes, for the simple minded "hot air float"
Can you explain it simply becasue im a bitt tired and don't want too read .ucmh
-
I'm pretty sure hot gas rises.
Some hot gases rise. Hot/more energetic molecules move around more, thus spread out, thus occupying more volume without changing mass, becoming less dense and can get to a point to where it's density is low enough to achieve enough buoyancy to float in the atmospheric density. The lower it's density the higher it will float, it will not however float on a density layer that is lower than it is. The atmosphere is arranged in a pressure gradient from near vacuum down to sea level pressure. If a balloon is filled with hot air and that hot air has enough energy imparted on it from the heating to make it about as dense as the atmosphere is at say 1000 ft above sea level then the hot air balloon will float near that level depending on how much payload it may be carrying, i.e. the material of the balloon itself.
So yes, for the simple minded "hot air float"
Can you explain it simply becasue im a bitt tired and don't want too read .ucmh
Go to bed then. The words will be there in the morning. This is the about the lamest shit yet.
-
I'm pretty sure hot gas rises.
Some hot gases rise. Hot/more energetic molecules move around more, thus spread out, thus occupying more volume without changing mass, becoming less dense and can get to a point to where it's density is low enough to achieve enough buoyancy to float in the atmospheric density. The lower it's density the higher it will float, it will not however float on a density layer that is lower than it is. The atmosphere is arranged in a pressure gradient from near vacuum down to sea level pressure. If a balloon is filled with hot air and that hot air has enough energy imparted on it from the heating to make it about as dense as the atmosphere is at say 1000 ft above sea level then the hot air balloon will float near that level depending on how much payload it may be carrying, i.e. the material of the balloon itself.
So yes, for the simple minded "hot air float"
Can you explain it simply becasue im a bitt tired and don't want too read .ucmh
Go to bed then. The words will be there in the morning. This is the about the lamest shit yet.
Me: "I'm tired and need to sleep"
That soda I drank earlier: "I'm about to end this man's whole career".
P.s I had to use the autocorrect to write this.
P.p.s it wasn't working earlier.
-
The fact you need a seat belt and brakes to stop a car is of no consequence to what I've just said.
It shows that your claim that a force is needed to keep an object in motion is pure garbage.
The only possible reason you could ever say that is due to your belief that things can move forever in space.
So I'm not surprised you would argue it.
You believe in magic unicorns and I don't. That's basically it when it comes to this stuff.
-
Do you even know what forces act on objects in space?
Why don't you enlighten me.
-
Do you even know what forces act on objects in space?
Why don't you enlighten me.
If you don’t know it defeats your claim that there are zero objects with no force on them.
-
No one is claiming that an environment with no external forces is factual. We're just saying that this is how an object would act if such an environment could exist.
But it wouldn't act like that, so how can you say that?
You can have a theory that it may act like you say but then you have to explain why.
Let me make myself clearer.
To move and object you need a force to cause the object to resist that force to then move that object.
One the object is in motion it can only stay in motion with an applied force which has to overcome the resistance of the objects mass and also against the pressure it is within.
You can't use force on an object then leave that object to now ove in a constant motion once that force is removed. It will always slow down.
It will never keep the same velocity.
If you want to argue for zero force upon the object after initial push then you lose the initial push because you cannot push something in nothing. You have zero leverage to resist or push, so no movement at all and to be fair there would also be no object but we won't argue that as of yet as it just complicates things further.
-
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.
To quote Newton directly:
- The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
Wow. You really don't know what that means do you? Of course, a force would have to be applied to the object to start it moving.
It literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving. However, once an object is moving, another force is required to change it's direction or stop it.
Nowhere does it say or imply that an object can move on its own...to reiterate, it literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving.
You demonstrated you do not understand what the laws of motion mean.
Mike
If a force is needed to move the object then there will always be a force against that object. It will never move with force...ever.
The laws of motion do not count on this argument of yours, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
This is a fairy story.
-
Do you even know what forces act on objects in space?
Why don't you enlighten me.
If you don’t know it defeats your claim that there are zero objects with no force on them.
Defeat my claim by showing me how the law works of force pushing an object into motion and that force then leaving the force off that object for that to stay in constant motion/velocity.
Explain how that works.
If you can't then your nah nah attitude is worthless.
-
No one is claiming that an environment with no external forces is factual. We're just saying that this is how an object would act if such an environment could exist.
But it wouldn't act like that, so how can you say that?
You can have a theory that it may act like you say but then you have to explain why.
Let me make myself clearer.
To move and object you need a force to cause the object to resist that force to then move that object.
One the object is in motion it can only stay in motion with an applied force which has to overcome the resistance of the objects mass and also against the pressure it is within.
You can't use force on an object then leave that object to now ove in a constant motion once that force is removed. It will always slow down.
It will never keep the same velocity.
If you want to argue for zero force upon the object after initial push then you lose the initial push because you cannot push something in nothing. You have zero leverage to resist or push, so no movement at all and to be fair there would also be no object but we won't argue that as of yet as it just complicates things further.
Why would the object slow down?
Because it chose to on its own?
-
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.
To quote Newton directly:
- The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
Wow. You really don't know what that means do you? Of course, a force would have to be applied to the object to start it moving.
It literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving. However, once an object is moving, another force is required to change it's direction or stop it.
Nowhere does it say or imply that an object can move on its own...to reiterate, it literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving.
You demonstrated you do not understand what the laws of motion mean.
Mike
If a force is needed to move the object then there will always be a force against that object. It will never move with force...ever.
The laws of motion do not count on this argument of yours, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
This is a fairy story.
You just proved me right. You don't have the first clue what the 1st law of motion means. Clearly any claims you make based on that incorrect understanding are themselves incorrect.
-
Do you even know what forces act on objects in space?
Why don't you enlighten me.
If you don’t know it defeats your claim that there are zero objects with no force on them.
Defeat my claim by showing me how the law works of force pushing an object into motion and that force then leaving the force off that object for that to stay in constant motion/velocity.
Explain how that works.
If you can't then your nah nah attitude is worthless.
Aaah the hypocracy returns.
Still yet to draw the circle and show us the massive tilt.
-
No one is claiming that an environment with no external forces is factual. We're just saying that this is how an object would act if such an environment could exist.
But it wouldn't act like that, so how can you say that?
You can have a theory that it may act like you say but then you have to explain why.
Let me make myself clearer.
To move and object you need a force to cause the object to resist that force to then move that object.
One the object is in motion it can only stay in motion with an applied force which has to overcome the resistance of the objects mass and also against the pressure it is within.
You can't use force on an object then leave that object to now ove in a constant motion once that force is removed. It will always slow down.
It will never keep the same velocity.
If you want to argue for zero force upon the object after initial push then you lose the initial push because you cannot push something in nothing. You have zero leverage to resist or push, so no movement at all and to be fair there would also be no object but we won't argue that as of yet as it just complicates things further.
Why would the object slow down?
Because it chose to on its own?
Resistance.
-
Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?
Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.
To quote Newton directly:
- The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."
IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Mike
And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.
Wow. You really don't know what that means do you? Of course, a force would have to be applied to the object to start it moving.
It literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving. However, once an object is moving, another force is required to change it's direction or stop it.
Nowhere does it say or imply that an object can move on its own...to reiterate, it literally says an object at rest need a force to start moving.
You demonstrated you do not understand what the laws of motion mean.
Mike
If a force is needed to move the object then there will always be a force against that object. It will never move with force...ever.
The laws of motion do not count on this argument of yours, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
This is a fairy story.
You just proved me right. You don't have the first clue what the 1st law of motion means. Clearly any claims you make based on that incorrect understanding are themselves incorrect.
Let's go through it then and let's see how you answer it.
Your adhered to law of motion. Your first so called law.
Law of inertia. ... Law of inertia, also called Newton's first law, postulate in physics that, if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.
So basically the law is all about the word "if" it wasn't acted upon by a force.
There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.
So don't tell me that I don't understand the law when there is no law, unless you argue for it being a law of fiction/fantasy.
There's no reasoning your way out of this.
-
No one is claiming that an environment with no external forces is factual. We're just saying that this is how an object would act if such an environment could exist.
But it wouldn't act like that, so how can you say that?
You can have a theory that it may act like you say but then you have to explain why.
Let me make myself clearer.
To move and object you need a force to cause the object to resist that force to then move that object.
One the object is in motion it can only stay in motion with an applied force which has to overcome the resistance of the objects mass and also against the pressure it is within.
You can't use force on an object then leave that object to now ove in a constant motion once that force is removed. It will always slow down.
It will never keep the same velocity.
If you want to argue for zero force upon the object after initial push then you lose the initial push because you cannot push something in nothing. You have zero leverage to resist or push, so no movement at all and to be fair there would also be no object but we won't argue that as of yet as it just complicates things further.
Why would the object slow down?
Because it chose to on its own?
Resistance.
There you go.
You now undersrand the 1st law.
My goodness.
-
The fact you need a seat belt and brakes to stop a car is of no consequence to what I've just said.
It shows that your claim that a force is needed to keep an object in motion is pure garbage.
The only possible reason you could ever say that is due to your belief that things can move forever in space.
No, the only possible reason I say that is because that is the logical conclusion from the available evidence.
Not everyone has the same willingness as you to just outright reject reality.
If I was going to just reject reality and believe in delusional BS, I would be a FEer.
Again, if your blatant lie was true, as soon as you stop having a force provided to keep up the motion, the object would stop.
It would be instant.
You take your foot of the gas and the car immediately comes to a stop with all occupants in the car coming to an immediate stop.
The fact you don't, shows that objects will continue to move when a force is not applied.
It shows that a force is needed to stop the object moving.
It will always slow down.
The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.
Again, this is shown by plenty of evidence.
We can look at how this force slows a light object down much faster than it slows down a heavy object.
If the object itself was just going to stop, there should be no difference.
But because the same force is applying to different masses, masses which resist change in motion, the lighter object, with less mass, is affected more.
We can also look at changing the resistance, where putting it in water causes it to slow more, and if you reduce the air pressure it slows less.
This can be projected to a point where there is no air resistance, at which point it doesn't slow.
Again, you fail basic mechanics. With that it isn't surprising you fail to have an answer for the simple questions which show your model is garbage:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.
What about when the forces are very small? So small that they have no effect on the object. So small that they can be safely ignored.
-
No one is claiming that an environment with no external forces is factual. We're just saying that this is how an object would act if such an environment could exist.
But it wouldn't act like that, so how can you say that?
You can have a theory that it may act like you say but then you have to explain why.
Let me make myself clearer.
To move and object you need a force to cause the object to resist that force to then move that object.
One the object is in motion it can only stay in motion with an applied force which has to overcome the resistance of the objects mass and also against the pressure it is within.
You can't use force on an object then leave that object to now ove in a constant motion once that force is removed. It will always slow down.
It will never keep the same velocity.
If you want to argue for zero force upon the object after initial push then you lose the initial push because you cannot push something in nothing. You have zero leverage to resist or push, so no movement at all and to be fair there would also be no object but we won't argue that as of yet as it just complicates things further.
Why would the object slow down?
Because it chose to on its own?
Resistance.
There you go.
You now undersrand the 1st law.
My goodness.
If resistance is the first law then I'm happy with it.
Anything outside of it is not, as in what the supposed law states.
Unless.
-
Can this resistance be measured?
Why not?
If it cannot be measured, it therefore doesn't show up in measurements, so either it's not there or it is of such small magnitude as to be of no concern, and we can just ignore it.
If you think life can progress without resistance, then you crack on.
-
It will always slow down.
The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.
And you aren't taking away that force.
-
There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.
What about when the forces are very small? So small that they have no effect on the object. So small that they can be safely ignored.
They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.
There can never be constant velocity.
There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.
-
There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.
What about when the forces are very small? So small that they have no effect on the object. So small that they can be safely ignored.
They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.
There can never be constant velocity.
There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.
If there is a constant resistance. An object must eventually come to rest, with a constant velocity of 0.
Can this resistance be measured?
We are human beings that can do a lot of stuff of minute scale...but not all.
We can measure resistance and force but not every resistance and force.
However, it doesn't matter.
What matters is, there can never be a situation or time when there is zero force or zero resistance, so there can never be a time when constant velocity becomes a reality.
There can never be a situation where an object can stay in motion under zero force.
There can never be a situation where and object is put into motion or resists a force if there is no force or resistance to it.
The law of resistance in equal measures is all fine.
There is no law that omits it, so law one is simply resistance to force/energy applied.
-
So no ones ever measured it, because it's too small to measure.
No one has ever seen it, because it too small to see.
And you are the only one that knows it there. How do you know it's there?
You're still missing the entire point.
-
So no ones ever measured it, because it's too small to measure.
No one has ever seen it, because it too small to see.
And you are the only one that knows it there. How do you know it's there?
You're still missing the entire point.
The point being. How do you know it's there?
How do I know what is there?
-
So no ones ever measured it, because it's too small to measure.
No one has ever seen it, because it too small to see.
And you are the only one that knows it there. How do you know it's there?
You're still missing the entire point.
The point being. How do you know it's there?
How do I know what is there?
Okay what is the entire point that i am missing?
The so called first law.
-
It will always slow down.
The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.
And you aren't taking away that force.
A force accellerates the mass.
Accellerate is a change in velocity over time.
If velocity no longer changes it is.... constant!
Since we live in a world of air and water and other things there is bound to be some resistance force like drag or friction.
So resitance is a force.
A decelleeating force.
A nefative change in velocity over time.
It is a decellerstion acting on the mass.
It is still dsscribung inertia as defined.
Youve just described to it albiet in a less eloquent way.
-
There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.
What about when the forces are very small? So small that they have no effect on the object. So small that they can be safely ignored.
They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.
Why not?
There can never be constant velocity.
What if that velocity was zero?
There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.
What happens when the resistance and the force balance each other perfectly?
-
An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be moving.
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
-
An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be moving.
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
Newtonian physics is very well defined spearate from quantum physics.
Both work for the required analysis.
Dont try and tomB this up.
-
An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be moving.
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
Newtonian physics is very well defined spearate from quantum physics.
Both work for the required analysis.
Dont try and tomB this up.
Who mentioned quantum physics?
-
You did when you started talking about molecules.
-
You did when you started talking about molecules.
The user 'Bored' mentioned that objects appear to move on a molecular level. This is not quantum physics. Rather, it is basic knowledge of heat: the (wrong) conventional model states that heat is represented by the vibration of molecules, and thus anything that is not at absolute zero is moving on that molecular level. This predates quantum physics by a very significant timeframe. Please do not insert yourself into a conversation you are clearly not equipped to deal with.
-
Sure
Ill give you i wasnt follwiing boreds conversation.
I came in when i noted you trying to dance around newtonian vs quantum vs cosmic which has been a talking point of TomB for some time.
Im going to DunningK myself here.
Maybe im reaching here but...arent molecules made up of... atoms?
Seriously
theyre the next largest thing after an atom.
You areguing that newtownian motion physics needs to apply directly to molecules?
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
Thats the way i read it
-
Maybe im reaching here but...arent molecules made up of... atoms?
Simply that an object cannot be at rest when every part of it is undergoing motion. The idea that all the individual velocities simply cancel themselves out consistently and constantly is so unlikely as to be beyond belief.
-
So we re in agreement then.
As i said
- Quantum and newtonian dont play in the same ballpark.
Also
Having to calculate all individual directions is pointless when you look at the object as a whole - it moves or it doesnt.
-
So we re in agreement then.
As i said
- Quantum and newtonian dont play in the same ballpark.
Also
Having to calculate all individual directions is pointless when you look at the object as a whole - it moves or it doesnt.
I don't understand why you're still talking about anything related to quantum nonsense. This is simply a demonstration that the heat model is false.
-
If resistance is the first law then I'm happy with it.
It is not simply resistance.
It is resistance to change in motion.
Do you understand that?
Are you happy with that?
And you aren't taking away that force.
And that means you are using a force to slow it down.
Do you accept that?
That in order to change the velocity of an object, you need to apply a force?
You're still missing the entire point.
That would be you. Entirely missing the point of the first law.
The entire purpose of the first law is to understand inertia. One of the many things you seem to despise about reality.
It is not to say there actually exists an object that is in motion which is not acted upon by any external force.
But you cling to the alleged lack of existence of such an object to try to pretend that the first law is nonsense.
Just like you try to pretend all the problems with your model have already been addressed.
Again, you fail basic mechanics. With that it isn't surprising you fail to have an answer for the simple questions which show your model is garbage:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
You mean it is a good example of where dishonest people can pretend it does.
You need to distinguish between the object as a whole and the individual parts of the object.
Yes, for objects made of many atoms/molecules, they are always applying forces to each other. But that doesn't mean the net force on the actual object is non-zero.
You also need to understand the difference between a net force and any force.
Newton's first law cares about the net force, i.e. the sum of all the forces acting.
You can have multiple forces acting on an object, but a net force of 0. That means there is a total force of 0 acting on the object.
When you have 2 components of an object apply a force to each other, the net force on the object is 0.
There is no contradiction here. There is no lack of consensus.
-
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
You mean it is a good example of where dishonest people can pretend it does.
You need to distinguish between the object as a whole and the individual parts of the object.
Yes, for objects made of many atoms/molecules, they are always applying forces to each other. But that doesn't mean the net force on the actual object is non-zero.
You also need to understand the difference between a net force and any force.
Newton's first law cares about the net force, i.e. the sum of all the forces acting.
You can have multiple forces acting on an object, but a net force of 0. That means there is a total force of 0 acting on the object.
When you have 2 components of an object apply a force to each other, the net force on the object is 0.
There is no contradiction here. There is no lack of consensus.
Rather than defaulting to throwing out accusations of dishonesty, it might benefit you to consider where someone else's perespective comes from. I am aware of everything you say - it is the implications you make that do not follow. The net force on an object is only zero when all the component forces of it cancel each other out. What do you think the likelihood of that is when countless forces in all directions are acting on every aspect of the object?
Mechanical mathematics always models objects under a force as individual particles, and not the multitude of particles they truly are. There is a reason for this.
-
Rather than defaulting to throwing out accusations of dishonesty, it might benefit you to consider where someone else's perespective comes from.
Rather than defaulting to throwing out accusations of consensus falling apart, it might benefit you to consider if you are just misunderstanding and that there is actually consensus.
I am aware of everything you say - it is the implications you make that do not follow.
So you are able to clearly refute it all, or are you only able to boldly claim it is wrong?
What do you think the likelihood of that is when countless forces in all directions are acting on every aspect of the object?
Assuming no external force is being applied, 100%.
Thinking anything different shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how forces work.
Do you know and understand the third law of motion?
If all you have are internal forces, then a force acting on any part of the object will be cancelled out be an equal in magnitude and opposite in direction force on another part of the object. Those 2 forces MUST add to 0.
It doesn't matter if you only have 1 such pair, or an incomprehensibly large number of them, these pairs which add to 0, will then all add to 0.
All of these equal and opposite forces will sum to 0 for the entire object.
That means the net force on the object, from these internal forces, will be 0.
Mechanical mathematics always models objects under a force as individual particles, and not the multitude of particles they truly are. There is a reason for this.
No, that entirely depends on what it is you are modelling.
If you are modelling to determine internal stresses on different parts of the object, you need to do break it down into parts as that is the only simple way to see those internal stresses.
If you are modelling a soft body and want to see how it interacts with the environment, including distorting, then you need to model individual parts in order to see that distortion.
But even in those cases, they do not model every single particle.
That only occurs in molecular dynamics simulations. (And even then, they often just model atoms, or at best nuclei and electrons)
It provides far more resolution than is needed for most things.
Instead, most simulations which do break down the object into particles do it almost arbitrarily with no concern for the actual atoms (or subatomic particles) which make up the object.
Some don't even model the inside as particles and instead model it as a gas, only modelling the outside as a mesh.
-
If all you have are internal forces, then a force acting on any part of the object will be cancelled out be an equal in magnitude and opposite in direction force on another part of the object. Those 2 forces MUST add to 0.
It doesn't matter if you only have 1 such pair, or an incomprehensibly large number of them, these pairs which add to 0, will then all add to 0.
All of these equal and opposite forces will sum to 0 for the entire object.
That means the net force on the object, from these internal forces, will be 0.
This is simply insisting that it works. An empty claim is no substitute for reasoning. Why must a paired force exist between two unrelated parts of an object simply because of random heat vibration?
-
This is simply insisting that it works. An empty claim is no substitute for reasoning.
No, it is using the third law of motion, which is backed up by plenty of experimental evidence, to clearly show why it must be the case.
This is simply you dismissing logical reasoning, with no justification at all.
Why must a paired force exist between two unrelated parts of an object simply because of random heat vibration?
It isn't a pair existing between 2 unrelated parts.
They are related by a force.
You have made it clear by your prior posts that you are not discussing quantum mechanics.
So any technicalities due to that are irrelevant.
Just what do you think causes it to vibrate rather than just continually move?
Once it is displaced from the equilibrium position, they interact, primarily via columbic interactions, creating force pairs which act to restore it back to the equilibrium position.
Those columbic interactions are the forces, and what makes them related.
We aren't just randomly picking forces acting on the individual components. Instead we are specifically picking the action-reaction pairs.
-
This is simply insisting that it works. An empty claim is no substitute for reasoning.
No, it is using the third law of motion, which is backed up by plenty of experimental evidence, to clearly show why it must be the case.
This is circular reasoning. The third law of motion holds in this instance, because you believe the third law of motion holds in this instance, never mind that it makes no logical sense for it to.
Just what do you think causes it to vibrate rather than just continually move?
Once it is displaced from the equilibrium position, they interact, primarily via columbic interactions, creating force pairs which act to restore it back to the equilibrium position.
Those columbic interactions are the forces, and what makes them related.
We aren't just randomly picking forces acting on the individual components. Instead we are specifically picking the action-reaction pairs.
Nothing causes it to vibrate, this is a lie perpetuated by mainstream physicists, as this demonstrates.
The claim is that heat manifests as vibration. Any object that is not at absolute zero possesses some degree of heat, and thus its components are moving in order to 'store' this energy. You have yet to explain how or why two particles would become paired in any way. This is what I asked in my previous post: "Why must a paired force exist between two unrelated parts of an object simply because of random heat vibration?"
As you did with respect to the third law of motion, you are simply claiming that it is true in spite of the problems with it. You are doing nothing to address these problems. If you are unwilling or unable, please do not waste your time and mine by responding.
-
This is circular reasoning. The third law of motion holds in this instance, because you believe the third law of motion holds in this instance, never mind that it makes no logical sense for it to.
And you fail yet again.
The third law is substantiated by plenty of evidence showing forces come in pairs (and even logic).
This is then applied in this case, to show the logical consequence of these action-reaction pairs.
I am not using this to prove the third law of motion applies.
I am using the third law of motion to show there is no problem.
Nothing causes it to vibrate, this is a lie perpetuated by mainstream physicists, as this demonstrates.
And there you go ignoring the question.
You are claiming it vibrates.
