-
I have never once mentioned any degrees. Geoffrey's just trying to desperately stop me exposing the bullshit he has been paid to hang onto.
You previous claimed to possess thirteen academic qualifications.
Can you please name them and end this stupid back-and-forth discussion?
Note that I'm not asking you to prove their existence in any way—simply name them. When people use their credentials to support the veracity or accuracy of their claims, then it's imperative they name those qualifications. If for example someone has a Ph.D in biology, then they're poorly equipped to debate the intricacies of astronautics for example.
And I really can't believe that you're unable understand even the basic high-school level physics that explains why the balloon slides along the string. If you can't grasp this centuries-old principle, how then are you gonna cope with contemporary science and/or rocket propulsion?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Xta8WtM72_k/VBnisF2zZoI/AAAAAAAAEBM/d47RHHVK6-c/s1600/Balloon%2BRocket.png)
Give this diagram to any high schooler, and they'll explain the theory in a couple of minutes. Why can't you?
-
I remember the degree crap septic. Aus, how come you seem to have a hard time nutting out that septic is an idiot?. Big rockets wont work in septic land.
Put all his bullshit on one page it would stink. Hope his mom busts him leaving that mess around the computer, we may get a rest.
-
I remember the degree crap septic. Aus, how come you seem to have a hard time nutting out that septic is an idiot?.
I guess I'm just being generous of spirit, and giving the guy numerous opportunities to redeem himself. Unfortunately—and being a habitual liar—he seems unable to do so. He obviously prefers to live in some sort of self-contained fantasy world invented inside his tiny brain.
He's also apparently oblivious to the simple fact that everybody else here regards him as some sort of whack-job, or simply a major and persistent troll.
The fact that he can't comprehend even the simple physics of the grade-school demo of the balloon "rocket" is a clear indication that he has not the faintest understanding of science. Which in the 21st century is kinda frightening.
This might clarify the forces acting on the balloon "rocket"—for sceptimatic's benefit:
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
The bottom diagram represents a "real" rocket nozzle.
And assuming that sceptimatic is unfamiliar with Newton's third law of motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
-
Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.
Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.
-
Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.
Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.
Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.
-
Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.
Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.
Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.
firstly, modify your stance when imagining your shotgun shooting for pain-free day-dreaming.
what represents your shoulder if the analogy is reversed? what will the rocket 'inflict pain' upon? is fire a slow explosion, or an explosion a rapid fire?
do you practice negative reinforcement techniques to improve your own cognitive processes?
-
Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.
Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.
Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.
For a firearm's recoil, I could offer such explanation. But for a jet / rocket it's a little different. You have the answer, maybe share it here?
-
Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.
Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.
Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.
For a firearm's recoil, I could offer such explanation. But for a jet / rocket it's a little different. You have the answer, maybe share it here?
Try holding a fire-hose!
-
I remember the degree crap septic. Aus, how come you seem to have a hard time nutting out that septic is an idiot?.
I guess I'm just being generous of spirit, and giving the guy numerous opportunities to redeem himself. Unfortunately—and being a habitual liar—he seems unable to do so. He obviously prefers to live in some sort of self-contained fantasy world invented inside his tiny brain.
He's also apparently oblivious to the simple fact that everybody else here regards him as some sort of whack-job, or simply a major and persistent troll.
The fact that he can't comprehend even the simple physics of the grade-school demo of the balloon "rocket" is a clear indication that he has not the faintest understanding of science. Which in the 21st century is kinda frightening.
This might clarify the forces acting on the balloon "rocket"—for sceptimatic's benefit:
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
The bottom diagram represents a "real" rocket nozzle.
And assuming that sceptimatic is unfamiliar with Newton's third law of motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
I'm well aware of equal and opposite action/reaction.
Your balloon is not explaining it at all, except in a scam sort of way. This is why people get duped easily and it's understandable why they get duped.
It's just a shame that people cannot use their own rational common sense to see that we live under atmospheric pressure and it's use dictates our lives in every way imaginable
You show the balloon as the action being inside the balloon, as if that's how a rocket would work. It makes no sense whatsoever for that to happen in how you've described it.
The air pressure inside that balloon creates an equal push against push when the balloon is tied, as you explain.
I have no issues with that but you are not telling the whole story, are you?
You also have the outside atmosphere doing exactly the same thing around that balloon, squashing it from all sides in an equal and opposite reaction to action.
Once you open up that balloon nozzle, it's the atmosphere acting all around it that squeezes that balloon and pushes the compressed air out of that nozzle.
So basically, it's like regimented arrows that were pushing all around inside, are now all pointed to the exit (nozzle) in a sort of " ok people, all rush for the exit, last one out, stinks."
The movement starts at that point where the air rushes out to meet the atmosphere outside of it which creates a barrier, which is why the balloon starts to move the other way, because as that compressed air inside the balloon tries to push into the outisde air, it rebounds back as the outside air goes to equalise with it, which pushes that balloon forward.
There is no inside push. It all happens outside.
If you want to argue this, then explain in exactl detail just what your balloon is doing, or more to the point...show me exactly what's happening inside of a rocket for it to move as we are led to believe. Merely showing an arrow inside and one outside, is a cop out, because to explain it properly would destroy the ruse.
-
Well, I'm glad that's sorted. Where would the world be without scepti?
-
Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.
Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.
Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.
For a firearm's recoil, I could offer such explanation. But for a jet / rocket it's a little different. You have the answer, maybe share it here?
Try holding a fire-hose!
If you think of a fire hose, it should tell you that what you are told about action and reaction is told wrongly to try and explain rockets.
-
Well, I'm glad that's sorted. Where would the world be without scepti?
A lot further on than it is now in terms of lifestyle and the riddance of scientific bullshit theories.
-
Well, I'm glad that's sorted. Where would the world be without scepti?
A lot further on than it is now
lol
-
haha :)
That denpressure-or-whatever-stuff is just the usual scepti-stuff, but I think I didn't manage to convey what I was trying to. Principles of conservation of momentum & equal and opposite forces ofc hold true, but in case of our balloon rocket here, what is that something, that fundamentally transfers the momentum of that jet of air into a force pushing the balloon in to the opposite direction? Well I'm not sure if that was much clearer :/ In Scepti's world, that something does not exist because conspiracy so jets and rockets must work by pushing against the ambient air, which in a certain sense is a plausible explanation. Gun or fire hose examples aren't helpful - I can come up with examples of these principles myself, but it is that "something" that is missing... and you probably can't explain it any better if I can't ask it any better, so ???
-
If you want to know how a rocket works, all you have to do is watch a ship/boat at sea, then imagine that sea being tipped upright, as though the ship/boat was going vertical.
It's the same principle, only the rocket has to externally burn it's fuel to gain the required push vertically as opposed to a ship/boat only having to push against the water it is floating on.
-
If you want to know how a rocket works, all you have to do is watch a ship/boat at sea, then imagine that sea being tipped upright, as though the ship/boat was going vertical.
It's the same principle, only the rocket has to externally burn it's fuel to gain the required push vertically as opposed to a ship/boat only having to push against the water it is floating on.
Thanks I'm already sufficiently familiar with your theory, I was asking about "the other" version ;)
-
If you want to know how a rocket works, all you have to do is watch a ship/boat at sea, then imagine that sea being tipped upright, as though the ship/boat was going vertical.
It's the same principle, only the rocket has to externally burn it's fuel to gain the required push vertically as opposed to a ship/boat only having to push against the water it is floating on.
Thanks I'm already sufficiently familiar with your theory, I was asking about "the other" version ;)
That wasn't for you in particular, it was for everyone.
-
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html)
You should sit under an apple tree septic.
-
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html)
You should sit under an apple tree septic.
Why? what does that prove?
Can you explain why a rocket works as we are led to believe, or not?
If you can, then put up a diagram and explain it better than Geoffrey did, as to how it manages to push itself up without the aid of atmosphere.
-
Well, I'm glad that's sorted. Where would the world be without scepti?
LOL..... it never ceases to amaze me that—despite not having any knowledge of physics or mechanics himself—sceptimatic invariably asks me questions that I find are very difficult, if not impossible, to answer.
All I can suggest to sceptimatic is that he applies his own theory of "denpressure" to the balloon/rocket analogy, and the answer will be immediately obvious.
-
Well, I'm glad that's sorted. Where would the world be without scepti?
LOL..... it never ceases to amaze me that—despite not having any knowledge of physics or mechanics himself—sceptimatic invariably asks me questions that I find are very difficult, if not impossible, to answer.
All I can suggest to sceptimatic is that he applies his own theory of "denpressure" to the balloon/rocket analogy, and the answer will be immediately obvious.
I'll tell you why you can't answer in a logical way. It's because to do so would show the rocket ruse up for exactly what it is.
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It's a clever trick but no more than that. It's equivalent to a magicians sleight of hand.
If you can prove otherwise, then do so. If not, then accept that you've been fed, fodder.
-
You also have the outside atmosphere doing exactly the same thing around that balloon, squashing it from all sides in an equal and opposite reaction to action.
Once you open up that balloon nozzle, it's the atmosphere acting all around it that squeezes that balloon and pushes the compressed air out of that nozzle.
So basically, it's like regimented arrows that were pushing all around inside, are now all pointed to the exit (nozzle) in a sort of " ok people, all rush for the exit, last one out, stinks."
The movement starts at that point where the air rushes out to meet the atmosphere outside of it which creates a barrier, which is why the balloon starts to move the other way, because as that compressed air inside the balloon tries to push into the outisde air, it rebounds back as the outside air goes to equalise with it, which pushes that balloon forward.
There is no inside push. It all happens outside.
If you want to argue this, then explain in exactl detail just what your balloon is doing, or more to the point...show me exactly what's happening inside of a rocket for it to move as we are led to believe. Merely showing an arrow inside and one outside, is a cop out, because to explain it properly would destroy the ruse.
Er, NO!
The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.
To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.
-
The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin.
And this very basic point is exactly the sort of stuff that flies straight over sceptimatic's head LOL. He can't even grasp the concept that the air inside the balloon is compressed, or at a higher pressure than the outside air. I'd love to see his explanation of how SCUBA tanks work.
I wonder sometimes if he ever completed high school science. Or even if he started it. ;D
-
You also have the outside atmosphere doing exactly the same thing around that balloon, squashing it from all sides in an equal and opposite reaction to action.
Once you open up that balloon nozzle, it's the atmosphere acting all around it that squeezes that balloon and pushes the compressed air out of that nozzle.
So basically, it's like regimented arrows that were pushing all around inside, are now all pointed to the exit (nozzle) in a sort of " ok people, all rush for the exit, last one out, stinks."
The movement starts at that point where the air rushes out to meet the atmosphere outside of it which creates a barrier, which is why the balloon starts to move the other way, because as that compressed air inside the balloon tries to push into the outisde air, it rebounds back as the outside air goes to equalise with it, which pushes that balloon forward.
There is no inside push. It all happens outside.
If you want to argue this, then explain in exactl detail just what your balloon is doing, or more to the point...show me exactly what's happening inside of a rocket for it to move as we are led to believe. Merely showing an arrow inside and one outside, is a cop out, because to explain it properly would destroy the ruse.
Er, NO!
The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.
To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.
I'm right, you're wrong but it's not your fault. It's the way you've been taught. You've been scammed.
This throwing stuff to make you go the opposite way in how you've been told, is not correct, it's just that you refuse to look at it properly and believe that atmospheric pressure has no effect.
I won't bother explaining to people who have already made their mind up, because it's up to each individual to go with whatever way they choose.
Anyone that is willing to absorb what I say, will benefit from knowing the truth, I promise them that much.
-
The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin.
And this very basic point is exactly the sort of stuff that flies straight over sceptimatic's head LOL. He can't even grasp the concept that the air inside the balloon is compressed, or at a higher pressure than the outside air. I'd love to see his explanation of how SCUBA tanks work.
I wonder sometimes if he ever completed high school science. Or even if he started it. ;D
Sometimes it pays to read back. If you bothered, you would plainly see I mentioned compressed air.
My twister, Geoffrey: you will gain nothing but frustration trying to play games like this.
-
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
-
I won't bother explaining to people who have already made their mind up, because it's up to each individual to go with whatever way they choose.
And for this we can all be eternally grateful LOL.
Anyone that is willing to absorb what I say, will benefit from knowing the truth, I promise them that much.
"Promises" made by inveterate liars are inevitably broken. Let's hope this one is.
Thanks for the LULZ sceptimatic... well done. 10/10.
-
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.
Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
-
I won't bother explaining to people who have already made their mind up, because it's up to each individual to go with whatever way they choose.
And for this we can all be eternally grateful LOL.
Anyone that is willing to absorb what I say, will benefit from knowing the truth, I promise them that much.
"Promises" made by inveterate liars are inevitably broken. Let's hope this one is.
Thanks for the LULZ sceptimatic... well done. 10/10.
Whenever I take you on, you get weaker by the minute. Why do you think I overlook much of what you say?
Most of your stuff concetrates on attempted put downs without addressing the problems.
You can't answer the questions I put to you because it's impossible to rationally explain for your rocket and vertical flight.
My explanations prove without doubt that I know what I'm talking about and you are merely duped into thinking that you know what really happens.
If you can maybe take a time out on your attempts and faliures to put down anyone who isn't attached to your thoughts, then let me see you explain how a rocket works, as plain as you can and showing how it is pushed up without the use of atmosphere.
Infact, omit atmosphere and go straight into your space, then show me how it works, making sure you explain where the internal push is coming from and against the reactive force it is pushing against.
Over to you, Geoffrey.
-
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.
Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
-
My explanations prove without doubt that I know what I'm talking about and you are merely duped into thinking that you know what really happens.
Your so-called "explanations" actually prove that you have not the faintest idea of what you're talking about sceptimatic. And you also seem impervious to the fact that everybody else here—including even the flat earthers—are laughing at you behind your back.
A rocket engine can be regarded as "throwing" a mass opposite to its trajectory—in the form of a high-pressure gas (similar to firing a bullet from a gun). The engine "throws" this mass of gas out in one direction in order to get a reaction in the opposite direction. The mass comes from the weight of the fuel that the rocket engine burns.
The burning process accelerates this mass of fuel so that it comes out of the rocket nozzle at high speed. The fact that the fuel turns from a solid or liquid into a gas when it burns does not change its mass. If you burn a kilogram of rocket fuel, a kilogram of exhaust comes out the nozzle—in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity gas. The form changes, but the mass does not, and the burning process accelerates the mass.
And you really need to do some serious homework yourself if you don't even know the basics of how a rocket engine works. You still seem to be confused, in that you think rockets can't work in a vacuum. The atmosphere/air has nothing at all to do with rocket theory.
-
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.
Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.
-
My explanations prove without doubt that I know what I'm talking about and you are merely duped into thinking that you know what really happens.
Your so-called "explanations" actually prove that you have not the faintest idea of what you're talking about sceptimatic. And you also seem impervious to the fact that everybody else here—including even the flat earthers—are laughing at you behind your back.
A rocket engine can be regarded as "throwing" a mass opposite to its trajectory—in the form of a high-pressure gas (similar to firing a bullet from a gun). The engine "throws" this mass of gas out in one direction in order to get a reaction in the opposite direction. The mass comes from the weight of the fuel that the rocket engine burns.
The burning process accelerates this mass of fuel so that it comes out of the rocket nozzle at high speed. The fact that the fuel turns from a solid or liquid into a gas when it burns does not change its mass. If you burn a kilogram of rocket fuel, a kilogram of exhaust comes out the nozzle—in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity gas. The form changes, but the mass does not, and the burning process accelerates the mass.
And you really need to do some serious homework yourself if you don't even know the basics of how a rocket engine works. You still seem to be confused, in that you think rockets can't work in a vacuum. The atmosphere/air has nothing at all to do with rocket theory.
Ok, so explain in a diagram, because rockets do not fire bullets and a recoil action/reaction would shake a rocket to its destruction on the platform.
I'm not confused as to how a rocket engine works, Geoffrey. I'm only confused as to why people swallow the bullshit story for how they are supposed to work.
You daren't or can't show it because you know it makes no sense at all.
-
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.
Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.
Haven't you read anything I've posted in this thread ??? I can't give you such an explanation. Which does not mean that your idea would be correct; the problem I brought up is still there and you haven't said anything at all about it.
-
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.
Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.
Haven't you read anything I've posted in this thread ??? I can't give you such an explanation. Which does not mean that your idea would be correct; the problem I brought up is still there and you haven't said anything at all about it.
Of course I've read it. You admit that you can't give an explanation, yet I can give a perfectly good explanation for why rockets cannot work in space and how they really work. You seem to want to deny it for no apparent reason.
-
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.
Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.
Haven't you read anything I've posted in this thread ??? I can't give you such an explanation. Which does not mean that your idea would be correct; the problem I brought up is still there and you haven't said anything at all about it.
Of course I've read it. You admit that you can't give an explanation, yet I can give a perfectly good explanation for why rockets cannot work in space and how they really work. You seem to want to deny it for no apparent reason.
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
-
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing more than common sense, where-as the scam model requires faith.
-
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality ;D
p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out :)
-
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality ;D
p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out :)
What problem is that?
-
Including even the flat earthers - are laughing at you behind your back.
No we don't,,
And pay no mind to those who laugh, behind your back, it simply means that you're two steps ahead.
-
Including even the flat earthers - are laughing at you behind your back.
No we don't,,
And pay no mind to those who laugh, behind your back, it simply means that you're two steps ahead.
I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.
-
Ok, so explain in a diagram, because rockets do not fire bullets and a recoil action/reaction would shake a rocket to its destruction on the platform.
Uh... are you seriously asking for a picture sceptimatic? Are you a grade schooler that needs pictures to explain something?
Do you only read scientific texts that have a lot of pictures on every page? Unbelievable. ::)
-
I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.
Correction sceptimatic: It's not "attempted" ridicule. It's genuine, kosher, bona fide ridicule. ;D
-
Er, NO!
The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.
To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.
I'm right, you're wrong but it's not your fault. It's the way you've been taught. You've been scammed.
You’re right, I’m wrong? Yeah right!
Consider the possibility we’re both wrong. I’m willing to experiment and investigate to find out for myself, are you?
Is the swing, rock and ball experiment too much for you?
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/12/article-2503316-04C04DE00000044D-590_306x391.jpg)
Satans'' ugly boy ,,
-
I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.
Correction sceptimatic: It's not "attempted" ridicule. It's genuine, kosher, bona fide ridicule. ;D
Well if it is, I suggest you up your game because it's so mild it's almost pleasant.
-
Er, NO!
The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.
To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.
I'm right, you're wrong but it's not your fault. It's the way you've been taught. You've been scammed.
You’re right, I’m wrong? Yeah right!
Consider the possibility we’re both wrong. I’m willing to experiment and investigate to find out for myself, are you?
Is the swing, rock and ball experiment too much for you?
The swing, rock and ball experiment proves nothing to those who are blind and unable to see what's happening.
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/12/article-2503316-04C04DE00000044D-590_306x391.jpg)
Satans'' ugly boy ,,
And to think inside that deformed skull lies a brain with an IQ of 180, whereas when you look at your undoubtedly handsome face in the mirror, you see someone with an IQ of 80. Ain't nature strange? The uglies get the brains and the dummies get the looks.
-
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality ;D
p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out :)
What problem is that?
What I said about specific impulse in couple posts in the antares rocket thread and a couple more times in this thread, in posts that you said you had read?
That is: thrust of a propelling jet increases, as ambient pressure decreases. As in, does not depend on air outside of it to work. That problem.
-
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality ;D
p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out :)
What problem is that?
What I said about specific impulse in couple posts in the antares rocket thread and a couple more times in this thread, in posts that you said you had read?
That is: thrust of a propelling jet increases, as ambient pressure decreases. As in, does not depend on air outside of it to work. That problem.
Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.
Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?
The only time you would see a nozzle burn is if there was a lack of pressure. Do you agree with this?
-
Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?
LOL..... we're not talking abut mum cooking the spuds on her gas stove sceptimatic.
We're actually discussing rocket propulsion. Which is a different subject altogether. Please try and keep up.
-
Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?
LOL..... we're not talking abut mum cooking the spuds on her gas stove sceptimatic.
We're actually discussing rocket propulsion. Which is a different subject altogether. Please try and keep up.
Yep, we are discussing rocket propulsion, which is why I mentioned the above, because that's all a rocket is. It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.
-
Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.
Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?
The only time you would see a nozzle burn is if there was a lack of pressure. Do you agree with this?
I agree on all three and must point out that that's not a jet or a rocket, that's a gas torch. In case of a reaction engine the combustion does take place before the nozzle in the engine's combustion chamber and that's the whole point on having combustion in the first place; it is what increases the pressure, which then is used to accelerate the gases.
-
Yep, we are discussing rocket propulsion, which is why I mentioned the above, because that's all a rocket is. It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.
Totally erroneous. Again LOL.
A gas stove and a welding torch do not burn a fuel and oxygen "under pressure". The gas, or the acetylene/oxygen burn only when they're depressurised.
Despite what you think sceptimatic, this flame from a welding torch is not burning compressed gases of any sort...
(https://0.s3.envato.com/files/84249927/Welding%20Torch%20Flame%202%20Preview.jpg)
A rocket engine works on an entirely different principle; the fuel/oxygen mixture is burning within the containment vessel or fuel cell, and not external to it such as a welding torch. That's how the rocket's thrust is produced.
If that wasn't the case, then we'd have oxy-actelyne bottles flying into space from every mechanic's workshop. ;D
-
Give up you lot, septic is either too stupid or ignorant for any info input.
-
Give up you lot, septic is either too stupid or ignorant for any info input.
Maybe both? ;D
-
I see a lot of yap yap yapping but I don't see any of you putting up this combustion chamber that apparently happens inside of the rocket engine.
How about showing me this and it's real size and how it manages to combust inside.
Then, show me how that combuston manages to lift the rocket into space.
I'm well aware of how cars run with their combustion chambers to drive pistons of which we see an exhaust. We know this drives the wheels on a horizontal surface.
SOOOO.
Knowing what we know. How about showing me how this equates to lifting a rocket, vertically into space. Oh, and before someone goes into a frenzy -no I'm not suggesting a rocket has pistons like a car, I am simply asking one of you rocket scientists to explain the combustion chamber and how big it is and exactly what it's function is in pushing a big space rocket into space.
Coming back with "oh scepti is a fool, he's stupid." is not an answer, even if it tickles your fancy. It wins you no prizes.
For all those who are viewing. I hope you are taking in just how these shills operate. Concentrate on what I'm saying and you will find out how rockets into space, is nothing more than fantasy Hollywood special effects.
-
Posting from my phone now so I won't paste links, though you can do a web search just as well as I. If you want I'll refer to a picture later. In the mean time, maybe look at a jet or a solid fuel rocket - a normal fireworks kind will do - and tell me if you're still not seing that the ignition of fuel / combustion is happening inside the engine?? Airliners would be *spectacular* if all that kerosene got burnt after leaving the engines ;)
-
How about showing me this and it's real size and how it manages to combust inside.
(http://sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/rockets/sci-media/images/a-typical-rocket-engine/574967-1-eng-NZ/A-typical-rocket-engine.jpg)
How about showing me how this equates to lifting a rocket, vertically into space.
Oh dear... just how many times do we have to explain this for you sceptimatic? ;D Rockets launched from the earth's surface do NOT travel vertically into space. They follow a trajectory that's perpendicular to the earth's surface. In space, there is no "up" and no "down". Both words are simply an abstract, human construct to enable us to speak in comparable terms regardless of our locations on earth.
How is it that for a self-proclaimed genius and scientist with thirteen academic qualifications you can't even comprehend this simple sort of high-school science? Or are you just playing dumb for the laughs maybe?
This is a photo of a real rocket engine as portrayed above diagrammatically:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/P-15_Termit_Forum_Marinum_rocket_engine_3.JPG/800px-P-15_Termit_Forum_Marinum_rocket_engine_3.JPG)
-
(http://sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/rockets/sci-media/images/a-typical-rocket-engine/574967-1-eng-NZ/A-typical-rocket-engine.jpg)[/center]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/P-15_Termit_Forum_Marinum_rocket_engine_3.JPG/800px-P-15_Termit_Forum_Marinum_rocket_engine_3.JPG)
Diagram seems to be of a solid fuel rocket, and the photo of a liquid fuel rocket engine; very different bits of kit. Not that the general principle of operation wouldn't be the same, but a bit misleading to portray them in the same post like that.
-
Good point, but I couldn't find a better real rocket pic that's not overly complicated.
sceptimatic will undoubtedly claim they're both bogus anyway LOL. Not that he'll understand why exactly of course.
-
How about showing me this and it's real size and how it manages to combust inside.
(http://sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/rockets/sci-media/images/a-typical-rocket-engine/574967-1-eng-NZ/A-typical-rocket-engine.jpg)
How about showing me how this equates to lifting a rocket, vertically into space.
Oh dear... just how many times do we have to explain this for you sceptimatic? ;D Rockets launched from the earth's surface do NOT travel vertically into space. They follow a trajectory that's perpendicular to the earth's surface. In space, there is no "up" and no "down". Both words are simply an abstract, human construct to enable us to speak in comparable terms regardless of our locations on earth.
How is it that for a self-proclaimed genius and scientist with thirteen academic qualifications you can't even comprehend this simple sort of high-school science? Or are you just playing dumb for the laughs maybe?
This is a photo of a real rocket engine as portrayed above diagrammatically:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/P-15_Termit_Forum_Marinum_rocket_engine_3.JPG/800px-P-15_Termit_Forum_Marinum_rocket_engine_3.JPG)
Your first rocket ignites from the nose? What the hell is this and can you equate it to a space rocket of any description.
Your second rocket engine does not show what's happening inside to propel the rocket from inside. Can you clarify things for me, no matter how dumb you want to tell me I am. Just clarify things. Show me what's happening.
Your first picture seems to be something like a firework rocket. Not ideal for a space rocket, is it?
It looks like the poor astronauts would be burned to death, don't you think?
Now here something for you to think about.
Go and take a look at the so called shuttle engines and see how they are sparked to life.
If you've ever used a flint igniter for a blow torch, you will see a similar type effort going on with the shuttle engines. As in, the sparks to ignite the fuel. Now why would you need enternal sparks under a nozzle if the combustion was inside the rocket engine itelf?
Come on, Geoffrey, you can do better than this and you know it.
You see folks, this is why you will always believe the bullshit. It's because it gets explained in roundabout terms and does not show what's really happening.
-
Good point, but I couldn't find a better real rocket pic that's not overly complicated.
sceptimatic will undoubtedly claim they're both bogus anyway LOL. Not that he'll understand why exactly of course.
The problem here is, rockets are not complicated at all. They're as basic as you can get for vertical flight.
The term rocket scientist should be changed to jet propulsion scientist...which weirdly NASA scientists call themselves. I wonder why?
-
Are you suggesting that solid fuel rockets do not work/exist/are fake?
Purpose of 'sparklers' beneath liquid fuel rocket engines at launch pad is to make certain that volatile gases possibly escaping from the vehicle are burnt there and do not end up somewhere where they could become a hazard. Ignition right after injection is essential for a liquid fuel rocket, burning the stuff after it has left the engine bell would just, well, burn it.
Here's a liquid fuel rocket combustion chamber. Fuel injection system on top, the bell is attached underneath.
(http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg)
-
Are you suggesting that solid fuel rockets do not work/exist/are fake?
Purpose of 'sparklers' beneath liquid fuel rocket engines at launch pad is to make certain that volatile gases possibly escaping from the vehicle are burnt there and do not end up somewhere where they could become a hazard. Ignition right after injection is essential for a liquid fuel rocket, burning the stuff after it has left the engine bell would just, well, burn it.
Here's a liquid fuel rocket combustion chamber. Fuel injection system on top, the bell is attached underneath.
(http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg)
So explain where the rocket gets pushed upwards.
Remember action/reaction, so show me where it gets pushed upwards and against what downward force is it pushing against.
-
Don't you get tired of asking for this explanation?
-
I have already responded to that question. While we wait for someone else to answer, maybe respond to my questions/points I've raised.
-
Don't you get tired of asking for this explanation?
Not at all. I smile when no one can explain what's happening to make a rocket work in space.
-
what the heck I'll answer anyway. It's not pushing against anything, that's the whole point of action/reaction. Gas is accelerated out and the engine gets propelled in the opposite direction with an equal force.
And now that I did show a picture of a combustion chamber, how is that engine at all analogous with a gas torch?
