ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

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.

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:47:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:23:47 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:19:06 AM

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...

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 27, 2021, 01:20:26 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 03:58:04 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 09:31:09 PM

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 12:42:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 09:31:09 PM

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:10:20 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 01:35:07 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:10:20 AM

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:58:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 01:35:07 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:10:20 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 02:17:31 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:58:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 01:35:07 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:10:20 AM

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).

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 02:17:31 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 02:17:31 AM

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.

Quote from: JJA on January 27, 2021, 05:14:02 AM

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.

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM

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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 09:27:23 PM

Quote from: JJA on January 27, 2021, 05:14:02 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:05:26 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM

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.

Quote from: JJA on January 28, 2021, 04:49:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 09:27:23 PM

Quote from: JJA on January 27, 2021, 05:14:02 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:05:26 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM

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.

Quote from: JJA on January 28, 2021, 08:13:30 AM

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.

Quote from: JJA

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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 08:55:59 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 28, 2021, 08:13:30 AM

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.

Quote from: JJA

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 02:48:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 02:17:31 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:58:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 01:35:07 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:10:20 AM

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).

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 02:17:31 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 02:17:31 AM

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 27, 2021, 12:33:23 PM

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 10:28:12 PM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 10:50:43 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 10:28:12 PM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 10:50:43 PM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 10:50:43 PM

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 11:55:38 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 10:50:43 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 10:28:12 PM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 10:50:43 PM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 10:50:43 PM

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.

Quote from: JJA on January 28, 2021, 09:06:46 AM

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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 09:30:05 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 28, 2021, 09:06:46 AM

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.