I have asked why it vibrates instead of just continues moving.
If you instead want to claim it doesn't actually vibrate and change your argument, or start appealing to quantum mechanics, go ahead. But that means you were wrong with this argument.
You have yet to explain how or why two particles would become paired in any way.
You mean I did, and you just chose to ignore that.
I pointed out that your question was wrong, as the force relates the 2 objects.
Again, I am not picking 2 random parts of the object and 2 random forces on this. Instead I am focusing on what is actually causing the force.
Or do you think the force just magically exists for no reason?
I even pointed out what causes the force. Coulombic interactions.
You are doing nothing to address these problems. If you are unwilling or unable, please do not waste your time and mine by responding.
You are doing nothing to substantiate any problem, and just dismissing anything that addresses your alleged problems.
You are the one wasting time here.
If you want to claim there is a problem prove it.
Because so far you have shown none.
You accuse me of circular reasoning, when it is in fact you that is using it.
You are claiming that the forces couldn't possibly add to 0, to claim there is a problem with the first and third laws of motion, and using nothing other than your baseless claim to try to substantiate it.
There is no reason at all to think there is any problem in terms of classical mechanics.
-
Maybe im reaching here but...arent molecules made up of... atoms?
Simply that an object cannot be at rest when every part of it is undergoing motion. The idea that all the individual velocities simply cancel themselves out consistently and constantly is so unlikely as to be beyond belief.
Please define motion at a molecular level. Last I heard, molecules in a solid are bonded by intermolecular forces and don't move relative to each other.
-
It will always slow down.
The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.
And you aren't taking away that force.
A force accellerates the mass.
Accellerate is a change in velocity over time.
If velocity no longer changes it is.... constant!
It is never constant. It can never be constant.
Your implication of constant is to omit all resistance to a force and then. You can never do that, so you can never have constant velocity.
Since we live in a world of air and water and other things there is bound to be some resistance force like drag or friction.
And this is all you need to know as to why you cannot have a constant velocity.
-
An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be moving.
It doesn't matter what level you go to. There is always a force acting on an object. An object is never still and an object in motion will never stay in motion unless a force is applied and a resistance is reactionary to it.
You simply cannot have constant velocity because there is never a time when there will be no resistance.
-
There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.
What about when the forces are very small? So small that they have no effect on the object. So small that they can be safely ignored.
They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.
Why not?
There can never be constant velocity.
What if that velocity was zero?
There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.
What happens when the resistance and the force balance each other perfectly?
Resistance and force always balance out after the fact, even if it's just super nanoseconds or whatever lowest number you can think of.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
You aren't talking about balancing anything out when you go with constant velocity.
You are assuming an object will travel forever if a force is applied and then magically no resistant force is against it from that point in.
You know that's fiction.
-
If resistance is the first law then I'm happy with it.
It is not simply resistance.
It is resistance to change in motion.
Do you understand that?
Are you happy with that?
Resistance is resistance no matter how you try to dress it up.
Resistance to change in motion is that change in motion.
It can never be anything that allows constant velocity.
Your argument is based on something that has no resistance to motion, hence why you call it constant velocity, which cannot happen so why is it even mentioned as a law?
-
Resistance is resistance no matter how you try to dress it up.
That does not change the fact that there are fundamentally different types of resistance.
Resistance to change in motion is that change in motion.
No, it is specifically resisting that.
Resistance to change in motion is not the change in motion that it is resisting, it is resisting that.
Your argument is based on something that has no resistance to motion, hence why you call it constant velocity, which cannot happen so why is it even mentioned as a law?
No, my argument is based upon the fact that there is no magical resistance to motion like you want to pretend.
Instead there is resistance to CHANGE in motion, and resistance to RELATIVE motion.
It is mentioned as a law as it is the ideal case, and extrapolation of available data to the ideal where there is no force acting at all.
It simply states that if you want to change the motion of an object, regardless of if you want it to speed up or slow down, a force needs to be applied.
An object is never still and an object in motion will never stay in motion unless a force is applied and a resistance is reactionary to it.
This applies that in a hypothetical case you can have an object in motion, without any force applied, and it will magically stop.
Reality shows otherwise.
It shows that a force is needed to stop it.
Again, do you understand this simple, trivial fact?
Your implication of constant is to omit all resistance to a force and then.
No, you still don't understand.
It is omitting the force, not the resistance to it.
Again, you fail basic mechanics. With that it isn't surprising you fail to have an answer for the simple questions which show your model is garbage:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Resistance is resistance no matter how you try to dress it up.
That does not change the fact that there are fundamentally different types of resistance.
Resistance is simply just that.....resistance.
There are no different types of resistance. Whether you push or squeeze or whatever, it's all a resistance.
It means there can never be a constant velocity.
-
It will always slow down.
The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.
And you aren't taking away that force.
A force accellerates the mass.
Accellerate is a change in velocity over time.
If velocity no longer changes it is.... constant!
It is never constant. It can never be constant.
Your implication of constant is to omit all resistance to a force and then. You can never do that, so you can never have constant velocity.
Since we live in a world of air and water and other things there is bound to be some resistance force like drag or friction.
And this is all you need to know as to why you cannot have a constant velocity.
Your failure to realise you keep describing the inertia is AMAZING!
-
It will always slow down.
The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.
And you aren't taking away that force.
A force accellerates the mass.
Accellerate is a change in velocity over time.
If velocity no longer changes it is.... constant!
It is never constant. It can never be constant.
Your implication of constant is to omit all resistance to a force and then. You can never do that, so you can never have constant velocity.
Since we live in a world of air and water and other things there is bound to be some resistance force like drag or friction.
And this is all you need to know as to why you cannot have a constant velocity.
Your failure to realise you keep describing the inertia is AMAZING!
What does inertia mean, to you?
-
Resistance is resistance no matter how you try to dress it up.
That does not change the fact that there are fundamentally different types of resistance.
Resistance is simply just that.....resistance.
Ignoring reality will not change it.
Resistance is not just simply resistance.
There are many types.
You not liking that as it shows you are spouting pure garbage, will not change that fact.
Inertia is resistance to CHANGE IN MOTION.
Air resistance is resistance to RELATIVE MOTION.
These are fundamentally different types of resistance.
And again, you refuse to answer simple questions:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
There are no different types of resistance. Whether you push or squeeze or whatever, it's all a resistance.
It means there can never be a constant velocity.
[/quote]
-
Ignoring reality will not change it.
Resistance is not just simply resistance.
There are many types.
You not liking that as it shows you are spouting pure garbage, will not change that fact.
Resistance is simply just that, no matter how you try and dress it up.
Inertia is resistance to CHANGE IN MOTION.
What the hell does that actually mean?
This is what the meaning of the word, inertia is, according to the dictionary.
A tendency to do nothing or to remain unchanged.
A property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.
Soooo, basically it does absolutely nothing, yet it can somehow allow an object remain in motion without any force applied to or against it, meaning the object stays in motion forever unless a resistance is used to change that.
So what we have here is a fictional story of a moving object in a straight line that uses no forces, at all and can simply move at constant velocity, unless somehow a resistance decides to alter that.
Air resistance is resistance to RELATIVE MOTION.
It's simply resistance to any motion of any object using an action and an equal and opposite action of force/resistance/resistance/force. Whichever way people want to understand it.
These are fundamentally different types of resistance.
There's no different type of resistance. Resistance is simply that.
-
Ignoring reality will not change it.
Resistance is not just simply resistance.
There are many types.
You not liking that as it shows you are spouting pure garbage, will not change that fact.
Resistance is simply just that, no matter how you try and dress it up.
Ignoring my post wont magically make it no longer exist either.
The fact that they behave so fundamentally differently shows they are fundamentally different.
You wanting to pretend that everything is because of air has no bearing on reality.
Inertia is resistance to CHANGE IN MOTION.
What the hell does that actually mean?
Quite simple, and it is basic English.
It resists changes in motion.
i.e. if you want to change the motion of the object, you need to apply a force to do so.
Soooo, basically it does absolutely nothing, yet it can somehow allow an object remain in motion without any force applied to or against it, meaning the object stays in motion forever unless a resistance is used to change that.
It isn't allowing it.
The point is that you need something to stop it moving, just like you need something to start it moving.
If you don't have something to stop it moving, there is no reason for it to stop, so it wont. Instead, it will not change.
Just why do you think an object should magically come to a stop if no force is applied?
Just what is there to stop it?
Air resistance is resistance to RELATIVE MOTION.
It's simply resistance to any motion of any object
And again you ignore the key word, RELATIVE!
It doesn't resist motion, it resists RELATIVE motion.
That applies equally to the wind blowing an object, and still air bringing an object to "rest".
It is based upon friction/pressure between the air and the object due to the motion of the object relative to the fluid (air in this case).
These are fundamentally different types of resistance.
There's no different type of resistance. Resistance is simply that.
Again, ignoring reality wont change it.
The fact that one resists change in motion while the other resists relative motion shows that they are fundamentally different.
That not fitting into your fantasy where everything is caused by air simply means your fantasy is wrong.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
And you fail yet again.
The third law is substantiated by plenty of evidence showing forces come in pairs (and even logic).
In certain circumstances, yes. If you place a cup on a table, then the cup exerts a downwards force upon the table, which is met with a reactive force from the table, and they balance. If, however, you put a dozen people in a rowboat and have them all dance around like madmen, does the boat stay still because all forces naturally pair, or do non-paired forces in fact exist and topple the boat? Forces do not automatically pair up or become balanced in the way that you require to keep an object at rest. This requires specific situations - in the case of the cup on the table, the structural integrity of the table was already resisting the downwards force, and proved capable of resisting an added weight also.
In the case of an object, the movement of each molecule is essentially random. If, at one instant in time, one molecule's vibration imparts velocity to the left, then the molecule it interacts with directly is not necessarily going to be one with strictly equal and opposite motion - in fact the odds of it doing so are non-existent. If it is going up, or left as well, what acts to balance the force of the original molecule? What is it that ensures a second particle will be countering the motion of the first?
You are not making an argument. You are claiming it works, and not addressing the problem. When I say this, do me the courtesy of acknowledge that I am saying it for a reason, not just to waste time. You are not answering the objection I have posed, nor are you even trying. You are at best appealing to magic, dressing up 'It just does' in fancy words, with no actual explanation.
If you are unwilling or unable to address the question, stop pretending otherwise and let someone more qualified respond.
I have asked why it vibrates instead of just continues moving.
If you instead want to claim it doesn't actually vibrate and change your argument, or start appealing to quantum mechanics, go ahead. But that means you were wrong with this argument.
I do not claim anything vibrates. Your own physics claim that all molecules vibrate when they are not at absolute zero. Why is everyone bringing quantum mechanics into a discussion that I have said clearly several times now is on heat? I am using this to demonstrate a flaw with your position.
If you now do want to turn around a claim than molecules in fact are stationary when they possess heat, then I am content with that and we are done.
-
Resistance is simply just that, no matter how you try and dress it up.
The fact that they behave so fundamentally differently shows they are fundamentally different.
You wanting to pretend that everything is because of air has no bearing on reality.
It has every bearing on reality.
What doesn't have any bearing on reality, is your object in motion with zero force/resistance.
Inertia is resistance to CHANGE IN MOTION.
What the hell does that actually mean?
Quite simple, and it is basic English.
It resists changes in motion.
i.e. if you want to change the motion of the object, you need to apply a force to do so.
A force is always applied to the object and it's always changing the motion of that object.
That's reality.
What isn't reality is the object just moving at constant velocity forever with zero forces applied or to resist.
Soooo, basically it does absolutely nothing, yet it can somehow allow an object remain in motion without any force applied to or against it, meaning the object stays in motion forever unless a resistance is used to change that.
It isn't allowing it.
The point is that you need something to stop it moving, just like you need something to start it moving.
That something is always there. There is never a time when there isn't a force/resistance.
If you don't have something to stop it moving, there is no reason for it to stop, so it wont. Instead, it will not change.
But you do have something to stop it, it's the same thing that started it in motion.
The only way something will not stop is if a force is consistently applied against the force that is consistently resisting that applied force.
You cannot start something moving unless you have a force and if you have that force then there is resistance.
If you had no force or resistance then nothing would move, meaning nothing would exist.
Just why do you think an object should magically come to a stop if no force is applied?
Just what is there to stop it?
Why do you think an object can actually move if there's no force applied?
Air resistance is resistance to RELATIVE MOTION.
It's simply resistance to any motion of any object
And again you ignore the key word, RELATIVE!
It doesn't resist motion, it resists RELATIVE motion.
That applies equally to the wind blowing an object, and still air bringing an object to "rest".
It is based upon friction/pressure between the air and the object due to the motion of the object relative to the fluid (air in this case).
What's all this relative about?
Are you talking about being in a train and watching the scenery go by?
If so, how does this show anything about constant velocity?
These are fundamentally different types of resistance.
There's no different type of resistance. Resistance is simply that.
Again, ignoring reality wont change it.
The fact that one resists change in motion while the other resists relative motion shows that they are fundamentally different.
Explain resisting motion and resisting relative motion, because it seems you're just plucking nonsense out of the air (pun intended).
That not fitting into your fantasy where everything is caused by air simply means your fantasy is wrong.
The one that's dealing in fantasy, is you.
-
Resistance is simply just that, no matter how you try and dress it up.
The fact that they behave so fundamentally differently shows they are fundamentally different.
You wanting to pretend that everything is because of air has no bearing on reality.
It has every bearing on reality.
No, it doesn't.
Reality doesn't give a damn that you want everything to be explained by air and want to pretend that all resistance is the same and caused by air.
It is not going to change to suit what you want.
A force is always applied to the object
And that is just you trying to avoid the issue.
But you do have something to stop it, it's the same thing that started it in motion.
Only if it was a slight gust.
If I throw a ball, it isn't my hand stopping the ball. Instead it is something quite different.
Why do you think an object can actually move if there's no force applied?
Why do you continue to avoid the simple question.
The object is already in motion. A force was applied to make it move. There is no reason for it to just magically stop without cause.
I think objects can continue to move without a force being applied due to observation of moving objects, including those provided with a significant force when they are initially accelerated, and then only slowly slowing down due to air resistance, especially with how different objects and fluids results in different rates of deceleration.
That applies that a force needs to be applied to stop it moving.
Again, if something is moving, why should it just magically stop without cause?
What's all this relative about?
Again, quite basic English.
Fluids do not resist motion. The resist RELATIVE motion.
That is motion relative to the fluid.
The simplest example is calm air, with an object moving through that air at say 1 m/s. While you may think of this as just motion, it is the motion relative to the air that is important.
In this case, as the air is at rest and the object is moving at 1 m/s, it is moving at 1 m/s relative to the air. This will result in the air resisting the relative motion of the object and trying to bring it to rest.
But this is not the only way.
If you have an object at rest, and a fluid passes over it at 1 m/s, the relative motion is 1 m/s (note, for simplicity I'm not bothering with sign/direction).
The fluid will resist that relative motion and cause the object to accelerate from rest, until it moves at 1 m/2 with the air.
Another example is the air inside a car driving down a highway, and that can actually be quite a good example due to the ability to put something outside the car.
The air inside the car (assuming the windows are closed) is moving with the car. So an object sitting in the car is not moving relative to the air inside the car, so the air inside the car isn't resisting its motion.
But the air outside the car is not moving with the car. Instead there is a quite significant relative speed, and thus if you put an object outside the car, the air resists that relative speed.
So even though the motion of the object is the same, the motion of the air is dramatically different which results in dramatically different effects.
This quite clearly shows it is not resisting motion, and instead is resisting relative motion.
This also occurs when you throw an object into a river and it moves with the water.
If so, how does this show anything about constant velocity?
It is showing that all the different types of resistance are not simply just resistance, but instead there are several different types.
Explain resisting motion and resisting relative motion, because it seems you're just plucking nonsense out of the air (pun intended).
That would be you plucking nonsense out of thin air. But that isn't surprising as that is all you have, and you certainly do what everything to be from the air.
Resisting motion requires an absolute reference frame which all motion can be measured in, where this resistance magically tries to make everything stop in this reference frame. It is pure nonsense with no connection at all to reality.
Resisting relative motion does not require an absolute reference frame. Instead it is based upon friction and the creation of pressure gradients when you attempt to move an object, relative to another. Now it isn't magically trying to achieve a velocity of 0 in some magical reference frame. Instead it just tries to remove relative motion, i.e. to make the object and fluid (or 2 objects) move together.
The one that's dealing in fantasy, is you.
The only fantasy I am dealing with is the fantasy you and other FEers spout so often, which I refute so often.
-
You are not making an argument. You are claiming it works, and not addressing the problem. When I say this, do me the courtesy of acknowledge that I am saying it for a reason, not just to waste time. You are not answering the objection I have posed, nor are you even trying. You are at best appealing to magic, dressing up 'It just does' in fancy words, with no actual explanation.
If you are unwilling or unable to address the question, stop pretending otherwise and let someone more qualified respond.
There you go projecting yet again.
You aren't showing there is a problem. You are just claiming there is and not addressing the refutations of it.
I will not do you that curtesy until you demonstrate that you are not wasting time as you appear to be doing so. Your reason appears to be just to waste time and act all high and mighty.
I have directly addressed the issue and you continue to pretend I have not.
You want to take what you alleged is the problem, and then completely strawman it, replacing the vibration with completely random motion and no connection at all between the various parts of the object, which would mean it would no longer be vibration.
Try coming up with a coherent argument which is actually based upon the problem you claim exists.
If you are unwilling or unable to demonstrate this problem, stop pretending otherwise and let someone more qualified respond.
If, however, you put a dozen people in a rowboat and have them all dance around like madmen, does the boat stay still because all forces naturally pair, or do non-paired forces in fact exist and topple the boat?
There you go either completely misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting it again.
Yes, all the forces pair, as they must.
What you are choosing to ignore are the external forces.
When they jump, they push the boat into the water, which then includes an external interaction with the water.
You also ignore gravity, which acts on the people and the boat, in quite a significant way.
Even your comment about toppling the boat shows you either don't understand the problem you are claiming to talk about or are intentionally misrepresenting it.
The boat itself toppling, with the people as well, is not bulk motion of the object. Instead it is just the components of the object moving relative to each other.
In the case of an object, the movement of each molecule is essentially random. If, at one instant in time, one molecule's vibration imparts velocity to the left, then the molecule it interacts with directly is not necessarily going to be one with strictly equal and opposite motion - in fact the odds of it doing so are non-existent. If it is going up, or left as well, what acts to balance the force of the original molecule? What is it that ensures a second particle will be countering the motion of the first?
Again, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the model you claim there is a problem with.
Try starting out simple, with 2 atoms, such as in a simple diatomic molecule like oxygen, then go larger and larger.
With this simple setup start with these 2 atoms travelling at some velocity, and note what the overall velocity of the bulk object is.
Now, without any external force, what is there to change the velocity? Well the only thing that can is some interaction between these 2 particles.
This naturally creates a pair and results in the 2 particles velocities changing in a quite predictable way such that momentum is conserved and the centre of mass remains moving at the same constant velocity.
Throw in an extra particle, and you still have the same issue. For any change you need an interaction between 2 particles which results in no net change in motion.
Throw in loads and you end up with a quite chaotic system, which APPEARS essentially random.
The molecule it interacts with does not need equal and opposite motion. Instead, all it needs is that the forces on each molecule during this interaction are equal and opposite resulting in no net change in motion. And the odds of that are unity.
It isn't that any 2 particles are countering the motion of each other. It is that any change must be countered by another change to result in no net change.
I do not claim anything vibrates. Your own physics claim that all molecules vibrate when they are not at absolute zero.
It isn't my physics. It is simply physics.
And if you want to claim there is a problem with that, try to understand why it is vibrating, rather than just pretending it is completely random motion.
Completely random motion is quite different to vibration.
Why is everyone bringing quantum mechanics
Because you have claimed that this vibration is an incorrect representation which naturally leads to the limitations of classical mechanics at the quantum level and thus quantum mechanics. This is also what allows temporary violations of the laws of motion.
And that is really your only way out on this issue.
I am using this to demonstrate a flaw with your position.
You mean to assert a flaw. You are yet to demonstrate any actual flaw, and instead just continually just misrepresent it.
If you now do want to turn around a claim than molecules in fact are stationary when they possess heat, then I am content with that and we are done.
[/quote]
-
You want to take what you alleged is the problem, and then completely strawman it, replacing the vibration with completely random motion and no connection at all between the various parts of the object, which would mean it would no longer be vibration.
Okay. Then do not assert this. Heat is vibration - you claim that this vibration instead occurs in specific patterns for the motion to cancel itself out. How is this the case? 'This says it should be!' does not answer the question - laws hold for a reason, I am asking for that reason. You say vibration is exempt, that it is different - why?
Try starting out simple, with 2 atoms, such as in a simple diatomic molecule like oxygen, then go larger and larger.
With this simple setup start with these 2 atoms travelling at some velocity, and note what the overall velocity of the bulk object is.
Now, without any external force, what is there to change the velocity? Well the only thing that can is some interaction between these 2 particles.
This is not the case. We are talking about the heat present in this object: that energy is an additional factor that must be accounted for. That energy makes each particle move independently, it does not make just one particle move that the other might resist, it imparts motion onto both. Why would this motion serve as a perfect mirror?
You say "It is that any change must be countered by another change to result in no net change." This is the problem. You describe what you need to be the case - you do not describe why it is the case.
Because you have claimed that this vibration is an incorrect representation which naturally leads to the limitations of classical mechanics at the quantum level and thus quantum mechanics. This is also what allows temporary violations of the laws of motion.
Only if you limit yourself to the flawed framework that has been propagated.
-
And you fail yet again.
The third law is substantiated by plenty of evidence showing forces come in pairs (and even logic).
In certain circumstances, yes. If you place a cup on a table, then the cup exerts a downwards force upon the table, which is met with a reactive force from the table, and they balance. If, however, you put a dozen people in a rowboat and have them all dance around like madmen, does the boat stay still because all forces naturally pair, or do non-paired forces in fact exist and topple the boat? Forces do not automatically pair up or become balanced in the way that you require to keep an object at rest. This requires specific situations - in the case of the cup on the table, the structural integrity of the table was already resisting the downwards force, and proved capable of resisting an added weight also.
In the case of an object, the movement of each molecule is essentially random. If, at one instant in time, one molecule's vibration imparts velocity to the left, then the molecule it interacts with directly is not necessarily going to be one with strictly equal and opposite motion - in fact the odds of it doing so are non-existent. If it is going up, or left as well, what acts to balance the force of the original molecule? What is it that ensures a second particle will be countering the motion of the first?
You are not making an argument. You are claiming it works, and not addressing the problem. When I say this, do me the courtesy of acknowledge that I am saying it for a reason, not just to waste time. You are not answering the objection I have posed, nor are you even trying. You are at best appealing to magic, dressing up 'It just does' in fancy words, with no actual explanation.
If you are unwilling or unable to address the question, stop pretending otherwise and let someone more qualified respond.