-
same way a firework works. Fire comes out downwards, objecto goes upward
-
Since pushing against something seems to be so very important, perhaps it could be said that the engine pushes against the gas that it ejects. I'm not sure if that's technically correct, it probably isn't, but I can't see how it's any worse as an explanation than Scepti's version either.
-
Since pushing against something seems to be so very important, perhaps it could be said that the engine pushes against the gas that it ejects. I'm not sure if that's technically correct, it probably isn't, but I can't see how it's any worse as an explanation than Scepti's version either.
Let's get something straight. The exhaust from the nozzle is irrelevant, right? this is what you are saying, correct?
So therefore, the rocket has to push itself up from inside itself. Let me tell you what you're trying to say.
You're trying to say that you can push yourself over by using your own hands to push on your own chest. Try it and see what happens.
You're being duped.
-
I'm pushing my chest here but I seem not to be accelerating a stream of gas to supersonic speed, maybe that has something to do with my failure to generate thrust.
-
Don't you get tired of asking for this explanation?
Not at all. I smile when no one can explain what's happening to make a rocket work in space.
But it has been explained to you a bunch of times. Your denial does not count as a rebuttal, sorry to say.
Since pushing against something seems to be so very important, perhaps it could be said that the engine pushes against the gas that it ejects. I'm not sure if that's technically correct, it probably isn't, but I can't see how it's any worse as an explanation than Scepti's version either.
Let's get something straight. The exhaust from the nozzle is irrelevant, right? this is what you are saying, correct?
So therefore, the rocket has to push itself up from inside itself. Let me tell you what you're trying to say.
You're trying to say that you can push yourself over by using your own hands to push on your own chest. Try it and see what happens.
You're being duped.
Not really. However, if I push my arms outwards while I am suspended in water, I move in the opposite direction. That is a little better of an analogy.
-
I'm pushing my chest here but I seem not to be accelerating a stream of gas to supersonic speed, maybe that has something to do with my failure to generate thrust.
No matter how hard or fast you push your chest, you will experience the exact action/reaction force, meaning your hands and chest are simply going to cancel each other out, meaning you stay still.
This is what would happen inside your rocket, so we need an outside influence, which is where your burning fuel through a nozzle comes in.
Now this burning fuel has to push through the atmosphere below it and around it, which it does, because it expands it and the atmosphere reacts to it by squeezing back against that.
-
Not really. However, if I push my arms outwards while I am suspended in water, I move in the opposite direction. That is a little better of an analogy.
Yep. Now you are explaining how a rocket works, except you are using your arms to push water away.
Can't you see where you're being duped?
-
Not really. However, if I push my arms outwards while I am suspended in water, I move in the opposite direction. That is a little better of an analogy.
Yep. Now you are explaining how a rocket works, except you are using your arms to push water away.
Can't you see where you're being duped?
You are missing the part where you are explaining anything.
-
Not really. However, if I push my arms outwards while I am suspended in water, I move in the opposite direction. That is a little better of an analogy.
Yep. Now you are explaining how a rocket works, except you are using your arms to push water away.
Can't you see where you're being duped?
You are missing the part where you are explaining anything.
No problem. Leave it at that.
-
Not really. However, if I push my arms outwards while I am suspended in water, I move in the opposite direction. That is a little better of an analogy.
Yep. Now you are explaining how a rocket works, except you are using your arms to push water away.
Can't you see where you're being duped?
You are missing the part where you are explaining anything.
No problem. Leave it at that.
So the we agree rockets worked as advertised and function at a higher efficiency the less atmospheric resistance there is.
Mods can this thread be locked please?
-
Not really. However, if I push my arms outwards while I am suspended in water, I move in the opposite direction. That is a little better of an analogy.
Yep. Now you are explaining how a rocket works, except you are using your arms to push water away.
Can't you see where you're being duped?
You are missing the part where you are explaining anything.
No problem. Leave it at that.
So the we agree rockets worked as advertised and function at a higher efficiency the less atmospheric resistance there is.
Not a chance in hell will I ever agree to a lie like the one you buy into.
-
Not really. However, if I push my arms outwards while I am suspended in water, I move in the opposite direction. That is a little better of an analogy.
Yep. Now you are explaining how a rocket works, except you are using your arms to push water away.
Can't you see where you're being duped?
You are missing the part where you are explaining anything.
No problem. Leave it at that.
So the we agree rockets worked as advertised and function at a higher efficiency the less atmospheric resistance there is.
Not a chance in hell will I ever agree to a lie like the one you buy into.
You mean the lie that I will one day be rich, famous and not have a care in the world?
-
I'm pushing my chest here but I seem not to be accelerating a stream of gas to supersonic speed, maybe that has something to do with my failure to generate thrust.
No matter how hard or fast you push your chest, you will experience the exact action/reaction force, meaning your hands and chest are simply going to cancel each other out, meaning you stay still.
This is what would happen inside your rocket, so we need an outside influence, which is where your burning fuel through a nozzle comes in.
so far so good
Now this burning fuel has to push through the atmosphere below it and around it, which it does, because it expands it and the atmosphere reacts to it by squeezing back against that.
Correct, except for the part about the atmosphere reacting to squeeze the rocket up. It's almost like you still hadn't read any of the posts where I mention things like reaction engine efficiency at different atmospheric pressures. It's similarly almost like you still didn't explain what that blowtorch had to do with anything.
That atmosphere that is expanded and squeezes back to push your rocket upward is limited to sonic speed, assuming 100% efficiency. Do claim that any jet or rocket can not exceed the speed of sound? Your rockets certainly can't.
-
Scepti went over this crap a while back. I think the bottom line was that current rocket theory ends up being somewhat lacking. Hot gasses and pressure exerting force on the rocket doesn't cut it. I think scepti said that, that is equal to you sitting in a chair. Pushing your leg with your arm, and sliding yourself off of the chair. I somewhat believe him.
-
Scepti went over this crap a while back. I think the bottom line was that current rocket theory ends up being somewhat lacking. Hot gasses and pressure exerting force on the rocket doesn't cut it. I think scepti said that, that is equal to you sitting in a chair. Pushing your leg with your arm, and sliding yourself off of the chair. I somewhat believe him.
The analogy is an utter failure. No part of the rocket is creating thrust. It is sad to see so many people fail to grasp that.
-
another thing that would be interesting to know, is how water bottle rockets work in Scepti's 'expanding and reacting to squeeze' model.
-
If big rockets took photos of a flat earth septic would never shut up about them.
-
septic
hahahaha ;D
-
another thing that would be interesting to know, is how water bottle rockets work in Scepti's 'expanding and reacting to squeeze' model.
Water bottle rockets obviously don't use hot gases but they do use compressed air to force out the water which is the same principle but people just can't grasp it because they simply refuse to see how atmospheric pressure works.
As in the burning fuel rocket; that fuel creates a massive expansion withing that burn which forces the dense air around it away from it.
The dense air is always reacting to that and squashing back. As I said a while back. It's almost like sitting in the bath with a bar of soap where your wet hand tried to squeeze the soap but only manages to pop it up. This is what's happening under and around the burning fuel from the nozzle.
In a water bottle rocket, the water is more dense than the air outside and is pushed out by the more compressed air inside. Because the water is thrust out of the bottle neck, it compresses the air under it and around it which creates a springboard that the rocket can push against, creating the action and reaction, sending the bottle rocket into the air.
What you are told about rockets is mis-info about how they really work. I guarantee you that.
They do not work in how you've been told and if people gave themselves time to look at it instead of discarding it, they will see for themselves.
-
another thing that would be interesting to know, is how water bottle rockets work in Scepti's 'expanding and reacting to squeeze' model.
Water bottle rockets obviously don't use hot gases but they do use compressed air to force out the water which is the same principle but people just can't grasp it because they simply refuse to see how atmospheric pressure works.
As in the burning fuel rocket; that fuel creates a massive expansion withing that burn which forces the dense air around it away from it.
The dense air is always reacting to that and squashing back. As I said a while back. It's almost like sitting in the bath with a bar of soap where your wet hand tried to squeeze the soap but only manages to pop it up. This is what's happening under and around the burning fuel from the nozzle.
In a water bottle rocket, the water is more dense than the air outside and is pushed out by the more compressed air inside. Because the water is thrust out of the bottle neck, it compresses the air under it and around it which creates a springboard that the rocket can push against, creating the action and reaction, sending the bottle rocket into the air.
What you are told about rockets is mis-info about how they really work. I guarantee you that.
They do not work in how you've been told and if people gave themselves time to look at it instead of discarding it, they will see for themselves.
Yes we can agree on what you're telling of how rockets 'really' work is misinformation, looking at it ourselves clearly shows that. Water coming out of a bottle rocket does not expand and so the pressurization of the atmosphere around the water jet is minimal, yet the thrust generated is orders of magnitude greater than if the bottle contained only pressurized air (which would expand); mass of the material ejected plays an obvious and significant role in thrust generation, while atmospheric pressure on the outside only slows down the jet and has no increasing effect on the amount of thrust as is proven by increase of specific impulse when a reaction engine is operated at a higher altitude.
You really do excel on insisting to know how it 'really' works while not really explaining anything and ignoring all points opposing your ideas.
-
Yes we can agree on what you're telling of how rockets 'really' work is misinformation, looking at it ourselves clearly shows that. Water coming out of a bottle rocket does not expand and so the pressurization of the atmosphere around the water jet is minimal, yet the thrust generated is orders of magnitude greater than if the bottle contained only pressurized air (which would expand); mass of the material ejected plays an obvious and significant role in thrust generation, while atmospheric pressure on the outside only slows down the jet and has no increasing effect on the amount of thrust as is proven by increase of specific impulse when a reaction engine is operated at a higher altitude.
You really do excel on insisting to know how it 'really' works while not really explaining anything and ignoring all points opposing your ideas.
You know. Sometimes it pays to look at the basics and the logic instead of saturating your mind with a host of supposed technical stuff that does not fit in reality, yet looks quite plausible to the onlooker.
Let me see if I can explain it a bit better. At least I'm trying to help, where-as, no one is explaining exactly what's happening inside this supposed combustion chamber.
Back to the water bottle rocket.
Ok. If you tip up a bottle of water, you notice that the liquid simply falls to the ground in a stream, right?
If you let go of that bottle, it would also fall to the ground because it's not doing enough work to stop it doing that.
Pressurise the air inside the bottle with the water in it and you'll immediately notice that the water is ejected out and fans out as it is forced out.
This is the key to the rocket propulsion. It is the fanning out of the water that creates the springboard effect as it forces the outside atmosphere to compress under the power of the water, where it tries to stop it .
This creates the action and reaction. The action being the water ejected at speed that creates a reaction in compressing the air, which naturally springs back. It's called high and low pressures.
The very same scenario can be seen on water with a boat, except it's working horizontally, yet the same visible reaction to action is taking place.
People simply can't or won't grasp the simplicity of it because it's just too simple and they prefer to hang onto the scientific bullcrap explanations because they're much more shrouded in magical properties. This is for a very good reason. To go basic would render space rockets unusable, so they have to hang onto this bullshit.
-
Yes we can agree on what you're telling of how rockets 'really' work is misinformation, looking at it ourselves clearly shows that. Water coming out of a bottle rocket does not expand and so the pressurization of the atmosphere around the water jet is minimal, yet the thrust generated is orders of magnitude greater than if the bottle contained only pressurized air (which would expand); mass of the material ejected plays an obvious and significant role in thrust generation, while atmospheric pressure on the outside only slows down the jet and has no increasing effect on the amount of thrust as is proven by increase of specific impulse when a reaction engine is operated at a higher altitude.
You really do excel on insisting to know how it 'really' works while not really explaining anything and ignoring all points opposing your ideas.
You know. Sometimes it pays to look at the basics and the logic instead of saturating your mind with a host of supposed technical stuff that does not fit in reality, yet looks quite plausible to the onlooker.
Exactly, and that's why you shouldn't have ignored everything I just said.
Let me see if I can explain it a bit better. At least I'm trying to help, where-as, no one is explaining exactly what's happening inside this supposed combustion chamber.
wtf is your problem with combustion chambers? You aren't seriously insisting that jets burn kerosene outside of the engine? Combustion is what's happening inside the combustion chamber, hence the name. Combustion pressurizes the propellant to increase it's exit velocity.
Back to the water bottle rocket.
Ok. If you tip up a bottle of water, you notice that the liquid simply falls to the ground in a stream, right?
If you let go of that bottle, it would also fall to the ground because it's not doing enough work to stop it doing that.
Pressurise the air inside the bottle with the water in it and you'll immediately notice that the water is ejected out and fans out as it is forced out.
This is the key to the rocket propulsion. It is the fanning out of the water that creates the springboard effect as it forces the outside atmosphere to compress under the power of the water, where it tries to stop it .
This creates the action and reaction. The action being the water ejected at speed that creates a reaction in compressing the air, which naturally springs back. It's called high and low pressures.
See my previous post.
The very same scenario can be seen on water with a boat, except it's working horizontally, yet the same visible reaction to action is taking place.
People simply can't or won't grasp the simplicity of it because it's just too simple and they prefer to hang onto the scientific bullcrap explanations because they're much more shrouded in magical properties. This is for a very good reason. To go basic would render space rockets unusable, so they have to hang onto this bullshit.
Or we're just observing that the technology works while conspiracy loonies need to come up with alternative explanations to support their own ideas.
If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?
If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does a reaction engine's efficiency improve in less lower atmospheric pressure?
(edit, extra word)
-
How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.
Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.
-
How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
Efficiency improves, as in, works more efficiently, generates more force per amount of propellant used.
Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.
I am talking about reaction engines, not of any particular craft that the engine may be attached to. How is the craft relevant?
Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.
I will when you quit with the 'bullcrap explanations', 'alleged combustion', 'that you're lead to believe' etc, that's just annoying and makes you look like an idiot. I doubt you can refrain from those though. Maybe you can't because you're 'a paid shill' and wouldn't get your paycheck if you didn't 'spread your ridiculous fantasies'?
-
How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
Efficiency improves, as in, works more efficiently, generates more force per amount of propellant used.
Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.
I am talking about reaction engines, not of any particular craft that the engine may be attached to. How is the craft relevant?
Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.
I will when you quit with the 'bullcrap explanations', 'alleged combustion', 'that you're lead to believe' etc, that's just annoying and makes you look like an idiot. I doubt you can refrain from those though. Maybe you can't because you're 'a paid shill' and wouldn't get your paycheck if you didn't 'spread your ridiculous fantasies'?
Explain how the efficiency improves. Give me examples using craft. I mean, you mention lower atmospheric pressure, so explain how it was tested and what craft to get to this. Then I can maybe explain why you're wrong.
As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.
-
Scepti, are you saying that you can't understand basics of physics and you brag about understanding the mysteries of universe ? Let me sit here and laugh at you a moment.
-
How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
Efficiency improves, as in, works more efficiently, generates more force per amount of propellant used.
Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.
I am talking about reaction engines, not of any particular craft that the engine may be attached to. How is the craft relevant?
Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.
I will when you quit with the 'bullcrap explanations', 'alleged combustion', 'that you're lead to believe' etc, that's just annoying and makes you look like an idiot. I doubt you can refrain from those though. Maybe you can't because you're 'a paid shill' and wouldn't get your paycheck if you didn't 'spread your ridiculous fantasies'?
Explain how the efficiency improves. Give me examples using craft. I mean, you mention lower atmospheric pressure, so explain how it was tested and what craft to get to this. Then I can maybe explain why you're wrong.
As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.
All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.
If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?
-
Scepti, are you saying that you can't understand basics of physics and you brag about understanding the mysteries of universe ? Let me sit here and laugh at you a moment.
What basics of physics are these?
All I see are lies, not physics.
I don't brag about understanding the mysteries of the universe. There isn't a universe. It's all bullshit.
-
All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.
Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me when a jet uses the most fuel? tell me when a jet uses the least fuel?
Here's a clue. Climbing and levelling out, respectively. Have a think about that.
If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?
It's more dense, so it requires more pressure to push it away to lift the bottle by compressing the air as it exits the nozzle or bottle neck.
You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.
-
All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.
Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me when a jet uses the most fuel? tell me when a jet uses the least fuel?
Here's a clue. Climbing and levelling out, respectively. Have a think about that.
Climbing requires more power than going level. Right. So what? Have a think about how you are ignoring the fact that the engine's efficiency changes with altitude.
If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?
It's more dense, so it requires more pressure to push it away to lift the bottle by compressing the air as it exits the nozzle or bottle neck.
Pressure requirement to push the water out is irrelevant, what matters is the mass of the propellant and how fast it exits the nozzle/bottle. Air escapes the bottle much faster than water, yet it's the water that manages to shoot the bottle up; so mass is definitely a factor, your model completely ignores this fact.
You can put the same pressure in bottles with and without water and the one with water still generates way more thrust. Go ahead and try it. The fact that using the slower-escaping, non-compressible water as propellant instead of air generates more thrust tells us that the resistance from the outside air pressure is not working to generate thrust, all it does is slow down the propellant exiting the nozzle and so is in fact working to lower the rocket's specific impulse. What happens if the outside pressure is elevated to as high as the pressure inside the bottle? Nothing happens, the rocket won't work. Pressure differential from inside the engine(bottle) to the outside of the nozzle is required, greater the differential, higher the thrust and efficiency. Therefore, rockets work well in vacuum environments.
And your answer did in no way address that in case of water that whole 'compressing to squeeze' thing isn't happening in the first place.
You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.
Yes that is exactly how you operate.
-
All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.
Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me when a jet uses the most fuel? tell me when a jet uses the least fuel?
Here's a clue. Climbing and levelling out, respectively. Have a think about that.
Climbing requires more power than going level. Right. So what? Have a think about how you are ignoring the fact that the engine's efficiency changes with altitude.
If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?
It's more dense, so it requires more pressure to push it away to lift the bottle by compressing the air as it exits the nozzle or bottle neck.
Pressure requirement to push the water out is irrelevant, what matters is the mass of the propellant and how fast it exits the nozzle/bottle. Air escapes the bottle much faster than water, yet it's the water that manages to shoot the bottle up; so mass is definitely a factor, your model completely ignores this fact.
You can put the same pressure in bottles with and without water and the one with water still generates way more thrust. Go ahead and try it. The fact that using the slower-escaping, non-compressible water as propellant instead of air generates more thrust tells us that the resistance from the outside air pressure is not working to generate thrust, all it does is slow down the propellant exiting the nozzle and so is in fact working to lower the rocket's specific impulse. What happens if the outside pressure is elevated to as high as the pressure inside the bottle? Nothing happens, the rocket won't work. Pressure differential from inside the engine(bottle) to the outside of the nozzle is required, greater the differential, higher the thrust and efficiency. Therefore, rockets work well in vacuum environments.
And your answer did in no way address that in case of water that whole 'compressing to squeeze' thing isn't happening in the first place.
You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.
Yes that is exactly how you operate.
You'll never grasp it, or don't want to.
-
I've been trying to grasp your idea of this but it seems reality is getting in the way.
-
Firstly, I admit to being totally bored on this dismal, cold, rain-swept evening. I noticed the ongoing debate here about rockets and their engines and means of propulsion etc, and couldn't help but note the reams of absolute pseudo-scientific drivel, bogus analogies and personal insults that our resident liar sceptimatic has been posting. I can only assume that the poor guy is delusional, and/or living in some sort of self-created fantasy world inside his own brain. I just can't believe that anybody living in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century can be so ignorant of just about every basic principle and practice of science, and have such a profoundly distorted notion of our cosmos.
Anyway... due to my fear of becoming mentally comatose, I made up a list of sceptimatic's contributions to the discussion. These are not necessarily the worst or most laughable of his blunders, but they do indicate his general level of ignorance and childish naivety about the real world and the natural sciences, plus his petulance with other people who ask him to consider various scientific scenarios.
- You'll never grasp it, or don't want to.
- You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.
- There isn't a universe. It's all bullshit.
- All I see are lies, not physics.
- As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.
- How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
- People simply can't or won't grasp the simplicity of it because it's just too simple and they prefer to hang onto the scientific bullcrap explanations.
- What you are told about rockets is mis-info about how they really work. I guarantee you that.
- Because the water is thrust out of the bottle neck, it compresses the air under it and around it which creates a springboard that the rocket can push against.
- Not a chance in hell will I ever agree to a lie like the one you buy into.
- Can't you see where you're being duped?
- Now this burning fuel has to push through the atmosphere below it and around it.
- You're being duped.
- The exhaust from the nozzle is irrelevant, right?
- I smile when no one can explain what's happening to make a rocket work in space.
- So explain where the rocket gets pushed upwards.
- The problem here is, rockets are not complicated at all. They're as basic as you can get for vertical flight.
- You see folks, this is why you will always believe the bullshit.
- Rockets into space is nothing more than fantasy Hollywood special effects.
- It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.
- Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.
- The swing, rock and ball experiment proves nothing to those who are blind.
- I suggest you up your game because it's so mild it's almost pleasant.
- I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.
And bear in mind that this list is not by any means the entirety of sceptimatic's posts on this thread. This is just a selection of the more intelligible ones LOL.
I really think the guy needs to get out and about a bit more. Maybe an immediate trip in his personal jet for an extended North Korean holiday, and with a bit of time spent chatting about his latest research with the Korean science gurus might be in order?
;D ;D ;D
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
-
There is no 'external burning exhaust'. Try actually reading what has been posted here.
-
There is no 'external burning exhaust'. Try actually reading what has been posted here.
So what's this then?
(http://s21.postimg.org/ntzeak1vn/exhaust.png) (http://postimage.org/)
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
-
Scepti is getting to close to the truth. There is no turning back now. I have decided to blow the whistle and can confirm that there is a massive conspiracy. Please show the media this post so that the world can know the truth. Much important.
-
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework?
Are you seriously telling us that you're unable to see the obvious parallels with 4th of July fireworks—sky rockets—and real space rockets?
You must be having us on, surely? ???
-
Firstly, I admit to being totally bored on this dismal, cold, rain-swept evening. I noticed the ongoing debate here about rockets and their engines and means of propulsion etc, and couldn't help but note the reams of absolute pseudo-scientific drivel, bogus analogies and personal insults that our resident liar sceptimatic has been posting. I can only assume that the poor guy is delusional, and/or living in some sort of self-created fantasy world inside his own brain. I just can't believe that anybody living in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century can be so ignorant of just about every basic principle and practice of science, and have such a profoundly distorted notion of our cosmos.
Anyway... due to my fear of becoming mentally comatose, I made up a list of sceptimatic's contributions to the discussion. These are not necessarily the worst or most laughable of his blunders, but they do indicate his general level of ignorance and childish naivety about the real world and the natural sciences, plus his petulance with other people who ask him to consider various scientific scenarios.
- You'll never grasp it, or don't want to.
- You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.
- There isn't a universe. It's all bullshit.
- All I see are lies, not physics.
- As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.
- How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
- People simply can't or won't grasp the simplicity of it because it's just too simple and they prefer to hang onto the scientific bullcrap explanations.
- What you are told about rockets is mis-info about how they really work. I guarantee you that.
- Because the water is thrust out of the bottle neck, it compresses the air under it and around it which creates a springboard that the rocket can push against.
- Not a chance in hell will I ever agree to a lie like the one you buy into.
- Can't you see where you're being duped?
- Now this burning fuel has to push through the atmosphere below it and around it.
- You're being duped.
- The exhaust from the nozzle is irrelevant, right?
- I smile when no one can explain what's happening to make a rocket work in space.
- So explain where the rocket gets pushed upwards.
- The problem here is, rockets are not complicated at all. They're as basic as you can get for vertical flight.
- You see folks, this is why you will always believe the bullshit.
- Rockets into space is nothing more than fantasy Hollywood special effects.
- It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.
- Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.
- The swing, rock and ball experiment proves nothing to those who are blind.
- I suggest you up your game because it's so mild it's almost pleasant.
- I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.
And bear in mind that this list is not by any means the entirety of sceptimatic's posts on this thread. This is just a selection of the more intelligible ones LOL.
I really think the guy needs to get out and about a bit more. Maybe an immediate trip in his personal jet for an extended North Korean holiday, and with a bit of time spent chatting about his latest research with the Korean science gurus might be in order?
;D ;D ;D
Who needs to get out more again? geoffrey, you are an absolute disgrace. A skidmark on the underpants of society.
-
Who needs to get out more again? geoffrey, you are an absolute disgrace. A skidmark on the underpants of society.
C'mon; be fair. I did say I was bored to the point of becoming mentally comatose. I was actually surprised myself when I read back over this massive amount of absolute bullshit posted by sceptimatic in only a couple of days.
And when you see it all gathered in the one steaming pile, you realise what a waste of oxygen the guy really is LOL.
(http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e201a3fd351ac4970b-pi)
-
Who needs to get out more again? geoffrey, you are an absolute disgrace. A skidmark on the underpants of society.
C'mon; be fair. I did say I was bored to the point of becoming mentally comatose. I was actually surprised myself when I read back over this massive amount of absolute bullshit posted by sceptimatic in only a couple of days.
And when you see it all gathered in the one steaming pile, you realise what a waste of oxygen the guy really is LOL.
(http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e201a3fd351ac4970b-pi)
Ask yourself a question, geoffrey. Do the many visitors who come to this site come to read what you have to say, or what Scepti has to say? The sad thing is, you probably think they come here for you.
-
It's not like they ask for sceptis rants by name. They just come here to read the most absurd and crazy shit that they possibly can. Hey, its what got me started here. If there weren't fe'rs here, this wouldn't be any fun. I certainly find you guys amusing.
-
Ask yourself a question, geoffrey. Do the many visitors who come to this site come to read what you have to say, or what Scepti has to say? The sad thing is, you probably think they come here for you.
I'd be guessing that people read each of our comments in equal numbers—as I would think for any two posters compared at random.
The major differences in their responses of course is that they'd go away scratching their heads and/or laughing over sceptimatic's bizarre notions and nonsensical comments, whilst they'd be more interested in mine and (hopefully) at least learning a little bit more about legitimate science. sceptimatic's posts would in all likelihood only reinforce their probable preconception that anybody who believes the earth is flat in the 21st century is a definite whack-job. At least they'll take away some contemporary science-based logic from my posts.
I have to say—and I don't wish to embarrass you legion—but you invariably rush to sceptimatic's defence far too often for your relationship to be purely platonic. Is there something you need to tell us about you two? Or are you—as they say—just good friends?
;D
-
It's not like they ask for sceptis rants by name. They just come here to read the most absurd and crazy shit that they possibly can. Hey, its what got me started here. If there weren't fe'rs here, this wouldn't be any fun. I certainly find you guys amusing.
Once again, not everyone here is a flat earther. Otherwise you would be, wouldn't you? I prefer to split members in to two groups: the believers and the unbelievers. The believers will believe everything they are told by their masters. They are apparently incapable of original thought (plenty of evidence on these forums), because they don't want to appear wrong. They have been conditioned to associate pleasure with getting the right answer (the one they have been taught). "I got a good mark from Miss Hawking!"
You believers are boring. Ten-a-penny. Everywhere. People want to see something else. That's right, people want to meet unbelievers. We are interesting and make people think. Ultimately you will lose.
-
Ask tour grandpop septic, v2 rockets did work. Here is one giving a lift to a little rocket, you admit they work, this got high enough to see the flatness of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper)
Bumper 5 February 24, 1949 White Sands Pad 33 393 km (244 mi) Successful flight. Separation of stages at 32.2 km (20.0 mi)
SMDDD
-
I have to say—and I don't wish to embarrass you legion—but you invariably rush to sceptimatic's defence far too often for your relationship to be purely platonic. Is there something you need to tell us about you two? Or are you—as they say—just good friends?
;D
I have never met Scepti. We are on a forum dominated by believers. Why you would suggest my comments were anything more than one unbeliever supporting another unbeliever puzzles me.
Kindly provide reasons why you would think that myself and Scepti are lovers, as you implied. And after that, why don't you explain why that would be a problem.
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
-
There is no 'external burning exhaust'. Try actually reading what has been posted here.
So what's this then?
(http://s21.postimg.org/ntzeak1vn/exhaust.png) (http://postimage.org/)
Looks to me like some sort of a rocket. You know, a thing that burns fuel inside of it to create a propelling jet of gas to lift it up. What do you see in that picture? Maybe it's fake?