I have asked why it vibrates instead of just continues moving.
If you instead want to claim it doesn't actually vibrate and change your argument, or start appealing to quantum mechanics, go ahead. But that means you were wrong with this argument.
I do not claim anything vibrates. Your own physics claim that all molecules vibrate when they are not at absolute zero. Why is everyone bringing quantum mechanics into a discussion that I have said clearly several times now is on heat? I am using this to demonstrate a flaw with your position.
If you now do want to turn around a claim than molecules in fact are stationary when they possess heat, then I am content with that and we are done.
When the dancing men are constrainted to each other the dont fall out...
These are not purely free floating dancing guys.
So your analogy is on a wrong premise to start.
Its more so that theyre linked like ants holding onto each other through other typss of bonds and connections like organs.
Any free floaters are bound by the constraints within... like say blood or long chaine dmolecules..
But now we re talking about much larger objects.
Back to atoms at the basic.
Theyre vibrating, not traveling.
And possibly vibrating is not in the sense that theyre swinging back and forth.
This is a quantum thing where excited elcrrons and other crazy stuff is happening.
The only example i could say is would you say a an electron dropping energy orbit state and releasing a photon is motion?
The electron is moving.
It should follow newtonian physics?
-
[Why is everyone bringing quantum mechanics into a discussion that I have said clearly several times now is on heat? I am using this to demonstrate a flaw with your position.
If you now do want to turn around a claim than molecules in fact are stationary when they possess heat, then I am content with that and we are done.
You symaying molrcules and atoms vibrating is causing collisions and is rhat this can be applied to newtonian physics is a stretch to appealing to quantum mechanics.
And id why we keep saying we re not talking about a travelling atom, we re talking about a buzzing one and its not traveling.
-
Resistance and force always balance out after the fact, even if it's just super nanoseconds or whatever lowest number you can think of.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Yes, that's Newton's third law. By the way, equal and opposite add up to zero.
You aren't talking about balancing anything out when you go with constant velocity.
Actually, I am. If all forces (including resistance) are balanced, then the velocity will be constant.
You are assuming an object will travel forever if a force is applied and then magically no resistant force is against it from that point in.
Inertia is the beginning of the math problem, not the end. That's why Newton added two more laws of motion. You start with no forces or resistance and then add the relevant forces and resistances to get your final answer.
You know that's fiction.
Only because you're trying to over think it. You have to learn how to break things down and analyze them one part at a time so as to better understand the whole.
-
Fluids do not resist motion. The resist RELATIVE motion.
Give me a nice explanation as to what you're talking about.
-
Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What force is the cause of this motion?
-
Resistance and force always balance out after the fact, even if it's just super nanoseconds or whatever lowest number you can think of.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Yes, that's Newton's third law. By the way, equal and opposite add up to zero.
Equal and opposite?
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
You aren't talking about balancing anything out when you go with constant velocity.
Actually, I am. If all forces (including resistance) are balanced, then the velocity will be constant.
No it won't and never can be.
You can never get constant velocity at any time, no matter what.
You are assuming an object will travel forever if a force is applied and then magically no resistant force is against it from that point in.
Inertia is the beginning of the math problem, not the end.
Inertia is nothing. It describes nothing, so the word is used for fantasy effect.
That's why Newton added two more laws of motion. You start with no forces or resistance and then add the relevant forces and resistances to get your final answer.
You can never start with no forces or resistance.
All you can do is go with force and resistance from the off.
You know that's fiction.
Only because you're trying to over think it.
Absolutely not. There's no verthinking required. It's simply not a thing to have zero force and zero resistance and have a constant velocity. It just can't happen. It's not overthinking.
You have to learn how to break things down and analyze them one part at a time so as to better understand the whole.
There's no breaking down zero force and zero resistance.
It's fantasy/fiction.
-
Inertia is nothing. It describes nothing, so the word is used for fantasy effect.
funny you keep describing it when you describe motion.
why you keep calling it nothing if you keep accruately describing an object in motion is impeded by resistive forces.
-
Inertia is nothing. It describes nothing, so the word is used for fantasy effect.
funny you keep describing it when you describe motion.
why you keep calling it nothing if you keep accruately describing an object in motion is impeded by resistive forces.
Because your object in motion is not impeded by resistance, according to you people.... and this is why you call it constant velocity.
It's fantasy.
-
Equal and opposite?
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
So the equal action and opposite reaction aren't equal in magnitude?
Why do you believe this third law if the other two laws are incorrect?
Because the third law is correct.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning you only get out of something what you put into it, in that order.
-
Equal and opposite?
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
What can't forces ever be balanced? Does the term "equilibrium" mean anything to you?
You can never get constant velocity at any time, no matter what.
Have you ever heard of cruise control?
Inertia is nothing. It describes nothing, so the word is used for fantasy effect.
Inertia is not a thing. It's a property of matter in the same way that color is a property of matter.
That's why Newton added two more laws of motion. You start with no forces or resistance and then add the relevant forces and resistances to get your final answer.
You can never start with no forces or resistance.
All you can do is go with force and resistance from the off.
How do you know which force is which and how those forces affect the object?
Absolutely not. There's no verthinking required. It's simply not a thing to have zero force and zero resistance and have a constant velocity. It just can't happen. It's not overthinking.
Obviously you can over think it because here we are for the umpteenth time discussing the exact same basic concepts.
-
Inertia is nothing. It describes nothing, so the word is used for fantasy effect.
funny you keep describing it when you describe motion.
why you keep calling it nothing if you keep accruately describing an object in motion is impeded by resistive forces.
Because your object in motion is not impeded by resistance, according to you people.... and this is why you call it constant velocity.
It's fantasy.
my goodness you're stupid.
"IF"
the word IF exists in your vocabulary?
if there are no forces acting on an object, it will carry on however it was, be it moving or not moving.
so when a RESISTNACE is introduced, it will change the motion of the object.
which you keep describing.
so keep on describing inertia because everyone else seems to understand.
maybe at somepoint you'll get it.
-
Brilliant, just brilliant. Says IF in the bold stuff, ignores IF when it contradicts the obviously stupid conclusion, uses the actual definition which says the opposite of the incorrect point made, thinking it supports the incorrect point.
Beautiful execution, still the same dance moves but with more flair.
-
Okay. Then do not assert this.
You were the one who asserted it, not me.
Heat is vibration - you claim that this vibration instead occurs in specific patterns for the motion to cancel itself out. How is this the case?
I have already explained. Stop ignoring it.
If you are just focusing on the internal forces, then any change in one particle must involve an interaction with another particle to cause that change.
I am asking for that reason.
You clearly aren't. If you were you would actually focus on that reason rather than claiming to be asking for a reason.
You say vibration is exempt, that it is different - why?
WHERE?
You sure do love pretending people say things that they don't.
Try starting out simple, with 2 atoms, such as in a simple diatomic molecule like oxygen, then go larger and larger.
With this simple setup start with these 2 atoms travelling at some velocity, and note what the overall velocity of the bulk object is.
Now, without any external force, what is there to change the velocity? Well the only thing that can is some interaction between these 2 particles.
This is not the case. We are talking about the heat present in this object: that energy is an additional factor that must be accounted for.
No, that IS the case.
This heat you continually appeal to is that motion/vibration, etc.
It is not some extra magical energy which continually magically acts to magically make all the particles magically move in random directions.
Again, you don't seem to have any idea at all what you are talking about.
If you want to talk about heat entering the object, then that is an external interaction, not an internal one, and thus is NOT what you are claiming is the problem.
If you want to talk about the object in isolation once it already has that heat transferred into it, then that motion is the very thing you need to discuss.
You say "It is that any change must be countered by another change to result in no net change." This is the problem.
No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.
-
Fluids do not resist motion. The resist RELATIVE motion.
Give me a nice explanation as to what you're talking about.
I did, in that very post, and you chose to ignore it.
Here it is again:
Again, quite basic English.
Fluids do not resist motion. The resist RELATIVE motion.
That is motion relative to the fluid.
The simplest example is calm air, with an object moving through that air at say 1 m/s. While you may think of this as just motion, it is the motion relative to the air that is important.
In this case, as the air is at rest and the object is moving at 1 m/s, it is moving at 1 m/s relative to the air. This will result in the air resisting the relative motion of the object and trying to bring it to rest.
But this is not the only way.
If you have an object at rest, and a fluid passes over it at 1 m/s, the relative motion is 1 m/s (note, for simplicity I'm not bothering with sign/direction).
The fluid will resist that relative motion and cause the object to accelerate from rest, until it moves at 1 m/2 with the air.
Another example is the air inside a car driving down a highway, and that can actually be quite a good example due to the ability to put something outside the car.
The air inside the car (assuming the windows are closed) is moving with the car. So an object sitting in the car is not moving relative to the air inside the car, so the air inside the car isn't resisting its motion.
But the air outside the car is not moving with the car. Instead there is a quite significant relative speed, and thus if you put an object outside the car, the air resists that relative speed.
So even though the motion of the object is the same, the motion of the air is dramatically different which results in dramatically different effects.
This quite clearly shows it is not resisting motion, and instead is resisting relative motion.
This also occurs when you throw an object into a river and it moves with the water.
And that is fundamentally different to inertia, which is resisting a CHANGE in motion.
They are not simply just resistance.
They are fundamentally different and show your model where everything is magically caused by the air is pure BS.
Stop playing dumb, stop pretending these simple things haven't been explained and try answer the trivial problems that show your model is pure BS:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
I will repeat the question to Sceptimatic
Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What is the cause, of that motion?
-
Equal and opposite?
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
What can't forces ever be balanced? Does the term "equilibrium" mean anything to you?
It depends on what you deem as being, balanced.
You see, we can place two 1kg masses on a scale and balance them to our knowledge of how we balance things.
If we don't look past the physical view of that we can say they are balanced.
Molecular wise they actually wouldn't be....but, this isn't an argument for that, it's an argument against constant velocity being a fictional state where an object can stay in motion forever unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
It's always going to happen and never would there be a case for an object o ever kep motion without any external/unbalanced force.
That's basic logic and no law can change that to gain any physical end product.
Only fiction/fantasy can keep that as something from a nothing.
You can never get constant velocity at any time, no matter what.
Have you ever heard of cruise control?
Yes I have and the same thing applies to what I've been saying.
It is not constant velocity or anything like it.
To use cruise control is no different to manually keeping the same consistent mph but to do so you must always be changing force to the vehicle on the road to keep a steady mph.
Inertia is nothing. It describes nothing, so the word is used for fantasy effect.
Inertia is not a thing. It's a property of matter in the same way that color is a property of matter.
Inertia is nothing unless it is used as resistance, not the lack of it.
That's why Newton added two more laws of motion. You start with no forces or resistance and then add the relevant forces and resistances to get your final answer.
You can never start with no forces or resistance.
All you can do is go with force and resistance from the off.
How do you know which force is which and how those forces affect the object?
A force is a force no matter how it's dressed up.
You can name any force and it all comes down to the same thing. To resist or set in a motion.
With what you people are arguing, it's no forces, at all.
You know that can't be realistic but it certainly can be fantasy. It's just a case of admitting it to be what it really is.
Absolutely not. There's no verthinking required. It's simply not a thing to have zero force and zero resistance and have a constant velocity. It just can't happen. It's not overthinking.
Obviously you can over think it because here we are for the umpteenth time discussing the exact same basic concepts.
I'm not overthinking it I'm pretty rigid on the basics of it, like I keep saying.
Telling me it's not fictional/fantasy will gain the same response unless you can prove it not to be...which you know you can't.
-
Inertia is nothing. It describes nothing, so the word is used for fantasy effect.
funny you keep describing it when you describe motion.
why you keep calling it nothing if you keep accruately describing an object in motion is impeded by resistive forces.
Because your object in motion is not impeded by resistance, according to you people.... and this is why you call it constant velocity.
It's fantasy.
my goodness you're stupid.
"IF"
the word IF exists in your vocabulary?
if there are no forces acting on an object, it will carry on however it was, be it moving or not moving.
so when a RESISTNACE is introduced, it will change the motion of the object.
which you keep describing.
so keep on describing inertia because everyone else seems to understand.
maybe at somepoint you'll get it.
What are you understanding?
If a horse was not a horse it would not be a horse.
If a horse pushed a cart without a horse, the cart would be in motion forever if the horse was pushing the cart but without the horse.
If my aunt was my uncle then my uncle wouldn't be my aunt.
There's some other nonsense for you.
-
Brilliant, just brilliant. Says IF in the bold stuff, ignores IF when it contradicts the obviously stupid conclusion, uses the actual definition which says the opposite of the incorrect point made, thinking it supports the incorrect point.
Beautiful execution, still the same dance moves but with more flair.
By all means stick with the word, IF as long as you know there's no reality ot it, which is what we're arguing.
-
I will repeat the question to Sceptimatic
Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What is the cause, of that motion?
Energy within the Earth.
-
Equal and opposite?
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
So the equal action and opposite reaction aren't equal in magnitude?
Why do you believe this third law if the other two laws are incorrect?
Because the third law is correct.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning you only get out of something what you put into it, in that order.
You are simultaneously claiming there is an egual and opposite reaction, but claiming it is not equal in magnitude to the action? and you don't find that contradictory?
There is no contradiction.
The energy put in is the resultant energy put out, nothing more and nothing less.
Or, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means there has to be an action first and then a reaction after that.
What you cannot have is an action without a reaction which is exactly what you people are claiming about constant velocity in motion in terms of, once in motion there is no reaction so it keeps a constant velocity, unless there is a reaction.
It's silly and is not a reality and never will be, so why even use it as a law when there is no existence of it to calculate anything.
-
Equal and opposite?
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
So the equal action and opposite reaction aren't equal in magnitude?
Why do you believe this third law if the other two laws are incorrect?
Because the third law is correct.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning you only get out of something what you put into it, in that order.
You are simultaneously claiming there is an egual and opposite reaction, but claiming it is not equal in magnitude to the action? and you don't find that contradictory?
There is no contradiction.
The energy put in is the resultant energy put out, nothing more and nothing less.
Or, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means there has to be an action first and then a reaction after that.
What you cannot have is an action without a reaction which is exactly what you people are claiming about constant velocity in motion in terms of, once in motion there is no reaction so it keeps a constant velocity, unless there is a reaction.
It's silly and is not a reality and never will be, so why even use it as a law when there is no existence of it to calculate anything.
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced
The energy put in is the resultant energy put out, nothing more and nothing less.
You don't even understand what you are trying to say.
I do but you certainly don't seem to.
-
Inertia is nothing unless it is used as resistance, not the lack of it.
It is resistance to change in motion.
Again, this just further shows your claim that all resistance is simply just resistance is pure BS.
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
There is no contradiction.
There is a massive contradiction.
In one sentence you state they are equal and opposite, and then in the very next you claim it is never equal and that they are always balanced.
You can't get much more contradictory than that.
Or, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means there has to be an action first and then a reaction after that.
No, it doesn't.
It means they act at once.
If you apply a force to an object, it applies and equal and opposite reactionary force to you.
What action and reaction is not is an actionary force to accelerate the object and then a magical reactionary force some time later to stop it.
When you hit a ball with a bat, the action is the bat applying a force to the ball to accelerate it. The reaction is the ball applying a force to the bat to accelerate it.
That is the action-reaction pair.
That is the pair of forces which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
Again, you either fail to comprehend basic mechanics, or you intentionally misrepresent it.
What you cannot have is an action without a reaction which is exactly what you people are claiming about constant velocity
No, it isn't.
Not in the slightest. Again, you blatantly lie about reality and mainstream science to pretend there is a problem when there is not.
It is not a reaction to the force that accelerates it that would cause it to stop. Instead it is another force, completely separate from that action-reaction pair.
So your claim is silly, and in no way indicative of reality.
And again you ignore simple questions which expose your claims as the BS they are, and simple explanations that you are wrong.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude? Or are 'they are never equal, they are always unbalanced'?
Understand the word opposite.
-
Inertia is nothing unless it is used as resistance, not the lack of it.
It is resistance to change in motion.
Again, this just further shows your claim that all resistance is simply just resistance is pure BS.
You really need to read back what you just typed.
I just sit here shaking my head.
-
So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude? Or are 'they are never equal, they are always unbalanced'?
Understand the word opposite.
Understand the word magnitude
I do. You don't seem to.
-
So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude?
Yes.
-
You really need to read back what you just typed.
To understand that you are wrong? I already know that.
I just sit here shaking my head.
Because you can't refute it or justify your blatant lies nor your delusional model.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude? Or are 'they are never equal, they are always unbalanced'?
Understand the word opposite.
Understand the word balanced.
-
Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic. There is just something off about your debating. It just doesn't add up to logic or reason. Maybe in a different universe with different laws of nature but sure as hell ain't this one
-
Yep, physics don't match desired opinions so points awarded to the one espousing viewpoints that match your own. Yep, must be points for stupidity. Congrats my little dancing fool. You certainly earned it. You are now class 3 stupid, come get your chartreuse dunce cap.
-
Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic. There is just something off about your debating. It just doesn't add up to logic or reason. Maybe in a different universe with different laws of nature but sure as hell ain't this one
jackB and co: points, points, points, numbers, diagrams, photos
sceppy: nuh-uh and why don't you explain it some more so i don't have to talk.
yes
sceppy will always win the troll award.
-
It depends on what you deem as being, balanced.
I deem equal and opposite to be balanced. What do you deem balanced?
You see, we can place two 1kg masses on a scale and balance them to our knowledge of how we balance things.
Right, because the masses exert equal forces on opposite sides of the balance.
If we don't look past the physical view of that we can say they are balanced.
Actually, we're trying to get you to look past the "physical view" and see the fundamental concepts that describe the "physical view".
...it's an argument against constant velocity being a fictional state where an object can stay in motion forever unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
It's always going to happen and never would there be a case for an object o ever kep motion without any external/unbalanced force.
That's basic logic and no law can change that to gain any physical end product.
Only fiction/fantasy can keep that as something from a nothing.
If you were to replace "fiction/fantasy" with "theory", we might be able to make some progress.
-
It depends on what you deem as being, balanced.
I deem equal and opposite to be balanced. What do you deem balanced?
There can never be any immediate balance.
You can have an equal reaction to any action.
Basically you can have equal reactionary energy to any applied energy.
None are ever balanced. They are always unbalanced until the reaction caters for the action.
You see, we can place two 1kg masses on a scale and balance them to our knowledge of how we balance things.
Right, because the masses exert equal forces on opposite sides of the balance.
To our visual, yes but the reality would be different outside of our visual.
If we don't look past the physical view of that we can say they are balanced.
Actually, we're trying to get you to look past the "physical view" and see the fundamental concepts that describe the "physical view".
Yes you are but that's like trying to tell me you want me to look past the magicians sleight of hand and accept that the magician is really magic.
...it's an argument against constant velocity being a fictional state where an object can stay in motion forever unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
It's always going to happen and never would there be a case for an object to ever keep motion without any external/unbalanced force.
That's basic logic and no law can change that to gain any physical end product.
Only fiction/fantasy can keep that as something from a nothing.
If you were to replace "fiction/fantasy" with "theory", we might be able to make some progress.
No, we wouldn't.
A theory can give rise to a potential. Constant velocity cannot be married up to reality or a theory. It is fiction/fantasy.
-
Constant velocity cannot be married up to reality or a theory. It is fiction/fantasy.
*sigh* Newton's first law is not meant to work in isolation. It's meant to work with his second and third laws in order to describe reality.
Think of it this way:
Newton's first law describes how an object behaves it there are no forces acting on it.
Newton's second law describes how an object behaves when there are forces acting on it.
Newton's third law describes the relationship between the forces acting on the object.
Or:
First law: No forces means no changes.
Second law: Adding forces means changes.
Third law: Forces work both ways.
-
Constant velocity cannot be married up to reality or a theory. It is fiction/fantasy.
*sigh* Newton's first law is not meant to work in isolation. It's meant to work with his second and third laws in order to describe reality.
Think of it this way:
Newton's first law describes how an object behaves it there are no forces acting on it.
If there were no forces acting upon an object then the object and the forces would not exist, meaning there's nothing to even contemplate.
And also, this isn't the full picture because the argument is also the object with zero forces just happens to be in motion forever. It's absolutely nonsensical.
Newton's second law describes how an object behaves when there are forces acting on it.
Basically the third law of action and equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's third law describes the relationship between the forces acting on the object.
Same thing. Action and equal and opposite reaction.
Or:
First law: No forces means no changes.
It's not a law. It's meaningless.
Second law: Adding forces means changes.
Adding resistance/force will change reactionary resistance/force.
Third law: Forces work both ways.
Just like the second law, so why 3 laws?
First so called law is not a law, at all.
The second is just another way of explaining the third, so basically we have one real law.
-
First so called law is not a law, at all.
The second is just another way of explaining the third, so basically we have one real law.
No, no and no.
The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.
The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)
The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.
Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing. Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.
-
Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll. Scepti knows exactly what he is doing and why, it's all an act.
-
Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll.
Doesn't understand the concept of concepts.
-
Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll. Scepti knows exactly what he is doing and why, it's all an act.
Markos trying reeally hard and is being met by an equal and opposite force.
-
Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll. Scepti knows exactly what he is doing and why, it's all an act.
Markos trying reeally hard and is being met by an equal and opposite force.
Scepti is a living example of intellectual inertia.
-
Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic.
Of course you would. You just want to stir up trouble whenever possible.
Fortunately, I don't really give a damn who you want to award things to, as it has no baring on reality.
It just doesn't add up to logic or reason.
And is that just your baseless assertion, or can you actually demonstrate a problem?
-
And yet again you avoid trivial questions which expose your model and claims as pure garbage.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
You can have an equal reaction to any action.
Basically you can have equal reactionary energy to any applied energy.
None are ever balanced.
Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.
They are always unbalanced until the reaction caters for the action.
So they are never unbalanced as the reaction always caters for the action.
You cannot have an action without the equal and opposite reaction.
Again, you fail to understand basic mechanics.
No, we wouldn't.
A theory can give rise to a potential.
Which the laws of motion do, and allow us to accurately describe the motion of plenty of objects.
You not liking that because it doesn't fit with your delusion of everything is air wont change that.
If there were no forces acting upon an object then the object and the forces would not exist
Why?
And also, this isn't the full picture because the argument is also the object with zero forces just happens to be in motion forever.
Or to put it more honestly, with no forces acting on it, it will never have its motion change.
There is nothing nonsensical about it. You just hate it because it doesn't fit with your fantasy.
Newton's second law describes how an object behaves when there are forces acting on it.
Basically the third law of action and equal and opposite reaction.
The third is fundamentally different and describes an interaction between 2 things.
Object A applies a force to object B, object B applies a reactionary force to object A.
Action-Reaction.
It is nothing like what you want to pretend it is.
This is fundamentally different to the second law which ties together acceleration, mass and force.
But because it doesn't rely upon the air like you delusion demands, you do whatever you can to avoid it.
It's not a law. It's meaningless.
Its meaning is quite clear for anyone who doesn't just want to reject reality.
So no, we have 3 distinct laws, all with a specific meaning.
If you want to try combining 2 laws, that would be the first and second, as if there is no force, then there is no acceleration.
You not liking these laws of motion because they do not match your delusional fantasy will not magically change them.
-
The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.
An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces, so the law is non existent and there is absolutely no description of something that is non existent....unless it is passed off as fantasy.
The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)
The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.
The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.
Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.
The rest is just dressing it up for the same answer.
Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing.
A complete basic understanding of motion is action and equal and opposite, reaction.
That's all there is to it.
One law.
Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.
How can the second and third laws cover an environment that cannot exist?
-
Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.
There's no contradicting myself. You not understanding it is not me contradicting.
Equal and opposite is exactly that.
A force will meet a resistance equal to that force but it will never balance out, it will fizzle out.
It simply won't be a balance like you think.
If I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.
I have to push my feet into the ground and use my hands and body to add that resistance/force to the mass of the car that is also using the ground as its resistance to my resistance/force.
If the car moves it's reacting to my action in equal measures but it will never rigidly balance out because the force is always greater or lower with each movement.
All that happens is, the balance is dissipated throughout as the reaction to each action...and so on.
-
Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic.
Of course you would. You just want to stir up trouble whenever possible.
Fortunately, I don't really give a damn who you want to award things to, as it has no baring on reality.
Well, your reality anyway. Fortunately for the rest of us, we live in actual reality
It just doesn't add up to logic or reason.
And is that just your baseless assertion, or can you actually demonstrate a problem?
Oh it has a base. A really big nice one. Wanna see it?
-
Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.
There's no contradicting myself. You not understanding it is not me contradicting.
Equal and opposite is exactly that.
A force will meet a resistance equal to that force but it will never balance out, it will fizzle out.
It simply won't be a balance like you think.
If I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.
I have to push my feet into the ground and use my hands and body to add that resistance/force to the mass of the car that is also using the ground as its resistance to my resistance/force.
If the car moves it's reacting to my action in equal measures but it will never rigidly balance out because the force is always greater or lower with each movement.
All that happens is, the balance is dissipated throughout as the reaction to each action...and so on.
Forces don't fizzle out. F=m*a Apply a force to a mass and you will get acceleration. When an accelerating mass is providing a force to another object, a force equal to the force applied will be felt in the opposite direction.
To see this practically watch a billiards game. Or better yet
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
-
Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.
There's no contradicting myself. You not understanding it is not me contradicting.
Equal and opposite is exactly that.
A force will meet a resistance equal to that force but it will never balance out, it will fizzle out.
It simply won't be a balance like you think.
If I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.
I have to push my feet into the ground and use my hands and body to add that resistance/force to the mass of the car that is also using the ground as its resistance to my resistance/force.
If the car moves it's reacting to my action in equal measures but it will never rigidly balance out because the force is always greater or lower with each movement.
All that happens is, the balance is dissipated throughout as the reaction to each action...and so on.
Forces don't fizzle out. F=m*a Apply a force to a mass and you will get acceleration. When an accelerating mass is providing a force to another object, a force equal to the force applied will be felt in the opposite direction.
To see this practically watch a billiards game. Or better yet
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
The force does fizzle out. It is action and then the equal and opposite reaction. Once it is spent, that particular force is over with.
-
Well, your reality anyway.
It isn't my reality.
You wanting to just spout shit like that to try and stir up trouble won't magically make me the delusional one. Grow up.
-
Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.
There's no contradicting myself.
Ignoring the contradiction wont magically make it go away.
If it is equal and opposite it is balanced.
You trying to blatantly misrepresent what that means to pretend the reaciton happens to the same object as the action, just some time later, will not magically remove that contradiction.
If I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.
No, you don't.
If you want to push it to accelerate it relative to Earth, then you need to use something to resist, because you are no longer simply pushing it, instead you are pushing the car and Earth.
If you would like a simple example, jump on a car.
You are pushing the car, but because it is so much more massive (and it is also on Earth so when you push it down you also push Earth down which is even more massive), its inertia makes it accelerate quite little. But the reactionary force acting on the much smaller mass of you results in you accelerating far more.
We have been over this plenty of times, with you unable to justify that blatant lie of yours at all.
Instead you just repeatedly dodge.
Your delusional garbage makes no sense at all.
All that is required to see that is to consider a hypothetical situation in which you are holding a ball with nothing around you to use as resistance, and you extend your arm.
Do you think your arm just phases through the ball because you don't have anything to use as resistance?
Yet again, you fail to understand basic mechanics.
So with that it isn't surprising that you can't answer the trivial question which show your model is BS.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces
WHY?
Stop jsut repeating the same baseless assertions and justify it.
There is no connection at all between those 2.
The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.
You already stated that lie and had it refuted.
The second and third law are fundamentally different.
Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.
The only reason you want this is because your delusional garbage cannot explain the rest.
The rest which you reject so much, shows quite clearly that you are wrong.
-
Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.
There's no contradicting myself.
Ignoring the contradiction wont magically make it go away.
If it is equal and opposite it is balanced.
You trying to blatantly misrepresent what that means to pretend the reaciton happens to the same object as the action, just some time later, will not magically remove that contradiction.
It does.
Action then reaction in equal and opposite terms.
What you put in you get out. As simple as that.
Let me make this clear.
A resistant leverage to allow a energy force with encounter a resistance to that force over the period of time that force gives back the equal energy.
-
Let me make this clear.
A resistant leverage to allow a energy force with encounter a resistance to that force over the period of time that force gives back the equal energy.
No, that is not clear.
Then I can't help you.
-
Action then reaction in equal and opposite terms.
No, action and reaction occur at once.
You push an object, the object pushes back on you.
Action-reaction.
Again, you fail basic mechanics.
Just like your fail to answer trivial questions which expose your BS as BS, and which you want to pretend don't exist.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
Action then reaction in equal and opposite terms.
No, action and reaction occur at once.
You push an object, the object pushes back on you.
Action-reaction.
You push the object first and then get the reaction from your applied force, in equal measures.
-
You push the object first and then get the reaction from your applied force, in equal measures.
No, you push the object and at the same time, it pushes back.
It doesn't wait until later to push you back.
-
No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.
You have a very childish way of talking. I point out a problem in what you say, and you consistently seem to turn it around with a playground "I know you are, but what am I?"
When I say you have not answered the question, it is because you have not. Instead of telling me to just reread the post that I found unsatisfactory, and that I explained my objections to, either engage or stop. I am not ignoring an explanation, I am pointing out your explanation is founded upon insistence and not evidence.
You say that vibration/heat can be directly identified with the pressure and action/reaction pairs of particles and thus heat only exists because of action/interaction pairs. The two are one and the same. (If this is not what you are saying, then by all means clarify as opposed to repeating what appears to be insisting upon this).
This proposal is simply impossible. Take a solitary particle - is every such particle at absolute zero simply because it interacts with nothing? Equally, you talked about the difference in situations where heat is externally being added, as opposed to an object simply resting - okay then, imagine an object being heated, the random motions of molecules at this addition of an external force, only for that heating element to be taken away and the object allowed to reach a consistent non-zero temperature. How does order emerge from this chaos, how does the random movement of molecules even out in such a way that molecules pair off neatly and predictably?
Your explanation fails to allow heat to exist as a property of any lone particle, and still fails to address how such order can consistently and regularly arise.
Either the response you gave is wrong, or woefully incomplete, and simply insisting that I reread it is not going to address either problem.
-
Well, your reality anyway.
It isn't my reality.
You wanting to just spout shit like that to try and stir up trouble won't magically make me the delusional one. Grow up.
And what goes up, must come down amirite? I see your well on your way there. You've lost the plot old man
-
The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.
An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces, so the law is non existent and there is absolutely no description of something that is non existent....unless it is passed off as fantasy.
What's wrong with a fantasy that helps you to understand reality better? Have you no imagination?
The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)
The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.
No, it doesn't. The second law describes a force.
The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.
Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.
The rest is just dressing it up for the same answer.
No. You need the first two laws in order to get to the third.
Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing.
A complete basic understanding of motion is action and equal and opposite, reaction.
That's all there is to it.
One law.
How can you have equal and opposite forces if you don't define what force means first?
Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.
How can the second and third laws cover an environment that cannot exist?
They don't. The second and third laws cover the forces and resistance that you keep going on about. It's the first law that covers the impossible environment that I told you not to worry about.
Let's try it one more time.
First law: here's what an object does with no external forces applied (an impossible situation, but don't worry about it)
Second law: here's what what I mean when I say "force"
Third law: here's how an object reacts when you apply a force
-
You push the object first and then get the reaction from your applied force, in equal measures.
No, you push the object and at the same time, it pushes back.
It doesn't wait until later to push you back.
You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.
-
The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.
An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces, so the law is non existent and there is absolutely no description of something that is non existent....unless it is passed off as fantasy.
What's wrong with a fantasy that helps you to understand reality better? Have you no imagination?
You can't have a fantasy that helps you to understand reality.
You can have a fantasy to help you understand a fantasy story, not a reality.
The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)
The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.
No, it doesn't. The second law describes a force.
F= mass * acceleration.
Force upon a mass to accelerate that mass is action and equal and opposite reaction. The third law.
There's only one law and that law is simple.
The third law simply becomes one law, only. No need for the 2nd. And especially no need for the first.
One law.
The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.
Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.
The rest is just dressing it up for the same answer.
No. You need the first two laws in order to get to the third.
No you don't. Not in the least.
Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing.
A complete basic understanding of motion is action and equal and opposite, reaction.
That's all there is to it.
One law.
How can you have equal and opposite forces if you don't define what force means first?
Force is action against an equal and opposite, reaction.
Or would you prefer energy equals action against an equal and opposite, reaction?
Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.
How can the second and third laws cover an environment that cannot exist?
They don't. The second and third laws cover the forces and resistance that you keep going on about. It's the first law that covers the impossible environment that I told you not to worry about.
Ok we can throw the pretence of a first law into the bin.
Let's try it one more time.
First law: here's what an object does with no external forces applied (an impossible situation, but don't worry about it)
Then don't use it.
Second law: here's what what I mean when I say "force"
Just force? It means nothing as just a force and certainly doesn't follow f=m*a because that states a force is needed to accelerate a mass, equal to it in the opposite direction, which comes back to the third law.
One law suffices,.
Third law: here's how an object reacts when you apply a force
Action and equal and opposite, reaction.
-
No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.
You say that vibration/heat can be directly identified with the pressure and action/reaction pairs of particles and thus heat only exists because of action/interaction pairs. The two are one and the same. (If this is not what you are saying, then by all means clarify as opposed to repeating what appears to be insisting upon this).
I'm not sure this is the case in conventional chemistry, that the two are one in the same:
Kinetic Energy and Temperature
Another way of thinking about temperature is that it is related to the energy of the particles in the sample: the faster the particles are moving, the higher the temperature. It may well take different amounts of energy to get particles moving at the same average kinetic energy. For a simple monoatomic gas, like helium or neon, the only motion that the atoms can do is to move from one place to another in a straight line until they bump into something else, such as another atom or molecule.86 This kind of motion is called translational motion and is directly linked to the kinetic energy of the atom or molecule through the relationship KE = 1/2 m v(bar)2 = 3/2 kT where v(bar) is the average velocity of all of the molecules in the population87, m is the mass, k is a constant, known as the Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature. That is, the average kinetic energy of a gas is directly related to the temperature. In any given gaseous sample of moving atoms there are many collisions per unit time but these collisions do not alter the total energy of the system (it is conserved).88 What these collision can, and often do, alter is the relative kinetic energies of the two (or more) colliding atoms: if one slows down, the other will speed up (remember, we are now talking only about monoatomic species; things get more complicated with more complex molecules).
Any single atom or molecule has kinetic energy, but not a temperature. This is an important distinction. Populations of molecules have a temperature related to their average velocity but the concept of temperature is not relevant to individual molecules, they have kinetic energy but not a temperature. This is a important idea, temperature as a characteristic of a system not its individual components. While a system has a unique temperature, the individual molecules that make up the system can have quite different kinetic energies. Because of collisions between molecules, an individual molecule’s kinetic energy can be changing rapidly, even though the temperature of the system is constant. When it comes to chemical reactions, it is individual kinetic energies that will be critical.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_CLUE_(Cooper_and_Klymkowsky)/5%3A_Systems_Thinking/5.1%3A_Temperature/Kinetic_Energy_and_Temperature
-
No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.
You say that vibration/heat can be directly identified with the pressure and action/reaction pairs of particles and thus heat only exists because of action/interaction pairs. The two are one and the same. (If this is not what you are saying, then by all means clarify as opposed to repeating what appears to be insisting upon this).
I'm not sure this is the case in conventional chemistry, that the two are one in the same:
Kinetic Energy and Temperature
Another way of thinking about temperature is that it is related to the energy of the particles in the sample: the faster the particles are moving, the higher the temperature. It may well take different amounts of energy to get particles moving at the same average kinetic energy. For a simple monoatomic gas, like helium or neon, the only motion that the atoms can do is to move from one place to another in a straight line until they bump into something else, such as another atom or molecule.86 This kind of motion is called translational motion and is directly linked to the kinetic energy of the atom or molecule through the relationship KE = 1/2 m v(bar)2 = 3/2 kT where v(bar) is the average velocity of all of the molecules in the population87, m is the mass, k is a constant, known as the Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature. That is, the average kinetic energy of a gas is directly related to the temperature. In any given gaseous sample of moving atoms there are many collisions per unit time but these collisions do not alter the total energy of the system (it is conserved).88 What these collision can, and often do, alter is the relative kinetic energies of the two (or more) colliding atoms: if one slows down, the other will speed up (remember, we are now talking only about monoatomic species; things get more complicated with more complex molecules).
Any single atom or molecule has kinetic energy, but not a temperature. This is an important distinction. Populations of molecules have a temperature related to their average velocity but the concept of temperature is not relevant to individual molecules, they have kinetic energy but not a temperature. This is a important idea, temperature as a characteristic of a system not its individual components. While a system has a unique temperature, the individual molecules that make up the system can have quite different kinetic energies. Because of collisions between molecules, an individual molecule’s kinetic energy can be changing rapidly, even though the temperature of the system is constant. When it comes to chemical reactions, it is individual kinetic energies that will be critical.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_CLUE_(Cooper_and_Klymkowsky)/5%3A_Systems_Thinking/5.1%3A_Temperature/Kinetic_Energy_and_Temperature
This is certainly a better decription, and I will leave aside that it does not answer how molecules become paired as that does not seem to be what it is attempting to address.
It does however run into the problem of convenience. It defines what it must in order for it to work. A lone molecule cannot have temperature, because otherwise the definition of temperature fails - it is less a description of physics, and more one of semantics.
-
It does however run into the problem of convenience. It defines what it must in order for it to work. A lone molecule cannot have temperature, because otherwise the definition of temperature fails - it is less a description of physics, and more one of semantics.
It appears you are conjuring your own definition of "what it must for it to work" without backing it up with anything other than your "must".
-
No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.
You have a very childish way of talking. I point out a problem in what you say
And there you go projecting yet again.
You cannot show an actual problem so you continually project your own inadequacies onto others.
It seems to be quite common.
Perhaps when you show you are actually willing to read what is said and try to honestly and rationally engage with it I might care more.
When I say you have not answered the question, it is because you have not.
Perhaps instead of just asserting that I haven't answered the question, because you don't like the answer, you should wait and see if your "objections" to your answer are actually adequate to make my answer not an answer, and that I won't just refute those objections.
either engage or stop.
Follow your own advice.
Take a solitary particle - is every such particle at absolute zero simply because it interacts with nothing?
It makes no sense at all to talk about the temperature of a solitary particle, which is literally a solitary particle rather than being made of multiple particles itself.
Just like it makes no sense to talk about the speed of a solitary particle with no reference to measure that speed.
And now you are going even further away from the problem allegedly was.
You weren't objecting to the idea of heat in general.
Instead you were trying to object to the laws of motion based upon a claim about heat being that heat is stored in objects as vibrations which you treated as completely random motion, where the heat magically makes it randomly move and randomly change direction.
This is why I say you aren't actually engaging.
Another reason is shown in this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2317643#msg2317643
You completely ignored the vast majority of my post and instead just falsely claimed that I was simply insisting it is working.
And you entirely ignored the objection to your claims about modelling.
You are just looking for whatever you can to try to pretend there is a problem.
How does order emerge from this chaos, how does the random movement of molecules even out in such a way that molecules pair off neatly and predictably?
There you go ignoring what I said yet again.
Unless you want to evoke quantum mechanics it is not random motion. It is chaotic.
There is a fundamental distinction between random and chaotic.
If you understood the distinction you would know that chaotic systems, if you had all the information perfectly (which quantum mechanics prohibits) you would be able to predict the evolution of the system over time. But very small changes to the initial conditions will result in significant changes to the result, making it quite difficult to actually predict the evolution of the system over time.
Nor did I ever indicate that the particles will just pair off so you then only have pairs of particles which just interact with the other part of the pair rather than the bulk. Instead I said each interaction will change the motion of a particle will involve a pair and result in a corresponding change to the other particle of the pair.
Even after considerable time the system will still be chaotic.
An example of this is Brownian motion.
The particles APPEARS to move randomly, but that is not just random, it is CHAOTIC.
The particle doesn't just randomly change direction. Instead it interacts with another particle. This interaction thus involves a pair of particles and a pair of forces.
This does not mean these 2 particles are magically paired up and inseparable and all further interactions of either of these particles will involve the other and only the other.
Again, this is why I say you are not engaging.
I pointed out the distinction between random and chaotic, and you ignored it. I never indicated that the particles will magically pair up and then remain as those pairs, yet you pretend I do.
You aren't engaging with what I have said.
You just strawman my position, pretending I said things I never did, and ignoring the key parts which show your claim is wrong.
Try to respond to what has actually been said, rather than your misrepresentations of it.
Either the response you gave is wrong, or woefully incomplete, and simply insisting that I reread it is not going to address either problem.
Or, your objections are entirely inadequate, misrepresenting reality and what I have said, or ignoring what I have said.
You actually reading what I have said and actually responding to that, rather than what you want me to have said, would address the problem.
Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.
-
You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.
And again you misrepresent what I said.
I never said it resists BEFORE. I said it resists AT THE SAME TIME.
Just like you can't have it resist before you push, it also can't resist after you push. That would be too late. You have already pushed, it can't then be resisted.
It needs to resists AT THE SAME TIME as you push.
Action and equal and opposite reaction, AT THE SAME TIME.
You push, and it pushes back, AT THE SAME TIME.
You can't have a fantasy that helps you to understand reality.
Only if you don't want to understand reality, although I wouldn't call them fantasy, you certainty do.
Idealised models of reality, which you dismiss as fantasy, aid in understanding reality.
You not liking that because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy will not change that.
You can have a fantasy to help you understand a fantasy story, not a reality.
F= mass * acceleration.
Force upon a mass to accelerate that mass is action and equal and opposite reaction. The third law.
No, 2 separate laws.
One law is relating the force, mass and acceleration on a SINGLE object.
The next is stating the relationship between forces acting on TWO objects.
They are 2 laws.
You hating the second law because it shows your model is garbage will not magically make it not a law.
Like I said, if you want to combine them, combine the first and second, as with the second, if F=0, a=0, which then covers the first. The second law is an extension of the first.
It means nothing as just a force and certainly doesn't follow f=m*a because that states a force is needed to accelerate a mass, equal to it in the opposite direction, which comes back to the third law.
No, it doesn't.
It states if you apply a force to an object, it will accelerate the object IN THE SAME DIRECTION, at a rate inversely proportional to its mass.
It says nothing about an equal and opposite force.
As he already explained, the three laws serve 3 purposes.
-
You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.
And again you misrepresent what I said.
I never said it resists BEFORE. I said it resists AT THE SAME TIME.
Just like you can't have it resist before you push, it also can't resist after you push. That would be too late. You have already pushed, it can't then be resisted.
You can't push without resistance. It's all one and the same thing.
To create a force you need energy. To use energy to create force you need leverage. Something to push off of.
To push off of something you need a resistance to allow it.
All of it gains an equal and opposite reaction.
None of it has any bearing on constant velocity because constant velocity can never be a thing. Inertia describes absolutely nothing.
-
You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.
And again you misrepresent what I said.
I never said it resists BEFORE. I said it resists AT THE SAME TIME.
Just like you can't have it resist before you push, it also can't resist after you push. That would be too late. You have already pushed, it can't then be resisted.
You can't push without resistance.
Do you mean a different object to push against, which had nothing at all to do with the section you quoted? Or do you mean the resistance of that object to your push?
If the latter, that is what I have said, and what you seem to reject.
That means you push and it resists that push, pushing back AT THE SAME TIME!
If you meant the former, then yet again you have shown your complete inability to rationally defend your claims with you needing to jump to another topic yet again.
And just like before, that former claim is still BS. The only "resistance" you need to be able to push another object, is your own inertia.
Again, jumping on a car or a trampoline or any number of other things easily demonstrates this.
Inertia describes absolutely nothing.
Again, you not liking inertia because it exposes your claims as BS doesn't make it nothing.
Just like you wanting to pretend the second law is just the third, because the second relies upon mass and accurately describes reality, further showing your claims are pure BS, does not magically make them the same law.
Just like you continually ignoring trivial questions which so clearly expose your lies, doesn't magically mean those questions don't exist, nor does it mean your model doesn't have any problems.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
It makes no sense at all to talk about the temperature of a solitary particle, which is literally a solitary particle rather than being made of multiple particles itself.
Just like it makes no sense to talk about the speed of a solitary particle with no reference to measure that speed.
And now you are going even further away from the problem allegedly was.
You weren't objecting to the idea of heat in general.
Instead you were trying to object to the laws of motion based upon a claim about heat being that heat is stored in objects as vibrations which you treated as completely random motion, where the heat magically makes it randomly move and randomly change direction.
If you cannot see the connection, then you are not looking at the same problem that I bring up. Rather than assume I am not engaging, assume I am and see how what I say connects. You are very quick to throw out insults and accusations, and very slow to react to a problem.
I was and have always been objecting to the mainstream model of heat. My very first statement on this topic was "This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart." Followed soon after by "Nothing causes it to vibrate, this is a lie perpetuated by mainstream physicists, as this demonstrates... The claim is that heat manifests as vibration." My objection is to the concept that heat manifests as vibration - this is demonstrated both by how Newton's law fails, and how it cannot allow for single particles to possess a temperature, along with other areas.
Further, the single particle thought experiment is relevant as it exposes a flaw in the claims you make - namely, the focus on how action/interaction is the basis of heat. Now, if you were engaging scientifically as opposed to looking for excuses to throw out insults, your response to that should have been "Why is this Snomial person interested in questioning that? Why is that relevant?"
Had you done that, you should soon arrive at the conclusion - when the action/interaction model of heat is out the window, so too is your explanation for how and why molecules pair off conveniently. Thus, once again, it is demonstrated that you do not have the neat and easy 'all motion cancels itself out' response that you have been relying upon because heat is separate to that.