-
Ask tour grandpop septic, v2 rockets did work. Here is one giving a lift to a little rocket, you admit they work, this got high enough to see the flatness of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper)
Bumper 5 February 24, 1949 White Sands Pad 33 393 km (244 mi) Successful flight. Separation of stages at 32.2 km (20.0 mi)
SMDDD
The sooner you realise that a ballistic missile/rocket will burn out its fuel in seconds, the sooner you'll realise that these so called intercontinental ballistic missiles/rockets are nothing more than fantasy.
They've fed you full of so much bullshit for so long in your lives, you cannot and will not see any further than that, because just like superman or star trek and all the rest of the TV fantasy shows, it gives you the illusion of magic being a reality, just like people believe time travel can exist and cannot grasp that time is simply man made and cannot be used in any other context than what it was designed for, which is to regiment our lives, as is, for the purpose of productivity.
Space rockets are made for the purpose of keeping controland amazement of the populations whilst pilfering their pockets as they sit and admire the fantasy of it all, through Hollywood type productions and cartoons, plus artists impressions.
The most shocking thing to me - out of everything - is, the fact that so called intelligent people cannot see through some of this bullshit.
I'm not talking about the Geoffrey's. I'm talking about intelligent but weak minded individuals that would rather be walking among the mass indoctrinated, who simply know nothing else but to follow a given path and who cannot be blamed for their ignorance to things they take no real notice of, except to play follow the leader.
These people are intelligent in their own right - and I believe - if shown - they would see the major duping, if they weren't so tied up in life's well organised materialistic world of must have gadgets/attire, plus talking about their soap plots.
You see. If you can make a person believe a soap storyline to the point of them crying among friends as they re-enact it...how in the hell are you going to get them to accept that the science world is pulling the wool over their eyes?
Most people don't give science a second glance, despite the Geoffrey's, constantly mentioning everything to do with science is grade school simplistic then go on to spew utter drivel about quantum frigging mechanics and warped space time. Of course. I mean, all kids know this stuff, right? ;D
The real intelligent and logical thinkers, are those that have trodden many paths, yet still see many others to tread. These are the people that can see the bullshit unravelling before their very eyes.
Those who see nothing - even after having crap after crap splattered in their faces, yet profess to being scientific...aren't anything of the sort - except for being scared of challenging the readily accepted norm, and would prefer to sit in their cages parroting the same stuff out, time and time again for their entire lives, only ever changing what they parrot, when newer words are recorded into their minds from their peers.
What a sad state of affairs. But you know what? I can't be worrying about that. I am just thankful that I can see the absolute total, utter crap for what it all is - and for every person that sees it, it makes me smile, whether they only see one or thousands - because those that see one piece of bullshit - that is the very trigger they needed to dissect the endless amount of others, to the point of taking a stance of "believe nothing and question everything."
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
-
There is no 'external burning exhaust'. Try actually reading what has been posted here.
So what's this then?
(http://s21.postimg.org/ntzeak1vn/exhaust.png) (http://postimage.org/)
Looks to me like some sort of a rocket. You know, a thing that burns fuel inside of it to create a propelling jet of gas to lift it up. What do you see in that picture? Maybe it's fake?
Maybe it is fake. The point I'm making is; those rockets use the atmosphere to achieve vertical flight. To think they burn inside some silly chamber and that pushes them up, is silly in the extreme but somehow you just can't see it, or won't, because to say it uses the atmosphere, kills off space in one swoop.
You know this and so do the mis-info crew.
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.
-
It's not like they ask for sceptis rants by name. They just come here to read the most absurd and crazy shit that they possibly can. Hey, its what got me started here. If there weren't fe'rs here, this wouldn't be any fun. I certainly find you guys amusing.
Once again, not everyone here is a flat earther. Otherwise you would be, wouldn't you? I prefer to split members in to two groups: the believers and the unbelievers. The believers will believe everything they are told by their masters. They are apparently incapable of original thought (plenty of evidence on these forums), because they don't want to appear wrong. They have been conditioned to associate pleasure with getting the right answer (the one they have been taught). "I got a good mark from Miss Hawking!"
You believers are boring. Ten-a-penny. Everywhere. People want to see something else. That's right, people want to meet unbelievers. We are interesting and make people think. Ultimately you will lose.
You're taking my comment far too seriously. It's actually much more simple than that. There is 3 types. There are people who love science and arguing, there are people who you call indoctrinated and then there are the flat-earthers, which are basically either trolls who actually know better (probably you) and whack jobs who know nothing (like scepti). This place is the laughing stock of the world. Don't kid yourself.
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
NASA's old space shuttle used solid engine boosters. Not rocket science to look up.
In conclusion, you are are dumb.
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
Please look it up for yourself.
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
NASA's old space shuttle used solid engine boosters. Not rocket science to look up.
In conclusion, you are are dumb.
Ok then, show me how those solid fuel booster rockets burned all their fuel. I bet you can't. And stop stuttering.
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
Please look it up for yourself.
No. You people will do all the running and if you don't, then you lose. ;D
-
The sooner you realise that a ballistic missile/rocket will burn out its fuel in seconds, the sooner you'll realise that these so called intercontinental ballistic missiles/rockets are nothing more than fantasy.
Why should a ballistic missile/rocket burn out its fuel in seconds? Are you saying that rocket scientists can't design rockets that burn fuel for more than a minute?
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
This page has a nice flash animation that discusses how solid rocket burn rates are managed.
http://www.esa.int/Education/Solid_and_liquid_fuel_rockets4 (http://www.esa.int/Education/Solid_and_liquid_fuel_rockets4)
-
And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?
Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. ;)
We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.
Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
(http://)
A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? ;D
A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?
No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.
But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
NASA's old space shuttle used solid engine boosters. Not rocket science to look up.
In conclusion, you are are dumb.
Ok then, show me how those solid fuel booster rockets burned all their fuel. I bet you can't. And stop stuttering.
I don't have access to them so I can't show you. But I can say solid rockets are self oxidizing. They essentially work like the rocket in the video I posted.
-
(http://)
-
This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy ;D
Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard, I can't tell which.
-
The sooner you realise that a ballistic missile/rocket will burn out its fuel in seconds, the sooner you'll realise that these so called intercontinental ballistic missiles/rockets are nothing more than fantasy.
Why should a ballistic missile/rocket burn out its fuel in seconds? Are you saying that rocket scientists can't design rockets that burn fuel for more than a minute?
Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.
This page has a nice flash animation that discusses how solid rocket burn rates are managed.
http://www.esa.int/Education/Solid_and_liquid_fuel_rockets4 (http://www.esa.int/Education/Solid_and_liquid_fuel_rockets4)
[/quote]Thanks for that. So the solid fuel boosters on the shuttle burn exactly like a firework rocket all the way up inside the tank to the nose. Seriously?
You see, this is what you do. You build a massive tank and fill it with? hydrogen, then you have a shuttle strapped to that tank....BUT, you also strap the shuttle and tank to the two solid rocket boosters that burn their solid fuel right up inside of those tanks....right next to the big hydrogen tank and all is well. No problems at all.
Seriously, sometimes it's not a bad thing to realise when you're being taken the piss out of. ::)
-
(http://)
Thanks for proving my point.
-
This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy ;D
Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard, I can't tell which.
How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.
-
Feel free to support anything you say with evidence.
-
(http://)
Thanks for proving my point.
You've made a point?
-
This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy ;D
Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard, I can't tell which.
How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.
How about you've made some shit up to support your conspiracy fantasies. But that's not what I said there; you claim absolute knowledge on subjects that you have no clue of, not even at the most basic level.
Look up a jet engine diagram and tell us how the fuel is burnt outside of the engine. Go on, do it.
-
Feel free to support anything you say with evidence.
I will when someone requires it that can actually use their brain.
-
This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy ;D
Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard, I can't tell which.
How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.
How about you've made some shit up to support your conspiracy fantasies. But that's not what I said there; you claim absolute knowledge on subjects that you have no clue of, not even at the most basic level.
Look up a jet engine diagram and tell us how the fuel is burnt outside of the engine. Go on, do it.
Who said anything about fuel being burned outside of an engine on a jet engine?
-
Thanks for that. So the solid fuel boosters on the shuttle burn exactly like a firework rocket all the way up inside the tank to the nose. Seriously?
No. The SRBs had a hollow design so it burned from the inside out.
You see, this is what you do. You build a massive tank and fill it with? hydrogen, then you have a shuttle strapped to that tank....BUT, you also strap the shuttle and tank to the two solid rocket boosters that burn their solid fuel right up inside of those tanks....right next to the big hydrogen tank and all is well. No problems at all.
Actually the massive tank was 2 massive tanks: one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen. And the Challenger explosion proved that it could be a pretty serious problem when things go wrong.
Seriously, sometimes it's not a bad thing to realise when you're being taken the piss out of. ::)
Yes, I realize that you're taking the piss out of all of us.
-
No. The SRBs had a hollow design so it burned from the inside out.
A hollow design made of a thin skin that burned from inside out. Seriously? I mean, frigging seriously? ::)
Actually the massive tank was 2 massive tanks: one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen. And the Challenger explosion proved that it could be a pretty serious problem when things go wrong.
Yes, a pretty serious problem indeed. I'd say only a lunatic would build a rocket this way. Luckily those people aren't lunatics, they're just Hollywood bullshit artists that make these things appear real with explanations that should tell the switched on people how deep the bullshit goes. But allegedly some are simply blinded by the splatters of thick and quickly dried bullshit that covers their eyes.
Yes, I realize that you're taking the piss out of all of us.
I have no need to. The pretend space agencies are doing a remarkable job of that.
-
No. The SRBs had a hollow design so it burned from the inside out.
A hollow design made of a thin skin that burned from inside out. Seriously? I mean, frigging seriously? ::)
What is the problem? Sadly you cannot go and watch them work anymore though.
Actually the massive tank was 2 massive tanks: one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen. And the Challenger explosion proved that it could be a pretty serious problem when things go wrong.
Yes, a pretty serious problem indeed. I'd say only a lunatic would build a rocket this way. Luckily those people aren't lunatics, they're just Hollywood bullshit artists that make these things appear real with explanations that should tell the switched on people how deep the bullshit goes. But allegedly some are simply blinded by the splatters of thick and quickly dried bullshit that covers their eyes.
Liquid fuel rockets have an advantage in that they can be throttled. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel that can be used. It's actually a good idea to use it.
Yes, I realize that you're taking the piss out of all of us.
I have no need to. The pretend space agencies are doing a remarkable job of that.
So much opinion, so little effort to back it up.
-
Liquid fuel rockets have an advantage in that they can be throttled. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel that can be used. It's actually a good idea to use it.
Yes, space rockets are just like cars. You just step on or off the accelerator, depending on what vertical speed you choose to fly. I mean, they start off with just a little throttle on lift off, as anyone can see with these space rockets. You can pedal faster than these heaps of crap on lift off.
And hydrogen is the simplest fuel is it?
Liquid hydrogen is simply stored in that big tank. ;D
I'll give you people one thing. You are like the actornauts. You make this space stuff sound like a walk in the park.
Having said that - it basically is a walk in the park. It's just models and film making with a few bozo's punching the air sitting next to shit computers with the usual coffee cups sat on their important paperwork. ;D
Wake up before you get too old and feel foolish for believing this garbage. Seriously.
-
How do rebut an argument without actually making a rebuttal? Astonishing.
-
Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you. The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk)
-
Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you. The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk)
I don't need it explaining. You're wrong and I'm right. Anyone that says they do not use atmosphere to work, is wrong, 100%.
They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.
-
Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you. The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk)
I don't need it explaining. You're wrong and I'm right. Anyone that says they do not use atmosphere to work, is wrong, 100%.
They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.
What possible reason could we have for disbelieving you keen and insightful words? Your confidence is magnetic. Your reasoning impregnable.
-
Liquid fuel rockets have an advantage in that they can be throttled. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel that can be used. It's actually a good idea to use it.
Yes, space rockets are just like cars. You just step on or off the accelerator, depending on what vertical speed you choose to fly. I mean, they start off with just a little throttle on lift off, as anyone can see with these space rockets. You can pedal faster than these heaps of crap on lift off.
Yes, like a car. More fuel and oxidizer means more thrust. Thousands of people have seen the shuttle take off really slowly over the years.
And hydrogen is the simplest fuel is it?
Liquid hydrogen is simply stored in that big tank. ;D
It's the first element on the periodic table. It's not some hydrocarbon.
I don't need it explaining. You're wrong and I'm right. Anyone that says they do not use atmosphere to work, is wrong, 100%.
They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.
We are not wrong, you are, 212%. Remember that whole evidence thing? You have none.
-
So if you are on a swing at the park and you swing your legs forward, causing you to go backward a bit, you think that is because you are pushing on the air and not because of Newton's 3rd law?
-
Liquid fuel rockets have an advantage in that they can be throttled. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel that can be used. It's actually a good idea to use it.
Yes, space rockets are just like cars. You just step on or off the accelerator, depending on what vertical speed you choose to fly. I mean, they start off with just a little throttle on lift off, as anyone can see with these space rockets. You can pedal faster than these heaps of crap on lift off.
The shuttle stack is 56m tall and it takes about 3 seconds for it to clear the tower when it launches. If you can pedal your bike with an acceleration of better than 12 m/s2, then you should be a professional racer.
-
Explain this septic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster)
Suck MDDD
-
Try this as well
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MPDthruster.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MPDthruster.html)
S My DDD
-
And again
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/contactionthruster.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/contactionthruster.html)
The things you find. SM Dead DD
Can we have a lesson on dentrickery. You know how the electrons in the clouds push down on the wires and give us power. Please tell us, You are so smart!.
SMD Dogs D
-
They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.
Can you please explain in simple terms why a rocket engine can work within the earth's atmosphere, but can't work in the near-vacuum of outer space—as is alleged? And at what altitude above the earth's surface would there be insufficient air for a rocket engine to work satisfactorily?
-
Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you. The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk)
I don't need it explaining. You're wrong and I'm right. Anyone that says they do not use atmosphere to work, is wrong, 100%.
"I don't need it explaining"? Is that how a genius types? If you were right, why did you delete so many posts? Were you getting back at everyone? Crying and sniveling and mashing keys and the mouse buttons really hard whilst trying to delete all your comments?
They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.
Yes they can.
-
This may help septic. Attitude control, you need it.
3-axis-stabilization is an alternative method of spacecraft attitude control.
One method is to use small propulsion-system thrusters to incessantly nudge the spacecraft back and forth within a deadband of allowed attitude error. Space probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have been doing that since 1977, and have used up a little over half their 100 kg of propellant as of April 2006.[citation needed] Thrusters may also be referred to as mass-expulsion control (MEC) systems,[citation needed] or reaction control systems, RCS.
SMDDD
-
This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy ;D
Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard, I can't tell which.
How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.
How about you've made some shit up to support your conspiracy fantasies. But that's not what I said there; you claim absolute knowledge on subjects that you have no clue of, not even at the most basic level.
Look up a jet engine diagram and tell us how the fuel is burnt outside of the engine. Go on, do it.
Who said anything about fuel being burned outside of an engine on a jet engine?
You implied it. This argument of ours is about how reaction engines produce thrust, and jet is a reaction engine. Are you going to tell me what that welding torch had to do with anything, if you're now saying you know 100% that reaction engines do not burn fuel outside of them? Do solid fuel rockets burn fuel outside of the engine? Do liquid fuel rockets burn fuel outside of them?
-
Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you. The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk)
This is almost as good as the thread in which he insisted that inertia does not exist.
-
So if you are on a swing at the park and you swing your legs forward, causing you to go backward a bit, you think that is because you are pushing on the air and not because of Newton's 3rd law?
Newtons 3rd law applies. The issue is, it doesn't apply in how you people think it does, as regards movement, such as rockets and the swing routine.
It's all to do with atmospheric pressure. Nothing works without using it. Nothing.
People can't see the simplicity of it all because they do not understand atmospheric pressure and how it works. They simply think it's loose molecules that simply waft away and so can't effect anything.
This is the shit you've been taught and hang onto.
On a swing when you kick your legs forward, you've kicked into air resistance, which has exerted a force back onto you, making you move.
Think of someone on a swing and you're stood there with a board and you waft that board towards them. They will move a little bit due to the air pressure you forced onto them.
This is all they're doing with their legs to gain a movement.
No atmosphere, no movement in any shape or form for anything.
You've been duped into buying into bullshit.
-
They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.
Can you please explain in simple terms why a rocket engine can work within the earth's atmosphere, but can't work in the near-vacuum of outer space—as is alleged? And at what altitude above the earth's surface would there be insufficient air for a rocket engine to work satisfactorily?
Of course I can explain it. I have done. The problem is, I can't explain it to people like you because it's like trying to explain how a magician uses props, sleight of hand and mis-direction to achieve trick success, only for people like you to deny it and explain why it's actually real magic.
I'll explain it to those who are genuinely interested. You are not worth a light as regards that.
-
This may help septic. Attitude control, you need it.
3-axis-stabilization is an alternative method of spacecraft attitude control.
One method is to use small propulsion-system thrusters to incessantly nudge the spacecraft back and forth within a deadband of allowed attitude error. Space probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have been doing that since 1977, and have used up a little over half their 100 kg of propellant as of April 2006.[citation needed] Thrusters may also be referred to as mass-expulsion control (MEC) systems,[citation needed] or reaction control systems, RCS.
SMDDD
This is why you will always reside in the little shell you're in. Stick to star trek, kid.
-
This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy ;D
Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard, I can't tell which.
How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.
How about you've made some shit up to support your conspiracy fantasies. But that's not what I said there; you claim absolute knowledge on subjects that you have no clue of, not even at the most basic level.
Look up a jet engine diagram and tell us how the fuel is burnt outside of the engine. Go on, do it.
Who said anything about fuel being burned outside of an engine on a jet engine?
You implied it. This argument of ours is about how reaction engines produce thrust, and jet is a reaction engine. Are you going to tell me what that welding torch had to do with anything, if you're now saying you know 100% that reaction engines do not burn fuel outside of them? Do solid fuel rockets burn fuel outside of the engine? Do liquid fuel rockets burn fuel outside of them?
Let me try to get this into your head. Just try, ok?
It doesn't matter what fuel is used. It doesn't matter how it is used inside a jet engine or a rocket. The propulsion is gained when that fuel is expelled against the atmosphere.
Can you grasp what I'm trying to tell you?
Just cannot kick yourself up your own arse and expect to fly so the sooner you get this utter crap out of your head, the sooner you will realise that space rockets are fantasy.
The physical proof of what you need, is on the water. Go and take a look at how boats propel themselves but try and look past the silliness of trying to pretend they're not the same principle, because they are. The only difference is that they move horizontally as opposed to vertically for a rocket, which is why a rocket needs to burn it's fuel against the atmosphere top create a massive push against the atmosphere below it for that atmosphere to compress and spring back, creating the springboard effect .
It's almost like a trampoline where the pressure hits it and compresses the trampoline as far as the mass can compress it, them the trampoline reacts in equal force to that mass and springboards that mass ,upwards.
People like you will refuse to see it because it doesn't fit in to the bullshit space theory of rockets working against a near vacuum, when you should have enough sense to understand that it would be basically free expansion of that rocket fuel as it has nothing to push against.
If I thought you had a small inkling of wanting to find the truth of it, I'd show you how and why it works but to be honest, your mind, as well as many, are made up and I doubt you'll ever see the reality, which is a shame but it has no bearing on me, so carry on.
-
Try this septic. They even got 1/2 your name right.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
SMDDD
-
Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you. The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk)
This is almost as good as the thread in which he insisted that inertia does not exist.
Inertia in how you think it exists - doesn't. Inertia works the same as everything else. Atmospheric pressure.
I've told you before. Nothing moves without it. You are just brainwashed by this moving forever crap in a vacuum, when your common sense should really kick in and see it for what it is.
You see, once you hang onto gravity and vacuums, plus inertia in how you do...there's not a chance in hell you're going to see the simplicity of the real truth.
Anyone that's really interested in understanding it all in the very basic sense. No equations or silly calculations are needed to explain the basics. they are only needed when object calculations are needed for whatever arises in construction or experiment.
Scientists use this bullshit to try to be clever to stop the basic explanations of all this stuff, when all a person has to do, is grasp a few realities that are around them and discard the utter bullshit of gravity and all the rest of the made up clap trap that pretends to cater for what they have you believe is happening.
Just be prepared for people coming into the conversation with the full intent of attempted ridicule. It's just the way they're trained. If you can bypass that, you just might realise the truth.
-
Try this septic. They even got 1/2 your name right.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
SMDDD
Like I said. This is why you will be forever in your own cocoon. How in the hell people cannot see the silliness n this is beyond me. I can understand people believing what they're told if there was no counter argument. The thing is, there is a counter argument, because the counter argument is the correct argument.
The rocket pushes against it's own fuel??? I mean, people - think about if for crying out loud.
It is literally saying that you can lift up your own legs off the floor with your arms. It's telling you that you can push yourself over without the aid of a wall or object.
It's telling you that you can blow your own sail, sat in your own boat.
It's telling you that you can row your own boat by not allowing your oars to touch the water.
It's complete nonsense.
-
This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy ;D
Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard, I can't tell which.
How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.
How about you've made some shit up to support your conspiracy fantasies. But that's not what I said there; you claim absolute knowledge on subjects that you have no clue of, not even at the most basic level.
Look up a jet engine diagram and tell us how the fuel is burnt outside of the engine. Go on, do it.
Who said anything about fuel being burned outside of an engine on a jet engine?
You implied it. This argument of ours is about how reaction engines produce thrust, and jet is a reaction engine. Are you going to tell me what that welding torch had to do with anything, if you're now saying you know 100% that reaction engines do not burn fuel outside of them? Do solid fuel rockets burn fuel outside of the engine? Do liquid fuel rockets burn fuel outside of them?
Let me try to get this into your head. Just try, ok?
It doesn't matter what fuel is used. It doesn't matter how it is used inside a jet engine or a rocket. The propulsion is gained when that fuel is expelled against the atmosphere.
Can you grasp what I'm trying to tell you?
No I don't grasp what you're trying to tell me apart from that you know 100% how it works but won't show any evidence for it. You keep saying that you can prove it but you won't. Why is that?
Just cannot kick yourself up your own arse and expect to fly so the sooner you get this utter crap out of your head, the sooner you will realise that space rockets are fantasy.
Reaction engines aren't kicking up at themselves. Does the word 'propellant' mean anything to you?
The physical proof of what you need, is on the water. Go and take a look at how boats propel themselves but try and look past the silliness of trying to pretend they're not the same principle, because they are. The only difference is that they move horizontally as opposed to vertically for a rocket, which is why a rocket needs to burn it's fuel against the atmosphere top create a massive push against the atmosphere below it for that atmosphere to compress and spring back, creating the springboard effect .
It's almost like a trampoline where the pressure hits it and compresses the trampoline as far as the mass can compress it, them the trampoline reacts in equal force to that mass and springboards that mass ,upwards.
An oar or a propeller in water is nothing like a rocket. You ridicule a solid fuel rocket as an analogy to a rocket and then bring up a boat? Oh please.
If you want to insist on that 'springboard effect' please answer my questions concerning the water bottle rocket. Why doesn't it work properly without the water? Using only compressed air produces much more of that 'expanding in to the atmosphere' that you insist these things work on but that doesn't actually work so well when you try it, why is that?
And why do you continue with 'burning against the atmosphere'? Did you or did you not accept that a jet burns kerosene inside the engine, not outside? Are you going to explain that welding torch analogy of yours or not?
People like you will refuse to see it because it doesn't fit in to the bullshit space theory of rockets working against a near vacuum, when you should have enough sense to understand that it would be basically free expansion of that rocket fuel as it has nothing to push against.
If I thought you had a small inkling of wanting to find the truth of it, I'd show you how and why it works but to be honest, your mind, as well as many, are made up and I doubt you'll ever see the reality, which is a shame but it has no bearing on me, so carry on.
So it's like religion. The absolute proof is there, but we don't get to see it unless we already believe it.
-
septic get a hose, put it in a pool, turn it on full bore then take it out of the water. Then shut up you silly child.
SMDDD
-
Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you. The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk)
This is almost as good as the thread in which he insisted that inertia does not exist.
Inertia in how you think it exists - doesn't. Inertia works the same as everything else. Atmospheric pressure.
I've told you before. Nothing moves without it. You are just brainwashed by this moving forever crap in a vacuum, when your common sense should really kick in and see it for what it is.
You see, once you hang onto gravity and vacuums, plus inertia in how you do...there's not a chance in hell you're going to see the simplicity of the real truth.
Anyone that's really interested in understanding it all in the very basic sense. No equations or silly calculations are needed to explain the basics. they are only needed when object calculations are needed for whatever arises in construction or experiment.
Scientists use this bullshit to try to be clever to stop the basic explanations of all this stuff, when all a person has to do, is grasp a few realities that are around them and discard the utter bullshit of gravity and all the rest of the made up clap trap that pretends to cater for what they have you believe is happening.
Just be prepared for people coming into the conversation with the full intent of attempted ridicule. It's just the way they're trained. If you can bypass that, you just might realise the truth.
Inertia doesn't give two shits for how it works. It just does. It's a descriptive word. The fact that objects fall in vacuum chambers is irrevocable proof that your air pressure idea is just nonsense that you dreamed up.
Seeing 'how it all works' doesn't require equations etc. It requires evidence. You have none. All you have is words you made up to support your paranoid, delirious world view and then have the gall to blame us for relying on math etc. How two-faced can you be?
-
Think of someone on a swing and you're stood there with a board and you waft that board towards them. They will move a little bit due to the air pressure you forced onto them.
This is all they're doing with their legs to gain a movement.
No atmosphere, no movement in any shape or form for anything.
You've been duped into buying into bullshit.
And throwing a large light football from off a swing will displace you more than throwing a smaller heavier rock then? How about a huge diameter beach ball. Think of the volume of air that would be pushing against!
You're going to have to try a bit harder. What sort of experiment can you suggest that will demonstrate (and prove) your air pressure idea?
I can wait while you come up with something ........
-
Try this septic. They even got 1/2 your name right.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
SMDDD
Like I said. This is why you will be forever in your own cocoon. How in the hell people cannot see the silliness n this is beyond me. I can understand people believing what they're told if there was no counter argument. The thing is, there is a counter argument, because the counter argument is the correct argument.
The rocket pushes against it's own fuel??? I mean, people - think about if for crying out loud.
It is literally saying that you can lift up your own legs off the floor with your arms. It's telling you that you can push yourself over without the aid of a wall or object.
It's telling you that you can blow your own sail, sat in your own boat.
It's telling you that you can row your own boat by not allowing your oars to touch the water.
It's complete nonsense.
Sceptimatic,
I have to believe what you say is true, it's not without logic. I've watched the videos on the net and what they show is a tube with gasses pushing against the back wall and the rocket goes forward. This seems like if someone sitting with their knees on a wheeled office chair and pushing on the back of the chair the chair would roll backwards. This doesn't work. It looks to me like, with all the videos on the internet explaining how rockets work, someone would actually demonstrate this silliness in a real vacuum. I can't find one.
-
So if you are on a swing at the park and you swing your legs forward, causing you to go backward a bit, you think that is because you are pushing on the air and not because of Newton's 3rd law?
Newtons 3rd law applies. The issue is, it doesn't apply in how you people think it does, as regards movement, such as rockets and the swing routine.
It's all to do with atmospheric pressure. Nothing works without using it. Nothing.
People can't see the simplicity of it all because they do not understand atmospheric pressure and how it works. They simply think it's loose molecules that simply waft away and so can't effect anything.
This is the shit you've been taught and hang onto.
On a swing when you kick your legs forward, you've kicked into air resistance, which has exerted a force back onto you, making you move.
Think of someone on a swing and you're stood there with a board and you waft that board towards them. They will move a little bit due to the air pressure you forced onto them.
This is all they're doing with their legs to gain a movement.
No atmosphere, no movement in any shape or form for anything.
You've been duped into buying into bullshit.
If it was just because of air resistance then what would happen would be the same thing that does in the helium balloon enclosed in a car example. If you remember, what happens there is that because the helium is lighter than the air around it, the balloon (the whole balloon) is pushed in the opposite direction. On the swing we are talking about now this is not happening. Your legs, as they go forward have absolutely no problem freely swinging through the air yet all of you (excluding your legs which you moved forward) goes back on the swing. For what you're implying to be correct then I would need to attempt to move my legs forward and not be able to actually move them forward. All parts including the legs would need to move back.... Sort of like pushing on a wall. If I push a wall I'll go back for example. Nobody has been duped. You're just a fucking idiot and you really need to get hit by a truck so that we can prevent more idiots like you from existing.