This is why I say you aren't actually engaging.
Another reason is shown in this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2317643#msg2317643
You completely ignored the vast majority of my post and instead just falsely claimed that I was simply insisting it is working.
And you entirely ignored the objection to your claims about modelling.
You are just looking for whatever you can to try to pretend there is a problem.
No. I responded in such a way because your reply did not give an answer. I asked why such motion always gets cancelled out: you said 'because it MUST.' Word for word, "If all you have are internal forces, then a force acting on any part of the object will be cancelled out be an equal in magnitude and opposite in direction force on another part of the object. Those 2 forces MUST add to 0." Which is a completely useless statement when that very line of reasoning is what I am objecting to. You are saying that my conclusion is wrong because my conclusion is wrong, not because you are bringing any new reasoning or implication to the table. I am saying that internal forces, particularly at the edges of an object, could easily see that object's net force reach an imbalance because of simple logical implication - you are saying this is wrong, but you aren't making any response to the objections I've made. You're saying it sums to zero, I'm saying it won't, but the problem is that you are just saying.
Yes, I ignored your line of reasoning about modelling, because it wasn't relevant to the discussion on the way heat functions, it was an offhand remark I made in my previous post about how a lot of mechanics, such as Newton, functions far better with individual particles. In this very post you make the claim that I changed the topic as an accusation, and yet here you complain that I did not change the topic. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or do you have an actual purpose to your posts?
Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.
(And before you accuse me of cutting out your 'it's CHAOTIC' response, it is more of the same 'this is how it MUST work' fallacy, and this particular question will prove a good example of how it falls apart, thus I am being more efficient and focusing on it here)
Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen atoms, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither atom is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.
Why is the vibration of the first atom strictly and exclusively going to be horizontal, with zero vertical component whatsoever? The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position - unless your claim is that it suddenly speeds up to get in the way, which I doubt, what is it that limits the velocities of each atom so?
Do not respond simply that it 'MUST' happen, I am asking why.
-
Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.
Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen molecules, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither molecule is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.
Interested in seeing where this is all going. But why did you change his basic example of one molecule of oxygen consisting of two covalently bound atoms to two independent oxygen molecules?
Is this a typo, or did you just not read carefully or something?
Seems hard to get anywhere if you are talking about two very different basic examples, no?
-
Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.
Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen molecules, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither molecule is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.
Interested in seeing where this is all going. But why did you change his basic example of one molecule of oxygen consisting of two covalently bound atoms to two independent oxygen molecules?
Is this a typo, or did you just not read carefully or something?
Seems hard to get anywhere if you are talking about two very different basic examples, no?
A typo, certainly, my brain thought both 'two atoms' and 'one molecule' simultaneously and apparently I split the difference. Will correct, thanks.
-
Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.
Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen molecules, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither molecule is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.
Interested in seeing where this is all going. But why did you change his basic example of one molecule of oxygen consisting of two covalently bound atoms to two independent oxygen molecules?
Is this a typo, or did you just not read carefully or something?
Seems hard to get anywhere if you are talking about two very different basic examples, no?
A typo, certainly, my brain thought both 'two atoms' and 'one molecule' simultaneously and apparently I split the difference. Will correct, thanks.
Great, thanks for clarifying.
I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated? Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?
-
Great, thanks for clarifying.
I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated? Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?
Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.
-
Great, thanks for clarifying.
I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated? Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?
Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.
I have to say Im a little confused here. I dont disagree with the above, but Im having a hard time seeing how it fits into your example. Dont you state in your description of the simple problem -
The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position
Isn't this in direct contradiction to -
Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other
Or am I missing something here? Happy for any clarification or restatement if needed.
-
Great, thanks for clarifying.
I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated? Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?
Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.
I have to say Im a little confused here. I dont disagree with the above, but Im having a hard time seeing how it fits into your example. Dont you state in your description of the simple problem -
The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position
Isn't this in direct contradiction to -
Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other
Or am I missing something here? Happy for any clarification or restatement if needed.
'React' was meant in the quite literal sense of 'know' - in context, the only response the second atom can have to any movement of the former is whatever velocity is imparts through the bond. There is nothing it can do to prevent or cancel the movement of the first. It cannot react in the way the mainstream model requires for it to be at rest - it would be dragged, if this model is the case.
-
Great, thanks for clarifying.
I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated? Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?
Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.
I have to say Im a little confused here. I dont disagree with the above, but Im having a hard time seeing how it fits into your example. Dont you state in your description of the simple problem -
The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position
Isn't this in direct contradiction to -
Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other
Or am I missing something here? Happy for any clarification or restatement if needed.
'React' was meant in the quite literal sense of 'know' - in context, the only response the second atom can have to any movement of the former is whatever velocity is imparts through the bond. There is nothing it can do to prevent or cancel the movement of the first. It cannot react in the way the mainstream model requires for it to be at rest - it would be dragged, if this model is the case.
Thanks for the clarification, but I am not sure I really understand what you mean by the second atom can not "know" vertical movement from the other.
Maybe define how one atom can "know" movement from another atom to help clarify?
Im also not sure which mainstream model you are talking about here that you believe is wrong in this context? I might have missed this in previous discussion, apologies if so, but can you specify again?
-
Thanks for the clarification, but I am not sure I really understand what you mean by the second atom can not "know" vertical movement from the other.
Maybe define how one atom can "know" movement from another atom to help clarify?
Im also not sure which mainstream model you are talking about here that you believe is wrong in this context? I might have missed this in previous discussion, apologies if so, but can you specify again?
It's not a technical term, just a general way to refer to any way the second atom can respond to the actions of the first. The only apparent method is to simply react to any force caused by it, which it would not be able to cancel unless it was already moving in a specific way.
The objection I primarily have here is to the notion of heat being stored as kinetic energy, ie the constant motion of particles. This is demonstrated here by how the law chafes with the idea of any object ever being at rest.
-
Different objects have different reactions to heat.
Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".
-
Thanks for the clarification, but I am not sure I really understand what you mean by the second atom can not "know" vertical movement from the other.
Maybe define how one atom can "know" movement from another atom to help clarify?
Im also not sure which mainstream model you are talking about here that you believe is wrong in this context? I might have missed this in previous discussion, apologies if so, but can you specify again?
It's not a technical term, just a general way to refer to any way the second atom can respond to the actions of the first. The only apparent method is to simply react to any force caused by it, which it would not be able to cancel unless it was already moving in a specific way.
But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one? Isn't this a general way the second atom would respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response?
The objection I primarily have here is to the notion of heat being stored as kinetic energy, ie the constant motion of particles. This is demonstrated here by how the law chafes with the idea of any object ever being at rest.
Interesting, I hear you. Kinetic energy always weirds me out a bit. You always think of energy having to be something absolute, but then kinetic energy goes and changes with your frame of reference!
The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference!
-
The objection I primarily have here is to the notion of heat being stored as kinetic energy, ie the constant motion of particles. This is demonstrated here by how the law chafes with the idea of any object ever being at rest.
Perhaps it would help to clarify the term "at rest" as it would apply to different states of matter.
Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other, so it's pretty easy to think of a stationary solid mass as being at rest.
In fluids (liquids and gasses), however, the molecules are free to move around to varying extents. The question becomes, can a contained fluid really be considered at rest if the molecules are still moving around? That answer would depend on the nature of the problem that you're trying to solve.
-
Different objects have different reactions to heat.
Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".
That isn't relevant here. Aren't you the same person that tried to make it about quantum mechanics? Please stop getting in the way.
But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one? Isn't this a general way the second atom would respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response?
A reaction isn't what matters - a reaction in this case is not a reactive force in the sense of, say, a cup resting on a table. If one atom tries to move, the other may resist that, but it isn't going to be able to move in the precise opposite direction at the precise rate, especially when it itself has motion. The reactive force of a cup on a table works because the table itself is braced against the floor - what acts to prevent the movement of the first atom?
Admittedly this is where it becomes a little less simple because it is necessary to look at the full picture. Take an instant in time for this one oxygen molecule. When it isn't at absolute zero, both atoms are in the process of moving: if the bond between them was severed, they would both be going off in who-knows what direction.
When they are bonded, they both still have this kinetic energy. The first atom is moving one way, the second is moving another, and while each might exert a reactive force, they have only the energy they currently possess with which to resist the motion, braced as they are against nothing, and this energy cannot be enough as it is already in use. It is going to take a different amount of energy to resist every possible angle and intensity of motion, which cannot possibly stay consistent, especially not for both atoms simultaneously. If one needs X amount energy to stop, and another needs X+1, the bond is only going to be able to limit one, meaning an end result of 1/-1 (-1 just being a 1 in the opposite direction. yes I'm conflating energy and velocity somewhat here, but as far as the explanation goes, the broad strokes hold).
The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference!
This runs into the 'needs to happen' situation. It's much like how mathematicians will say the number 1 is not a prime - it isn't really for reasons of definition, but rather just because they have a bunch of formulas that only work if 1 isn't prime. It is always going to be easy to define a concept in such a way that some flaws just don't show up, but it's only ever going to be true if you accept that specific definition. When dealing with something as abstract as prime numbers, it's not so big a deal - when dealing with a practical concept like heat, it's a little more questionable.
Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other
This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.
-
Different objects have different reactions to heat.
Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".
That isn't relevant here. Aren't you the same person that tried to make it about quantum mechanics? Please stop getting in the way.
But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one? Isn't this a general way the second atom would respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response?
A reaction isn't what matters - a reaction in this case is not a reactive force in the sense of, say, a cup resting on a table. If one atom tries to move, the other may resist that, but it isn't going to be able to move in the precise opposite direction at the precise rate, especially when it itself has motion. The reactive force of a cup on a table works because the table itself is braced against the floor - what acts to prevent the movement of the first atom?
Admittedly this is where it becomes a little less simple because it is necessary to look at the full picture. Take an instant in time for this one oxygen molecule. When it isn't at absolute zero, both atoms are in the process of moving: if the bond between them was severed, they would both be going off in who-knows what direction.
When they are bonded, they both still have this kinetic energy. The first atom is moving one way, the second is moving another, and while each might exert a reactive force, they have only the energy they currently possess with which to resist the motion, braced as they are against nothing, and this energy cannot be enough as it is already in use. It is going to take a different amount of energy to resist every possible angle and intensity of motion, which cannot possibly stay consistent, especially not for both atoms simultaneously. If one needs X amount energy to stop, and another needs X+1, the bond is only going to be able to limit one, meaning an end result of 1/-1 (-1 just being a 1 in the opposite direction. yes I'm conflating energy and velocity somewhat here, but as far as the explanation goes, the broad strokes hold).
The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference!
This runs into the 'needs to happen' situation. It's much like how mathematicians will say the number 1 is not a prime - it isn't really for reasons of definition, but rather just because they have a bunch of formulas that only work if 1 isn't prime. It is always going to be easy to define a concept in such a way that some flaws just don't show up, but it's only ever going to be true if you accept that specific definition. When dealing with something as abstract as prime numbers, it's not so big a deal - when dealing with a practical concept like heat, it's a little more questionable.
Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other
This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.
get in the way of you directly talking aobut what i brought up?
ok buddy.
maybe re-read my post and then re-read your responses to marko and soba.
heat example of steel vs nitrogen is relevant because you brought it up.
and quantum mechanics is relevant because you keep trying to apply newtonian physics to atoms saying any object would explode appart as soon as it was heated due to the bazzillion collisions happening.
you can't comprehend "vibrations" doesnt necessarily mean oscillating or swinging atoms.
raising electrons and lowering is a form of vibration.
stretching of bonded atoms is a form of vibration.
when things are joined, why do you think they'll behave like billard balls?
if you want to be relevant, try and make a relevant point.
-
Different objects have different reactions to heat.
Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".
That isn't relevant here. Aren't you the same person that tried to make it about quantum mechanics? Please stop getting in the way.
But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one? Isn't this a general way the second atom would respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response?
A reaction isn't what matters - a reaction in this case is not a reactive force in the sense of, say, a cup resting on a table. If one atom tries to move, the other may resist that, but it isn't going to be able to move in the precise opposite direction at the precise rate, especially when it itself has motion. The reactive force of a cup on a table works because the table itself is braced against the floor - what acts to prevent the movement of the first atom?
Admittedly this is where it becomes a little less simple because it is necessary to look at the full picture. Take an instant in time for this one oxygen molecule. When it isn't at absolute zero, both atoms are in the process of moving: if the bond between them was severed, they would both be going off in who-knows what direction.
When they are bonded, they both still have this kinetic energy. The first atom is moving one way, the second is moving another, and while each might exert a reactive force, they have only the energy they currently possess with which to resist the motion, braced as they are against nothing, and this energy cannot be enough as it is already in use. It is going to take a different amount of energy to resist every possible angle and intensity of motion, which cannot possibly stay consistent, especially not for both atoms simultaneously. If one needs X amount energy to stop, and another needs X+1, the bond is only going to be able to limit one, meaning an end result of 1/-1 (-1 just being a 1 in the opposite direction. yes I'm conflating energy and velocity somewhat here, but as far as the explanation goes, the broad strokes hold).
The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference!
This runs into the 'needs to happen' situation. It's much like how mathematicians will say the number 1 is not a prime - it isn't really for reasons of definition, but rather just because they have a bunch of formulas that only work if 1 isn't prime. It is always going to be easy to define a concept in such a way that some flaws just don't show up, but it's only ever going to be true if you accept that specific definition. When dealing with something as abstract as prime numbers, it's not so big a deal - when dealing with a practical concept like heat, it's a little more questionable.
Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other
This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.
I have to say I don't follow the full thrust of what you are trying to get across in your example with the oxygen molecule, so it is hard for me to engage it properly. Sorry.
Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint? You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?
If this is your complaint, I think I understand what you are saying, but a fixed and rigid state isn't quite the way matter is described. Take a block of pure perfect diamond. Each carbon molecule is locked into a specific tetrahedral configuration, but it isn't motionless. All the atoms (approximately) act as harmonic oscillators, wobbling back and forth along bond axes, and twisting in and out of defined bond angles and planes. These molecular vibrations occur at specific frequencies, and can be measured, and the energy associated with the motion calculated. Energy can be added to the system, increasing the magnitude of these vibrations, and energy can be taken out, reducing them.
This is an incredibly useful conceptualization of temperature and heat in interacting molecules. It helps explain concepts such as phase changes, the diffusivities of gases in solids, and a myriad of other molecular (and biomolecular) phenomena.
If you have a practical problem with it though, more than happy to hear about it.
-
Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint? You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?
Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.
-
Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint? You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?
Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.
Neat and symmetrical? Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that. Is that how you picture the vibration?
-
Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint? You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?
Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.
Neat and symmetrical? Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that. Is that how you picture the vibration?
Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.
-
Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint? You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?
Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.
Neat and symmetrical? Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that. Is that how you picture the vibration?
Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.
Why is perfectly balanced motion needed? Why is not just the statistical behavior of a huge number of coupled harmonic oscillators sufficient?
-
Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint? You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?
Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.
Neat and symmetrical? Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that. Is that how you picture the vibration?
Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.
Why is perfectly balanced motion needed? Why is not just the statistical behavior of a huge number of coupled harmonic oscillators sufficient?
Because if it is not perfectly balanced, then it is not at rest. Statistical behavior still grants both oddities and exceptions, while rest is universal.
-
Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other
This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.
Of course it would. Just because the atoms and molecules are bonded to each other, that doesn't mean that they can't vibrate quite vigorously as they absorb heat. In fact, if they absorb enough heat, then the atoms and molecules vibrate so vigorously that the bonds are broken resulting in the solid object melting or sublimating.
-
Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint? You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?
Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.
Neat and symmetrical? Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that. Is that how you picture the vibration?
Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.
Why is perfectly balanced motion needed? Why is not just the statistical behavior of a huge number of coupled harmonic oscillators sufficient?
Because if it is not perfectly balanced, then it is not at rest. Statistical behavior still grants both oddities and exceptions, while rest is universal.
Rest is universal? I'm really struggling to follow you here. I understand you don't accept that molecular vibrations are a part of heat in thermodynamics, but I cant figure out why you think this way. Its not really clear from what you are saying.
Sorry.
-
"motion" vs "vibration"
again
adding heat doesn't mean whacking a cue ball into the racked balls
again
hot steel glows red
why's it glowing?
is it "vibrating" if pulsing electrons are going up and down?
is it "moving" like a flying nitrogen atom at room temp?
but keep ignoring.
i'm probably being irrelevant.
-
Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other
This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.
Of course it would. Just because the atoms and molecules are bonded to each other, that doesn't mean that they can't vibrate quite vigorously as they absorb heat.
It is all very well to say that. Explaining how molecules can move and the object remain still however is a very different story.
Rest is universal? I'm really struggling to follow you here. I understand you don't accept that molecular vibrations are a part of heat in thermodynamics, but I cant figure out why you think this way. Its not really clear from what you are saying.
How is anything ever at rest?
That question might be the simplest way of posing it. When does the situation described in Newton's First Law ever hold?
i'm probably being irrelevant.
You are. I don't see why you keep trying to get involved in a discussion you plainly aren't following. Don't just read my posts, read the posts of the other users I am happily talking to. When you previously post lies like "heat example of steel vs nitrogen is relevant because you brought it up," it is clear you're just getting in the way of actually interesting discussion. Please stop.
-
if you were to brign up say... oxygen molecules flying in a chaotic excited state becuase they are have heat then similarly - nitrogen - where gases at room temp the heat is enough to shake the atoms appart and break their covalent bonds
if you were to bring up a boat filled with dancing people as your ewxample that has heat yet the boat falls appart but a single person doesn't then similarly - heated steel shows rthey're not dancing but the electrons, as part of the matrix of the molecule/ atom are getting excited and the atoms are vibrating by growing and shrinking - not laterally-dirctionally swinging back and forth.
follow your own line of discussion.
geesh
you keep saying newtonian physics applying to how an atom vibrates to heat.
it doesn't apply
-
If you cannot see the connection
And there you go with more misrepresentations.
I never said I can't see the connection.
I can see the connection, but it is just getting further and further away from the original problem and in way addresses the problem.
You are using the connection to distract from the actual issue you initially alleged.
That is why you are not engaging.
You came alleging a specific issue, and now you are running away from that issue.
My very first statement on this topic was
Or, lets see it in full:
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
And this is on a thread which was then focusing on Newton's laws of motion.
There is no indication here that you are objecting to the idea of heat manifesting itself as vibration.
Instead you appear to be attacking Newton's laws of motion.
Specifically trying to claim there is a "lack of consensus" between different areas of science, where you misrepresent heat as random motion instead of chaotic motion to try to claim the laws of motion don't hold in that case.
If you were trying to focus on the entire idea of heat being wrong, rather than the laws of motion, it has no place in this thread.
The single particle case, focusing purely on heat/temperature, thus has no place (and only shows your lack of understanding as the temperature of a single particle makes no sense).
No. I responded in such a way because your reply did not give an answer.
You mean it didn't give the answer you wanted.
The answer was in the post, you ignored it.
I explained why the change in motion gets cancelled out.
You falsely pretend that the motion is entirely random, ignoring what actually causes the change in direction.
You claimed there was a lack of consensus, implying a contradiction. I showed that no such contradiction exists.
If you instead want to change the discussion to just trying to justify the laws of motion, instead of trying to claim there is a contradiction/lack of consensus, go ahead.
You are saying that my conclusion is wrong because my conclusion is wrong
No, I am saying your claim of a contradiction/lack of consensus is wrong, due to you misrepresenting what heat is.
Conversely you are saying your conclusion is correct, because your conclusion is correct.
I am saying that internal forces, particularly at the edges of an object, could easily see that object's net force reach an imbalance because of simple logical implication
You have no simple logical implication. You are just claiming that it can, with no justification at all.
I am saying that is wrong due to the well established laws of motion.
Your claim effectively amounts to claiming things will just magically start moving in some random direction for no reason at all.
Yes, I ignored your line of reasoning about modelling, because it wasn't relevant to the discussion on the way heat functions
Again, the issue is not heat, it is the laws of motion.
You brought it up, as if the laws of motion break down for any object and thus to accurately model the object and how it moves you would need to model it as individual particles.
And it was at least somewhat relevant to that.
Quite unlike you trying to discuss the temperature of an individual particle, which has no connection at all to the motion of the individual particles inside an object composed of many.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing
If I was just arguing for the sake of arguing I wouldn't care if you changed topic as that would just give more to argue. Instead trying to get you to actually deal with what I have said and admit you are wrong kills the argument.
Conversely what you are doing is far more consistent with arguing for the sake of arguing.
And before you accuse me of cutting out your 'it's CHAOTIC' response, it is more of the same 'this is how it MUST work' fallacy
No, it is more of the "You are completely misrepresenting the model of heat you are claiming there is a problem with, with your claim that there is a problem reliant upon this baseless misrepresentation"
Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen atoms, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither atom is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.
Why is the vibration of the first atom strictly and exclusively going to be horizontal, with zero vertical component whatsoever?
You left out a key part, what is the initial motion of the atoms?
Considering you want to keep it simple, lets say the one of the left is moving in the positive x direction and the other is moving in the negative x direction.
Now, there is no motion at all in the y direction. Why should either of the atoms magically start moving in the y direction?
Again, your augment relies upon assuming things will just magically accelerate for no reason at all.
If instead there is relative motion in the y direction, then after a tiny fraction of time, they will no longer be aligned along the x axis, instead there will be a displacement in the y direction. This can in turn provide a force in the y direction. (And before you try claiming that isn't vibration, and instead it is rotation of the oxygen molecule, remember that is entirely your claim. I am not the one claiming heat is just vibration. Instead I would say heat is thermal energy being transferred between objects and this can be stored in the object in several ways, where vibration is just one. Another is rotation. For gasses another is translation.)
Again, start reading what I am saying and try responding to that.
It is not the motion that is cancelled, it is the CHANGE in motion.
So the question is what causes either particle to change its motion?
It cannot react in the way the mainstream model requires for it to be at rest - it would be dragged, if this model is the case.
The mainstream model doesn't say it is at rest.
It says without an external force, the overall motion of the oxygen molecule (i.e. the motion of the centre of mass of the molecule) will not change.
If you have one particle "at rest" and the other moving upwards, the overall motion of the molecule is already upwards.
The mainstream model therefore does not state nor require the molecule to be at rest. Instead it says it will continue moving with that upwards motion.
The molecule will vibrate and rotate as it moves upwards, but overall, the centre of mass will just move upwards at the same constant rate.
It is only if an external force is applied that that will change.
This was also highlighted at the very start.
The bulk object can be "at rest" which means the centre of mass is not moving, while the individual particles which make it move around.
-
And if you do want to just try focusing on the issue of the laws of motion, then feel free to just focus on the oxygen example of that post.
The key question is what is the current motion of those atoms, and far more importantly, how does that change over time, including what causes that change?
-
Explaining how molecules can move and the object remain still however is a very different story.