-
Inertia in how you think it exists - doesn't. Inertia works the same as everything else. Atmospheric pressure.
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
-
Inertia in how you think it exists - doesn't. Inertia works the same as everything else. Atmospheric pressure.
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Oh no, it's even worse than that. Pressure is higher at the bottom side, not equal on all sides (very small difference but it's there). So it's the lower pressure on top that pushes things down against the higher pressure, impersonating as gravity.
-
And just what could possibly cause the fact that pressure is greater under the ball?
-
septic get a hose, put it in a pool, turn it on full bore then take it out of the water. Then shut up you silly child.
SMDDD
Well come on silly, tell me what happens. Don't just pipe in (pardon the pun) with something and not explain what you're meaning.
-
And just what could possibly cause the fact that pressure is greater under the ball?
atmosphere's density being higher at lower elevation? In case of a small ball it wouldn't be a very discernible pressure differential, but in principle.
-
Inertia doesn't give two shits for how it works. It just does. It's a descriptive word.
Yep, like gravity. Just a word made up to describe something that nobody has a clue about in terms of knowing what it is as a force that atmospheric pressure explains brilliantly for those that care to listen.
The fact that objects fall in vacuum chambers is irrevocable proof that your air pressure idea is just nonsense that you dreamed up.
Yes, back to the old vacuum chamber. A chamber evacuates air pressure, not all air pressure. There is still a medium inside the chamber of expanded air. Try again.
Seeing 'how it all works' doesn't require equations etc. It requires evidence. You have none. All you have is words you made up to support your paranoid, delirious world view and then have the gall to blame us for relying on math etc. How two-faced can you be?
I have plenty of evidence. I gave it to plenty of people who weirdly didn't take up the offer to do it themselves, despite it being cheap to do.
-
Think of someone on a swing and you're stood there with a board and you waft that board towards them. They will move a little bit due to the air pressure you forced onto them.
This is all they're doing with their legs to gain a movement.
No atmosphere, no movement in any shape or form for anything.
You've been duped into buying into bullshit.
And throwing a large light football from off a swing will displace you more than throwing a smaller heavier rock then? How about a huge diameter beach ball. Think of the volume of air that would be pushing against!
You're going to have to try a bit harder. What sort of experiment can you suggest that will demonstrate (and prove) your air pressure idea?
I can wait while you come up with something ........
Sometimes it pays to actually read what I'm saying and it will save you the time of typing this stuff out and getting it wrong in what I've been saying.
-
The fact that objects fall in vacuum chambers is irrevocable proof that your air pressure idea is just nonsense that you dreamed up.
Yes, back to the old vacuum chamber. A chamber evacuates air pressure, not all air pressure. There is still a medium inside the chamber of expanded air.
Yes, but that air is far less dense than outside the chamber. So why will the objects fall at the same rate or faster in a near vacuum?
-
Try this septic. They even got 1/2 your name right.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
SMDDD
Like I said. This is why you will be forever in your own cocoon. How in the hell people cannot see the silliness n this is beyond me. I can understand people believing what they're told if there was no counter argument. The thing is, there is a counter argument, because the counter argument is the correct argument.
The rocket pushes against it's own fuel??? I mean, people - think about if for crying out loud.
It is literally saying that you can lift up your own legs off the floor with your arms. It's telling you that you can push yourself over without the aid of a wall or object.
It's telling you that you can blow your own sail, sat in your own boat.
It's telling you that you can row your own boat by not allowing your oars to touch the water.
It's complete nonsense.
Sceptimatic,
I have to believe what you say is true, it's not without logic. I've watched the videos on the net and what they show is a tube with gasses pushing against the back wall and the rocket goes forward. This seems like if someone sitting with their knees on a wheeled office chair and pushing on the back of the chair the chair would roll backwards. This doesn't work. It looks to me like, with all the videos on the internet explaining how rockets work, someone would actually demonstrate this silliness in a real vacuum. I can't find one.
It'll never happen, unless they fake it. You see, to use a vacuum chamber to test this stuff - let's say a small rocket inside one. All they would do is pretend to evacuate it of pressure and show us a rocket moving. The truth is, if you placed a rocket inside a vacuum chamber and took out as much pressure as possible, the rocket would expand and be ripped apart, because just like a balloon expands into a vacuum chamber, so would a human, rocket or any other pressurised object. Even a marshmallow expands. Because it has to. It must fill the void.
Basically we cannot make a true vacuum on Earth. The best we can do is to lower the pressure and hope the chamber is strong enough to withstand the 15psi external pressure still trying to crush the chamber, which is why they have safety built in.
Newtons laws work because of atmospheric pressure. A vacuum renders those laws, useless.
High flying aircraft cannot go too high because their fuel tanks start to fall apart and leak fuel. The reason is that the fuel is expanding as well as air inside, which simply stretches the aircraft, because it's going against less pressure which the molecules of anything , including the pilot will expand to try and fill the void to equalise, except it's never going to happen due to the obvious huge sky it's part of.
If that aircraft tried to ascend much more or stay at that height, it would literally be taken apart.
Now, we are talking in thousands of feet, so imagine the state of a rocket ascending to even 20 miles. It's a dead stick, even if it could manage that height.
The trouble is - mainstream science fill us full of crap and ridicule anyone who dares to see it for what it is.
It's obvious why they hang onto it though. If they admitted that atmospheric pressure was they key to all things that happen, it destroys space, planets, rockets in space...infact, it destroys the rotating sphere, the lot.
-
Inertia doesn't give two shits for how it works. It just does. It's a descriptive word.
Yep, like gravity. Just a word made up to describe something that nobody has a clue about in terms of knowing what it is as a force that atmospheric pressure explains brilliantly for those that care to listen.
'Atmospheric pressure' hasn't enabled you to answer any of the questions presented here. Funny that. Awesome that it 'explains everything brilliantly' but it would be nice to see some of those explanations. For an example that water rocket thing that I've mentioned half a dozen times now, with no response from you.
The fact that objects fall in vacuum chambers is irrevocable proof that your air pressure idea is just nonsense that you dreamed up.
Yes, back to the old vacuum chamber. A chamber evacuates air pressure, not all air pressure. There is still a medium inside the chamber of expanded air. Try again.
No. If it's that 0.000001 % of normal air pressure that makes stuff fall in a vacuum chamber, how come it's action on a heavy, solid object is nearly unchanged, while a light object, like a feather in the classic example, falls faster than usual, at identical rate to the heavy object? That nearly imperceptible air still in the chamber, no longer has the ability to offer any aerodynamic drag on the feather, but at the same time somehow 'pushes down' objects just like before. This is a huge hole in your "theory".
Seeing 'how it all works' doesn't require equations etc. It requires evidence. You have none. All you have is words you made up to support your paranoid, delirious world view and then have the gall to blame us for relying on math etc. How two-faced can you be?
I have plenty of evidence. I gave it to plenty of people who weirdly didn't take up the offer to do it themselves, despite it being cheap to do.
Who are these 'plenty of people'? Do they exist outside of your imagination? If you have hard evidence, let's see it here.
-
It'll never happen, unless they fake it. You see, to use a vacuum chamber to test this stuff - let's say a small rocket inside one. All they would do is pretend to evacuate it of pressure and show us a rocket moving. The truth is, if you placed a rocket inside a vacuum chamber and took out as much pressure as possible, the rocket would expand and be ripped apart, because just like a balloon expands into a vacuum chamber, so would a human, rocket or any other pressurised object. Even a marshmallow expands. Because it has to. It must fill the void.
Basically we cannot make a true vacuum on Earth. The best we can do is to lower the pressure and hope the chamber is strong enough to withstand the 15psi external pressure still trying to crush the chamber, which is why they have safety built in.
Yes the fact that pressure containers capable of withstanding pressure differentials a hundred times greater are a dime a dozen must be completely ignored.
-
Please explain the rate of fall v. surrounding pressure.
-
The impossibility of a vacuum is possibly Scepti's most idiotic and illogical imagining. We should all try and steer the thread back on course before we all get a bit dumber for participating.
-
The impossibility of a vacuum is possibly Scepti's most idiotic and illogical imagining. We should all try and steer the thread back on course before we all get a bit dumber for participating.
Egging scepti on on a tirade of his best yet theories wasn't the course of this thread? ???
-
If it was just because of air resistance then what would happen would be the same thing that does in the helium balloon enclosed in a car example. If you remember, what happens there is that because the helium is lighter than the air around it, the balloon (the whole balloon) is pushed in the opposite direction.
I showed you the helium balloon in the car and the air filled balloon. You saw what happened but you had no clue why it happened. I explained why it happened and you just went into your little frenzy about how it's inertia and blah blah, which is crap.
Bring up the video and have another look. It destroys that nonsense.
On the swing we are talking about now this is not happening. Your legs, as they go forward have absolutely no problem freely swinging through the air yet all of you (excluding your legs which you moved forward) goes back on the swing.
Well why don't you try it in a swimming pool. Sit under water on that swing then kick your legs. What happens?....exactly, your legs kick the water away and you move the opposite way. Atmosphere is exactly the same, except less dense, obviously, which is why you hardly move.
How do you think a bird lifts itself off the ground? It flaps it wings to push the air down to compress it and the atmsphere immediately goes to equalise that push, giving the wings, lift.
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
For what you're implying to be correct then I would need to attempt to move my legs forward and not be able to actually move them forward. All parts including the legs would need to move back.... Sort of like pushing on a wall. If I push a wall I'll go back for example. Nobody has been duped. You're just a fucking idiot and you really need to get hit by a truck so that we can prevent more idiots like you from existing.
You are clueless. Stick to your ASDA throw away camera work and stop pretending you know stuff.
-
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
Tell more of this 'thrusting flame'. Is it like on a welding torch perchance?
-
How do you think a bird lifts itself off the ground? It flaps it wings to push the air down to compress it and the atmsphere immediately goes to equalise that push, giving the wings, lift.
You need a pressure difference to get lift. If it's equal it's just like before the bird started to fly.
Just give it up already.
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
-
And just what could possibly cause the fact that pressure is greater under the ball?
Pressure isn't greater under the ball in motion. It's less, assuming a vertical throw.
-
The fact that objects fall in vacuum chambers is irrevocable proof that your air pressure idea is just nonsense that you dreamed up.
Yes, back to the old vacuum chamber. A chamber evacuates air pressure, not all air pressure. There is still a medium inside the chamber of expanded air.
Yes, but that air is far less dense than outside the chamber. So why will the objects fall at the same rate or faster in a near vacuum?
Less resistance to arrest their fall. Which is why a feather and a coin can just about fall at the same rate, as long as that feather falls like an arrow.
The pressure would have to be extremely super low for a feather to fall horizontally and keep pace with a falling coin.
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
I was going to ask that. He seems to have ignored this or forgot that he claims the ball can only move from air once it's not touching a person.
-
Try this septic. They even got 1/2 your name right.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
SMDDD
Like I said. This is why you will be forever in your own cocoon. How in the hell people cannot see the silliness n this is beyond me. I can understand people believing what they're told if there was no counter argument. The thing is, there is a counter argument, because the counter argument is the correct argument.
The rocket pushes against it's own fuel??? I mean, people - think about if for crying out loud.
It is literally saying that you can lift up your own legs off the floor with your arms. It's telling you that you can push yourself over without the aid of a wall or object.
It's telling you that you can blow your own sail, sat in your own boat.
It's telling you that you can row your own boat by not allowing your oars to touch the water.
It's complete nonsense.
Sceptimatic,
I have to believe what you say is true, it's not without logic. I've watched the videos on the net and what they show is a tube with gasses pushing against the back wall and the rocket goes forward. This seems like if someone sitting with their knees on a wheeled office chair and pushing on the back of the chair the chair would roll backwards. This doesn't work. It looks to me like, with all the videos on the internet explaining how rockets work, someone would actually demonstrate this silliness in a real vacuum. I can't find one.
It'll never happen, unless they fake it. You see, to use a vacuum chamber to test this stuff - let's say a small rocket inside one. All they would do is pretend to evacuate it of pressure and show us a rocket moving. The truth is, if you placed a rocket inside a vacuum chamber and took out as much pressure as possible, the rocket would expand and be ripped apart, because just like a balloon expands into a vacuum chamber, so would a human, rocket or any other pressurised object. Even a marshmallow expands. Because it has to. It must fill the void.
Basically we cannot make a true vacuum on Earth. The best we can do is to lower the pressure and hope the chamber is strong enough to withstand the 15psi external pressure still trying to crush the chamber, which is why they have safety built in.
Newtons laws work because of atmospheric pressure. A vacuum renders those laws, useless.
High flying aircraft cannot go too high because their fuel tanks start to fall apart and leak fuel. The reason is that the fuel is expanding as well as air inside, which simply stretches the aircraft, because it's going against less pressure which the molecules of anything , including the pilot will expand to try and fill the void to equalise, except it's never going to happen due to the obvious huge sky it's part of.
If that aircraft tried to ascend much more or stay at that height, it would literally be taken apart.
Now, we are talking in thousands of feet, so imagine the state of a rocket ascending to even 20 miles. It's a dead stick, even if it could manage that height.
The trouble is - mainstream science fill us full of crap and ridicule anyone who dares to see it for what it is.
It's obvious why they hang onto it though. If they admitted that atmospheric pressure was they key to all things that happen, it destroys space, planets, rockets in space...infact, it destroys the rotating sphere, the lot.
I'll tell you, I really enjoy this site, especially you and the other FE. I'm a retired electrical engineer and I never really thought too much about physics except for RF, digital, current flow and voltage drops. Now I'm retired I can spend time on this site and I must say it really has me thinking.
Getting back on subject, what! rockets don't work in space. How can that be, I've done work for all the satellite companies. Where did all the stuff I designed go, if not in satellites?
Searching more on the internet, I did find information where J.P. Joule, back in 1845, did an experiment called 'Expansion'. It was done where gas under pressure in one solid chamber was released in another solid chamber that was evacuated. The result of the experiment showed no work was performed. That sounds like what you say. Is this not a true example of an experiment that proves rockets are not moving in the vacuum of space?
-
Searching more on the internet, I did find information where J.P. Joule, back in 1845, did an experiment called 'Expansion'. It was done where gas under pressure in one solid chamber was released in another solid chamber that was evacuated. The result of the experiment showed no work was performed. That sounds like what you say. Is this not a true example of an experiment that proves rockets are not moving in the vacuum of space?
Hi. 'Joule expansion' does not perform work, but that's not how a rocket produces thrust, as has been explained in this thread. Spaceflight is impossible only in a world where gravity, laws of motion etc do not apply.
-
If it was just because of air resistance then what would happen would be the same thing that does in the helium balloon enclosed in a car example. If you remember, what happens there is that because the helium is lighter than the air around it, the balloon (the whole balloon) is pushed in the opposite direction.
I showed you the helium balloon in the car and the air filled balloon. You saw what happened but you had no clue why it happened. I explained why it happened and you just went into your little frenzy about how it's inertia and blah blah, which is crap.
Bring up the video and have another look. It destroys that nonsense.
On the swing we are talking about now this is not happening. Your legs, as they go forward have absolutely no problem freely swinging through the air yet all of you (excluding your legs which you moved forward) goes back on the swing.
Well why don't you try it in a swimming pool. Sit under water on that swing then kick your legs. What happens?....exactly, your legs kick the water away and you move the opposite way. Atmosphere is exactly the same, except less dense, obviously, which is why you hardly move.
How do you think a bird lifts itself off the ground? It flaps it wings to push the air down to compress it and the atmsphere immediately goes to equalise that push, giving the wings, lift.
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
For what you're implying to be correct then I would need to attempt to move my legs forward and not be able to actually move them forward. All parts including the legs would need to move back.... Sort of like pushing on a wall. If I push a wall I'll go back for example. Nobody has been duped. You're just a fucking idiot and you really need to get hit by a truck so that we can prevent more idiots like you from existing.
You are clueless. Stick to your ASDA throw away camera work and stop pretending you know stuff.
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
There is no point in talking to you. You've been shown to be wrong. You've been proven wrong. You are wrong about just about fucking everything.
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
Because the pressure accumulating above it is transferred around it to equalise under it. It's in open space.
Now imagine doing the same thing, except trying to push it down a tube with a sealed bottom that is just about the same diameter as the ball. You see that it will stop quite quickly, then slowly fall to the bottom. Why? because the air cannot readily equalise around that ball.
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
Because the pressure accumulating above it is transferred around it to equalise under it. It's in open space.
Now imagine doing the same thing, except trying to push it down a tube with a sealed bottom that is just about the same diameter as the ball. You see that it will stop quite quickly, then slowly fall to the bottom. Why? because the air cannot readily equalise around that ball.
Air flowing from high pressure to low pressure cause objects to move to the high pressure? For a made up answer it was quite terrible.
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
Because the pressure accumulating above it is transferred around it to equalise under it. It's in open space.
Now imagine doing the same thing, except trying to push it down a tube with a sealed bottom that is just about the same diameter as the ball. You see that it will stop quite quickly, then slowly fall to the bottom. Why? because the air cannot readily equalise around that ball.
And this 'equalizing around and under' is at the same time accelerating it up, and pushing it down? If the equalization effect is sufficient to keep the ball going up, even against the greater pressure on top, why does a barely measurable difference push the ball towards the ground at similar force when the ball is at rest? Shouldn't the ball just float around in the first place? How does the weight of the ball come in to this, if it's an air-filled balloon or a bowling ball of identical size and shape, why do they fall at a different rate, surely they are displacing exactly the same amount of air and so generating exactly the same pressure differentials?
As for the second example you put there, it seems like that actually is how a cylinder-piston system works.
-
Try this septic. They even got 1/2 your name right.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
SMDDD
Like I said. This is why you will be forever in your own cocoon. How in the hell people cannot see the silliness n this is beyond me. I can understand people believing what they're told if there was no counter argument. The thing is, there is a counter argument, because the counter argument is the correct argument.
The rocket pushes against it's own fuel??? I mean, people - think about if for crying out loud.
It is literally saying that you can lift up your own legs off the floor with your arms. It's telling you that you can push yourself over without the aid of a wall or object.
It's telling you that you can blow your own sail, sat in your own boat.
It's telling you that you can row your own boat by not allowing your oars to touch the water.
It's complete nonsense.
Sceptimatic,
I have to believe what you say is true, it's not without logic. I've watched the videos on the net and what they show is a tube with gasses pushing against the back wall and the rocket goes forward. This seems like if someone sitting with their knees on a wheeled office chair and pushing on the back of the chair the chair would roll backwards. This doesn't work. It looks to me like, with all the videos on the internet explaining how rockets work, someone would actually demonstrate this silliness in a real vacuum. I can't find one.
It'll never happen, unless they fake it. You see, to use a vacuum chamber to test this stuff - let's say a small rocket inside one. All they would do is pretend to evacuate it of pressure and show us a rocket moving. The truth is, if you placed a rocket inside a vacuum chamber and took out as much pressure as possible, the rocket would expand and be ripped apart, because just like a balloon expands into a vacuum chamber, so would a human, rocket or any other pressurised object. Even a marshmallow expands. Because it has to. It must fill the void.
Basically we cannot make a true vacuum on Earth. The best we can do is to lower the pressure and hope the chamber is strong enough to withstand the 15psi external pressure still trying to crush the chamber, which is why they have safety built in.
Newtons laws work because of atmospheric pressure. A vacuum renders those laws, useless.
High flying aircraft cannot go too high because their fuel tanks start to fall apart and leak fuel. The reason is that the fuel is expanding as well as air inside, which simply stretches the aircraft, because it's going against less pressure which the molecules of anything , including the pilot will expand to try and fill the void to equalise, except it's never going to happen due to the obvious huge sky it's part of.
If that aircraft tried to ascend much more or stay at that height, it would literally be taken apart.
Now, we are talking in thousands of feet, so imagine the state of a rocket ascending to even 20 miles. It's a dead stick, even if it could manage that height.
The trouble is - mainstream science fill us full of crap and ridicule anyone who dares to see it for what it is.
It's obvious why they hang onto it though. If they admitted that atmospheric pressure was they key to all things that happen, it destroys space, planets, rockets in space...infact, it destroys the rotating sphere, the lot.
I'll tell you, I really enjoy this site, especially you and the other FE. I'm a retired electrical engineer and I never really thought too much about physics except for RF, digital, current flow and voltage drops. Now I'm retired I can spend time on this site and I must say it really has me thinking.
Getting back on subject, what! rockets don't work in space. How can that be, I've done work for all the satellite companies. Where did all the stuff I designed go, if not in satellites?
Searching more on the internet, I did find information where J.P. Joule, back in 1845, did an experiment called 'Expansion'. It was done where gas under pressure in one solid chamber was released in another solid chamber that was evacuated. The result of the experiment showed no work was performed. That sounds like what you say. Is this not a true example of an experiment that proves rockets are not moving in the vacuum of space?
Yep, sort of. If space is what they tell us it is, as in devoid of just about all matter, then nothing exists in it.
They are duping us into believing that scattered particles float around space. It's impossible. Everything has to be attached with no voids. To create a void or a true vacuum, means we simply do not exist, nor does anything.
We are mere vibration organisms, like everything. We rely on pressure and the vibration/frequencies in order to be what we are.
So talking about what you were on about. It's called free expansion, or close to it. A true vacuum would, in effect create that void that could only allow total free expansion, yet to create a true vacuum means to create a non existance of anything. It sounds silly, I know but basically it creates what would be known as suspended animation which cannot happen inside this Earth but very possible that we are a cell in that so called void, in suspended animation that we can only grow into or shrink into, yet cannot freely move in any direction into, as there cannot be any direction, nor any means of vibrations or waves, meaning no light, zilch.
I don't know about your satellites or what and how you worked on them but it's more than likely that they're sitting atop mountains or fitted inside planes, etc. I don't really know. Maybe they are simply communication devices for something like that.
All I can say is, there's no way there is any man made object at the heights we are told and certainly nothing freely orbiting a spinning ball. It's absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned, but that's just me.
I understand it takes a real outside of the box mind to grasp it for most but we are literally being lied to on a massive scale with just about everything.
-
Searching more on the internet, I did find information where J.P. Joule, back in 1845, did an experiment called 'Expansion'. It was done where gas under pressure in one solid chamber was released in another solid chamber that was evacuated. The result of the experiment showed no work was performed. That sounds like what you say. Is this not a true example of an experiment that proves rockets are not moving in the vacuum of space?
Hi. 'Joule expansion' does not perform work, but that's not how a rocket produces thrust, as has been explained in this thread. Spaceflight is impossible only in a world where gravity, laws of motion etc do not apply.
Exactly, which is this world we live in.
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
There is no point in talking to you. You've been shown to be wrong. You've been proven wrong. You are wrong about just about fucking everything.
-
The impossibility of a vacuum is possibly Scepti's most idiotic and illogical imagining. We should all try and steer the thread back on course before we all get a bit dumber for participating.
A true vacuum cannot be made in Earth. If it can, then show me.
-
The impossibility of a vacuum is possibly Scepti's most idiotic and illogical imagining. We should all try and steer the thread back on course before we all get a bit dumber for participating.
A true vacuum cannot be made in Earth. If it can, then show me.
What is the lowest pressure we have made?
-
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
Tell more of this 'thrusting flame'. Is it like on a welding torch perchance?
Ever seen an aerosol whizz about when it's been set alight?
Are you gonna tell me that it's combustion chamber is making it do that? ::)
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
Because the pressure accumulating above it is transferred around it to equalise under it. It's in open space.
Now imagine doing the same thing, except trying to push it down a tube with a sealed bottom that is just about the same diameter as the ball. You see that it will stop quite quickly, then slowly fall to the bottom. Why? because the air cannot readily equalise around that ball.
Air flowing from high pressure to low pressure cause objects to move to the high pressure? For a made up answer it was quite terrible.
It's called equalisation of pressure. What the hell do you think wind is?
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
Because the pressure accumulating above it is transferred around it to equalise under it. It's in open space.
Now imagine doing the same thing, except trying to push it down a tube with a sealed bottom that is just about the same diameter as the ball. You see that it will stop quite quickly, then slowly fall to the bottom. Why? because the air cannot readily equalise around that ball.
Air flowing from high pressure to low pressure cause objects to move to the high pressure? For a made up answer it was quite terrible.
It's called equalisation of pressure. What the hell do you think wind is?
Air moving from high to low pressure. What do things in the wind do? The move with it, not against it. So you agree your previous answer doesn't work, got it.
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. What is it like to not only fail to make convincing arguments but also to fail at seeing when you are wrong?
You need to stop trying to tell people how things work because you have no clue. Read books about physics. They are right and you are wrong.
The helium balloon shows you to be wrong and you know it because it is an exclusive case where pressure is the dominant force. In that case, we can see how pressure can be relevant. For everything else it doesn't work that way. Using the same car as the helium balloon example we can try 99% of the rest of the objects that can fit in the car and the opposite effect would happen. Of course I've told you thus countless times and I pretty much just said it in my last comment but you still don't get it because, let's face it, the real problem is that you are dumb.
-
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
Tell more of this 'thrusting flame'. Is it like on a welding torch perchance?
Ever seen an aerosol whizz about when it's been set alight?
Are you gonna tell me that it's combustion chamber is making it do that? ::)
Pressurized content of the aerosol can escaping the ruptured can at high velocity is making it do that. If the content manages to ignite while still in the can, the can becomes a combustion chamber. The can's content burning up after having escaped the can isn't doing anything to propel it. Can you answer why the water bottle rocket doesn't work without the water in it?
-
How about aircraft falling down at 9.81m/s, such as 'the vomit comet'? The air inside the aircraft is moving along with the aircraft, what makes people and things in the plane become apparently weightless? There's still air around them.. shouldn't it press them firmly down?
Another thing I'm interested in, when an object moves - like a ball thrown up, or whatever - is the pressure on the rear-facing side of it higher or lower than normal atmospheric pressure?
-
And this 'equalizing around and under' is at the same time accelerating it up, and pushing it down?
Try not to ignore the nergy applied to the ball, as in you throwing it up. The energy you apply and the density of the ball, determines how much air you compress. That compression of air has to be pushed around the ball. Because you threw the ball up, you created a lower pressure under that ball due to compressing the air above that ball. That air then cannot stack on that ball due to the open space you threw it in, so it is pushed around the ball, or to make it simple. It springs back into shape at speed around the ball to equalise the lower pressure under that ball you created by throwing it. Once that energy is resisted by that compression, that last compression forces that ball back down against the last low pressure created and now the opposite effect happens, where the density of the ball, now compresses the air under it forcing that air to equalise the lower pressure created, all teh way back to where the ball came from, which is where everything comes from. The ground or any place that can create a resistance immediate to that balls density, which could be your hand catching it or falling on a shed roof, etc.
If the equalization effect is sufficient to keep the ball going up, even against the greater pressure on top, why does a barely measurable difference push the ball towards the ground at similar force when the ball is at rest?
As above.
Shouldn't the ball just float around in the first place?
How can it float around? It's always under pressure.
How does the weight of the ball come in to this, if it's an air-filled balloon or a bowling ball of identical size and shape, why do they fall at a different rate, surely they are displacing exactly the same amount of air and so generating exactly the same pressure differentials?
The more dense an object is, the more air it can displace and faster, which is why a bowling ball can fall faster than a beach ball that is merely just air and a small amount of plastic.
You'll never grasp it because your mind immediately goes into gravity mode. You simply can't let go of it, even though gravity makes no sense and is pathetic and cannot be explained as a force. It just is and that's that.
If you can't grasp it, then no problem.
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
Because the pressure accumulating above it is transferred around it to equalise under it. It's in open space.
Now imagine doing the same thing, except trying to push it down a tube with a sealed bottom that is just about the same diameter as the ball. You see that it will stop quite quickly, then slowly fall to the bottom. Why? because the air cannot readily equalise around that ball.
Air flowing from high pressure to low pressure cause objects to move to the high pressure? For a made up answer it was quite terrible.
It's called equalisation of pressure. What the hell do you think wind is?
Air moving from high to low pressure. What do things in the wind do? The move with it, not against it. So you agree your previous answer doesn't work, got it.
Give it up. You're clueless.
-
This argument again? I'm going to put into words what you believe.
If I lay on the floor and throw a rubber ball at my ceiling, you say my arm creates enough wind to blow the ball towards the ceiling the second I let go of it. Then, the air pressure that is pushing the ball up, also feels the need to push it down. So when it get's to a random height, the all knowing air pressure reverses and starts to push the ball down. For some reason air pressure knows which way is down. All this is accomplished even though air pressure would be equal on all sides of the ball.