It all depends on whether you're interested in the individual molecules or the object as a whole. Quantum mechanics is interested in how atoms that make up an object behave while Newtonian mechanics is interested how the object as a whole behaves.
-
"motion" vs "vibration"
again
adding heat doesn't mean whacking a cue ball into the racked balls
again
hot steel glows red
why's it glowing?
is it "vibrating" if pulsing electrons are going up and down?
is it "moving" like a flying nitrogen atom at room temp?
but keep ignoring.
i'm probably being irrelevant.
Rub your hands together.
-
Rest is universal? I'm really struggling to follow you here. I understand you don't accept that molecular vibrations are a part of heat in thermodynamics, but I cant figure out why you think this way. Its not really clear from what you are saying.
How is anything ever at rest?
That question might be the simplest way of posing it. When does the situation described in Newton's First Law ever hold?
Newtons First Law states that if an object is under no net external forces, dv/dt=0. This concept is used extensively throughout science and engineering. In fact, there is an entire area of engineering mechanics, named Statics, that is concerned with the analysis of loads (forces and moments) acting on physical systems that do not experience an acceleration (dv/dt=0, ie. Newton's first law holds).
It is foundational (ha!) to any field of engineering where people actually design and build things where material stresses and strains are important: civil, mechanical, aeronautical, naval, etc. And this concept, mechanics constrained by sigma(F) = 0 and dv/dt=0, is used literally all the time in the analysis, design, and creation of all the engineered systems we interact with on a daily basis.
So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no? Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?
-
Newton's first law is bullshit then and contradictd his other law of attraction which states that every object in the universe with mass is attracted to each other
So while that pretty looking grain of sand on a beach on a planet far away in the galaxy GN-z11, it is not at rest. It is being tugged by me, you and everything in the universe around it. Likewise it is pulling at me, and while it may seem like an insignificant number, that numbers value is NOT zero
No object is at rest. Ever
-
Or, lets see it in full:
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
And this is on a thread which was then focusing on Newton's laws of motion.
There is no indication here that you are objecting to the idea of heat manifesting itself as vibration.
Instead you appear to be attacking Newton's laws of motion.
Specifically trying to claim there is a "lack of consensus" between different areas of science, where you misrepresent heat as random motion instead of chaotic motion to try to claim the laws of motion don't hold in that case.
If you were trying to focus on the entire idea of heat being wrong, rather than the laws of motion, it has no place in this thread.
A criticism of the credibility of mainstream academia overall seems very relevant - the fact the scientific consensus cannot function as a whole is and was relevant. Naturally I did not break down my entire worldview in a simple post meant to make a different point.
When pushed on this topic, of course I explained myself more. Looking for intentionally bad-faith readings only exposes your own insecurity.
You left out a key part, what is the initial motion of the atoms?
Considering you want to keep it simple, lets say the one of the left is moving in the positive x direction and the other is moving in the negative x direction.
Now, there is no motion at all in the y direction. Why should either of the atoms magically start moving in the y direction?
Again, your augment relies upon assuming things will just magically accelerate for no reason at all.
Again, you are only providing what you want to be the case. You are not justifying yourself.
Okay then, this is your argument - that the source of motion affects two adjacent molecules in precisely opposite fashions. How then is this achieved?
You are spending a lot of time saying very little of substance.
The mainstream model doesn't say it is at rest.
It says without an external force, the overall motion of the oxygen molecule (i.e. the motion of the centre of mass of the molecule) will not change.
If you follow the beliefs in reference frames, these are the same thing. Further, yes the overall object will be at rest while the molecules are not, this is what I said, you repeating it doesn't make you look smarter. This is just more lazy acting-superior while saying nothing. Try to keep focused, this is tediouis otherwise.
Explaining how molecules can move and the object remain still however is a very different story.
It all depends on whether you're interested in the individual molecules or the object as a whole. Quantum mechanics is interested in how atoms that make up an object behave while Newtonian mechanics is interested how the object as a whole behaves.
Quantum mechanics is much more concerned with the subdivisions of atoms. Quantum behavior is not what I'm appealing to - if you think it offers an answer, then you are welcome to provide it, but it generally seems to just be used as a distraction.
So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no? Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?
Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.
-
Seems to be irrelwvant and goes unanswersed.
Are we talking heat in fre atoms (billard bals) or atoms linked in a matrix with only "virbations" as a method to absorb heat.
Ohooo
-
So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no? Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?
Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.
Once again, Im really struggling to follow your logic from what you are writing.
I'm not sure how the widespread use of Newtons first law in engineering somehow "proves your point", which I originally thought was that you are of the opinion that the kinetic energy of molecular collisions and vibrations is not the internal energy that can be transferred from one object to another as heat, but now seems to me to be about the universality of rest or the need for perfect balance or something like that?
-
So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no? Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?
Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.
Once again, Im really struggling to follow your logic from what you are writing.
I'm not sure how the widespread use of Newtons first law in engineering somehow "proves your point", which I originally thought was that you are of the opinion that the kinetic energy of molecular collisions and vibrations is not the internal energy that can be transferred from one object to another as heat, but now seems to me to be about the universality of rest or the need for perfect balance or something like that?
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Over the course of discussion, this shifted to the fact I disbelieve the typical explanation for heat-as-vibration, which is one resolution to the above problem.
-
So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no? Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?
Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.
Once again, Im really struggling to follow your logic from what you are writing.
I'm not sure how the widespread use of Newtons first law in engineering somehow "proves your point", which I originally thought was that you are of the opinion that the kinetic energy of molecular collisions and vibrations is not the internal energy that can be transferred from one object to another as heat, but now seems to me to be about the universality of rest or the need for perfect balance or something like that?
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Over the course of discussion, this shifted to the fact I disbelieve the typical explanation for heat-as-vibration, which is one resolution to the above problem.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
And if you want to say that the concept of no net external forces is scientifically meaningless, that's okay with me.
I would disagree though, I think it has lots of meaning as an idealized concept, and an incredibly useful concept in practice.
Guess that is the nature of opinions!
Speaking of opinions, getting back to the idea of the kinetic energy of molecular collisions as internal energy that can be transferred from system to system as heat, what is your opinion then on what is going on. Do molecular vibrations not occur in your mind? or do they not contain energy?
and if they are not the source of heat flow, what exactly is?
-
Speaking of opinions, getting back to the idea of the kinetic energy of molecular collisions as internal energy that can be transferred from system to system as heat, what is your opinion then on what is going on. Do molecular vibrations not occur in your mind? or do they not contain energy?
and if they are not the source of heat flow, what exactly is?
Everyone's certainly welcome to believe their own things. Dissenting opinions are a good way of being sure you're following it for a good reason, and not just because it's what you're used to.
I don't believe molecular vibrations occur in the way that is described. Molecular movement does occur, as is obvious on a macro level, and logically smaller forces would see it occur on a molecule-by-molecule basis, but it is not nearly the constant thing that the heat model suggests - if you could divorce something from the larger world entirely, all the forces causes by stray wind and passing cars, it would truly be at rest regardless of its temperature.
Heat, I believe, is simply an intrinsic property - the physical manifestation of heat is akin to the physical manifestation of velocity, it exists purely in how the object behaves. No molecule-level anomalies are required.
-
Speaking of opinions, getting back to the idea of the kinetic energy of molecular collisions as internal energy that can be transferred from system to system as heat, what is your opinion then on what is going on. Do molecular vibrations not occur in your mind? or do they not contain energy?
and if they are not the source of heat flow, what exactly is?
Everyone's certainly welcome to believe their own things. Dissenting opinions are a good way of being sure you're following it for a good reason, and not just because it's what you're used to.
I don't believe molecular vibrations occur in the way that is described. Molecular movement does occur, as is obvious on a macro level, and logically smaller forces would see it occur on a molecule-by-molecule basis, but it is not nearly the constant thing that the heat model suggests - if you could divorce something from the larger world entirely, all the forces causes by stray wind and passing cars, it would truly be at rest regardless of its temperature.
Heat, I believe, is simply an intrinsic property - the physical manifestation of heat is akin to the physical manifestation of velocity, it exists purely in how the object behaves. No molecule-level anomalies are required.
I also like heterogeneity of thought. In my mind, crazy, wild ideas and opinions are great as long as they are not malicious in nature!
Okay on your opinions on molecular vibrations. What leads you to this opinion? Is it just how you feel? Have you studied much chemistry? I love physical chemistry and find it deep and compelling. Have you looked much at it?
-
Okay on your opinions on molecular vibrations. What leads you to this opinion? Is it just how you feel? Have you studied much chemistry? I love physical chemistry and find it deep and compelling. Have you looked much at it?
I did some years ago - I will admit I am a little rusty these days, though if pressed it shouldn't take me too long to refamiliarise myself. It was interesting enough, though I cannot pretend I saw it as much more than an ever-increasing list of elements being tacked on. That is one of the things that made me first become wary: so much of the modern-day consensus seems like things being thrown at a hypothesis until something sticks, as opposed to moving past it. It suggested a motive beyond mere honesty to me.
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.
What chafe? Where is the contradictions? Beyond personal misunderstandings and intentional misstatements about terminology.
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.
What chafe? Where is the contradictions? Beyond personal misunderstandings and intentional misstatements about terminology.
You would claim any objection fit those categories. I don't see any actual rebuttal there.
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.
so... can i bring up quantum vs newtonian again?
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.
Sure, there's some overlap between Newton and thermodynamics, but they each have a different primary focus and different tools that work better in their respective realms. As the old saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. Or, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.
Sure, there's some overlap between Newton and thermodynamics, but they each have a different primary focus and different tools that work better in their respective realms. As the old saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. Or, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Is this going anywhere?
-
Is this going anywhere?
I suppose that depends on where you're trying to get.
-
Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Newton's laws deal with forces and motion. Thermodynamics deals with heat. They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.
Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.
What chafe? Where is the contradictions? Beyond personal misunderstandings and intentional misstatements about terminology.
You would claim any objection fit those categories. I don't see any actual rebuttal there.
I would claim it fits those categories if they fit. If it's been explained but you intentionally ignore and/or mischaracterize those explanations, then it does, like you do quite alot. You claimed a contradiction, explain your claim.
-
I would claim it fits those categories if they fit. If it's been explained but you intentionally ignore and/or mischaracterize those explanations, then it does, like you do quite alot. You claimed a contradiction, explain your claim.
I've done that. You're providing vague categories that presumably your objections fit into, but you haven't given them. Unless you just decided to start talking to me without reading the argument I made.
Is this going anywhere?
I suppose that depends on where you're trying to get.
I was hoping for something that would serve as a counterpoint or argument. Vague scientific factoids with no immediately apparent ramifications felt like they were going somewhere, but then you stopped before you tied them to anything, hence my confusion.
-
Newton's first law is bullshit then and contradictd his other law of attraction which states that every object in the universe with mass is attracted to each other
It doesn't matter if you want the force model of gravity, or the curved space time. Neither contradicts Newton's first law.
In the force model of gravity, gravity is a force. When gravity acts on an object, an external force acts on the object and thus the "unless acted upon by an external force" part of the first law means it doesn't apply.
In the curved space time model, the object continues on its path through curved space time, and with that idea, objects are always moving through spacetime.
-
When pushed on this topic, of course I explained myself more. Looking for intentionally bad-faith readings only exposes your own insecurity.
Again, that "explanation" was still focusing on alleging that Newton's laws didn't work.
It is not bad-faith readings. It is simply honestly reading what is said in context.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
And there you go admitting I was not using any bad-faith readings of what you were saying. Instead I was honestly presenting it.
Again, you are only providing what you want to be the case. You are not justifying yourself.
No, once again, I am pointing your model relies upon you doing just that.
Your alleged contradiction relies upon you making baseless assumptions which are simply not the case.
Baselessly assuming your atoms will just magically accelerate for no reason at all, rather than following the well established laws of motion, to try to then claim there is a contradiction between the laws of motion and heat, because of this alleged random motion.
If you remove that baseless assumption, there is no contradiction. (Again, until you get to quantum mechanics, as that is in contrast to Newtonian mechanics).
Okay then, this is your argument - that the source of motion affects two adjacent molecules in precisely opposite fashions.
No, it isn't.
Again, try actually reading what I have said and responding to it.
Again, it isn't the SOURCE of motion, it is HOW THE MOTION CHANGES OVER TIME.
The reason that pairs up is because the only thing capable of changing the motion of one of the atoms is the other atom.
You are spending a lot of time saying very little of substance.
There you go projecting again.
If you follow the beliefs in reference frames, these are the same thing.
Then why appeal to one atom dragging the other?
What I quoted with that as a response was you claiming that one atom would be dragged by the other.
But if you do "follow the beliefs in reference frames" this is the same as being at rest, as the 2 atoms would be moving together.
YOU objected claiming that you couldn't have the atoms remain at rest, and that at best one would drag the other with it, comparing this to a cup on a table because the table has the ground to keep it "at rest".
That certainly seems like you need it to be actually at rest, rather than just moving at a constant velocity.
If you are happy to follow the "beliefs in reference frames", then by switching to the reference frame of the centre of mass of the molecule, by definition the 2 atoms MUST be moving such that their motion exactly cancels.
So that would be the choice of reference frame making the motion cancel.
This is just more lazy acting-superior while saying nothing. Try to keep focused, this is tediouis otherwise.
And there you go with more projections.
-
Seems to be irrelwvant and goes unanswersed.
Are we talking heat in fre atoms (billard bals) or atoms linked in a matrix with only "virbations" as a method to absorb heat.
Ohooo
Everything is heat because everything is vibrational frequency because everything is under energy and everything is under pressure.
The only difference to them all is in how much energy and how much vibrational frequency and how much pressure.
Everything is heat.
What we feel as heat is due to massive frictional frequency. There's plenty going on at the other end of the hat scale which we term as freezing...but it is not without heat/vibration.
-
Okay on your opinions on molecular vibrations. What leads you to this opinion? Is it just how you feel? Have you studied much chemistry? I love physical chemistry and find it deep and compelling. Have you looked much at it?
I did some years ago - I will admit I am a little rusty these days, though if pressed it shouldn't take me too long to refamiliarise myself. It was interesting enough, though I cannot pretend I saw it as much more than an ever-increasing list of elements being tacked on. That is one of the things that made me first become wary: so much of the modern-day consensus seems like things being thrown at a hypothesis until something sticks, as opposed to moving past it. It suggested a motive beyond mere honesty to me.
Interesting how different you experienced things. For me it was the exact opposite, the further I went into the subject, the more focused and elegantly simple everything seemed to become. There seemed to me to be a base set of physical concepts that were used to describe everything, and while the quantitative application of those concepts could be difficult in complex scenarios, the core ideas themselves never muted.
And then from my side, I actually got to use these concepts in the research and design of complex macromolecular systems. I’ve actually spent a good amount of time working indirectly and directly with the ideas of temperature as kinetic energy, and found it to be a powerful conceptualization in the creation and modulation of interesting and controllable biomolecules systems.
I’ll give you an example. I assume you know what a protein is - chains of amino acids that fold into complex shapes that can act as amazing tiny biochemical machines. In many proteins, these chains spontaneously fold into globular structures due the intramolecular attractions in concert with allowable bond rotation and steric considerations. These little globular proteins “breathe”, slightly opening and closing through random fluctuations. When they “open”, they can expose their active site and perform their enzymatic reaction on a molecule that fits in, and when they are “closed”, they can’t. How you can control this opening and closing becomes a wonderful example where temperature as increased bond vibrational energy should be readily apparent, and opens up a variety of avenues if for example you wanted to control its behaviour.
Anyway, don’t mean to bore you, just wanted to say that your view is not the only view out there. Although you didn’t like our collective concepts of physical chemistry, others like myself find beauty and elegance in it, and further, a powerful means of discovery and control. And this isn’t always a view based on what some authority has said, but one gained from study and thought and reason and practice.
-
Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.
There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.
When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.
To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.
-
Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.
There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.
When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.
To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.
You are certainly welcome to that opinion, and you can build whatever imaginary world you would like in your mind. If you like to pretend everything is connected, go for it.
-
Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.
There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.
When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.
To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.
You are certainly welcome to that opinion, and you can build whatever imaginary world you would like in your mind. If you like to pretend everything is connected, go for it.
If you like to pretend they aren't then you go for it.
-
Again, it isn't the SOURCE of motion, it is HOW THE MOTION CHANGES OVER TIME.
The reason that pairs up is because the only thing capable of changing the motion of one of the atoms is the other atom.
Again, a lot of time saying absolutely nothing. Posturing, insults, complete misrepresentations of this discussion, appeals to nebulous laws of motion that are awfully convenient and awfully absent from your actual explanation, and then this. This is at least an attempt to address the problem properly, unlike the rest of your post. (Seriously, when you need to intentionally quote the opening of my post out of order to make some accusation, that should be your hint that you're low on credibility).
The problem is that it does not work - heat is never this static. Every object is losing heat, by this model, and every object had head imparted to it. This explanation might work for an object that has been at a fixed temperature for eternity, though even then I doubt it. You still require a lot of convenience for all that motion, gained and lost, all that imbalance to even out to a situation that could even begin to be described as 'The only thing capable of changing the motion of one atom is the other atom.'
What you are describing is spontaneous movement. Two atoms that randomly decide to jump away from each other and thus cancel out the motion. Oh, I'm sorry - two atoms that press against each other, then bounce off, then their bond pulls them closer... never once with any asymmetry, never once with any other angle.
At least it's clear why you pad out your post with so much aggression. This is a system that could never physically come into being by any natural means.
Then why appeal to one atom dragging the other?
What I quoted with that as a response was you claiming that one atom would be dragged by the other.
But if you do "follow the beliefs in reference frames" this is the same as being at rest, as the 2 atoms would be moving together.
YOU objected claiming that you couldn't have the atoms remain at rest, and that at best one would drag the other with it, comparing this to a cup on a table because the table has the ground to keep it "at rest".
That certainly seems like you need it to be actually at rest, rather than just moving at a constant velocity.
If you are happy to follow the "beliefs in reference frames", then by switching to the reference frame of the centre of mass of the molecule, by definition the 2 atoms MUST be moving such that their motion exactly cancels.
So that would be the choice of reference frame making the motion cancel.
What are you even arguing about? If you want to have a discussion be remotely possible, which I am really starting to doubt given your behavior, try to at least stay on topic rather than go off on drug-induced tangents.
1. I never said I believed in reference frames, but when talking about the mainstream, the mainstream rules apply
2. This was just to simplify your talk of at rest/constant speed
3. The only reference frames considered equivalent are those moving at said constant velocity. If the center of mass's is changing, as it would be buffeted in multiple directions, that is not relevant, and is just more circular arguing
4. This is yet again just 'I need this to be the case' and not 'This is why this is the case.'
-
Everything is heat.
So you no longer claim that everything is air?
Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
That is your baseless you have failed to support in any way, which is refuted by simple experiments.
Repeating the same lie to continue to dismiss reality as hogwash, will not magically make your lie true.
If you want to claim crazy things like that, try to justify it.
And while you are at it, try to justify the rest of your nonsense by answering the simple questions:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
Why does heat vibration have to be solely movement!!!????!!!???!!!?
Ill just keep being irrelevant as long as you keep insisting vibrationing means vectored movement.
Because when an atom mazes out to absorb any more potential energy it changes to kinetic and starts moving.
And we have bonds breaking and atoms whizzing.
So.... irrelevantly ill say again - liquid nitrogen or oxygen.
And red hot steel and guys in a boat who are not dancing, but waving their arms wildly.
-
Again, a lot of time saying absolutely nothing. Posturing, insults, complete misrepresentations of this discussion
Again, projecting your own inadequacies.
Again, if you want to try claiming there is a contradiction with the mainstream models, then they are NOT appeals to "nebulous laws".
Instead it is using the laws of motion to show internal consistence.
The problem is that it does not work - heat is never this static. Every object is losing heat
Which involves external interactions and thus is not what is being discussed.
Again, what we are discussing is heat in an object completely isolated such that no heat is lost, and no heat is gained, and no heat is exchanged with other objects.
Yet again you are trying to distract from the simple example that shows there is no problem.
Again, if you are bringing in heat being transferred from or to the object, it is a different issue entirely. The first law is no longer a problem because you have an external force being applied.
What you are describing is spontaneous movement. Two atoms that randomly decide to jump away from each other and thus cancel out the motion.
No, I'm not. Not in the slightest.
What you are describing are 2 atoms randomly deciding to just jump around all over the place, with no cause for their change in motion.
What I am describing are the 2 atoms interacting such that the force on one is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force on the other, meanign the change in velocity of one of the atoms will balance with the change in velocity of the other, keeping the centre of mass moving at a consistent velocity.
Again, what magic is there to make one atom move without a corresponding change in the other?
Again, you are the one claiming there is a contradiction, so show the contradiction, don't just assert it must exist.
What are you even arguing about?
I am pointing out how an honest reading of your words, indicates that you were acting like the molecule needs to magically be at rest rather than continuing with the same motion, with you appealing to one atom dragging the other acting like they would be moving along, which would still allow for a constant velocity for the centre of mass.
If the center of mass's is changing, as it would be buffeted in multiple directions, that is not relevant, and is just more circular arguing
4. This is yet again just 'I need this to be the case' and not 'This is why this is the case.'
Well point 4 is certainly correct, with you claiming it must be the case because you need it to be the case for your attack to work.
-
then they are NOT appeals to "nebulous laws".
When all you say is 'The alws say it's fine' and then fail to say which laws, or how they show it's fine, then it very much is. The quote of yours I was responding to was "Baselessly assuming your atoms will just magically accelerate for no reason at all, rather than following the well established laws of motion, to try to then claim there is a contradiction between the laws of motion and heat, because of this alleged random motion." Note the lack of any actual chain of implication beyond "I am saying it works."
Yet again you are trying to distract from the simple example that shows there is no problem.
You are describing a situation that could not possibly arise naturally -as I said - and insist me pointing that out is off-topic. You are appealing to magic in order to set up a perfect, impossible system every single time an object is not at absolute zero. No distraction - this is crucial to your whole claim.
I am pointing out how an honest reading of your words, indicates that you were acting like the molecule needs to magically be at rest rather than continuing with the same motion, with you appealing to one atom dragging the other acting like they would be moving along, which would still allow for a constant velocity for the centre of mass.
You either don't understand what you're talking about, or you just can't let anything go (and I await your inevitable childish 'You're projecting again!!!!!!!!111!!''). The idea that this and constant velocity of center the mass are the same thing is simply false. But of course, your usual tactic, complaining that you never said they were the same thing, even though if you aren't saying that, this is utterly pointless. You throw out implications, I do the charitable thing of assuming they're relevant, and then you throw a fit that I dared read into your posts.
-
When all you say is 'The alws say it's fine' and then fail to say which laws, or how they show it's fine, then it very much is.
Good thing that wasn't what I was doing.
But again, that does appear to be all you do.
You try to justify there being a contradiction, by just asserting there must be.
Again, can you explain how one of the atoms changes velocity, without the other one having a corresponding change in velocity?
The quote of yours I was responding to was "Baselessly...