Your own energy is pushing the ball up against the resistance of air pressure you're throwing it against. You are compressing that air directly above the ball being thrown by your energy. The force of your energy determines how high you throw that ball through the resistance of air that it compresses. that's what you are doing.
In order for you to compress that air above the ball, you have to leave a lower pressure under it. The compressed air you're creating above (higher pressure) has to push around that ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under it.
This is where denpressure comes into force, because you are throwing that dense ball against the pressure of atmosphere and how dense that ball is, determines how much atmosphere it can compress and push out of the way due to the amount of energy you place onto that ball.
It's not about atmosphere knowing what's up and down. The atmosphere is stacked, like I said before. Compressed at sea level and decompressed at the dome.
I don't expect you or people like you to understand it because you'd rather sit and go all gooey over stipud gravity that nobody can explain as a force and look at me, I can explain reality by showing you how atmospheric pressure works on a Earth that is most definitely not a frigging sphere, spinning in space.
And just after you've released the ball, it continues on it's way up, against the pressure accumulating above it... why does it do that? Why doesn't it just fall down the instant you stop pushing it up?
Because the pressure accumulating above it is transferred around it to equalise under it. It's in open space.
Now imagine doing the same thing, except trying to push it down a tube with a sealed bottom that is just about the same diameter as the ball. You see that it will stop quite quickly, then slowly fall to the bottom. Why? because the air cannot readily equalise around that ball.
Air flowing from high pressure to low pressure cause objects to move to the high pressure? For a made up answer it was quite terrible.
It's called equalisation of pressure. What the hell do you think wind is?
Air moving from high to low pressure. What do things in the wind do? The move with it, not against it. So you agree your previous answer doesn't work, got it.
Give it up. You're clueless.
I noticed you could not explain why leaves blow with the wind but the ball moves against the wind.
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. What is it like to not only fail to make convincing arguments but also to fail at seeing when you are wrong?
You need to stop trying to tell people how things work because you have no clue. Read books about physics. They are right and you are wrong.
The helium balloon shows you to be wrong and you know it because it is an exclusive case where pressure is the dominant force. In that case, we can see how pressure can be relevant. For everything else it doesn't work that way. Using the same car as the helium balloon example we can try 99% of the rest of the objects that can fit in the car and the opposite effect would happen. Of course I've told you thus countless times and I pretty much just said it in my last comment but you still don't get it because, let's face it, the real problem is that you are dumb.
Unless you use the bullshit of space. There's absolutely nothing you can say about gravity that I cannot explain using atmospheric pressure and you know it.
Your problem is, you can't understand it and simply rely on bullshit science. You carry on, because you are beyond help.
-
So a brass ball and an steel ball of the same size fall at different speeds?
-
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
Tell more of this 'thrusting flame'. Is it like on a welding torch perchance?
Ever seen an aerosol whizz about when it's been set alight?
Are you gonna tell me that it's combustion chamber is making it do that? ::)
Pressurized content of the aerosol can escaping the ruptured can at high velocity is making it do that. If the content manages to ignite while still in the can, the can becomes a combustion chamber. The can's content burning up after having escaped the can isn't doing anything to propel it. Can you answer why the water bottle rocket doesn't work without the water in it?
The water is denser than the air and is ejected under high pressure so it compresses tha air under it which causes the air to create a barrier which spreads out the water and creates a springboard effect. Try observing what I type.
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. What is it like to not only fail to make convincing arguments but also to fail at seeing when you are wrong?
You need to stop trying to tell people how things work because you have no clue. Read books about physics. They are right and you are wrong.
The helium balloon shows you to be wrong and you know it because it is an exclusive case where pressure is the dominant force. In that case, we can see how pressure can be relevant. For everything else it doesn't work that way. Using the same car as the helium balloon example we can try 99% of the rest of the objects that can fit in the car and the opposite effect would happen. Of course I've told you thus countless times and I pretty much just said it in my last comment but you still don't get it because, let's face it, the real problem is that you are dumb.
Unless you use the bullshit of space. There's absolutely nothing you can say about gravity that I cannot explain using atmospheric pressure and you know it.
Your problem is, you can't understand it and simply rely on bullshit science. You carry on, because you are beyond help.
If only denpressure could explain anything besides helium balloons.
-
The fact that objects fall in vacuum chambers is irrevocable proof that your air pressure idea is just nonsense that you dreamed up.
Yes, back to the old vacuum chamber. A chamber evacuates air pressure, not all air pressure. There is still a medium inside the chamber of expanded air.
Yes, but that air is far less dense than outside the chamber. So why will the objects fall at the same rate or faster in a near vacuum?
Less resistance to arrest their fall. Which is why a feather and a coin can just about fall at the same rate, as long as that feather falls like an arrow.
??? Is air pressure pushing the feather down or is it resisting the fall of the feather? Make up your mind because you can't have it both ways.
-
Scepti,
I like your way of thinkng, and I give you credit for coming back against all these naysayers. Keep up the good work.
Have you developed these air pressure theories on your own? Are there other scientist that have written about these phenomena, or is all of your work original. It is truly facinating. I know it is hard to keep fighting closed minded people by yourself. Keep up the good work.
-
Scepti,
I like your way of thinkng, and I give you credit for coming back against all these naysayers. Keep up the good work.
Have you developed these air pressure theories on your own? Are there other scientist that have written about these phenomena, or is all of your work original. It is truly facinating. I know it is hard to keep fighting closed minded people by yourself. Keep up the good work.
I too agree.
-
And this 'equalizing around and under' is at the same time accelerating it up, and pushing it down?
Try not to ignore the nergy applied to the ball, as in you throwing it up. The energy you apply and the density of the ball, determines how much air you compress. That compression of air has to be pushed around the ball. Because you threw the ball up, you created a lower pressure under that ball due to compressing the air above that ball. That air then cannot stack on that ball due to the open space you threw it in, so it is pushed around the ball, or to make it simple. It springs back into shape at speed around the ball to equalise the lower pressure under that ball you created by throwing it. Once that energy is resisted by that compression, that last compression forces that ball back down against the last low pressure created and now the opposite effect happens, where the density of the ball, now compresses the air under it forcing that air to equalise the lower pressure created, all teh way back to where the ball came from, which is where everything comes from. The ground or any place that can create a resistance immediate to that balls density, which could be your hand catching it or falling on a shed roof, etc.
How is this 'energy' stored in the thrown ball? Does it get warm or something, what kind of energy are we talking about here?
If the equalization effect is sufficient to keep the ball going up, even against the greater pressure on top, why does a barely measurable difference push the ball towards the ground at similar force when the ball is at rest?
As above.
Didn't explain it at all. Above you tried to describe how the air pressure differential would force the ball move to a certain direction, not how lack of a differential keeps it pressed down. If the lack of differential is what makes the ball stop momentarily at the top of it's arc, why does the same pressure condition push the ball down when it's at rest on the ground?
Shouldn't the ball just float around in the first place?
How can it float around? It's always under pressure.
Under same pressure on top and bottom.
How does the weight of the ball come in to this, if it's an air-filled balloon or a bowling ball of identical size and shape, why do they fall at a different rate, surely they are displacing exactly the same amount of air and so generating exactly the same pressure differentials?
The more dense an object is, the more air it can displace and faster, which is why a bowling ball can fall faster than a beach ball that is merely just air and a small amount of plastic.
You'll never grasp it because your mind immediately goes into gravity mode. You simply can't let go of it, even though gravity makes no sense and is pathetic and cannot be explained as a force. It just is and that's that.
If you can't grasp it, then no problem.
Exactly by what mechanism does a more dense object displace more air than a less dense object of same surface area? If this were true a sheet of cloth and a metal sheet would experience vastly different forces when wind blows on them, no?
-
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
Tell more of this 'thrusting flame'. Is it like on a welding torch perchance?
Ever seen an aerosol whizz about when it's been set alight?
Are you gonna tell me that it's combustion chamber is making it do that? ::)
Pressurized content of the aerosol can escaping the ruptured can at high velocity is making it do that. If the content manages to ignite while still in the can, the can becomes a combustion chamber. The can's content burning up after having escaped the can isn't doing anything to propel it. Can you answer why the water bottle rocket doesn't work without the water in it?
The water is denser than the air and is ejected under high pressure so it compresses tha air under it which causes the air to create a barrier which spreads out the water and creates a springboard effect. Try observing what I type.
The water is denser, yes. And it does not compress under pressure, which was what your explanation of a rocket was based on. Water does not expand in to the air around it when it exits the nozzle, for the air to create a pressure area which would 'squeeze' the rocket up. Air as propellant would do that, yet the rocket doesn't fly so well. Try to understand what you have typed. Are you going to explain the gas torch analogy?
-
Scepti,
I like your way of thinkng, and I give you credit for coming back against all these naysayers. Keep up the good work.
Have you developed these air pressure theories on your own? Are there other scientist that have written about these phenomena, or is all of your work original. It is truly facinating. I know it is hard to keep fighting closed minded people by yourself. Keep up the good work.
Yet no proof a brass and a steel object fall at different speeds.
-
So a brass ball and an steel ball of the same size fall at different speeds?
It depends on the density of each ball and the height in which they are dropped to gain a true reading.
The simple answer is. Whichever ball is more dense, that ball will hit the ground faster. Sometimes it can't be measured by eye alone if dropped from a small height.
There's a lot of factors in that but essentially the denser ball wins.
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. What is it like to not only fail to make convincing arguments but also to fail at seeing when you are wrong?
You need to stop trying to tell people how things work because you have no clue. Read books about physics. They are right and you are wrong.
The helium balloon shows you to be wrong and you know it because it is an exclusive case where pressure is the dominant force. In that case, we can see how pressure can be relevant. For everything else it doesn't work that way. Using the same car as the helium balloon example we can try 99% of the rest of the objects that can fit in the car and the opposite effect would happen. Of course I've told you thus countless times and I pretty much just said it in my last comment but you still don't get it because, let's face it, the real problem is that you are dumb.
Unless you use the bullshit of space. There's absolutely nothing you can say about gravity that I cannot explain using atmospheric pressure and you know it.
Your problem is, you can't understand it and simply rely on bullshit science. You carry on, because you are beyond help.
If only denpressure could explain anything besides helium balloons.
Denpressure explains everything that gravity is supposed to be. It also explains inertia. It explains everything. That's because it's reality, not fantasy.
-
The fact that objects fall in vacuum chambers is irrevocable proof that your air pressure idea is just nonsense that you dreamed up.
Yes, back to the old vacuum chamber. A chamber evacuates air pressure, not all air pressure. There is still a medium inside the chamber of expanded air.
Yes, but that air is far less dense than outside the chamber. So why will the objects fall at the same rate or faster in a near vacuum?
Less resistance to arrest their fall. Which is why a feather and a coin can just about fall at the same rate, as long as that feather falls like an arrow.
??? Is air pressure pushing the feather down or is it resisting the fall of the feather? Make up your mind because you can't have it both ways.
The feather itself takes up its place in the air pressure it is put into, meaning it displaces that air by energy applied. For instance, if your hand placed it in the air, then it took your energy to get it there and now the air pressure below it has to contend with it's density as the air above and below exert their forces upon it, except the density of the feather plus the air pressure above, wins the day against the resistance of the air pressure below, so it gets pushed all the way back to the ground.
Remember one thing. If you apply energy to an object to raise it up. That object now becomes potential energy in a reaction to that action. So if your energy is taken away, the energy that you did apply gets pushed back to the ground due to it's density or mass, whichever way you want to view it.
-
Who needs to get out more again? geoffrey, you are an absolute disgrace. A skidmark on the underpants of society.
C'mon; be fair. I did say I was bored to the point of becoming mentally comatose. I was actually surprised myself when I read back over this massive amount of absolute bullshit posted by sceptimatic in only a couple of days.
And when you see it all gathered in the one steaming pile, you realise what a waste of oxygen the guy really is LOL.
(http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e201a3fd351ac4970b-pi)
Ask yourself a question, geoffrey. Do the many visitors who come to this site come to read what you have to say, or what Scepti has to say? The sad thing is, you probably think they come here for you.
As a "visitor" I come here to see just what scepti is going to come up with next. If it wasn't for scepti, this website would be pretty boring. At least scepti is a little more original .
-
As they say in America, Sceptic is digging such a deep hole he will soon hit China.
AlsoI noticed you could not explain why leaves blow with the wind but the ball moves against the wind.
-
Scepti,
I like your way of thinkng, and I give you credit for coming back against all these naysayers. Keep up the good work.
Have you developed these air pressure theories on your own? Are there other scientist that have written about these phenomena, or is all of your work original. It is truly facinating. I know it is hard to keep fighting closed minded people by yourself. Keep up the good work.
As far as I know I haven't seen anyone with the same thoughts. I will certainly keep going with it because I'm 100% sure of it in the basic terms, which I find is the key to unravelling a lot of the mis-info science people are taught.
Too many people rely on what they are told by people who actually are only playing guessing games with a lot of this stuff.
I do admit that it requires a person to literally crack their mind wide open and to take a full interest in deciphering what I'm saying, but once they do, they will see how it proves the truth in the most basic terms. Terms they could never see because they have had their minds battered to hell with fantasy science. It's not their fault, it's just that sometimes people should wake up a little bit when they are told about this stuff.
It's the simpicity of what I say that bamboozles wannabe scientists, because science like this is hung onto as some kind of elite knowledge and is meant to be baffling enough that it segregates the classes, so those at the top are woshipped by those that can't do anything other than parrot what they are told to.
It's sad that so many will not even try to think. All I ask is for them to think for themselves and not be guided by peer pressure or the potential to be classified as a nut case for merely thinking logically with some of this nonsense that's spewed out to cater for keeping our history and present, as nothing more than a lot of misinformation.
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. What is it like to not only fail to make convincing arguments but also to fail at seeing when you are wrong?
You need to stop trying to tell people how things work because you have no clue. Read books about physics. They are right and you are wrong.
The helium balloon shows you to be wrong and you know it because it is an exclusive case where pressure is the dominant force. In that case, we can see how pressure can be relevant. For everything else it doesn't work that way. Using the same car as the helium balloon example we can try 99% of the rest of the objects that can fit in the car and the opposite effect would happen. Of course I've told you thus countless times and I pretty much just said it in my last comment but you still don't get it because, let's face it, the real problem is that you are dumb.
Unless you use the bullshit of space. There's absolutely nothing you can say about gravity that I cannot explain using atmospheric pressure and you know it.
Your problem is, you can't understand it and simply rely on bullshit science. You carry on, because you are beyond help.
If only denpressure could explain anything besides helium balloons.
Denpressure explains everything that gravity is supposed to be. It also explains inertia. It explains everything. That's because it's reality, not fantasy.
Are we going around in circles ? After 12 pages we seem to have come back to that old demon "Dennpressure ?"
-
As they say in America, Sceptic is digging such a deep hole he will soon hit China.
AlsoI noticed you could not explain why leaves blow with the wind but the ball moves against the wind.
If this was scepti's flat earth, if he dug such a deep hole through the earth that never ending accelerating force would come with such a force through that hole that it would blow the earth to pieces.
-
How is this 'energy' stored in the thrown ball? Does it get warm or something, what kind of energy are we talking about here?
The energy is totally reliant of the energy you use to push it up.
Didn't explain it at all. Above you tried to describe how the air pressure differential would force the ball move to a certain direction, not how lack of a differential keeps it pressed down. If the lack of differential is what makes the ball stop momentarily at the top of it's arc, why does the same pressure condition push the ball down when it's at rest on the ground?
Because when it's at rest on teh ground, the ground becomes a more dense resistor to the air above, as it, it stops being pushed into the ground due to that barrier/resistance.
Exactly by what mechanism does a more dense object displace more air than a less dense object of same surface area? If this were true a sheet of cloth and a metal sheet would experience vastly different forces when wind blows on them, no?
A sheet of cloth and a sheet of metal will experience vastly different forces on them due to density differences, meaning the ability to withstand or absorb the pressures.
-
How is this 'energy' stored in the thrown ball? Does it get warm or something, what kind of energy are we talking about here?
The energy is totally reliant of the force you use to push it up.
Didn't explain it at all. Above you tried to describe how the air pressure differential would force the ball move to a certain direction, not how lack of a differential keeps it pressed down. If the lack of differential is what makes the ball stop momentarily at the top of it's arc, why does the same pressure condition push the ball down when it's at rest on the ground?
Because when it's at rest on teh ground, the ground becomes a more dense resistor to the air above, as it, it stops being pushed into the ground due to that barrier/resistance.
Exactly by what mechanism does a more dense object displace more air than a less dense object of same surface area? If this were true a sheet of cloth and a metal sheet would experience vastly different forces when wind blows on them, no?
A sheet of cloth and a sheet of metal will experience vastly different forces on them due to density differences, meaning the ability to withstand or absorb the pressures.
-
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
Tell more of this 'thrusting flame'. Is it like on a welding torch perchance?
Ever seen an aerosol whizz about when it's been set alight?
Are you gonna tell me that it's combustion chamber is making it do that? ::)
Pressurized content of the aerosol can escaping the ruptured can at high velocity is making it do that. If the content manages to ignite while still in the can, the can becomes a combustion chamber. The can's content burning up after having escaped the can isn't doing anything to propel it. Can you answer why the water bottle rocket doesn't work without the water in it?
The water is denser than the air and is ejected under high pressure so it compresses tha air under it which causes the air to create a barrier which spreads out the water and creates a springboard effect. Try observing what I type.
The water is denser, yes. And it does not compress under pressure, which was what your explanation of a rocket was based on. Water does not expand in to the air around it when it exits the nozzle, for the air to create a pressure area which would 'squeeze' the rocket up. Air as propellant would do that, yet the rocket doesn't fly so well. Try to understand what you have typed. Are you going to explain the gas torch analogy?
I didn't say the water expanded. I said it fans out due to the resistance of the atmosphere under it which fans it out. Basically it's creating a surdy resistance stack that the pressurised water can push the bottle up from. This will keep happening for as long as tehre is enough pressure to allow this, which isn't very long in terms of bottle rockets.
-
As they say in America, Sceptic is digging such a deep hole he will soon hit China.
AlsoI noticed you could not explain why leaves blow with the wind but the ball moves against the wind.
Can you clarify what you are trying to get at here?
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. What is it like to not only fail to make convincing arguments but also to fail at seeing when you are wrong?
You need to stop trying to tell people how things work because you have no clue. Read books about physics. They are right and you are wrong.
The helium balloon shows you to be wrong and you know it because it is an exclusive case where pressure is the dominant force. In that case, we can see how pressure can be relevant. For everything else it doesn't work that way. Using the same car as the helium balloon example we can try 99% of the rest of the objects that can fit in the car and the opposite effect would happen. Of course I've told you thus countless times and I pretty much just said it in my last comment but you still don't get it because, let's face it, the real problem is that you are dumb.
Unless you use the bullshit of space. There's absolutely nothing you can say about gravity that I cannot explain using atmospheric pressure and you know it.
Your problem is, you can't understand it and simply rely on bullshit science. You carry on, because you are beyond help.
If only denpressure could explain anything besides helium balloons.
Denpressure explains everything that gravity is supposed to be. It also explains inertia. It explains everything. That's because it's reality, not fantasy.
Are we going around in circles ? After 12 pages we seem to have come back to that old demon "Dennpressure ?"
Except it's not a demon but the truth.
If people refuse or cannot grasp it and ask questions, then it's always going to be used.
One day in the future, denpressure will be in the dictionary and regularly spoke of in the scientific world. This will be when all the space ventures have been admitted to, as being made up nonsense, plus Newton and his gravity has been resigned to the fantasy section. Etc, etc.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
-
No scepti. The video about the balloon showed that pressure only applies if it is the dominant force, which it is in the case of helium balloons. Any other object behaves the opposite way from what you want.
For crying out loud. If pressure moves something, of course it's going to be the dominant force. When you get blown about by the wind, it is the dominant force.
The helium balloon in the car, destroys your gravity and inertia and shows you exactly why atmospheric pressure is teh reason why everything works the way it does ...inside Earth. It doesn't work in space because it simply does not exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. What is it like to not only fail to make convincing arguments but also to fail at seeing when you are wrong?
You need to stop trying to tell people how things work because you have no clue. Read books about physics. They are right and you are wrong.
The helium balloon shows you to be wrong and you know it because it is an exclusive case where pressure is the dominant force. In that case, we can see how pressure can be relevant. For everything else it doesn't work that way. Using the same car as the helium balloon example we can try 99% of the rest of the objects that can fit in the car and the opposite effect would happen. Of course I've told you thus countless times and I pretty much just said it in my last comment but you still don't get it because, let's face it, the real problem is that you are dumb.
Unless you use the bullshit of space. There's absolutely nothing you can say about gravity that I cannot explain using atmospheric pressure and you know it.
Your problem is, you can't understand it and simply rely on bullshit science. You carry on, because you are beyond help.
If only denpressure could explain anything besides helium balloons.
Denpressure explains everything that gravity is supposed to be. It also explains inertia. It explains everything. That's because it's reality, not fantasy.
Nope just helium balloons. Worthless.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Prove it.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
I have tested it. In high school. Denpressure fails for this and countless other reasons. Please just test it out so that you can move on from this delusion to another.
-
As they say in America, Sceptic is digging such a deep hole he will soon hit China.
AlsoI noticed you could not explain why leaves blow with the wind but the ball moves against the wind.
Can you clarify what you are trying to get at here?
In the ball experiment, you said that air moves around the ball from high pressure to low pressure, and as a result the ball moves towards the high pressure. Then you mentioned wind. Objects in wind move with the wind which is moving from high pressure to low pressure. Your two ideas are contradictory. So what is it. Do objects in wind move from high pressure to low pressure or do they move from low pressure to high pressure?
How is this 'energy' stored in the thrown ball? Does it get warm or something, what kind of energy are we talking about here?
The energy is totally reliant of the energy you use to push it up.
And that of course is the same energy that instantly disappears the second you stop pushing. Imagine if you were in a vacuum about to hit a golf ball. You take a swing and the second the ball is no longer touching the club it instantly stops. This is what you believe.
-
Sokarul basically summed it up there. But what about the air itself? How does the low pressure air at higher elevation push to compress the air mass beneath it to what we consider normal atmospheric pressure?
-
They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.
Can you please explain in simple terms why a rocket engine can work within the earth's atmosphere, but can't work in the near-vacuum of outer space—as is alleged? And at what altitude above the earth's surface would there be insufficient air for a rocket engine to work satisfactorily?
Of course I can explain it. I have done. The problem is, I can't explain it to people like you because it's like trying to explain how a magician uses props, sleight of hand and mis-direction to achieve trick success, only for people like you to deny it and explain why it's actually real magic.
I'll explain it to those who are genuinely interested. You are not worth a light as regards that.
LOL..... this is such a funny—and a typical sceptimatic non-response—whenever he's backed into a corner and can't answer a couple of simple questions about high-school level science.
In these situations, his avoidance is so patently and embarrassingly obvious; he resorts to a childish insult instead of answering the question asked. Obviously he thinks—and I kid you not!—that all the other posters here don't see this puerile attempt at hiding his own scientific inadequacies. And for a self-proclaimed "genius" and "scientific researcher" with thirteen academic qualifications, he seems—repeatedly—to be at a loss for any legitimate scientific answers to legitimate questions such as mine.
I'm actually surprised at how easy it is to call the guy's bluff; it's like talking to a 12-year old (although I don't wanna insult 12-year-olds LOL.)
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
I have tested it. In high school. Denpressure fails for this and countless other reasons. Please just test it out so that you can move on from this delusion to another.
Well, it looks like all the Earth's mysteries were all solved in high school.
The amount of times this stuff gets pushed out, is laughable. The truth is you are still as naive as you were in high school, as in ...like we all did, you simply believe in what you're told.
Anyway, if this is not the case with you and you were the one that actually done the tests to confirm stuff, 100% - tell me what you did to prove gravity is real and denpressure is not.
Please don't come back with silliness like, "oh, I dropped a tennis ball and an iron ball of equal sizes from chest height." Please don't type anything like that.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
I have tested it. In high school. Denpressure fails for this and countless other reasons. Please just test it out so that you can move on from this delusion to another.
Well, it looks like all the Earth's mysteries were all solved in high school.
The amount of times this stuff gets pushed out, is laughable. The truth is you are still as naive as you were in high school, as in ...like we all did, you simply believe in what you're told.
Anyway, if this is not the case with you and you were the one that actually done the tests to confirm stuff, 100% - tell me what you did to prove gravity is real and denpressure is not.
Please don't come back with silliness like, "oh, I dropped a tennis ball and an iron ball of equal sizes from chest height." Please don't type anything like that.
"please don't say that you did the experiment that I said you didn't do, an experiment that takes just minutes to set up. That would just be too unbelievable."
-
In the ball experiment, you said that air moves around the ball from high pressure to low pressure, and as a result the ball moves towards the high pressure.
How about reading what I type? By reading it and grasping it all, you may get the chance to understand what I'm saying.
The ball does not move towards the high pressure. The ball under energy, as in the throw, creates the higher pressure by compressing the air above it which is forced around it to equalise with the lower pressure that is now under it.
Have a serious think on this and absorb what I'm saying.
Then you mentioned wind. Objects in wind move with the wind which is moving from high pressure to low pressure. Your two ideas are contradictory. So what is it. Do objects in wind move from high pressure to low pressure or do they move from low pressure to high pressure?
Should you really be asking this?
And that of course is the same energy that instantly disappears the second you stop pushing. Imagine if you were in a vacuum about to hit a golf ball. You take a swing and the second the ball is no longer touching the club it instantly stops. This is what you believe.
No, it's not what I believe. It's what you interpret me believing because you are not willing to grasp what I'm saying.
Let me try and hammer this home one last time.
A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. It's black to our eyes because it does not exists as anything, meaning that inside our cell with clear ice dome, we see black when we look up at the dark sky. It's not that we see into the vacuum, it's that we cannot see past the clear dome as there is no matter for us to see.
Now taking that into account, no gold ball or man or machine is going to move in something that does not exist, so basically you thinking I'm talking about an actornaut hitting a gold ball and it just stopping, is not even valid to talk about because it simply can't happen in a true vacuum.
For someone to swing a club at a gold ball, requires movement, which has to have a medium for that movement to take place. Earth offers it and that's where it ends.
-
In the ball experiment, you said that air moves around the ball from high pressure to low pressure, and as a result the ball moves towards the high pressure.
How about reading what I type? By reading it and grasping it all, you may get the chance to understand what I'm saying.
The ball does not move towards the high pressure. The ball under energy, as in the throw, creates the higher pressure by compressing the air above it which is forced around it to equalise with the lower pressure that is now under it.
Have a serious think on this and absorb what I'm saying.
Then you mentioned wind. Objects in wind move with the wind which is moving from high pressure to low pressure. Your two ideas are contradictory. So what is it. Do objects in wind move from high pressure to low pressure or do they move from low pressure to high pressure?
Should you really be asking this?
And that of course is the same energy that instantly disappears the second you stop pushing. Imagine if you were in a vacuum about to hit a golf ball. You take a swing and the second the ball is no longer touching the club it instantly stops. This is what you believe.
No, it's not what I believe. It's what you interpret me believing because you are not willing to grasp what I'm saying.
Let me try and hammer this home one last time.
A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. It's black to our eyes because it does not exists as anything, meaning that inside our cell with clear ice dome, we see black when we look up at the dark sky. It's not that we see into the vacuum, it's that we cannot see past the clear dome as there is no matter for us to see.
Now taking that into account, no gold ball or man or machine is going to move in something that does not exist, so basically you thinking I'm talking about an actornaut hitting a gold ball and it just stopping, is not even valid to talk about because it simply can't happen in a true vacuum.
For someone to swing a club at a gold ball, requires movement, which has to have a medium for that movement to take place. Earth offers it and that's where it ends.
"Despite the fact that I don't believe true vacuums exist, I am an expert on what can and cannot work in one. Also, I like to make arguments about space being a load of tripe by saying that it can't work because it's supposedly a true vacuum, which, like I said, can't exist in the way we are told, even though nobody claims it is a true vacuum"
-
A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. It's black to our eyes because it does not exists as anything, meaning that inside our cell with clear ice dome, we see black when we look up at the dark sky. It's not that we see into the vacuum, it's that we cannot see past the clear dome as there is no matter for us to see.
Oooh, a dome!
Who put that there?
As for your "denpressure" Why doesn't it work horizontally then? A brick and a beach ball when flung from a swing will produces two different displacements of the swing (and the flinger) despite the brick having a much smaller frontal area.
Do you think it could have anything to do with the relative masses of brick & beach ball (Brick approx 40N, Beachball approx 1N)?
-
Oooh, a dome!
Who put that there?
The Earth put it there as a natural build, just like everything else.
As for your "denpressure" Why doesn't it work horizontally then?
It works all ways.
A brick and a beach ball when flung from a swing will produces two different displacements of the swing (and the flinger) despite the brick having a much smaller frontal area.
Do you think it could have anything to do with the relative masses of brick & beach ball (Brick approx 40N, Beachball approx 1N)?
Explain.
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.
It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?
-
Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
Is there the slightest chance sceptimatic that you'll do us all a favour, and give us even less of your time?
My facial laughter muscles are starting to ache! ;D
-
Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
Is there the slightest chance sceptimatic that you'll do us all a favour, and give us even less of your time?
My facial laughter muscles are starting to ache! ;D
Gravity is nothing more than atmospheric pressure. The new name is "denpressure."
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
"Hi I'm scepti. When people prove me wrong, it shows without a doubt that I am right. I like to throw words in like '100%' because it makes me more right. It doesn't matter that I'm wrong 100%"
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
"Hi I'm scepti. When people prove me wrong, it shows without a doubt that I am right. I like to throw words in like '100%' because it makes me more right. It doesn't matter that I'm wrong 100%"
This will be my last correspondence to you. I have one last thing to say. Answer it if you want but you will receive no reply.
Are you related to geoffrey?
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
"Hi I'm scepti. When people prove me wrong, it shows without a doubt that I am right. I like to throw words in like '100%' because it makes me more right. It doesn't matter that I'm wrong 100%"
This will be my last correspondence to you. I have one last thing to say. Answer it if you want but you will receive no reply.
Are you related to geoffrey?
"Hi, I'm scepti. I actually think that others interpret my blocking as a punishment."
"Hi, I'm rottingroom. Please block me as I will continue to reinterpret your terrible posts whether you see them or not."
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
"Hi I'm scepti. When people prove me wrong, it shows without a doubt that I am right. I like to throw words in like '100%' because it makes me more right. It doesn't matter that I'm wrong 100%"
This will be my last correspondence to you. I have one last thing to say. Answer it if you want but you will receive no reply.
Are you related to geoffrey?
LOL... sceptimatic allegedly added me to his IGNORE list several months ago with a similar threat. He couldn't then—and still cannot now—resist seeing what I have to say, to the extent that he sometimes responds to my comments in just 2 or 3 minutes! I'm guessing he hovers over his screen, hands poised above his keyboard, waiting with bated breath to post yet another inanity.
And I agree; it's more than funny that the poor sap sees "blocking" us as some sort of punishment that'll make us suffer. When in actuality, it's the exact opposite. ;D
—Can you please block me again sceptimatic, and refrain from responding to my posts? Thanks.
-
Also, scepti likes to claim that he does not post to try and convince anyone else of anything and that he only intends to speak to those whose minds are "tuned-in".
If that's the case then there is a place where he can preach. Round Earther's wouldn't touch these dreadful places with a ten foot pole:
Flat Earth Believers (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0)
Flat Earth Information Repository (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=2.0)
I totally recommend this because he is a failure at debate. Just have your little sunday school's there.
-
I'm not sure that sceptimatic understands exactly what the term "debate" means. He seems to think it entails composing endless little personal parables aimed at insulting just about everybody else on these forums.
A debate is supposed to be a place where everybody brings their claims and evidence to the table for equal discussion by both sides. We round earthers bring our scientific claims with truckloads of evidence, whereas people such as sceptimatic bring theirs in thimbles.
—Which are often half empty. ;D
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
"Hi I'm scepti. When people prove me wrong, it shows without a doubt that I am right. I like to throw words in like '100%' because it makes me more right. It doesn't matter that I'm wrong 100%"
This will be my last correspondence to you. I have one last thing to say. Answer it if you want but you will receive no reply.
Are you related to geoffrey?
LOL... sceptimatic allegedly added me to his IGNORE list several months ago with a similar threat. He couldn't then—and still cannot now—resist seeing what I have to say, to the extent that he sometimes responds to my comments in just 2 or 3 minutes! I'm guessing he hovers over his screen, hands poised above his keyboard, waiting with bated breath to post yet another inanity.
And I agree; it's more than funny that the poor sap sees "blocking" us as some sort of punishment that'll make us suffer. When in actuality, it's the exact opposite. ;D
—Can you please block me again sceptimatic, and refrain from responding to my posts? Thanks.
Absolutely. You and Rottingroom will not be responded to. Carry on posting as much as you want to me or about me. ;D This is my last ever post to any of you two. ;D
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
-
—Can you please block me again sceptimatic, and refrain from responding to my posts? Thanks.
Absolutely. You and Rottingroom will not be responded to. Carry on posting as much as you want to me or about me. This is my last ever post to any of you two.
Is that a promise sceptimatic? Please make it so. I don't want it to be just another of your numerous lies you've repeatedly posted here.
You can now direct your childish little tantrums at other people who may have more patience playing your puerile mind games.
—Have fun in the sand pit, and don't steal the other kids' toys. ;D
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
LOL... yet another of sceptimatic's juvenile responses. Will this kid ever grow up?
For a meaningful answer to the "falling" question, see THIS (http://bit.ly/1xPxVfX) post. Funny thing is, they don't mention denpressure once. I wonder why? ;D
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.
It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?
Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?
-
That's all it is. Action whether you're kicking the air, flapping wings or igniting a thrusting flame. It creates a reaction to that action in equal measures and you move. There's not a thing on Earth that happens without it.
Tell more of this 'thrusting flame'. Is it like on a welding torch perchance?
Ever seen an aerosol whizz about when it's been set alight?
Are you gonna tell me that it's combustion chamber is making it do that? ::)
Pressurized content of the aerosol can escaping the ruptured can at high velocity is making it do that. If the content manages to ignite while still in the can, the can becomes a combustion chamber. The can's content burning up after having escaped the can isn't doing anything to propel it. Can you answer why the water bottle rocket doesn't work without the water in it?
The water is denser than the air and is ejected under high pressure so it compresses tha air under it which causes the air to create a barrier which spreads out the water and creates a springboard effect. Try observing what I type.
The water is denser, yes. And it does not compress under pressure, which was what your explanation of a rocket was based on. Water does not expand in to the air around it when it exits the nozzle, for the air to create a pressure area which would 'squeeze' the rocket up. Air as propellant would do that, yet the rocket doesn't fly so well. Try to understand what you have typed. Are you going to explain the gas torch analogy?
I didn't say the water expanded. I said it fans out due to the resistance of the atmosphere under it which fans it out. Basically it's creating a surdy resistance stack that the pressurised water can push the bottle up from. This will keep happening for as long as tehre is enough pressure to allow this, which isn't very long in terms of bottle rockets.
Okay, so water doesn't expand. Glad we agree. Earlier in this thread, your explanation for how a rocket works was that the exhaust expands, and atmosphere pressurizes around this and then 'squeezes' the rocket up. This doesn't happen with water. It does happen with air. So how come bottle rockets work so much better with water rather than just air in them? And how does a welding torch explain how rockets really work?
-
In the ball experiment, you said that air moves around the ball from high pressure to low pressure, and as a result the ball moves towards the high pressure.
How about reading what I type? By reading it and grasping it all, you may get the chance to understand what I'm saying.
The ball does not move towards the high pressure. The ball under energy, as in the throw, creates the higher pressure by compressing the air above it which is forced around it to equalise with the lower pressure that is now under it.
Have a serious think on this and absorb what I'm saying.
Yes I did think about what you are saying. The bold part is what you are saying. Now you need to realize you don't believe in inertia. So like I said, you have the ball traveling from low pressure to high pressure. The top of the ball is high pressure. Why don't you absorb what you say. Remember, the ball is only moving because of the air touching it.
Then you mentioned wind. Objects in wind move with the wind which is moving from high pressure to low pressure. Your two ideas are contradictory. So what is it. Do objects in wind move from high pressure to low pressure or do they move from low pressure to high pressure?
Should you really be asking this?
Yes, seeing as how you contradict yourself.
No, it's not what I believe. It's what you interpret me believing because you are not willing to grasp what I'm saying.
Let me try and hammer this home one last time.
A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. It's black to our eyes because it does not exists as anything, meaning that inside our cell with clear ice dome, we see black when we look up at the dark sky. It's not that we see into the vacuum, it's that we cannot see past the clear dome as there is no matter for us to see.
Light can go through a vacuum. Light is not effected by partial vacuums, which is should if what you said was correct. In between atoms and molecules in a gas there is nothing, it's like a mini vacuum. And now we are back to this old argument. How does light cross these mini vacuums?
Now taking that into account, no gold ball or man or machine is going to move in something that does not exist, so basically you thinking I'm talking about an actornaut hitting a gold ball and it just stopping, is not even valid to talk about because it simply can't happen in a true vacuum.
I know you believe this, it's hypothetical. You believe the energy from the golf club will just disappear.
For someone to swing a club at a gold ball, requires movement, which has to have a medium for that movement to take place. Earth offers it and that's where it ends.
How does mechanical energy know what the medium is around it?
Do you try to get dumber over time?
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
"Hi I'm scepti. When people prove me wrong, it shows without a doubt that I am right. I like to throw words in like '100%' because it makes me more right. It doesn't matter that I'm wrong 100%"
This will be my last correspondence to you. I have one last thing to say. Answer it if you want but you will receive no reply.
Are you related to geoffrey?
'sup scepti, hope all is good with you.
as you may remember, we do have points of convergence, in terms of perception, understanding and opinions.
there are, of course, things we differ in, be it philosophical or perceptual.
you, so far as i understand, defend and adhere to some version of fet. i do not, but respect your decision to do so, and to a far higher degree respect your clearly defined reasons and thought processes in the doing of said adherence.
but why, with a clearly exhibited ability to consider rationally problems placed before you, do you still engage in the cretinati's preferred method of discourse, to the detriment of your own time to engage in more beneficial activity, that being any damn thing at all?
i hope you do not see my choosing to frame my thoughts within a public post as any kind of hostile action, or an action with any hostile intent, it absolutely is not.
but with the ability to see clearly through the contrivances of the far more refined, yet ultimately no more than basic, methods of confusion and connivance employed in the overall deception, how can the utterly inane insipid workings of these bottom feeders escape you?
the two referenced, and of course the more than obvious others, related to one another? yes, like the various parts of my lower digestive tract are related to each other, sharing the same unsavory wastes up to the point of expulsion.
please, apply the same sound logic seen in considering the false orthodoxies that pollute the world to the pollutants that soil this, and every, forum.
shut the fools down, they are sustained by engagement - and will wither like an unused limb if denied said sustenance.
to infinity, and beyond!
-
"Hi, I'm scepti. I claim that nothing can live inside of a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY nothing. Except for a dome. That's exempt"
"Also, I'm a scientist even though I just learned what pi was last year on the flat earth society"
It's a shame you're so bad tempered and ignorant. You could learn something if you weren't like you are. Why do you think I give you very little of my time?
"Hi I'm scepti. I think people care about what I say even though I'm the village idiot"
This is how it normally ends up with you. Bad tempered, Act like a child and think you're getting somewhere.
Let me know when you grow up a little and we can talk. Until then, keep up the playground silliness. ;D
"Hi I'm scepti. When people prove me wrong, it shows without a doubt that I am right. I like to throw words in like '100%' because it makes me more right. It doesn't matter that I'm wrong 100%"
This will be my last correspondence to you. I have one last thing to say. Answer it if you want but you will receive no reply.
Are you related to geoffrey?
'sup scepti, hope all is good with you.
as you may remember, we do have points of convergence, in terms of perception, understanding and opinions.
there are, of course, things we differ in, be it philosophical or perceptual.
you, so far as i understand, defend and adhere to some version of fet. i do not, but respect your decision to do so, and to a far higher degree respect your clearly defined reasons and thought processes in the doing of said adherence.
but why, with a clearly exhibited ability to consider rationally problems placed before you, do you still engage in the cretinati's preferred method of discourse, to the detriment of your own time to engage in more beneficial activity, that being any damn thing at all?
i hope you do not see my choosing to frame my thoughts within a public post as any kind of hostile action, or an action with any hostile intent, it absolutely is not.
but with the ability to see clearly through the contrivances of the far more refined, yet ultimately no more than basic, methods of confusion and connivance employed in the overall deception, how can the utterly inane insipid workings of these bottom feeders escape you?
the two referenced, and of course the more than obvious others, related to one another? yes, like the various parts of my lower digestive tract are related to each other, sharing the same unsavory wastes up to the point of expulsion.
please, apply the same sound logic seen in considering the false orthodoxies that pollute the world to the pollutants that soil this, and every, forum.
shut the fools down, they are sustained by engagement - and will wither like an unused limb if denied said sustenance.
to infinity, and beyond!
"Blah blah blah. Scepti be my boyfriend."
-
"Blah blah blah. Scepti be my boyfriend."
I think you mean "blah blah blah. scepti be my boyfriend." Shift keys are for the devil.
-
"Blah blah blah. Scepti be my boyfriend."
I think you mean "blah blah blah. scepti be my boyfriend." Shift keys are for the devil.
To be fair he is from the 1800's so he isn't aware of the shift key.
-
is the current level of discourse one that can be reconciled with intelligent debate?
to suggest personal relationships, with the accompanying homophobic inference, is acceptable here?
who is supposedly responsible for posters conduct and post content, and do they claim to be fulfilling their remit?
if personal attacks are par for the course, then i am more than able to engage and conquer.
i am confident of my superiority whatever the criteria; maybe if i start asking how some posters divide their time between concocting puerile nonsense and traumatically sodomizing their infant relatives, some interjection will be detectable.
debate? lets talk about which end of the spit-roast is to allotted, when i start raping babies.
escalation? i think im up to it.
-
is the current level of discourse one that can be reconciled with intelligent debate?
to suggest personal relationships, with the accompanying homophobic inference, is acceptable here?
who is supposedly responsible for posters conduct and post content, and do they claim to be fulfilling their remit?
if personal attacks are par for the course, then i am more than able to engage and conquer.
i am confident of my superiority whatever the criteria; maybe if i start asking how some posters divide their time between concocting puerile nonsense and traumatically sodomizing their infant relatives, some interjection will be detectable.
debate? lets talk about which end of the spit-roast is to allotted, when i start raping babies.
escalation? i think im up to it.
Guy, you decided to call people you disagree with cretins. I had no problem with you before that. As far as scepti goes, everyone calls him an idiot, because well, he is and he deserves it. He's just getting in return what he's so often dished out.
-
inclusion of oneself to an unspecified - despite the determination of membership being claimed to be obvious - group is presumptive, but not incorrect.
your subjective reassertion is of course easily countered, by my subjective assertion you deserve to be called a child molester, due to your preference for molesting children.
-
When your insult has no connection to anything it doesn't feel very effective. All I can say is "okay". Feel free to dish one that relates to a previous comment.
-
is the current level of discourse one that can be reconciled with intelligent debate?
to suggest personal relationships, with the accompanying homophobic inference, is acceptable here?
who is supposedly responsible for posters conduct and post content, and do they claim to be fulfilling their remit?
if personal attacks are par for the course, then i am more than able to engage and conquer.
i am confident of my superiority whatever the criteria; maybe if i start asking how some posters divide their time between concocting puerile nonsense and traumatically sodomizing their infant relatives, some interjection will be detectable.
debate? lets talk about which end of the spit-roast is to allotted, when i start raping babies.
escalation? i think im up to it.
Thinks he is smart because he is verbose and superior because he talks about baby-raping. Welcome to TFES.
-
is the current level of discourse one that can be reconciled with intelligent debate?
to suggest personal relationships, with the accompanying homophobic inference, is acceptable here?
who is supposedly responsible for posters conduct and post content, and do they claim to be fulfilling their remit?
if personal attacks are par for the course, then i am more than able to engage and conquer.
i am confident of my superiority whatever the criteria; maybe if i start asking how some posters divide their time between concocting puerile nonsense and traumatically sodomizing their infant relatives, some interjection will be detectable.
debate? lets talk about which end of the spit-roast is to allotted, when i start raping babies.
escalation? i think im up to it.
Thinks he is smart because he is verbose and superior because he talks about baby-raping. Welcome to TFES.
Truly a troll of utmost grandiosity and eloquence..................even if he is missing both the shift and apostrophe keys from his keyboard.
-
Electric propulsion only works in a vacuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster)
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/advanced_propulsion_concepts.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/advanced_propulsion_concepts.html)
-
I have been inert all day except for getting a beer from the fridge so I believe in inertia. Here is one for septic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle)
-
I have been inert all day except for getting a beer from the fridge so I believe in inertia. Here is one for septic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle)
But pressure and conspiracy!
It seems he's no longer responding to my questions. Too bad, I think those were very legit questions that were left hanging out in the open.
-
Butt pressure would explain a lot.
-
Butt pressure would explain a lot.
It would if it could.
-
Electric propulsion only works in a vacuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster)
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/advanced_propulsion_concepts.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/advanced_propulsion_concepts.html)
The sooner you understand that propulsion is not going to work in a vacuum, the sooner you'll realise that all of this stuff is gunk.
-
I have been inert all day except for getting a beer from the fridge so I believe in inertia. Here is one for septic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle)
What are you trying to show here?
Explain what's happening from start to finish.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall. In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate. So this disqualifies denpressure. Can you move on?
-
I have been inert all day except for getting a beer from the fridge so I believe in inertia. Here is one for septic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle)
What are you trying to show here?
Explain what's happening from start to finish.
If pressure was to work the way you say it does, and if space between atoms did not exist, then Newton's Cradle would not behave in this manner. A ball would hit a ball and both the ball that was initially moving (ball A) and the ball being hit (ball B) would move together after the impact. It seems as if all of ball A's kinetic energy was transferred into ball B.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall. In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate. So this disqualifies denpressure. Can you move on?
At what height and what did you use?
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall. In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate. So this disqualifies denpressure. Can you move on?
At what height and what did you use?
You tell me the title of a book you have written and I reveal exactly how wrong you are. Deal?
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall. In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate. So this disqualifies denpressure. Can you move on?
At what height and what did you use?
You tell me the title of a book you have written and I reveal exactly how wrong you are. Deal?
Either answer or don't. Either way I'm happy with it.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall. In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate. So this disqualifies denpressure. Can you move on?
At what height and what did you use?
You tell me the title of a book you have written and I reveal exactly how wrong you are. Deal?
Either answer or don't. Either way I'm happy with it.
It is good to be happy when your ideas are incorrect. I admire that.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall. In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate. So this disqualifies denpressure. Can you move on?
At what height and what did you use?
You tell me the title of a book you have written and I reveal exactly how wrong you are. Deal?
Either answer or don't. Either way I'm happy with it.
It is good to be happy when your ideas are incorrect. I admire that.
I won't waste another second on you.
-
It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.
You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.
Have your tested objects falling?
Have you?
Yes, school experiments.
Well come on then. What experiments did you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?
I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall. In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate. So this disqualifies denpressure. Can you move on?
At what height and what did you use?
You tell me the title of a book you have written and I reveal exactly how wrong you are. Deal?
Either answer or don't. Either way I'm happy with it.
It is good to be happy when your ideas are incorrect. I admire that.
I won't waste another second on you.
If I had a nickel for every time you said that.
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.
It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?
Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?
The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.
-
In the ball experiment, you said that air moves around the ball from high pressure to low pressure, and as a result the ball moves towards the high pressure.
How about reading what I type? By reading it and grasping it all, you may get the chance to understand what I'm saying.
The ball does not move towards the high pressure. The ball under energy, as in the throw, creates the higher pressure by compressing the air above it which is forced around it to equalise with the lower pressure that is now under it.
Have a serious think on this and absorb what I'm saying.
Yes I did think about what you are saying. The bold part is what you are saying. Now you need to realize you don't believe in inertia. So like I said, you have the ball traveling from low pressure to high pressure. The top of the ball is high pressure. Why don't you absorb what you say. Remember, the ball is only moving because of the air touching it.
Then you mentioned wind. Objects in wind move with the wind which is moving from high pressure to low pressure. Your two ideas are contradictory. So what is it. Do objects in wind move from high pressure to low pressure or do they move from low pressure to high pressure?
Should you really be asking this?
Yes, seeing as how you contradict yourself.
No, it's not what I believe. It's what you interpret me believing because you are not willing to grasp what I'm saying.
Let me try and hammer this home one last time.
A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. It's black to our eyes because it does not exists as anything, meaning that inside our cell with clear ice dome, we see black when we look up at the dark sky. It's not that we see into the vacuum, it's that we cannot see past the clear dome as there is no matter for us to see.
Light can go through a vacuum. Light is not effected by partial vacuums, which is should if what you said was correct. In between atoms and molecules in a gas there is nothing, it's like a mini vacuum. And now we are back to this old argument. How does light cross these mini vacuums?
Now taking that into account, no gold ball or man or machine is going to move in something that does not exist, so basically you thinking I'm talking about an actornaut hitting a gold ball and it just stopping, is not even valid to talk about because it simply can't happen in a true vacuum.
I know you believe this, it's hypothetical. You believe the energy from the golf club will just disappear.
For someone to swing a club at a gold ball, requires movement, which has to have a medium for that movement to take place. Earth offers it and that's where it ends.
How does mechanical energy know what the medium is around it?
Do you try to get dumber over time?
You have yet to respond to this.
-
You have yet to respond to this.
I don't see anything specific to respond to. Have I missed something?
-
You have yet to respond to this.
I don't see anything specific to respond to. Have I missed something?
Obviously so.
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.
It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?
Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?
The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.
I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?
Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?
-
The sooner you understand that propulsion is not going to work in a vacuum, the sooner you'll realise that all of this stuff is gunk.
I see that the forum's resident mental midget still can't comprehend the sciences of a vacuum, and rocket propulsion LOL.
He just seems intellectually incapable of grasping Newton's Third Law; "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"—which can also be thought of as "forces always come in pairs". Any high school kid can explain this in a couple of minutes, and understand the concept.
But oh no... not our favourite pseudo-science guru! ;D
How embarrassing.
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.
It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?
Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?
The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.
I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?
Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?
I know, I forgot you people have to make an issue out of one error in a letter and cannot possibly decipher it.
Ok, I'll play your game this time. Anymore silliness and you're going the journey, as well.
The energy it contains inis the energy you applied.
Is this any better for you?
-
Have I missed something?
Uh..... most of your high school science classes?
;D ;D ;D
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.
It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?
Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?
The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.
I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?
Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?
I know, I forgot you people have to make an issue out of one error in a letter and cannot possibly decipher it.
Ok, I'll play your game this time. Anymore silliness and you're going the journey, as well.
The energy it contains inis the energy you applied.
Is this any better for you?
neimoka.... Might I suggest attempting to be blocked by him. As you can see you can still respond to his horrible posts but he just doesn't respond back. If this happened to everyone it benefits anyone reading the site.
-
You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?
The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.
It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?
Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?
The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.
I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?
Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?
I know, I forgot you people have to make an issue out of one error in a letter and cannot possibly decipher it.
Ok, I'll play your game this time. Anymore silliness and you're going the journey, as well.
The energy it contains inis the energy you applied.
Is this any better for you?
I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.
Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?
-
I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.
Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?
It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.
-
I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.
Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?
It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.
So there is heating/compression - but so minute that it can't be noticed, while still so much that the hefty ball moves up at speed, against the high air pressure - just the right amount. How does this heat (and compression) produce force to push the ball up? Is it like a rocket, the thermal energy heats and expands the air around the ball, creating a pressure to 'squeeze' the ball up, is that it?
-
It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.
So Dumbo still hasn't understood one of the basics of science—that atmospheric pressure is acting from all directions at once. He still seems to think that the atmosphere operates in one direction only on a body, which is one of the reasons he claimed that people sitting at the back of a moving bus were under more pressure than those sitting at the front. He also seems to think that it's the "weight" of the "column" of air above us that's pushing down on the tops of our heads, and keeping us anchored to the earth.
He now seems to think that if you throw a ball up in the air vertically, it somehow—magically—compresses a column of air above it which is trying to push it back towards the ground. The ball also "heats up" due to this increased pressure "compressing" the ball. You can—apparently—actually "notice" this with say a golf ball or a tennis ball, but definitely not with a "dense" medicine ball (although he doesn't say why specifically).
I'm guessing this sort of thermodynamic theory explains why we see so many tennis balls bursting into flames at Wimbledon?
-
neimoka.... Might I suggest attempting to be blocked by him. As you can see you can still respond to his horrible posts but he just doesn't respond back. If this happened to everyone it benefits anyone reading the site.
Shhhh, I want to see where this goes ;D
-
I see that the forum's resident mental midget still can't comprehend the sciences of a vacuum, and rocket propulsion LOL.
FFS Would you please knock it off with the insults already? It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.
How embarrassing.
Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.
-
FFS Would you please knock it off with the insults already? It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.
I can only assume you meant to direct this comment to sceptimatic? Although, having said that, I will say one thing about you flat earthers: You sure stick together whenever the going gets tough LOL. Cyanoacrylate maybe?
Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.
Again, I'm sure you meant this to be for sceptimatic's attention? But I forgive you this little slip. :)
-
FFS Would you please knock it off with the insults already? It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.
I can only assume you meant to direct this comment to sceptimatic? Although, having said that, I will say one thing about you flat earthers: You sure stick together whenever the going gets tough LOL. Cyanoacrylate maybe?
Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.
Again, I'm sure you meant this to be for sceptimatic's attention? But I forgive you this little slip. :)
You're kidding right?
-
FFS Would you please knock it off with the insults already? It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.
I can only assume you meant to direct this comment to sceptimatic? Although, having said that, I will say one thing about you flat earthers: You sure stick together whenever the going gets tough LOL. Cyanoacrylate maybe?
Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.
Again, I'm sure you meant this to be for sceptimatic's attention? But I forgive you this little slip. :)
You're kidding right?
We wish.
-
You have yet to respond to this.
I don't see anything specific to respond to. Have I missed something?
Ok, I accept that you made such a stupid claim that you won't even try and back it up. Let it be known that denpressure is dead.
-
Let it be known that denpressure is dead.
sceptimatic's silly "denpressure" theory was never a starter from day one LOL. He couldn't even differentiate "mass' and "weight"—he thinks they're the same thing! And he still can't get his head around the schoolboy science that pressure is defined as force per unit area, or for EG newton per square metre.
To put it politely, the guy is a total ignoramus... and I mean that in the nicest possible way. ;D
-
I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.
Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?
It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.
So there is heating/compression - but so minute that it can't be noticed, while still so much that the hefty ball moves up at speed, against the high air pressure - just the right amount. How does this heat (and compression) produce force to push the ball up? Is it like a rocket, the thermal energy heats and expands the air around the ball, creating a pressure to 'squeeze' the ball up, is that it?
Sorry about taking so long to answer. I had other things to attend to.
However, I can clearly see you have no clue as to what I'm trying to help you with, so you can follow the other clowns into the bin. No need to respond.
-
However, I can clearly see you have no clue as to what I'm trying to help you with, so you can follow the other clowns into the bin. No need to respond.
The only way sceptimatic could "help" anybody is if he stopped posting his reams of pseudo-scientific blather on these forums.
Although I'm seriously starting to believe that he's simply unaware of the fact that everybody here—even most flat earthers—are repeatedly taking the piss out of him. No sense; no feelings as they say LOL.
It's kinda bizarre that he describes anybody who disagrees with his notions of the earth and the cosmos as "clowns" as though that's a satisfactory defence against any opposition. He needs to start posting some viable, empirical evidence and/or citing references for all his many claims. There's really no point in just insulting people's intelligence without, at the same time, providing any sustainable arguments of his own.
I enjoy a robust intellectual debate along with the best of them, but debating an issue—particularly involving the sciences—with someone like sceptimatic is just marginally better than sticking toothpicks into your eyeballs. Which is one of the reasons I'm more than pleased he's finally added me to his IGNORE list. I can only suggest that other round earthers ask the same, as it relieves you of feeling any need whatsoever to respond to his puerile drivel and childish antics.
Through his last somewhat embarrassing responses, it's obvious the guy doesn't know the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy LOL.
-
More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html)
-
I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.
Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?
It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.