So not the part you actually quoted to respond to, and the part where I was showing how you were doing the very thing you accused me of, rather than the part which is actually explaining why there is no contradiction?
You are describing a situation that could not possibly arise naturally
It is an idealised case.
Just like the entire first law of motion. There is almost always going to be some external force acting.
So are you now changing your claim yet again to be that the idealised case can't exist due to external forces, rather than focusing on how you started with the internal forcing allegedly making the overall object being at rest impossible?
You either don't understand what you're talking about, or you just can't let anything go (and I await your inevitable childish 'You're projecting again!!!!!!!!111!!'').
So I'm not supposed to call you out for doing the very thing you accuse others of?
Just what was "one atom drags the other" meant to mean, other than both are moving together?
Here is the part of the post that was from:
Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.
You appealed to one of the atoms needing to be fixed in place, implying it being at rest, absolutely.
You pointed out that without that being fixed in place, you need them to have the up and down motion cancel perfectly, and that otherwise, one atom will drag the other along, i.e. the centre of mass will move along.
The point is that by being able to pick any arbitrary reference frame, you can make the average velocity 0, that is you can pick a reference frame such that the upwards motion of one atom is perfectly cancelled by the other.
So by being able to pick any arbitrary reference frame, that comment of yours makes no sense.
-
Smono is doing a lot of whining.
Ill be irrelevant again and ask he clarifiy is issue about heat-motion-newton, as its been muddied up some along the way and clearly infleunced by their current spat in the DK thread.
-
Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.
There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.
When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.
To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.
You are certainly welcome to that opinion, and you can build whatever imaginary world you would like in your mind. If you like to pretend everything is connected, go for it.
If you like to pretend they aren't then you go for it.
Glad that you are okay with me thinking your imagined world only exists in your imagination!
Thanks. :)
-
It is an idealised case.
Just like the entire first law of motion. There is almost always going to be some external force acting.
So are you now changing your claim yet again to be that the idealised case can't exist due to external forces, rather than focusing on how you started with the internal forcing allegedly making the overall object being at rest impossible?
So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.
-
So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.
I haven't been backed into a corner. You are just looking for a way out without needing to justify your claim.
The law describes an idealised situation.
External forces will always be there if you wait long enough.
But that does not mean there is a contradiction or a lack of consenus.
Your posts indicated there is a contradiction even in the idealised case.
Are you now going to agree that there is no contradiction, and that the kinetic model of heat does not contradict with the laws of motion?
-
So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.
I haven't been backed into a corner. You are just looking for a way out without needing to justify your claim.
My claim was:
An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be moving.
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
The law describes a situation that cannot occur. You now agree that it cannot occur. You are still trying to fight.
-
So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.
I haven't been backed into a corner. You are just looking for a way out without needing to justify your claim.
My claim was:
An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be moving.
This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.
That was ONE part of your claim, and I have emphasised a fairly important part.
You are appealing to each part of it exerting a force on every other part of it, not on external things applying a force.
And when you have those external things applying a force which doesn't balance out, the thing as a whole is not stationary.
You also indicated a lack of consensus, implying a contradiction between various parts of science.
But again, no such contradiction exists between the kinetic model of heat and Newtons' laws of motion.
Other parts of your claim include:
Simply that an object cannot be at rest when every part of it is undergoing motion.
Again, no appeal to external forces moving it.
We are talking about the heat present in this object: that energy is an additional factor that must be accounted for. That energy makes each particle move independently, it does not make just one particle move that the other might resist, it imparts motion onto both. Why would this motion serve as a perfect mirror?
Here you are appealing specifically to the heat present IN the object, not interactions with other objects.
Equally, you talked about the difference in situations where heat is externally being added, as opposed to an object simply resting - okay then, imagine an object being heated, the random motions of molecules at this addition of an external force, only for that heating element to be taken away and the object allowed to reach a consistent non-zero temperature. How does order emerge from this chaos, how does the random movement of molecules even out in such a way that molecules pair off neatly and predictably?
Here you even go as far as noting that heat flowing in or out of an object and remove that source and have it reach a consistent temperature. (and when you include those normally dismissed as insignificant external interactions, just like it will never be at rest, it will never be a consistent temperature).
Again, do you agree that there is no contradiction/lack of scientific consensus?
Because that is what I have been "fighting" from the start. And that is why you haven't backed me into a corner, because you haven't shown that contradiction.
-
Thanks for reposting.
Ill co tinue being irrelevant by pointing iut your arguement that a SOLID object is at rest and trying to apply kinetic energy of an oxygen atom is misapplied.
Oxygen is normally not a solid object at room temp.
And the heat absorbed by liquid oxygen introduced to room temp is enough to cause vibrations such that the maxtrix bust any bonds and the stuff going flyig off.
So irrevelenatly spekaing, youre using one exmaple incorrectly applying it to another and saying it doesnt work by definition will yield an unworking model.
Your model is incorrect.
Try and be more correct.
-
I will repeat the question to Sceptimatic
Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What is the cause, of that motion?
Energy within the Earth.
in a cents that is true, that energy is the results of gravity.
-
Everything is heat.
So you no longer claim that everything is air?
Everything in the atmosphere and in Earth, is heat, including air.
Trying to twist it will not do anything to my argument.
-
I will repeat the question to Sceptimatic
Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What is the cause, of that motion?
Energy within the Earth.
in a cents that is true, that energy is the results of gravity.
The energy is the reason for the holographic moon from reflection from within the Earth centre.
Gravity does not exist and cannot even be described as a force. It's just a magical fantasy force to cater for what's really happening, which is reliant on atmospheric pressures pushing into each other all through the Earth....not pulling.
Gravity is absolute and utter nonsense in the extreme.
-
Everything in the atmosphere and in Earth, is heat, including air.
Trying to twist it will not do anything to my argument.
I wasn't twisting anything, just making a joke.
As for doing things to your argument, what argument?
So for all you have are baseless assertions that you can't defend at all.
It's just a magical fantasy force to cater for what's really happening
That would be the nonsense you promote, with you completely incapable of answering trivial questions which show the flaws in it.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
Everything in the atmosphere and in Earth, is heat, including air.
Trying to twist it will not do anything to my argument.
I wasn't twisting anything, just making a joke.
Ahhh, I see.
-
Ahhh, I see.
Again, ignoring the questions wont magically make them go away. They still remain, and they still mean your model is DOA.
That would be the nonsense you promote, with you completely incapable of answering trivial questions which show the flaws in it.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
Let me see you make a description of what you're saying for both sayings and we'll then deal with it.
Your attempts to try and twist stuff will not work on me.
Let's see if you can explain both.
-
Let me see you make a description of what you're saying for both sayings and we'll then deal with it.
I already have, and when I did, you just ignored it or looked for ways to deflect.
Again, resistance to CHANGE IN MOTION is that you need to apply a force to accelerate an object.
A simple example is in a car, to accelerate it you step on the gas which then uses the engine to cause the wheels to push off Earth with Earth pushing back, with this force accelerating the car. Then to stop the car you also need to apply a force. If you simply stop using the accelerator, that force will come from various sources and quite slowly bring you to a stop. But if you want to stop quickly, then you apply the breaks. The breaks apply a force to slow the rate of rotation of the wheel, which in turn interacts with Earth to apply a force to slow the car down. This is still a form of acceleration and thus still requires a force to achieve.
The other important thing about this is that the more massive an object is, the more force is required to accelerate it. For example, a fully loaded truck takes more force to accelerate compared to an empty truck, regardless of if that is to make it go faster or slow it down.
You can also see this with a soccer ball vs a bowling ball. You can easily kick a soccer ball and have it accelerate quite a lot, but if you try that with a bowling ball, you will likely break your foot due to the greater mass and thus greater resistance.
So this shows that objects resist CHANGES in motion.
Resistance to RELATIVE MOTION on the other hand is that if there is relative motion between 2 objects, they resist that relative motion to try to eliminate it.
This can be seen with water sweeping things away, or the wind blowing things away, or putting your hand out the window in a moving vehicle and feeling it being pushed back.
This depends on the geometry of the object.
Your attempts to try and twist stuff will not work on me.
The only one twisting here is you.
-
Everything in the atmosphere and in Earth, is heat, including air.
Trying to twist it will not do anything to my argument.
I wasn't twisting anything, just making a joke.
Aha!
JackB is a liar!
He does NOT have a sense of humour
Hahah
-
Let me see you make a description of what you're saying for both sayings and we'll then deal with it.
I already have, and when I did, you just ignored it or looked for ways to deflect.
Again, resistance to CHANGE IN MOTION is that you need to apply a force to accelerate an object.
How does this correlate with constant velocity?
A simple example is in a car, to accelerate it you step on the gas which then uses the engine to cause the wheels to push off Earth with Earth pushing back, with this force accelerating the car.
Then to stop the car you also need to apply a force.
If you simply stop using the accelerator, that force will come from various sources and quite slowly bring you to a stop.
But if you want to stop quickly, then you apply the breaks.
The breaks apply a force to slow the rate of rotation of the wheel, which in turn interacts with Earth to apply a force to slow the car down.
So how does this correlate with constant velocity?
The other important thing about this is that the more massive an object is, the more force is required to accelerate it.
For example, a fully loaded truck takes more force to accelerate compared to an empty truck, regardless of if that is to make it go faster or slow it down.
You can also see this with a soccer ball vs a bowling ball.
Equal reaction to an action.
How does any of this correlate with constant velocity?
So this shows that objects resist CHANGES in motion.
Of course but we all knew this.
This isn't the argument.
The argument is in an object carrying on in the same motion unless acted upon by a resistance.
This is blatantly not true.
Resistance to RELATIVE MOTION on the other hand is that if there is relative motion between 2 objects, they resist that relative motion to try to eliminate it.
This can be seen with water sweeping things away, or the wind blowing things away, or putting your hand out the window in a moving vehicle and feeling it being pushed back.
This depends on the geometry of the object.
So resistance to relative motion is the car into the atmosphere which creates a friction back to the car or a hand waving out of it. Is that right?
No matter what there is a resistant force...right?
Now tell me how it works with constant velocity.
-
Hypitehtically if there was no air to cause the resistance to slow the car down, then would it slow down?
-
I will repeat the question to Sceptimatic
Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What is the cause, of that motion?
Energy within the Earth.
in a cents that is true, that energy is the results of gravity.
The energy is the reason for the holographic moon from reflection from within the Earth centre.
Gravity does not exist and cannot even be described as a force. It's just a magical fantasy force to cater for what's really happening, which is reliant on atmospheric pressures pushing into each other all through the Earth....not pulling.
Gravity is absolute and utter nonsense in the extreme.
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
-
How does any of this correlate with constant velocity?
I didn't state anything about constant velocity.
The only way it correlates is that if the velocity is changing, a force is being applied.
So this shows that objects resist CHANGES in motion.
Of course but we all knew this.
This isn't the argument.
The argument is that it is not simply resistance.
That a resistance to change in motion is different to a resistance to relative motion.
So thanks for showing yet again you have no interest in any honest discussion, and that all your requests for explanations are dishonest and useless.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect mirror.
-
How does any of this correlate with constant velocity?
I didn't state anything about constant velocity.
The only way it correlates is that if the velocity is changing, a force is being applied.
It doesn't correlate.
It's not a thing. Its fantasy and you're trying to argue for it by using relative resistance...etc.
-
How does any of this correlate with constant velocity?
I didn't state anything about constant velocity.
The only way it correlates is that if the velocity is changing, a force is being applied.
It doesn't correlate.
It's not a thing. Its fantasy and you're trying to argue for it by using relative resistance...etc.
There you go ignoring what I said yet again.
You can't deal with reality so you need to continually deflect.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
You can't deal with reality so you need to continually deflect.
I'm trying to deal with reality. Unfortunately I'm up against people like you who are hell bent on severely distorting it.
-
You can't deal with reality so you need to continually deflect.
I'm trying to deal with reality.
You are clearly trying to avoid it as much as possible.
If you actually wanted to deal with it you would have answered the simple questions which show your model is DOA.
And you wouldn't have played games asking me to describe the difference between resistance to change in motion and resistance to relative motion, only to pretty much ignore everything that was said and instead pretend it was all about constant velocity.
-
You can't deal with reality so you need to continually deflect.
I'm trying to deal with reality.
You are clearly trying to avoid it as much as possible.
If you actually wanted to deal with it you would have answered the simple questions which show your model is DOA.
And you wouldn't have played games asking me to describe the difference between resistance to change in motion and resistance to relative motion, only to pretty much ignore everything that was said and instead pretend it was all about constant velocity.
I'm not pretending it's all about constant velocity. You lot are pushing constant velocity and using the other stuff to back it up.
Trying to back up something which cannot happen.
Your issue is, you try too hard to twist stuff and end up in a frenzy.
It's pretty clear what your game is.
-
I'm not pretending it's all about constant velocity.
Yes you are.
That played no part at all in the questions I asked you.
You decided you would play along, but apparently only for 1 post, because when I provided what you demanded, you run straight off back on a tangent.
As for games, it is pretty clear what your game is, spout pure BS about the RE to pretend it doesn't work, along with anything else from mainstream science which can be used to support the RE; spout pure BS about the FE to pretend it actually works, and then continually refuse to justify your blatant lies as you cannot justify them, and avoid all refutations of them, because you cannot honestly object to them. Likewise you ignore any question that shows you are wrong.
To try to make this less obvious, you will occasionally play along, often playing dumb and pretending to genuinely ask questions to act like you are engaging, only to flee when you can't finish.
Grow up and answer the questions or admit your model is BS.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
-
Yes you are.
Yes I am, what?
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
-
Its light.
Light travels from one place hits a surface and travels back down.
More or less straight lines.
Give us a ball park.
-
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Interesting comma placement.
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Why not?
-
Yes I am, what?
If only you were honest enough to actually bother reading and responding to a comment rather than just picking a tiny part and playing dumb.
Grow up. Answer the questions that destroy your BS.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Why not?
Becaus eth powers that be have hidden its location.
Literally unmarked.
Thats fine if i predct correct that you, sceppy, will chose this path - so - specifically, within whos borders would this center sun be at?
Where should we start our search?
-
Its light.
Light travels from one place hits a surface and travels back down.
More or less straight lines.
Give us a ball park.
Go and look at how your so called planetarium works.
You see, what we vision in the sky from the centre is what we can actually do and mimic/copy on Earth, only on a much smaller scale due to us being small scale, compared.
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Why not?
So, you think those in power would tell us the truth and go and place it all on a map.
Of course you would because you accept anything put out. I don't, so that's basically your answer.
-
Yes I am, what?
If only you were honest enough to actually bother reading and responding to a comment rather than just picking a tiny part and playing dumb.
Grow up. Answer the questions that destroy your BS.
You need to grow up to be fair.
You get what you deserve.
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Why not?
Becaus eth powers that be have hidden its location.
Literally unmarked.
Thats fine if i predct correct that you, sceppy, will chose this path - so - specifically, within whos borders would this center sun be at?
Where should we start our search?
To start your search you need to go towards the centre. How you manage that, I don't know.
First of all you're going to be negotiating thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain as you start to ascend toward the centre.
The energy waves will not reach back to you as you are ascending. It would be so cold you could not survive.
So cold that vehicles would cease to operate.
Can I prove that? Absolutely not. Are you in need of believing anything I say? Absolutely not.
Take from it what you will....but.....you asked.
Maybe spend some time stopping yourself going into a frenzy of hate and give yourself some time to actually mull over alternate theories rather than trying to defend one you also have no real clue about but adhere to.
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Why not?
So, you think those in power would tell us the truth and go and place it all on a map.
Of course you would because you accept anything put out. I don't, so that's basically your answer.
Who are these people in power you speak of?
-
Who are these people in power you speak of?
That depends.
At the very top...who knows.
Some are pulling the strings for the puppets.
If you think nobody's running the show then you are entitled to that.
-
You get what you deserve.
What I deserve from you is an honest answer to the questions you continually avoid, or an admission that your model is pure nonsense which cannot replace gravity.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Why not?
Becaus eth powers that be have hidden its location.
Literally unmarked.
Thats fine if i predct correct that you, sceppy, will chose this path - so - specifically, within whos borders would this center sun be at?
Where should we start our search?
To start your search you need to go towards the centre. How you manage that, I don't know.
First of all you're going to be negotiating thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain as you start to ascend toward the centre.
The energy waves will not reach back to you as you are ascending. It would be so cold you could not survive.
So cold that vehicles would cease to operate.
This is the part I can never understand about your imagined world. In your mind, the source of all heat and life in our WorldCell is a giant hydrogen powered electrical arc, the light of which is reflected onto the ice dome by spinning magic crystals nearby.
If the source of all heat and energy in your imaginary world is at the center, why wouldn't it get warmer if you went towards it? Do the magic crystals encase it somehow so that none of its energy escapes expect through facets?
-
What I deserve from you is an honest answer to the questions you continually avoid
I've answered all of your questions. What I haven't done is continually answered the very same questions that you pretend I've never answered.
Anything I give you is my honest answer.
What you do with any of it is your business but don't start crying when your copy/paste gets overlooked or cherry picked.
-
This is the part I can never understand about your imagined world. In your mind, the source of all heat and life in our WorldCell is a giant hydrogen powered electrical arc, the light of which is reflected onto the ice dome by spinning magic crystals nearby.
It's not reflected by spinning magic crystals. Just through them.
Pay attention to what happens in life and how we can emulate what happens within (in my opinion). Ignoring it is fine but it doesn't help you get the gist of anything from an alternate point of view.
If the source of all heat and energy in your imaginary world is at the center, why wouldn't it get warmer if you went towards it?
Height and inability to reflect that heat back to specific points in any meaningful manner for life.
Do the magic crystals encase it somehow so that none of its energy escapes expect through facets?
Yes it is encased, sort of....in my opinion of course.
-
What I deserve from you is an honest answer to the questions you continually avoid
I've answered all of your questions.
No, you haven't.
You have done whatever you can to avoid them.
Such as last time when you played dumb and asked questions back and then just stopped responding when you couldn't come up with more, or just provided tiny non-answers.
You have never actually answered them, because you have no answer.
Again, if you did, you would have easily been able to provide them.
Grow up and answer the questions or admit you can't.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
This is the part I can never understand about your imagined world. In your mind, the source of all heat and life in our WorldCell is a giant hydrogen powered electrical arc, the light of which is reflected onto the ice dome by spinning magic crystals nearby.
It's not reflected by spinning magic crystals. Just through them.
Pay attention to what happens in life and how we can emulate what happens within (in my opinion). Ignoring it is fine but it doesn't help you get the gist of anything from an alternate point of view.
If the source of all heat and energy in your imaginary world is at the center, why wouldn't it get warmer if you went towards it?
Height and inability to reflect that heat back to specific points in any meaningful manner for life.
Do the magic crystals encase it somehow so that none of its energy escapes expect through facets?
Yes it is encased, sort of....in my opinion of course.
Okay, I get it. The hydrogen powered carbon arc is encased in a spinning crystal that shoots out holographic projections onto the dome but does not illuminate the area around it.
Have you thought about the magic crystal much? How does it make holograms? And how does it withstand the heat of the carbon arc? I mean, the holographic projection is hot enough to warm half of the world at any one point, at its source shouldn't it be really, really, really hot?
Lastly, how to the projections of the planets work? If the carbon arc is encased in the magic crystal that spins around once per day, how do things like the planets seem to spin at a slightly different rate?
-
What I deserve from you is an honest answer to the questions you continually avoid
I've answered all of your questions. What I haven't done is continually answered the very same questions that you pretend I've never answered.
Anything I give you is my honest answer.
What you do with any of it is your business but don't start crying when your copy/paste gets overlooked or cherry picked.
The FE'er playbook; ignore/evade/redirect. At no time will a person that says they believe in FE actually ever stand their ground on a point. Ignore pointed questions, evade any follow up, and redirect their own lack of transparency by making it seem like the asking party is being unreasonable.
Mr. Black, I'll see you your question and raise you one red herring.
-
holographic moon, how is it projected from the center of the earth? How is there a center of a flat earth?
You've seen holographic projectors and what they call, planetariums....right?
Where does the source come from for those that you see?
From a projector....right?
Stick a natural one in the centre and watch all the end product of it all reflected from the sky against an ice dome against a blackness, to our eyes.
A perfect miror.
Yes
Proejctors have a source and the image hits a surface.
The reflection can be calculated becuse - triangles - so the projectors location can be deteremined.
Wheres the location - "the center".
Great
Point to it on the map and we can make a trip out there to see it.
It's not likely going to be on a map now, is it?
Why not?
Becaus eth powers that be have hidden its location.
Literally unmarked.
Thats fine if i predct correct that you, sceppy, will chose this path - so - specifically, within whos borders would this center sun be at?
Where should we start our search?
To start your search you need to go towards the centre. How you manage that, I don't know.
First of all you're going to be negotiating thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain as you start to ascend toward the centre.
The energy waves will not reach back to you as you are ascending. It would be so cold you could not survive.
So cold that vehicles would cease to operate.
Can I prove that? Absolutely not. Are you in need of believing anything I say? Absolutely not.
Take from it what you will....but.....you asked.
Maybe spend some time stopping yourself going into a frenzy of hate and give yourself some time to actually mull over alternate theories rather than trying to defend one you also have no real clue about but adhere to.
What nonsense.
If maps are generally accruate
Point to a general lpcation on a map.
And why are we ascending?
Ascending means to go UP.
And whybwould it be cold?
The suns "reflection" is hot.
So the source must be even hotter.
-
It's not reflected by spinning magic crystals. Just through them.
I think the world needs to thank you for your research on the magic spinning crystals.
-
This is the part I can never understand about your imagined world. In your mind, the source of all heat and life in our WorldCell is a giant hydrogen powered electrical arc, the light of which is reflected onto the ice dome by spinning magic crystals nearby.
It's not reflected by spinning magic crystals. Just through them.
Pay attention to what happens in life and how we can emulate what happens within (in my opinion). Ignoring it is fine but it doesn't help you get the gist of anything from an alternate point of view.
If the source of all heat and energy in your imaginary world is at the center, why wouldn't it get warmer if you went towards it?
Height and inability to reflect that heat back to specific points in any meaningful manner for life.
Do the magic crystals encase it somehow so that none of its energy escapes expect through facets?
Yes it is encased, sort of....in my opinion of course.
If ot passss THROUGH, how is it reflected BACK?
And if you chose to use the word refraction then there are even more loses in input requiring the source to be even more greater in size.
Encasing for containment?
Now whos rwaching and steetching for ad hoc magicaly fantasy?
And another thing.
If the source isbso bright like a projector at a movies.
You ever seen a prjoector?
Dust in the air near the souece gets lit up like crazy.
Anything that flies through the beams path on the towards dirsction or the ground level will get lit up like crazy.
Possibly evem to the point of vaporzing.
And since its the source, would never have a night time as the beam woul be so bright just like spot lights lighting the night sky.
This would be seen by anyone on rhe ground.
So where on map would this be?
-
No, you haven't.