So there is heating/compression - but so minute that it can't be noticed, while still so much that the hefty ball moves up at speed, against the high air pressure - just the right amount. How does this heat (and compression) produce force to push the ball up? Is it like a rocket, the thermal energy heats and expands the air around the ball, creating a pressure to 'squeeze' the ball up, is that it?
Sorry about taking so long to answer. I had other things to attend to.
However, I can clearly see you have no clue as to what I'm trying to help you with, so you can follow the other clowns into the bin. No need to respond.
Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.
-
More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html)
There's just no end to the absolute stupidity of these pranksters, is there?
conjoined satellites now. What for?
What the hell is the reason for conjoined satellites?
Just when you think they can't surely think of anything else as batty, here we go again.
The next will be triplets, then quads. For crying out loud.
Electric propulsion as well, in space, as if that somehow solves the vacuum conundrum.
Pathetic. ::) ;D
-
Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.
I told you I'd converse with you, but to do so, you better stop sucking up and following those pricks I binned and think for yourself.
-
More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html)
There's just no end to the absolute stupidity of tehse pranksters, is there?
conjoined satellites now. What for?
What the hell is the reason for conjoined satellites?
Just when you think they can't surely think of anything else as batty, here we go again.
The next will be triplets, then quads. For crying out loud.
Electric propulsion as well, in space, as if that somehow solves the vacuum conundrum.
Pathetic. ::) ;D
Get used to it septic this the 21st century.
-
More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html)
There's just no end to the absolute stupidity of tehse pranksters, is there?
conjoined satellites now. What for?
What the hell is the reason for conjoined satellites?
Just when you think they can't surely think of anything else as batty, here we go again.
The next will be triplets, then quads. For crying out loud.
Electric propulsion as well, in space, as if that somehow solves the vacuum conundrum.
Pathetic. ::) ;D
Get used to it septic this the 21st century.
I'm used to it, Guf.
This is the age of the ultimate in getting lies across to the whole world by technology. The tools to fool have always been there. The problem has been making it gather pace, quickly.
TV, internet and mobile phones are a part of just about every home, so they can feed you as much bullshit as they want - every day - and clearly they do.
Your rockets that you amaze over, in your space, are bunkum. They can't work. They can't even launch in the sizes we are told. the launches are CGI or models.
All it takes, is for people to wake up and spend a little time thinking about it, then they will understand why it's not possible.
Will it happen with most?
The answer is probably not, because the bullshit goes deep into their minds, like a hot knife through soft butter.
The saying is quite clear. It's in my signature.
-
Here you go septic, there is a vacuum in the tube.
http://makearadio.com/tube/6ba7-superhet.php (http://makearadio.com/tube/6ba7-superhet.php)
If you are smart enough to read the circuit you will notice that is real smart. ie not flat
-
Here you go septic, there is a vacuum in the tube.
http://makearadio.com/tube/6ba7-superhet.php (http://makearadio.com/tube/6ba7-superhet.php)
If you are smart enough to read the circuit you will notice that is real smart. ie not flat
No, here isn't a vacuum in the tube. There is a low pressure with inert gas.
This is what happens when you try to make a vacuum.
Railroad tank car vacuum implosion (http://#)
Don't pretend a glass tube can ever hold anything but a lower pressure.
-
Cant read a circuit A
-
Here you go septic, there is a vacuum in the tube.
http://makearadio.com/tube/6ba7-superhet.php (http://makearadio.com/tube/6ba7-superhet.php)
If you are smart enough to read the circuit you will notice that is real smart. ie not flat
No, here isn't a vacuum in the tube. There is a low pressure with inert gas.
This is what happens when you try to make a vacuum.
Railroad tank car vacuum implosion (http://#)
Don't pretend a glass tube can ever hold anything but a lower pressure.
Do you have an example of a container designed to handle large pressure differentials doing this? Or are you basing your entire world view on this one video?
-
Glad scepti finally accepts that a vacuum can be achieved. Notice that existence didn't end inside the tank during implosion.
-
Since you guys are so smart. Maybe you can explain why air pressure can crush a steel tank, but lets a thin glass tube survive.
-
Since you guys are so smart. Maybe you can explain why air pressure can crush a steel tank, but lets a thin glass tube survive.
Well the description in the video specifically states that the safety valve was disabled.
-
Since you guys are so smart. Maybe you can explain why air pressure can crush a steel tank, but lets a thin glass tube survive.
Well the description in the video specifically states that the safety valve was disabled.
Right, if the safety valve had operated the pressure would have equalized. The tank would not have collapsed. Without the valve, pulling a near vacuum allowed normal air pressure to collapse a steel tanker car.I doubt that a thin glass tube is stronger than steel used to make tankers.
-
Since you guys are so smart. Maybe you can explain why air pressure can crush a steel tank, but lets a thin glass tube survive.
Well the description in the video specifically states that the safety valve was disabled.
Right, if the safety valve had operated the pressure would have equalized. The tank would not have collapsed. Without the valve, pulling a near vacuum allowed normal air pressure to collapse a steel tanker car.I doubt that a thin glass tube is stronger than steel used to make tankers.
Well doesn't the fact that there is a better seal and the lack of a safety valve mean something? It's a function of difference in pressure and strength of container. The glass valves we see would most likely break if they overdid the vacuum too. In those examples not all of the air is removed. The point is to show what happens when air is removed, not necessarily all of it since removing all of it would just break the container and prevent one from showing the feather experiment. If you insist on calling the inside of this train cart a perfect vacuum then you'll notice that it didn't end existence. It just collapsed the container because enough air was removed to overcome the containers strength.
-
Since you guys are so smart. Maybe you can explain why air pressure can crush a steel tank, but lets a thin glass tube survive.
Well the description in the video specifically states that the safety valve was disabled.
Right, if the safety valve had operated the pressure would have equalized. The tank would not have collapsed. Without the valve, pulling a near vacuum allowed normal air pressure to collapse a steel tanker car.I doubt that a thin glass tube is stronger than steel used to make tankers.
You couldn't be more wrong. Crush a soda can in your hands. Crush a test tube in your hands. Which one was harder?
That was easy.
There was a scientist couple who were fascinated by the vacuum at the top of a barometer. Coincidentally they died of mercury poisoning. I can't think of their names though.
-
Since you guys are so smart. Maybe you can explain why air pressure can crush a steel tank, but lets a thin glass tube survive.
Structural strength of design, material, and surface area in relation to material thickness. A tank the same size and shape as the one in the video made of glass of the same thickness of a small test tube would probably last nowhere near as long.
-
Since you guys are so smart. Maybe you can explain why air pressure can crush a steel tank, but lets a thin glass tube survive.
Since you asked, glad to oblige.
The glass envelope of a 6A7 6BA7 vacuum tube is 7/8" diameter and about 2" long, ignoring the tip, according to a data sheet (http://frank.pocnet.net/sheets/127/6/6BA7.pdf). Others here (http://frank.pocnet.net/sheets61.html) give similar dimensions.
The railroad car appears to be about 2.4m diameter and at least 7m long, assuming standard German track gauge (1.435 m - call it 1.5m) and estimating the diameter from that. Length was guesstimated by assuming the wheelbase of each truck is spaced equal to the gauge - this is the best I can come up with on the spur of the moment.
Using this, the area of the cylindrical sides will be the product of pi times diameter times length, or
pi * 7/8 in * 2 in
= pi (7/4 in2)
Converting railcar dimensions to inches gives diameter 100" (hey, it's an estimate) and length 280 inches. The area of its cylindrical sides is
pi * (100 in * 280 in)
= pi (28000 in2)
The ratio of these is
( pi * 28000 in2 ) / ( pi * 7/4 in2 )
= 28000 * 4 / 7
= 4000 * 4
= 16000
The ends will add additional area as pi (d/2)2 times two (for two ends), ignoring their slightly convex shapes. Since the rail car failed from the side, and the ratio of end areas is similar (~13000 : 1, I think), considering only the cylinder and ignoring the ends is probably adequate for this.
This means the sides of the tank car has about sixteen thousand times as much area as the little glass tube's cylinder, which makes the force sixteen thousand times as great if the pressure differential is the same. I suspect it's likely that the strength of the glass envelope is much more uniform than the steel cylinder, and the weakest point on each is where it will start to fail, so the average strength of the rail car sides must be still greater than that proportion.
It's all a matter of areas, and the train car has vastly more than the tube.
If anyone has better dimensions for the rail car, please provide.
[Edit] Clarify by stating "wheelbase" instead of "wheel spacing"
[Edit] Oops... that's a 6BA7 tube
-
Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.
I told you I'd converse with you, but to do so, you better stop sucking up and following those pricks I binned and think for yourself.
Very well, thinking all by my self here. What we've got so far: I push that medicine ball up, using force to give it energy; it gets a bit warm and compresses, but not noticeably. The ball's upward movement is resisted by air, pressurized by the ball's motion. We've established this much, right?
So. Looking at the moment the ball loses contact with my hand. It continues to move up, although I'm no longer applying a force to it, and at the same time air pressure above it resists that movement. At this moment in time, what force makes the ball move up, against the air pressure?
-
So. Looking at the moment the ball loses contact with my hand. It continues to move up, although I'm no longer applying a force to it, and at the same time air pressure above it resists that movement. At this moment in time, what force makes the ball move up, against the air pressure?
LOL... I'm waiting with bated breath to see just what sort of fairy story sceptimatic will fabricate for this one.
Obviously, I know the answer, as does everyone else here, but I'd almost bet my left testicle that sceptimatic—true to previous form—will have not the faintest idea.
-
Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.
I told you I'd converse with you, but to do so, you better stop sucking up and following those pricks I binned and think for yourself.
Very well, thinking all by my self here. What we've got so far: I push that medicine ball up, using force to give it energy; it gets a bit warm and compresses, but not noticeably. The ball's upward movement is resisted by air, pressurized by the ball's motion. We've established this much, right?
So. Looking at the moment the ball loses contact with my hand. It continues to move up, although I'm no longer applying a force to it, and at the same time air pressure above it resists that movement. At this moment in time, what force makes the ball move up, against the air pressure?
The force you applied created a lower pressure below the ball and compressed compressed the air above, creating a wave of pressure around the ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under the ball.
To explain it better you might like to imagine a boat on water, as I said before. This gives you a perfect sight example of what's happening.
All it is, is the atmosphere in an action/reaction from the point of release of the ball and your energy applied to that release.
-
So again, if pressure decreases inversely with your altitude, which it in fact does, why doesn't the lower pressure air at the surface push everything in to the air?
Denpressure predicts the opposite of what you intend.
-
The force you applied created a lower pressure below the ball and compressed compressed the air above, creating a wave of pressure around the ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under the ball.
To explain it better you might like to imagine a boat on water, as I said before. This gives you a perfect sight example of what's happening.
All it is, is the atmosphere in an action/reaction from the point of release of the ball and your energy applied to that release.
Why did I just know I wasn't gonna see the words "kinetic energy" or "momentum" in this nonsensical response?
;D ;D ;D
-
Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.
I told you I'd converse with you, but to do so, you better stop sucking up and following those pricks I binned and think for yourself.
Very well, thinking all by my self here. What we've got so far: I push that medicine ball up, using force to give it energy; it gets a bit warm and compresses, but not noticeably. The ball's upward movement is resisted by air, pressurized by the ball's motion. We've established this much, right?
So. Looking at the moment the ball loses contact with my hand. It continues to move up, although I'm no longer applying a force to it, and at the same time air pressure above it resists that movement. At this moment in time, what force makes the ball move up, against the air pressure?
The force you applied created a lower pressure below the ball and compressed compressed the air above, creating a wave of pressure around the ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under the ball.
To explain it better you might like to imagine a boat on water, as I said before. This gives you a perfect sight example of what's happening.
All it is, is the atmosphere in an action/reaction from the point of release of the ball and your energy applied to that release.
Yes, so once again, the ball is flowing from low pressure to high pressure. This is the opposite of what is observed with objects blowing in the wind( and wind itself) and airplane wings.
-
Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.
I told you I'd converse with you, but to do so, you better stop sucking up and following those pricks I binned and think for yourself.
Very well, thinking all by my self here. What we've got so far: I push that medicine ball up, using force to give it energy; it gets a bit warm and compresses, but not noticeably. The ball's upward movement is resisted by air, pressurized by the ball's motion. We've established this much, right?
So. Looking at the moment the ball loses contact with my hand. It continues to move up, although I'm no longer applying a force to it, and at the same time air pressure above it resists that movement. At this moment in time, what force makes the ball move up, against the air pressure?
The force you applied created a lower pressure below the ball and compressed compressed the air above, creating a wave of pressure around the ball to equalise the lower pressure you created under the ball.
To explain it better you might like to imagine a boat on water, as I said before. This gives you a perfect sight example of what's happening.
All it is, is the atmosphere in an action/reaction from the point of release of the ball and your energy applied to that release.
Yes, so once again, the ball is flowing from low pressure to high pressure. This is the opposite of what is observed with objects blowing in the wind( and wind itself) and airplane wings.
Pay attention.
Low pressure is created by the compression of the air with the ball by the energy of the push.
You pushed the air in front of the ball into a higher pressure (compression) and you left a low pressure under that ball by doing this.
It's not flowing, it's creating.
Let's try this another way and you may get it.
Let's imagine I throw the ball at your face from 5 feet away. Your face feels the pressure from that ball before it hits your face, because it's compressing the air towards your face. Or to put it in wind terms, you're getting hit by the wind in a wave form.
Want it easier?
Let's get in a nice calm swimming pool. I have swimming trunks on and you are wearing a bikini for some reason, which I'm entitled to have you wear, as this is my post. ;D
Any back to serious.
Now I push the ball towards you. What do you see coming towards you before the ball? You see a wave spanning out, right?
You also notice that the wave from where I pushed the ball, is much thinner, so it's sort of spanned out like a speaker volume digital display or like a cone.
You also notice that it arcs back around, because that pressure wave is now going back around to equalise. See what I'm saying?
Ok, get dressed and get that bloody bikini off, it's embarrassing. ;D
-
Pay attention.
Low pressure is created by the compression of the air with the ball by the energy of the push.
You pushed the air in front of the ball into a higher pressure (compression) and you left a low pressure under that ball by doing this.
It's not flowing, it's creating
Yes I understand. But you seem to be forgetting the ball is moving upwards at this point. The ball is moving (flowing) from low pressure to high pressure.
Let's try this another way and you may get it.
Let's imagine I throw the ball at your face from 5 feet away. Your face feels the pressure from that ball before it hits your face, because it's compressing the air towards your face. Or to put it in wind terms, you're getting hit by the wind in a wave form.
Yes that is true. But remember you don't believe in inertia. So air pressure is responsible for all the movement in the ball. There is a high pressure in front of the ball but there still needs to be pressure behind it to push the ball. So once again, the ball is moving from low pressure to high pressure. (and somehow low pressure is stronger than high pressure.)
Now I push the ball towards you. What do you see coming towards you before the ball? You see a wave spanning out, right?
You also notice that the wave from where I pushed the ball, is much thinner, so it's sort of spanned out like a speaker volume digital display or like a cone.
You also notice that it arcs back around, because that pressure wave is now going back around to equalise. See what I'm saying?
Ok, get dressed and get that bloody bikini off, it's embarrassing. ;D
So once again inertia doesn't exist. So you push a floating ball and waves do come out from in front of it. Then you let go and air pressure takes over. Somehow air pressure came out of no where to keep the ball moving. The air pressure also slows it down for some reason. It's an air pressure battle royal to see who is champion. In the end, the air pressure in the front wins and the ball stops. Who knows why. Maybe it the fact that no 20 mph tail wind was found to keep the ball moving once you let it go.
-
Yes I understand. But you seem to be forgetting the ball is moving upwards at this point. The ball is moving (flowing) from low pressure to high pressure.
No. It starts off under slightly higher pressure pushing down before your energy changes all that. You know, action, then reaction. It is never exact unison. There's always action first with energy applied to create the higher pressure which then creates the lower pressure in super milliseconds for the sake of it.The point is, it's still action then reaction.
Yes that is true. But remember you don't believe in inertia. So air pressure is responsible for all the movement in the ball. There is a high pressure in front of the ball but there still needs to be pressure behind it to push the ball. So once again, the ball is moving from low pressure to high pressure. (and somehow low pressure is stronger than high pressure.)
Yes and the pressure behind to push the ball comes from the compression in front of it, which is forced around the ball and hits the flow of low pressure like a spring (if you like) and pushes the ball.
It's like you doing the breast stroke to propel yourself forward.
Your arms and hands scoop the water behind you creating a low pressure in front of you and creating a compression behind you which hits the water behind like a spring and pushes you through the void created in front (low pressure)
All you've done is the opposite of ball push.
An easier thing is to think of a mole burrowing undrground. It grabs the soil in front creating an opening and shoves it behind ( breast stroke).
The only difference with soil is, it doesn't flow back at it like a spring but stays put.
See what I'm saying?
So once again inertia doesn't exist. So you push a floating ball and waves do come out from in front of it. Then you let go and air pressure takes over. Somehow air pressure came out of no where to keep the ball moving. The air pressure also slows it down for some reason. It's an air pressure battle royal to see who is champion. In the end, the air pressure in the front wins and the ball stops. Who knows why. Maybe it the fact that no 20 mph tail wind was found to keep the ball moving once you let it go.
Yes it's a battle royal. It's always energy and resistance but it has to work this way to create movement. Otehrwise we simply do not exist.
Honestly, have a serious think over what I'm saying. If you shrug it off, then fair enough, no problem. Maybe someone will get what I'm saying.
-
Yes I understand. But you seem to be forgetting the ball is moving upwards at this point. The ball is moving (flowing) from low pressure to high pressure.
No. It starts off under slightly higher pressure pushing down before your energy changes all that. You know, action, then reaction. It is never exact unison. There's always action first with energy applied to create the higher pressure which then creates the lower pressure in super milliseconds for the sake of it.The point is, it's still action then reaction.
Yes action then reaction. We are nto talking about that. We are talking about air pressure.
Yes and the pressure behind to push the ball comes from the compression in front of it, which is forced around the ball and hits the flow of low pressure like a spring (if you like) and pushes the ball.
So yes, once again, the ball is moving from high pressure to low pressure. And like I said, this would be like wind coming at you from the front and blowing you into the wind. This never happens. Wind blows into an object, creating a slightly higher pressure at the surface it hits. In doing so it also pushes the object, thus the object moves in the direction with the wind, not against it. You claim an object is blow against the wind, as in, against high pressure. But this is never seen. So why can a ball do it but a leaf can't? It's because a ball can't do it. There is no spring effect from air wrapping around an object.
It's like you doing the breast stroke to propel yourself forward.
No, that is your equal and opposite reaction. A person is pushing them self off water, like a person can push them self off a diving board. This is not the same thing as aerodynamics.
Your arms and hands scoop the water behind you creating a low pressure in front of you and creating a compression behind you which hits the water behind like a spring and pushes you through the void created in front (low pressure)
No and this is opposite of what you just said. You now say there is a low pressure in front of you, when in the ball experiment, you said the low pressure what behind you. You concede your ball argument.
All you've done is the opposite of ball push.
Yet you get the same movement?
An easier thing is to think of a mole burrowing undrground. It grabs the soil in front creating an opening and shoves it behind ( breast stroke).
The only difference with soil is, it doesn't flow back at it like a spring but stays put.
Fluid dynamics shouldn't be compared to non fluids.
See what I'm saying?
I see you like to argue with yourself.
Yes it's a battle royal. It's always energy and resistance but it has to work this way to create movement. Otehrwise we simply do not exist.
Honestly, have a serious think over what I'm saying. If you shrug it off, then fair enough, no problem. Maybe someone will get what I'm saying.
Why don't you have a think over what I said. And then come back and explain how a ball can travel from low to high pressure but a swimmer travels from high to low pressure.
-
Sorry, sokarul, I've wasted enough time on you. You'll never grasp it and probably never want to grasp anything other than what you were saturated with from an early age to present.
-
Sorry, sokarul, I've wasted enough time on you. You'll never grasp it and probably never want to grasp anything other than what you were saturated with from an early age to present.
I love the way sceptimatic throws a hissy fit and takes his bat and ball home whenever the other kids won't play to his rules LOL.
Insult him a few more times sokarul (it's not difficult, trust me) and with a bit of luck, he'll include you on his IGNORE list along with the rest of us luckier round earthers. ;D
-
Sorry, sokarul, I've wasted enough time on you. You'll never grasp it and probably never want to grasp anything other than what you were saturated with from an early age to present.
I just destroyed you.
Yes and the pressure behind to push the ball comes from the compression in front of it, which is forced around the ball and hits the flow of low pressure like a spring (if you like) and pushes the ball.
Your arms and hands scoop the water behind you creating a low pressure in front of you and creating a compression behind you which hits the water behind like a spring and pushes you through the void created in front (low pressure)
RIP denpressure.
-
Sorry, sokarul, I've wasted enough time on you. You'll never grasp it and probably never want to grasp anything other than what you were saturated with from an early age to present.
I just destroyed you.
Yes and the pressure behind to push the ball comes from the compression in front of it, which is forced around the ball and hits the flow of low pressure like a spring (if you like) and pushes the ball.
Your arms and hands scoop the water behind you creating a low pressure in front of you and creating a compression behind you which hits the water behind like a spring and pushes you through the void created in front (low pressure)
RIP denpressure.
Let this be a lesson for you in the art of absorbing reality. Living in a fantasy world will make you a bitter person in later life when you realise that your fantasies were exactly that and not reality as you naively believed.
-
Living in a fantasy world will make you a bitter person in later life...
Going by that little homily, sceptimatic must have the personality traits of a grapefruit. ;D
-
Sorry, sokarul, I've wasted enough time on you. You'll never grasp it and probably never want to grasp anything other than what you were saturated with from an early age to present.
I just destroyed you.
Yes and the pressure behind to push the ball comes from the compression in front of it, which is forced around the ball and hits the flow of low pressure like a spring (if you like) and pushes the ball.
Your arms and hands scoop the water behind you creating a low pressure in front of you and creating a compression behind you which hits the water behind like a spring and pushes you through the void created in front (low pressure)
RIP denpressure.
Let this be a lesson for you in the art of absorbing reality. Living in a fantasy world will make you a bitter person in later life when you realise that your fantasies were exactly that and not reality as you naively believed.
Yes. Sokural destroying sceptis world view is a lesson for sokural.
-
Well din't that escalate nicely. Above arguments addressed most of what I was thinking about there, so I'll just move on to the next question. Earlier you stated that denser objects appear heavier and require a greater force to move because they displace more air; is air a special case in this regard, or does it apply to all materials - any matter displaces an amount of any fluid, proportional only to it's density - is this correct?
-
Well din't that escalate nicely. Above arguments addressed most of what I was thinking about there, so I'll just move on to the next question. Earlier you stated that denser objects appear heavier and require a greater force to move because they displace more air; is air a special case in this regard, or does it apply to all materials - any matter displaces an amount of any fluid, proportional only to it's density - is this correct?
Well there you go. Your arrguments have been addressed by your friends. No need to ask me anything. Just ask them. ;D
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
-
Try to explain that a bit better septic. It makes no sense.
-
Try to explain that a bit better septic. It makes no sense.
I know it makes no sense to you. Warped space time and all the rest of it makes sense, even though no bastard knows what the hell it is, yet my explanations don't because wannabe scientists do not do basic logic. I'm being serious as well.
What is it that you can't grasp?
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
Objects side by side in same environment, lead ball has higher pressure all around it than a wooden ball, all else being equal??
-
How air pressure can do all these wondrous things.
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
Objects side by side in same environment, lead ball has higher pressure all around it than a wooden ball, all else being equal??
Bingo.
-
How air pressure can do all these wondrous things.
It's not about it doing wonderous things, it's about how it's stacked to create higher pressure at sea level on all objects, from which the density of those objects determine what man made measurement in weight they are, by what they either absorb or repel in that atmosphere.
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
Objects side by side in same environment, lead ball has higher pressure all around it than a wooden ball, all else being equal??
Bingo.
What force causes the air to accumulate around the objects to create pressure, in amounts proportional to their density?
Could you address the question about displacement?
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
Objects side by side in same environment, lead ball has higher pressure all around it than a wooden ball, all else being equal??
Bingo.
What force causes the air to accumulate around the objects to create pressure, in amounts proportional to their density?
Could you address the question about displacement?
This is getting tedious. Are you deliberately not understanding what I've said or are you so absorbed in your gravity that you're simply not willing to understand what I'm saying?
Let's be clear on this before I go any further.
-
How air pressure can do all these wondrous things.
It's not about it doing wonderous things, it's about how it's stacked to create higher pressure at sea level on all objects, from which the density of those objects determine what man made measurement in weight they are, by what they either absorb or repel in that atmosphere.
Please explain what is absorbed or repeled by objects. With verified examples.
-
How air pressure can do all these wondrous things.
It's not about it doing wonderous things, it's about how it's stacked to create higher pressure at sea level on all objects, from which the density of those objects determine what man made measurement in weight they are, by what they either absorb or repel in that atmosphere.
Please explain what is absorbed or repeled by objects. With verified examples.
Just sit back and watch the explanations as they go. That's the best I can do for you.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
-
Yes and the pressure behind to push the ball comes from the compression in front of it, which is forced around the ball and hits the flow of low pressure like a spring (if you like) and pushes the ball.
Your arms and hands scoop the water behind you creating a low pressure in front of you and creating a compression behind you which hits the water behind like a spring and pushes you through the void created in front (low pressure)
RIP denpressure.
Weird, it's almost like he's making it up as he goes along... ::)
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
-
Yes and the pressure behind to push the ball comes from the compression in front of it, which is forced around the ball and hits the flow of low pressure like a spring (if you like) and pushes the ball.
Your arms and hands scoop the water behind you creating a low pressure in front of you and creating a compression behind you which hits the water behind like a spring and pushes you through the void created in front (low pressure)
RIP denpressure.
Weird, it's almost like he's making it up as he goes along... ::)
And weirdly, gravity, warped space time, special relativity and a whole host of stuff that cannot be proved as to what they are, physically and this is accepted because?
The belief in those in lab coats or who stand out as a voice for the masses.
None of that makes any sense. Mine does for those that want to absorb it. Obviously you and others like you have no intention of using your logical brains, so I don't expect, nor care what you want to think, to be honest.
I'll explain and I simply hope that the thinkers will take it onboard, to at least give food for thought.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head. Marginally but it's there.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
-
If I sit on the floor, will my body be under more pressure than when I was standing??
-
If I sit on the floor, will my body be under more pressure than when I was standing??
Yes, very slightly but you won't feel it that way due to you spreading out your mass on the floor.
-
If I sit on the floor, will my body be under more pressure than when I was standing??
Yes, very slightly but you won't feel it that way due to you spreading out your mass on the floor.
it is similar I suppose to sitting in 6'of water, in the denser medium you can really feel the pressure difference at the bottom.
-
If I sit on the floor, will my body be under more pressure than when I was standing??
Yes, very slightly but you won't feel it that way due to you spreading out your mass on the floor.
it is similar I suppose to sitting in 6'of water, in the denser medium you can really feel the pressure difference at the bottom.
It feels like we are going around in circles. Pressure is defined as force per unit area. It isn't THE force. It needs a mechanism and it [pressure] is simply under the influence of some mechanism/force. Let's look again at a helium balloon inside of a car because in that case we can see what pressure does:
(http://)
All the air rushes to the right side during a left turn for example. The high pressure in that case is the right side, forcing the balloon to the left. High pressure, if strong enough, will move an object toward low pressure, not away from it. Therefore, we would float up if pressure was the dominant force.
-
If I sit on the floor, will my body be under more pressure than when I was standing??
Yes, very slightly but you won't feel it that way due to you spreading out your mass on the floor.
it is similar I suppose to sitting in 6'of water, in the denser medium you can really feel the pressure difference at the bottom.
Yep; water is a good analogy for what's happening. the reason people can't equate it to air pressure is the very fact that we live under air pressure and are basically "body wise" equalised to it because we are just a collection of molecules or water and atmosphere condensed together.
Having said that. If we try to use the depth of water as dense pressure upon us, the arguments come out to say that we float and it's hard to get it into people's heads to disregard the floating human.
This is why some come out with, " well surely we would float in air with your denpressure, scepti."
People can't seem to get their heads around a stacked atmosphere, just like stacking a swimming pool with water. The highest pressure is obviously going to be at the bottom and the lowest pressure being at the top.