Haven't, what?
-
Okay, I get it. The hydrogen powered carbon arc is encased in a spinning crystal that shoots out holographic projections onto the dome but does not illuminate the area around it.
Clearly you don't get it.
Read back to what I said.
-
It's not reflected by spinning magic crystals. Just through them.
I think the world needs to thank you for your research on the magic spinning crystals.
?
-
Okay, I get it. The hydrogen powered carbon arc is encased in a spinning crystal that shoots out holographic projections onto the dome but does not illuminate the area around it.
Clearly you don't get it.
Read back to what I said.
Okay, can you explain it your imagined world better so I can get it?
Does anything spin? I thought along the lines of a planetarium projector, where there is central light and moving set of lenses.
Can you explain it a little more thoroughly?
-
Okay, I get it. The hydrogen powered carbon arc is encased in a spinning crystal that shoots out holographic projections onto the dome but does not illuminate the area around it.
Clearly you don't get it.
Read back to what I said.
Okay, can you explain it your imagined world better so I can get it?
Does anything spin? I thought along the lines of a planetarium projector, where there is central light and moving set of lenses.
Can you explain it a little more thoroughly?
Not a set of lenses. A large crystal.
-
Okay, I get it. The hydrogen powered carbon arc is encased in a spinning crystal that shoots out holographic projections onto the dome but does not illuminate the area around it.
Clearly you don't get it.
Read back to what I said.
Okay, can you explain it your imagined world better so I can get it?
Does anything spin? I thought along the lines of a planetarium projector, where there is central light and moving set of lenses.
Can you explain it a little more thoroughly?
Not a set of lenses. A large crystal.
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
- Can you show us what it may look like?
- Why does it move up and down?
- How tall is it?
- Are there like lenses all over it on all sides? One for each star, planet, etc.? If dso, how many? Ballpark it.
- How does it move up and down? What's making that happen?
- Why does it turn/rotate? How does it do that? Are there gears or something? A power supply?
- How does it keep time as we know and follow it? Does it have a "clock" of some sort?
- Is it organic or was it manufactured by design, as in a superior being kinda thing?
- Why is it that you specifically think it exists? What evidence do you have for it's existence? Did someone tell you about it and you sheepled into believing it, or have you seen it? You seem to espouse that you only believe in things you can verify for yourself - Have you verified its existence?
That's just for starters, an appetizer if you will. I have many more questions.
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
- Can you show us what it may look like?
You mean, like a drawing?
I don't know if I could draw something like it to make it appear like anything.
It would actually require someone with good graphic skills to put it together.
If you know anyone I can explain it to who can maybe do this and tweak it as we go so it gets a good idea of the mindset, then I'm willing to explain and have that person put it together.
- Are there like lenses all over it on all sides? One for each star, planet, etc.? If dso, how many? Ballpark it.
The inner sides will all be crystals.
How many?
I have no idea...it's a hypothesis.
- How does it move up and down? What's making that happen?
Energy from electrolysis, hydrogen/helium, etc as fuel for what we know as magnetism. Basically a pressure system.
- Why does it turn/rotate? How does it do that? Are there gears or something? A power supply?
Just like a motor would turn.
- How does it keep time as we know and follow it? Does it have a "clock" of some sort?
To be fair, that is the clock. We only use a clock because of the movement of it.
- Is it organic or was it manufactured by design, as in a superior being kinda thing?
It's natural. It's the core energy for life of Earth cell.
- Why is it that you specifically think it exists?
A lot of stuff in everyday life. Little experiments and seeing many experiments that cater for a larger picture.
Simple stuff that many people would just dismiss.
As a simple starter, think of a welding set. An arc. Think of more dense carbon for arcing...etc. That's just for starters.
It's all in our faces, it's just a case of who is interested and who just wants to ridicule it among back pats of other ridiculing like minds.
What evidence do you have for it's existence?
That depends...as above.
Did someone tell you about it and you sheepled into believing it, or have you seen it?
Nobody's told me about it. I picked away over time and this is where I'm at.
You seem to espouse that you only believe in things you can verify for yourself - Have you verified its existence?
I can't verify its existence because I'd never be able to get there and nor would anyone, in my opinion, for reasons I gave a while ago that have not changed.
As for only believing in something I can verify. That's right and this is why this is my theory. It's my own belief that I'm on the right path but not necessarily on an exact path to the truth.
That's just for starters, an appetizer if you will. I have many more questions.
I have no issue with questions.#
Become a Jackblack and your questions will become pointless.
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
Okay, but if all the lights on the dome are created by the spinning lamp that turns with a period of 1 day, wouldn't all of them have this exact same period?
-
- How does it move up and down? What's making that happen?
Energy from electrolysis, hydrogen/helium, etc as fuel for what we know as magnetism. Basically a pressure system.
That does not explain why it goes up and down.
Why does this energy result in it moving up and down,
- Why does it turn/rotate? How does it do that? Are there gears or something? A power supply?
Just like a motor would turn.
So with an internal combustion engine and pistons?
Or electric windings and magnets?
- How does it keep time as we know and follow it? Does it have a "clock" of some sort?
To be fair, that is the clock. We only use a clock because of the movement of it.
Again, this in no way answers the question. It doesn't matter if you want it to be the clock. The simple fact is that it has a predicable period, with the period varying predictably. What gives it this period and variation?
- Why is it that you specifically think it exists?
A lot of stuff in everyday life. Little experiments and seeing many experiments that cater for a larger picture.
Simple stuff that many people would just dismiss.
As a simple starter, think of a welding set. An arc. Think of more dense carbon for arcing...etc. That's just for starters.
You mean an arc which looks nothing at all like the sun?
An arc which needs artificial technology to make?
I have no issue with questions.
You sure seem to. As soon as you can't pretend to answer them by giving a complete non-answer or by pretending to play dumb to ask questions back, you end up with massive problems and a complete inability to engage.
If you actually had no issue with questions you would have answered mine, even if that is by admitting you have no idea.
Instead you do whatever you can to avoid them.
But it doesn't matter how many times you try, the questions remain, and they still make your model DOA.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
Okay, but if all the lights on the dome are created by the spinning lamp that turns with a period of 1 day, wouldn't all of them have this exact same period?
Can you elaborate on what you're saying?
-
- How does it move up and down? What's making that happen?
Energy from electrolysis, hydrogen/helium, etc as fuel for what we know as magnetism. Basically a pressure system.
That does not explain why it goes up and down.
Why does this energy result in it moving up and down,
Because it gains and loses magnetism by usage of stored charge and replenish. Like a big capacitor.
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
Okay, but if all the lights on the dome are created by the spinning lamp that turns with a period of 1 day, wouldn't all of them have this exact same period?
Can you elaborate on what you're saying?
Okay. I'm asking about your imagined world - if I was there and stood and watched the central reflection of the carbon arc (referred to the as the sun) spin across the sky, every day it would make one revolution (obviously, one day is defined by its revolution). Does each revolution of the 'sun' in a circle in the sky correspond to one revolution of the spinning carbon arc lamp at the center of the earth?
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
Okay, but if all the lights on the dome are created by the spinning lamp that turns with a period of 1 day, wouldn't all of them have this exact same period?
Can you elaborate on what you're saying?
Okay. I'm asking about your imagined world - if I was there and stood and watched the central reflection of the carbon arc (referred to the as the sun) spin across the sky, every day it would make one revolution (obviously, one day is defined by its revolution). Does each revolution of the 'sun' in a circle in the sky correspond to one revolution of the spinning carbon arc lamp at the center of the earth?
Yes.
-
Okay, one large carbon arc light encased in a giant crystal.
Does anything spin?
Yes, the carbon arc is turning as it moves up and down inside the Earth reflecting back of a massive carbon plate and out through the large crystal.
Like a big carbon arc light.
Okay, but if all the lights on the dome are created by the spinning lamp that turns with a period of 1 day, wouldn't all of them have this exact same period?
Can you elaborate on what you're saying?
Okay. I'm asking about your imagined world - if I was there and stood and watched the central reflection of the carbon arc (referred to the as the sun) spin across the sky, every day it would make one revolution (obviously, one day is defined by its revolution). Does each revolution of the 'sun' in a circle in the sky correspond to one revolution of the spinning carbon arc lamp at the center of the earth?
Yes.
Cool. That makes sense and it is hard for me to imagine it any it any other way, but maybe you can.
Im then though left scratching my head about the stars, moons and planets.
For example, if I watched the 'sun' circle over head 365 times, I would see that the 'stars' have only spun in 364 circles overhead! How can a projection spin fewer times than the light source that makes it?
Same thing for the moon, it would spin overhead 353 times. All the 'planets' as well. They all spin overhead with different periods than the 'sun' and each other.
I thought that you had accounted for this by having multiple spinning crystals that could all spin at different rates. But I don't understand how this works in your imagined world with only a single spinning lamp.
-
- How does it move up and down? What's making that happen?
Energy from electrolysis, hydrogen/helium, etc as fuel for what we know as magnetism. Basically a pressure system.
That does not explain why it goes up and down.
Why does this energy result in it moving up and down,
Because it gains and loses magnetism by usage of stored charge and replenish. Like a big capacitor.
This is still a non-answer.
It "gaining and losing magnetism" in no way explains why that causes it to move up and down.
-
Its light.
Light travels from one place hits a surface and travels back down.
More or less straight lines.
Give us a ball park.
Go and look at how your so called planetarium works.
You see, what we vision in the sky from the centre is what we can actually do and mimic/copy on Earth, only on a much smaller scale due to us being small scale, compared.
Projectors in planetariums don't have clouds or bad weather to contend with.
-
- How does it move up and down? What's making that happen?
Energy from electrolysis, hydrogen/helium, etc as fuel for what we know as magnetism. Basically a pressure system.
That does not explain why it goes up and down.
Why does this energy result in it moving up and down,
Because it gains and loses magnetism by usage of stored charge and replenish. Like a big capacitor.
So excieted to talk about his self admitted dreamed.up world.
Wheres thr 100%prooffact the globe is false?
Wheres the circle?
-
Cool. That makes sense and it is hard for me to imagine it any it any other way, but maybe you can.
Im then though left scratching my head about the stars, moons and planets.
For example, if I watched the 'sun' circle over head 365 times, I would see that the 'stars' have only spun in 364 circles overhead! How can a projection spin fewer times than the light source that makes it?
Same thing for the moon, it would spin overhead 353 times. All the 'planets' as well. They all spin overhead with different periods than the 'sun' and each other.
I thought that you had accounted for this by having multiple spinning crystals that could all spin at different rates. But I don't understand how this works in your imagined world with only a single spinning lamp.
Maybe you can explain about the moons 353 spins, because you have me baffled with this.
Explain everything you've just said.
-
This is still a non-answer.
It "gaining and losing magnetism" in no way explains why that causes it to move up and down.
It acts like a capacitor with electromagnetism.
Have a think on it.
-
Cool. That makes sense and it is hard for me to imagine it any it any other way, but maybe you can.
Im then though left scratching my head about the stars, moons and planets.
For example, if I watched the 'sun' circle over head 365 times, I would see that the 'stars' have only spun in 364 circles overhead! How can a projection spin fewer times than the light source that makes it?
Same thing for the moon, it would spin overhead 353 times. All the 'planets' as well. They all spin overhead with different periods than the 'sun' and each other.
I thought that you had accounted for this by having multiple spinning crystals that could all spin at different rates. But I don't understand how this works in your imagined world with only a single spinning lamp.
Maybe you can explain about the moons 353 spins, because you have me baffled with this.
Explain everything you've just said.
I was just wondering if you had thought about the different rotational periods of the lights in the sky and how a single rotating light could achieve this.
If this is not something you understand though, and have not imagined something in your dreamt up world to explain it, don’t worry about it.
-
Maybe you can explain about the moons 353 spins, because you have me baffled with this.
Explain everything you've just said.
It is quite trivial.
If we ignore the fractional parts, and put everything from the point of view of an observer on Earth:
One year is a period of 365 "days".
During this time, the sun is observed to 365 times.
But the stars do not.
The stars instead appear to move faster than the sun, circling 366 times.
The moon appears to travel slower than the sun. Every lunar month, that is each time the moon goes through a new moon, the sun has appeared to lap it.
Every 4 weeks, the sun will have circled 28 times, while the moon has only done it 27 times.
Over the course of a year, this adds up significantly.
Each year there are ~ 12.5 lunar months in a year, meaning there are ~12.5 less circlings of the moon than the sun.
i.e. the moon only circles 365-12 times = 153 times.
This is a problem if you claim the only thing moving in your model is the magic carbon arc.
If that is all that turned, the entire sky should turn as one.
The sun, the other stars, the moon and all the planets should all appear to circle the same number of times.
But like so many things, reality does not match what your model needs.
Yet again, your model is DOA as it has no mechanism to explain why the different things in the sky appear to move at a different angular rate.
Conversely the RE, HC model explains it quite well.
Earth rotates on its axis once every 23 hours and 56 minutes. So over the course of a year, it has rotated 366 times, and this makes the distant stars appear to circle Earth 366 times.
The sun orbits Earth, which means after Earth has rotated once, it needs to rotate a bit more so the same longitude faces the sun. Over the course of a year, this adds up to 1 less apparent circling of the sun, making the sun appear to circle Earth 365 times.
The moon orbits Earth every ~28 days, in the opposite direction to that of the apparent motion due to Earth's rotation, meaning it loses ~13 circles, and thus appears to circle Earth 353 times.
If you do it with the fractions, it works even better.
This is still a non-answer.
It "gaining and losing magnetism" in no way explains why that causes it to move up and down.
It acts like a capacitor with electromagnetism.
Have a think on it.
Don't tell me to have a think on it.
Tell me how it causes it to move up and down.
You have made to attempt to do so.
Just like so much else of your nonsense, you have no explanation. All you have are trivial few word responses which explain nothing.
Just like all the other issues that have been raised that you cannot explain at all:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Don't tell me to have a think on it.
Tell me how it causes it to move up and down.
You have made to attempt to do so.
If you understand what a capacitor does you'll understand what I'm saying.
-
A capacitor holds charge.
-
A capacitor holds charge.
And also loses it through leakage.
-
A capacitor holds charge.
And also loses it through leakage.
Yes, or during discharge.
Now you can answer Bored’s post.
-
Don't tell me to have a think on it.
Tell me how it causes it to move up and down.
You have made to attempt to do so.
If you understand what a capacitor does you'll understand what I'm saying.
And there you go with more deflection.
I understand what a capacitor does.
It in no way helps explain your claim.
How is it gaining and loosing magnetism?
How does this change in magnetism cause it to move up and down?
It seems your carbon arc is an extremely complex piece of equipment which could not exist by natural means.
Again, just like basically all your claims, you can't explain any of it.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Simpler experiment to prove gravity does indeed exist:
Drop something. Does it fall to the surface of the Earth? If so, then gravity exists.
-
Simpler experiment to prove gravity does indeed exist:
Drop something. Does it fall to the surface of the Earth? If so, then gravity exists.
That phenomenon can be explained by a plethora of ways
-
Simpler experiment to prove gravity does indeed exist:
Drop something. Does it fall to the surface of the Earth? If so, then gravity exists.
That phenomenon can be explained by a plethora of ways
And which ways are those?
Are you saying the recent data on gravitational waves is false? If so by what means scientific did you determine this?
Go have a read of this and you can point out to them where they went wrong.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/detection-companion-papers
-
Resistance and force always balance out after the fact, even if it's just super nanoseconds or whatever lowest number you can think of.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Yes, that's Newton's third law. By the way, equal and opposite add up to zero.
Equal and opposite?
The third law is action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.
I place a book on a desk. Are you suggesting that there are no forces acting on it?
-
And there you go with more deflection.
No deflection.
-
Simpler experiment to prove gravity does indeed exist:
Drop something. Does it fall to the surface of the Earth? If so, then gravity exists.
You aren't helping your global friends.
-
I place a book on a desk. Are you suggesting that there are no forces acting on it?
Nope. Are you?
-
I place a book on a desk. Are you suggesting that there are no forces acting on it?
Nope. Are you?
Quite possibly thats because you've most likely never encountered books. You see books are what people use to learn, gain new knowledge. You should try it.
-
And there you go with more deflection.
No deflection.
There is plenty of deflection.
You can't explain how a capacitor magically makes your sun move.
Instead of even attempting to explain, you just deflect with insults.
Likewise, you continue to deflect from simple questions which expose your nonsense:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
-
Simpler experiment to prove gravity does indeed exist:
Drop something. Does it fall to the surface of the Earth? If so, then gravity exists.
That phenomenon can be explained by a plethora of ways
And which ways are those?
Are you saying the recent data on gravitational waves is false? If so by what means scientific did you determine this?
Go have a read of this and you can point out to them where they went wrong.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/detection-companion-papers
No. That is where I end the debate. I give you an ominous reply that doesn't actually say anything, then I wheel back my chair and punch the air silently shouting 'YES!' as I delude myself that I 'won' the argument and stumped you all
-
Quite possibly thats because you've most likely never encountered books. You see books are what people use to learn, gain new knowledge. You should try it.
Books can also sell fantasy, or don't you agree?
-
Instead of even attempting to explain, you just deflect with insults.
You have to be kidding me.
-
Quite possibly thats because you've most likely never encountered books. You see books are what people use to learn, gain new knowledge. You should try it.
Books can also sell fantasy, or don't you agree?
Are all books works of fiction?
-
Instead of even attempting to explain, you just deflect with insults.
You have to be kidding me.
No, are you kidding?
Again can you explain how your capacitor works to make the sun move up and down?
If not, can you answer any of the trivial questions?
-
Quite possibly thats because you've most likely never encountered books. You see books are what people use to learn, gain new knowledge. You should try it.
Books can also sell fantasy, or don't you agree?
Are all books works of fiction?
Are all books factual?
-
No, are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
-
Quite possibly thats because you've most likely never encountered books. You see books are what people use to learn, gain new knowledge. You should try it.
Books can also sell fantasy, or don't you agree?
Are all books works of fiction?
Are all books factual?
How would you determine which ones were?
-
No, are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
Then how about you stop with deflection and try to address the massive issues with your claims:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
By what magic does your sun move up and down?
-
Quite possibly thats because you've most likely never encountered books. You see books are what people use to learn, gain new knowledge. You should try it.
Books can also sell fantasy, or don't you agree?
Are all books works of fiction?
Are all books factual?
How would you determine which ones were?
Exactly.
-
Then how about you stop with deflection and try to address the massive issues with your claims:
I don't have any issues.
If I did I would accept it and own up like I did in the string line explanation I wrongly gave.
-
Own up to it then.
Did you misrepresent the globe model?
Draw the circle and triangle to scale.
Whats the massive tilt?
-
I don't have any issues.
You have massive issues, issues you refuse to address.
If I did I would accept it and own up like I did in the string line explanation I wrongly gave.
That is the only time I can recall you ever owning up to a mistake. It was surprising, but does not magically mean you don't have issues here.
If you didn't have issues you would answer the questions without continually avoiding what the questions actually are and without playing dumb.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
By what magic does your sun move up and down?
-
That is the only time I can recall you ever owning up to a mistake. It was surprising, but does not magically mean you don't have issues here.
Maybe it's you that has the issues.
-
Own up to it then.
Did you misrepresent the globe model?
Draw the circle and triangle to scale.
Whats the massive tilt?
JackB has issue with you not owning up to your claims.
Make claims.
Dont back them up.
Keep lying.
-
That is the only time I can recall you ever owning up to a mistake. It was surprising, but does not magically mean you don't have issues here.
Maybe it's you that has the issues.
If that was the case you would be able to easily answer the questions rather than continually deflect from them.
The fact you continually avoid the questions and continually play dumb shows it is you that has the issues.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
By what magic does your sun move up and down?
-
If that was the case you would be able to easily answer the questions rather than continually deflect from them.
Your major issue is in continually spending time typing out the same stuff whilst telling me I never answered.
I did answer and you rejected the answers then went on to say I did not answer.
If you want to continue that path then your stuff gets overlooked, as you can plainly see.
If you think you'll just carry on typing it and it will get at me, I'd highly suggest you have a think on it.
Try not to twist and try not to ask so many questions at once and see if you get somewhere.
Your attitude at the minute will gain you little to nothing with me, whether you care or not.
It's entirely up to you.
-
Your major issue is in continually spending time typing out the same stuff whilst telling me I never answered.
It isn't really that much time.
I did answer
No, you pretended you would provide answers by asking dumb questions back and providing non-answers, but stopped as soon as it got to a problem you couldn't deal with, and then you fled like you do so often.
If you actually had answers you would provide them.
Instead you waste your time lying by claiming to have already provided them.
Care to provide a link to one of these magical answers of yours?
Try not to twist and try not to ask so many questions at once and see if you get somewhere.
I'm not the one twisting anything here. As for asking so many questions, you have shown that your unwilling to even deal with 1. You pretend that you will until it gets to the point where you can't and then you run off to a completely unrelated issue and then go off at me for daring to try to keep you to the topic.
Your attitude at the minute will gain you little to nothing with me, whether you care or not.
While you continue with this path of wilful rejection of reality and blatant dishonesty, nothing will get anyone anything from you except more blatant lies.
You have had your chance with plenty of your games and you have failed every time.
Until you actually provide answers, or show that you are willing to engage in some honest way towards providing an answer, and while you continue to spout the same lies I will continue to call you out and continue to ask the same questions you still haven't answered after years:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
By what magic does your sun move up and down?
-
I don't have any issues.
You have massive issues, issues you refuse to address.
If I did I would accept it and own up like I did in the string line explanation I wrongly gave.
That is the only time I can recall you ever owning up to a mistake. It was surprising, but does not magically mean you don't have issues here.
If you didn't have issues you would answer the questions without continually avoiding what the questions actually are and without playing dumb.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
By what magic does your sun move up and down?
Jack, I think it's fair to say everybody on this forum has issues above and beyond the average joe on the street, and you seem to have issues in spades.
I mean, must you come down hard on this dude with every single post, just because he believes the earth is flat and gravity doesn't exist?
I know you think winning this argument is a destination that will make you feel fulfilled. It won't. Lighten up and enjoy the journey if you're going to be on it.
-
I mean, must you come down hard on this dude with every single post, just because he believes the earth is flat and gravity doesn't exist?
No, I come down hard on him because he continues to spout lies and refuses to answer trivial questions.
If he instead admits that he has no reason to reject the RE and nothing to support the FE, or jsut didn't continually spout lies I would have very little to come down hard on him for.
I know you think winning this argument is a destination that will make you feel fulfilled. It won't. Lighten up and enjoy the journey if you're going to be on it.
No, I don't think that.
Why would winning an argument against someone who so wilfully rejects reality and presents no challenge at all make me feel fulfilled?
-
Your major issue is in continually spending time typing out the same stuff whilst telling me I never answered.
It isn't really that much time.
Then you carry on.
-
Why would winning an argument against someone who so wilfully rejects reality and presents no challenge at all make me feel fulfilled?
Then don't waste another second on me.