So "IF" we use this as that analogy, we can then imagine picking up , say - a 4x4 feet sheet of metal (for instance) from flat on the deck. Now you can imagine the force upon that sheet of metal as you tried to pick it up against the mass (pressure) of water bearing down on it.
Now imagine trying to throw that sheet, upwards?
Obviously to understand it being the same, we also have to imagine a person being acclimatised to that environment as well, which naturally means they are denser than the water and can walk the bottom, just like we do on land.
-
If I sit on the floor, will my body be under more pressure than when I was standing??
Yes, very slightly but you won't feel it that way due to you spreading out your mass on the floor.
it is similar I suppose to sitting in 6'of water, in the denser medium you can really feel the pressure difference at the bottom.
Yep; water is a good analogy for what's happening. the reason people can't equate it to air pressure is the very fact that we live under air pressure and are basically "body wise" equalised to it because we are just a collection of molecules or water and atmosphere condensed together.
Having said that. If we try to use the depth of water as dense pressure upon us, the arguments come out to say that we float and it's hard to get it into people's heads to disregard the floating human.
This is why some come out with, " well surely we would float in air with your denpressure, scepti."
People can't seem to get their heads around a stacked atmosphere, just like stacking a swimming pool with water. The highest pressure is obviously going to be at the bottom and the lowest pressure being at the top.
So "IF" we use this as that analogy, we can then imagine picking up , say - a 4x4 feet sheet of metal (for instance) from flat on the deck. Now you can imagine the force upon that sheet of metal as you tried to pick it up against the mass (pressure) of water bearing down on it.
Now imagine trying to throw that sheet, upwards?
Obviously to understand it being the same, we also have to imagine a person being acclimatised to that environment as well, which naturally means they are denser than the water and can walk the bottom, just like we do on land.
(http://)
Not only did the objects that sank not have to come up through the water in order to be pushed down by the water, but the objects that didn't sink were like "what's denpressure?"
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
So what is this marginal difference?
Presumably if I did fall off a cliff I should just go horizontal and then the difference in air pressure between the top and bottom of my body would be too small to make me fall and I'll just float around on the wind? I will try this next time.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
So what is this marginal difference?
Presumably if I did fall off a cliff I should just go horizontal and then the difference in air pressure between the top and bottom of my body would be too small to make me fall and I'll just float around on the wind? I will try this next time.
Well, I've certainly wasted my time with you. I won't do it again.
-
Well, I've certainly wasted my time with you. I won't do it again.
Who will you waste your time with next?
-
It's your usual response when you're trapped in a corner - take the ball home and refuse to play.
Deleting all your posts comes next....
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
So what is this marginal difference?
Presumably if I did fall off a cliff I should just go horizontal and then the difference in air pressure between the top and bottom of my body would be too small to make me fall and I'll just float around on the wind? I will try this next time.
Well, I've certainly wasted my time with you. I won't do it again.
It is going to be hard to destroy the RE view if you never talk with anyone who holds the RE view isn't it?
-
It's your usual response when you're trapped in a corner - take the ball home and refuse to play.
Deleting all your posts comes next....
You guys destroyed denpressure again. Thanks. Second time in this thread.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
So what is this marginal difference?
Presumably if I did fall off a cliff I should just go horizontal and then the difference in air pressure between the top and bottom of my body would be too small to make me fall and I'll just float around on the wind? I will try this next time.
Well, I've certainly wasted my time with you. I won't do it again.
It is going to be hard to destroy the RE view if you never talk with anyone who holds the RE view isn't it?
That's why I continue to respond to his posts even though he can't see them. The only people convinced by his bullshit are the scientific illiterate so if he doesn't even respond then he's only hurting his own "mission". I get to make my arguments and they simply go unanswered. Not the he ever responded to them before in any meaningful way.
-
It's your usual response when you're trapped in a corner - take the ball home and refuse to play.
Deleting all your posts comes next....
You guys destroyed denpressure again. Thanks. Second time in this thread.
None of you can destroy it. You can't destroy the truth. Stick to your fantasies by hanging onto a force that nobody knows what the hell it is.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
Please provide some measurements to prove this.
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
Please provide some measurements to prove this.
I'll tell you what I will provide for you. The bin. I can't stomach you anymore. Hahahahaha.
Seriously, don't ever reply it won't be seen. ;D
-
I still don't understand why, if I walk to a cliff edge and jump off, I fall? Why don't I just float off?
Why should you float off if your mass is under pressure?
Because the air pressure is equal on all sides, just like it is when I'm on top of the cliff.
It's not equal on all sides. There's more pressure at your feet than there is on your head.
Surely I would float upwards then?
I said at your feet, not under your feet.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Atmospheric pressure is strongest at sea level than say, 6 feet higher, marginally.
It is not pushing up under your feet but pushing down. Do you get it now?
Please provide some measurements to prove this.
Please shut up. On that point he is right. Barometers show this daily. The problem is that he doesn't understand what the effects of this are.
-
So, if I lift a ball up off the ground, the air 'stacks' above it, and somehow (despite any wind) remains stacked regardless of how long the ball is held in it's lifted position. Air was wrapping around it and creating higher pressure below it, (which made it feel really light and easy to lift apparently?) But when I stopped lifting it, the higher pressure that will push it either up or down is now above or below it. I'm not sure.
Now then, if I throw the ball straight out in front of me horizontally, air pressure 'stacks' in front of it (correct?) and it's wrapping around and creating higher pressure behind it which continues pushing it through the air until too much pressure is in front and not enough can wrap around to the back (Dang! thought we'd just figured out perpetual motion there) and the ball goes which way?
Does the ball stop moving and come back to me? It shouldn't fall to the ground, because the vertical column of stacked air waiting patiently to push it back down is at my location. I'm pretty sure the ball will arc down toward the ground instead.
If the ball does come back to me because of the horizontally stacked air in front of it, what kept the vertically stacked air from coming back down in the balls absence? If it has dissipated due to the ball no longer being directly below it, the ball should stop when it reaches me and hover correct?
-
Scepti, do you know if the difference of air pressure from 0' to 6' is measureable?
-
Scepti, do you know if the difference of air pressure from 0' to 6' is measureable?
It is and it doesn't help his argument. Whether pressure is higher or lower at a given elevation isn't on dispute. For scepti and you, the effects of it are.
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
How much would the weight change if you were to put those balls in a vacuum chamber and remove 99.99% of the air pressure?
-
So, if I lift a ball up off the ground, the air 'stacks' above it, and somehow (despite any wind) remains stacked regardless of how long the ball is held in it's lifted position.
No, not at all. If you lift the ball, then simply hold it, you now only compress the air in which the whole ball is in. As in the balls mass displaces that air. It's under no energy itself by now, except your energy in holding it, which you can class as "potential" energy.
Your lift of the ball used your energy is pushing that ball into the atmosphere and it was only then in that movement where you are compressing that air in motion and leaving a lower pressure under your lift.
Hopefully you get this.
Air was wrapping around it and creating higher pressure below it, (which made it feel really light and easy to lift apparently?)
No. As you lift it, your energy compresses the air above, which naturally gets pushed back around the ball to equalise the pressure. It's action/reaction. The friction is created around the sides of the ball at speed and hits the atmosphere under it to sort of rebound in a wave, if you like back under the ball, like a crashing effect. This will happen as long as you move the ball.
But when I stopped lifting it, the higher pressure that will push it either up or down is now above or below it. I'm not sure.
Once you stopped lifting, the ball is as if it's on the ground, only you are now acting as the ground, because your hands are acting as an anchor. That ball becomes potential energy for as long as you're holding it up against the pressure at the new height. The second you can't hold it, it becomes energy again.
Now then, if I throw the ball straight out in front of me horizontally, air pressure 'stacks' in front of it (correct?)
Yes but it's a whole new ball game, if you pardon the pun. As before. Air pressures doesn't stack up, it is merely compressed and that compression is channelled around the ball, creating friction around it to crash into the lower pressure air behind it which springs back against the ball. Naturally it's not as strong a push as it is when the ball is acting against the higher pressure because it loses energy.
But also, you have the air pressure also pushing it down, which is why you see an arc, and that arc size is dependent on the energy you put into it and at what angle.
and it's wrapping around and creating higher pressure behind it which continues pushing it through the air until too much pressure is in front and not enough can wrap around to the back (Dang! thought we'd just figured out perpetual motion there) and the ball goes which way?
It's nt perpetual motion, it's a simple case of proving that what people regard as air resistance hindering movement, it's imperative that it happens, because you have to have the action against resistance to create a reaction.
To have none of this, is to have nothing at all, meaning nothing can exist.
Does the ball stop moving and come back to me? It shouldn't fall to the ground, because the vertical column of stacked air waiting patiently to push it back down is at my location. I'm pretty sure the ball will arc down toward the ground instead.
Which is exactly what it does. Arcs. I don't know how you get the thought of it coming back to you, unless you threw it against a ridiculous wind, against you.
If the ball does come back to me because of the horizontally stacked air in front of it, what kept the vertically stacked air from coming back down in the balls absence?
Assuming little or no wind, the ball is not coming back to you if you throw it horizontally, it will always go away from you.
-
Scepti, do you know if the difference of air pressure from 0' to 6' is measureable?
A barometer would measure it.
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
How much would the weight change if you were to put those balls in a vacuum chamber and remove 99.99% of the air pressure?
This is an excellent question because the only way of finding out, is to put scales into the vacuum chamber.
Now let me tell you what happens.
Scales are built under atmospheric conditions, so the atmospheric pressure is already on those scales, which is fine, because it's also on any objects' density, which is why we measure the weight.
To put those same scales into a vacuum chamber, is going to change the pressure on those scales, meaning they will (if they can go into minus) have that pressure released from them.
So putting balls into that environment, will make the balls look like they have lost weight.
The problem is (and I just know you are going to disagree with me), you are never going to evacuate that much pressure. If you did, you would immediately collapse the chamber. I know I know, let's leave this bit as it is because it will get to a case of, "no it won't " yes it will."
-
We get the idea of the ball coming back to you from you. From your explanation about why things fall down. Which for some reason only applies to down.
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
so you can evacuate 10 psi of pressure?
Stick the scales in and find out.
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
so you can evacuate 10 psi of pressure?
Stick the scales in and find out.
Yes. What is your guess for what it should read?
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
so you can evacuate 10 psi of pressure?
Stick the scales in and find out.
Yes. What is your guess for what it should read?
It depends what you place on the scale as some mass for reference.
-
"My arguments"? You should notice that I did not make one, I was just asking questions. Can you shed light on displacement (question in my previous post).
Measured weight relies solely on air pressure acting upon any dense object.
It's why a lead ball weighs more than a wooden ball of the same size.
Objects side by side in same environment, lead ball has higher pressure all around it than a wooden ball, all else being equal??
Bingo.
What force causes the air to accumulate around the objects to create pressure, in amounts proportional to their density?
Could you address the question about displacement?
This is getting tedious. Are you deliberately not understanding what I've said or are you so absorbed in your gravity that you're simply not willing to understand what I'm saying?
Let's be clear on this before I go any further.
It's difficult to understand your theory because it is very non-intuitive to me and because it is in stark contrast with my prior knowledge. Good enough?
The above questions are I believe quite relevant. Pressure as we know it is always caused by something, and in our different balls example it seems to be caused by the objects the air surrounds; through what mechanism the density of an object determines what amount of air amasses by it's surface? Could we measure these pressure differences next to objects of different density?
Is air a special case or do objects of different densities displace different amounts of any fluid they're surrounded with?
And from an earlier question that I think was not fully answered:
Naturally it's not as strong a push as it is when the ball is acting against the higher pressure because it loses energy.
Energy. You established that the ball gains energy in form of compression and heat (in minuscule amounts), and it appears that the energy contained by a moving object is producing a force to keep it moving by spending this energy. Could you explain how unnoticeably small amounts of heat and compression do work to move our medicine ball upwards?
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
so you can evacuate 10 psi of pressure?
Stick the scales in and find out.
Yes. What is your guess for what it should read?
It depends what you place on the scale as some mass for reference.
I believe I can get masses from 1 gram to 20. Ill probably try and use a 5 gram mass as the scale doesn't go very high.
So what is 5 grams going to weight?
-
It's difficult to understand your theory because it is very non-intuitive to me and because it is in stark contrast with my prior knowledge. Good enough?
Yep, good enough.
The above questions are I believe quite relevant. Pressure as we know it is always caused by something, and in our different balls example it seems to be caused by the objects the air surrounds; through what mechanism the density of an object determines what amount of air amasses by it's surface?
No mechanism as such. It's the object itself and the density of it which determines how much atmospheric pressure it displaces, which is what's calculated on a man made measuring scale.
Take away the pressure upon any mass and you take away the mass itself. If you were to take all of the pressure, I mean.
If you were to take away a portion of pressure on that mass, then the measured weight would decrease, because that mass is not resisting that pressure and neitehr are the scales.
Could we measure these pressure differences next to objects of different density?
Believe it or not, you already are. Every time you place any mass on a scale, you are not measuring the mass, you are measuring the resistance of that masses push against the atmospheric pressure above it by what it displaces due to it's density.
Is air a special case or do objects of different densities displace different amounts of any fluid they're surrounded with?
They displace different amounts, it's just that people don't realise it because most people simply accept gravity for things falling and assume that's that.
Here's an example, so think about is seriously.
The reason why a block of lead and the same size sponge weight differently is simply due to how much atmospheric pressure their density can displace.
We know that lead can displace much of it's full density against that pressure, as it absorbs very little into it.
The sponge although the same size; absorbs most of the air pressure into it, leaving very little of it to push back. to give an idea of what it's pushing back, just imagine compressing that sponge as tight as you possible can. You would end up with a pea sized sponge, right?
This is all the atmospheric pressure that the sponge is really displacing.
Equate that to scale measurement and you can see why lead is heavy and a spong is light.
See what I mean?
And from an earlier question that I think was not fully answered:
sceptimatic:
"Naturally it's not as strong a push as it is when the ball is acting against the higher pressure because it loses energy."
Energy. You established that the ball gains energy in form of compression and heat (in minuscule amounts), and it appears that the energy contained by a moving object is producing a force to keep it moving by spending this energy. Could you explain how unnoticeably small amounts of heat and compression do work to move our medicine ball upwards?
Ok, now think of this in super fast motion to get the picture.
Imagine you throw that ball up into the air at 1000 mph (for instance). If you slowed the camera down, you would see the front of the medicine ball compress a good bit. Basically it's expanded itself sideways or down its sides, creating a super fast friction around it due to the compressed top of the ball. This friction would heat up the ball, creating a lower pressure around and back under it which has to be equalised and it does by a squeeze of atmosphere against that lower pressure.
the best way I can describe it without confusing it, is by imagining the ball being a wet bar of soap in your hand and you are trying to grab it and squeezing it up every time you do. As long as your energy is applied like that, it will keep going.
As soon as you stop, then the friction against the compression up top, starts to exert that force back due to you no longer applying energy.
Now I admit, I've went extreme here to show you how it works but the same applies under a small energy load, it's just that we cannot see the effects with out puny throws.
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
so you can evacuate 10 psi of pressure?
Stick the scales in and find out.
Yes. What is your guess for what it should read?
It depends what you place on the scale as some mass for reference.
I believe I can get masses from 1 gram to 20. Ill probably try and use a 5 gram mass as the scale doesn't go very high.
So what is 5 grams going to weight?
At a guess...and this is just a guess. I'll say you should get a reading of minus 5 grammes.
-
Thanks for that rant as it brought up a new hole. A ball that is thrown up harder should compress the air in front of it even more, thereby not going as far into the air as a ball thrown less hard and also slingshotting it back toward the earth at a faster acceleration. Of course this doesnt happen. Throw a ball up harder and it goes higher, seeming to be less effected by the compression of molecules in front of it than a ball thrown less hard. A lightly thrown ball and ball thrown harder both end up slowing down and returning to earth at the same acceleration. The faster ball doesn't slingshot. It doesn't accelerate faster.
-
Well that was quite a read. I'll write up a response later, there are plenty of other things to ask about after reading that, but for now - I think you mean something completely different with 'displacement' than what it usually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(fluid)) means. If so, could you refer to/explain that a bit.
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
so you can evacuate 10 psi of pressure?
Stick the scales in and find out.
Yes. What is your guess for what it should read?
It depends what you place on the scale as some mass for reference.
I believe I can get masses from 1 gram to 20. Ill probably try and use a 5 gram mass as the scale doesn't go very high.
So what is 5 grams going to weight?
At a guess...and this is just a guess. I'll say you should get a reading of minus 5 grammes.
I go for 5 grammes.
-
The mass is going to be 100 g, not 5 g. Here is the scale I will be using.
http://www.hornady.com/store/GS-1500-Grain-Electronic-Scale (http://www.hornady.com/store/GS-1500-Grain-Electronic-Scale)
-
I have the ability to put a scale in a vacuum chamber. I can pull 20 inches of Hg as vacuum. What should the scale read? I will test it out tomorrow. Yes scales can go into the negative.
so you can evacuate 10 psi of pressure?
Stick the scales in and find out.
Yes. What is your guess for what it should read?
It depends what you place on the scale as some mass for reference.
I believe I can get masses from 1 gram to 20. Ill probably try and use a 5 gram mass as the scale doesn't go very high.
So what is 5 grams going to weight?
At a guess...and this is just a guess. I'll say you should get a reading of minus 5 grammes.
:P :P :P
-
Well that was quite a read. I'll write up a response later, there are plenty of other things to ask about after reading that, but for now - I think you mean something completely different with 'displacement' than what it usually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(fluid)) means. If so, could you refer to/explain that a bit.
No, I mean it exactly how I said it. The object and its density displaces the atmosphere that it finds itself in, whether it's on the deck or hoisted up in the air. It will displace whatever cannot be absorbed into it, as I explained with the lead and the sponge.
Give it some serious thought and you have a chance of carrying on and understanding that what you've been taught, or what you think you know about gravity, is simply, crap.
Denpressure is reality, gravity is fantasy.
-
The mass is going to be 100 g, not 5 g. Here is the scale I will be using.
http://www.hornady.com/store/GS-1500-Grain-Electronic-Scale (http://www.hornady.com/store/GS-1500-Grain-Electronic-Scale)
Ok, fair enough, let me know what you come up with.
-
This single claim proves unequivocally that sceptimatic has absolutely zero understanding of mass, weight, density, and pressure.
At a guess...and this is just a guess. I'll say you should get a reading of minus 5 grammes.
Even his guesses are ludicrous! I'm left wondering if the poor guy ever studied high-school science? All the evidence points to the negative LOL.
Now something can "weigh" minus 5g. (Pardon me a moment whilst I adjust my underwear.)
-
This single claim proves unequivocally that sceptimatic has absolutely zero understanding of mass, weight, density, and pressure.
At a guess...and this is just a guess. I'll say you should get a reading of minus 5 grammes.
Even his guesses are ludicrous! I'm left wondering if the poor guy ever studied high-school science? All the evidence points to the negative LOL.
Now something can "weigh" minus 5g. (Pardon me a moment whilst I adjust my underwear.)
I don't see how you have a problem with that.
-
This single claim proves unequivocally that sceptimatic has absolutely zero understanding of mass, weight, density, and pressure.
At a guess...and this is just a guess. I'll say you should get a reading of minus 5 grammes.
Even his guesses are ludicrous! I'm left wondering if the poor guy ever studied high-school science? All the evidence points to the negative LOL.
Now something can "weigh" minus 5g. (Pardon me a moment whilst I adjust my underwear.)
I think I confused him when I said scales can read negative. They can read negative when tared on a mass.
-
This single claim proves unequivocally that sceptimatic has absolutely zero understanding of mass, weight, density, and pressure.
At a guess...and this is just a guess. I'll say you should get a reading of minus 5 grammes.
Even his guesses are ludicrous! I'm left wondering if the poor guy ever studied high-school science? All the evidence points to the negative LOL.
Now something can "weigh" minus 5g. (Pardon me a moment whilst I adjust my underwear.)
I think I confused him when I said scales can read negative. They can read negative when tared on a mass.
There's no confusion here. Once you set the scales for tare weight, then you add your mass. This is when you put it into the vacuum chamber and evacuate the 10 psi you said it evacuates.
You are now saying you are using a 100g weight, so naturally my guess will have to change to minus 100g reading. If your scales cannot show a minus reading then you have to alter them to cater for that.
Manual kitchen scales can read minus by simply pulling up the plate, so if your digital ones can do that, then it's fine to just do your tare weight, then add your 100g and stick it in.
-
Believe it or not, you already are. Every time you place any mass on a scale, you are not measuring the mass, you are measuring the resistance of that masses push against the atmospheric pressure above it by what it displaces due to it's density.
No, silly, I ofc meant measuring it directly. With a pressure transducer for an example, if I calibrate it to zero sitting on my desk by itself and then for an example place the sensor head
at surface of a massive object, should the pressure reading change? Or if I attach it to a massive object, so that the sensor head is more or less flush with the surface, should I then see a change in the reading?
No, I mean it exactly how I said it. The object and its density displaces the atmosphere that it finds itself in, whether it's on the deck or hoisted up in the air. It will displace whatever cannot be absorbed into it, as I explained with the lead and the sponge.
I can't accept that. A sponge can 'absorb' fluids into it, but completely solid materials weigh different amounts too. When I submerge a 10cm3 solid object in a 10l bucket filled with a fluid, exactly one liter will be displaced & 9 liters will remain, completely regardless of the object's density/mass/weight.
The reason I thought you might have a different meaning for the word displace is that I've never before heard anyone speak of pressure being displaced.
Imagine you throw that ball up into the air at 1000 mph (for instance). If you slowed the camera down, you would see the front of the medicine ball compress a good bit. Basically it's expanded itself sideways or down its sides, creating a super fast friction around it due to the compressed top of the ball. This friction would heat up the ball, creating a lower pressure around and back under it which has to be equalised and it does by a squeeze of atmosphere against that lower pressure.
the best way I can describe it without confusing it, is by imagining the ball being a wet bar of soap in your hand and you are trying to grab it and squeezing it up every time you do. As long as your energy is applied like that, it will keep going.
As soon as you stop, then the friction against the compression up top, starts to exert that force back due to you no longer applying energy.
Does this mean that the thermal energy contained by the ball is a major component in production of the force that keeps it moving after I've released it? It's not the pressure above it by itself, which is pushing the ball down, but the thermal energy and the effects of pressure equalization combined that produce a force that drives the ball up?
There's no confusion here. Once you set the scales for tare weight, then you add your mass.
I think they were talking about Geoff.
-
No, silly, I ofc meant measuring it directly. With a pressure transducer for an example, if I calibrate it to zero sitting on my desk by itself and then for an example place the sensor head
at surface of a massive object, should the pressure reading change? Or if I attach it to a massive object, so that the sensor head is more or less flush with the surface, should I then see a change in the reading?
Let's fly past this or we are going to end up right back to square one. Try not to add things in and let's keep it as simple as possible.
I can't accept that. A sponge can 'absorb' fluids into it, but completely solid materials weigh different amounts too. When I submerge a 10cm3 solid object in a 10l bucket filled with a fluid, exactly one liter will be displaced & 9 liters will remain, completely regardless of the object's density/mass/weight.
Surely you don't believe this, do you? So a 10cm3 sponge is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3block of wood? seriously?
The reason I thought you might have a different meaning for the word displace is that I've never before heard anyone speak of pressure being displaced.
No, because it doesn't get used with atmospheric pressure. I'm using it to show you why atmospheric pressure upon an ojects density is the sole reason for a man made measurement of weight is achieved and why gravity is destro6yed by it. Denpressure.
Does this mean that the thermal energy contained by the ball is a major component in production of the force that keeps it moving after I've released it? It's not the pressure above it by itself, which is pushing the ball down, but the thermal energy and the effects of pressure equalization combined that produce a force that drives the ball up?
All you're going to do is confuse yourself more and more, unless you are doing this on purpose.
I'm willing to keep explaining but you'd better start gathering the basics and stop going off track, otherwise you will never grasp what I'm saying.
-
Manual kitchen scales can read minus by simply pulling up the plate, so if your digital ones can do that, then it's fine to just do your tare weight, then add your 100g and stick it in.
As I said earlier, sceptimatic obviously isn't aware of the difference between "mass" and "weight" LOL.
The forum clown is now suggesting that you can change a 100g mass into a (say) 90g mass!
-
No, silly, I ofc meant measuring it directly. With a pressure transducer for an example, if I calibrate it to zero sitting on my desk by itself and then for an example place the sensor head
at surface of a massive object, should the pressure reading change? Or if I attach it to a massive object, so that the sensor head is more or less flush with the surface, should I then see a change in the reading?
Let's fly past this or we are going to end up right back to square one. Try not to add things in and let's keep it as simple as possible.
How's that? This is something we can measure and verify. But I don't know what the model predicts so the results wouldn't mean anything to me.
I can't accept that. A sponge can 'absorb' fluids into it, but completely solid materials weigh different amounts too. When I submerge a 10cm3 solid object in a 10l bucket filled with a fluid, exactly one liter will be displaced & 9 liters will remain, completely regardless of the object's density/mass/weight.
Surely you don't believe this, do you? So a 10cm3 sponge is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3block of wood? seriously?
Obviously when I said 'solid object' I meant to exclude stuff like sponges that would absorb some of the fluid. Unless you could first remove all air from the sponge and then have 1l of solid sponge left, but for simplicity let's just say one 10cm3 object is solid pvc and the other solid iron. Volumes are the same, they displace the same amount of fluid, but weight and density are very different.
The reason I thought you might have a different meaning for the word displace is that I've never before heard anyone speak of pressure being displaced.
No, because it doesn't get used with atmospheric pressure. I'm using it to show you why atmospheric pressure upon an ojects density is the sole reason for a man made measurement of weight is achieved and why gravity is destro6yed by it. Denpressure.
Sorry but using common words in unconventional meaning isn't really helpful if you intend to make a clear explanation.
Does this mean that the thermal energy contained by the ball is a major component in production of the force that keeps it moving after I've released it? It's not the pressure above it by itself, which is pushing the ball down, but the thermal energy and the effects of pressure equalization combined that produce a force that drives the ball up?
All you're going to do is confuse yourself more and more, unless you are doing this on purpose.
I'm willing to keep explaining but you'd better start gathering the basics and stop going off track, otherwise you will never grasp what I'm saying.
I'm not going off track, this is still on the subject that I don't think has been adequately explained - why a ball continues to move up after it was pushed.
-
Obviously when I said 'solid object' I meant to exclude stuff like sponges that would absorb some of the fluid. Unless you could first remove all air from the sponge and then have 1l of solid sponge left, but for simplicity let's just say one 10cm3 object is solid pvc and the other solid iron. Volumes are the same, they displace the same amount of fluid, but weight and density are very different.
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
-
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
LOL..... only sceptimatic could possibly not believe this! It's all getting funnier by the day. ;D
-
Obviously when I said 'solid object' I meant to exclude stuff like sponges that would absorb some of the fluid. Unless you could first remove all air from the sponge and then have 1l of solid sponge left, but for simplicity let's just say one 10cm3 object is solid pvc and the other solid iron. Volumes are the same, they displace the same amount of fluid, but weight and density are very different.
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
I can literally see it with my very own eyes when I grab a bucket and stick stuff in it, belief has nothing to do with it.
-
Obviously when I said 'solid object' I meant to exclude stuff like sponges that would absorb some of the fluid. Unless you could first remove all air from the sponge and then have 1l of solid sponge left, but for simplicity let's just say one 10cm3 object is solid pvc and the other solid iron. Volumes are the same, they displace the same amount of fluid, but weight and density are very different.
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
I can literally see it with my very own eyes when I grab a bucket and stick stuff in it, belief has nothing to do with it.
Let me get this straight. You are not using any force on these two blocks, right? you are allowing each block to be put into the water to displace that water on their own, right?
-
Obviously when I said 'solid object' I meant to exclude stuff like sponges that would absorb some of the fluid. Unless you could first remove all air from the sponge and then have 1l of solid sponge left, but for simplicity let's just say one 10cm3 object is solid pvc and the other solid iron. Volumes are the same, they displace the same amount of fluid, but weight and density are very different.
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
I can literally see it with my very own eyes when I grab a bucket and stick stuff in it, belief has nothing to do with it.
Let me get this straight. You are not using any force on tehse two blocks, right? you are allowing each block to be put into the water to displace that water on their own, right?
Correct.
earlier I used 10cm3 interchangeably with 1l, this is ofc incorrect. One liter is 10003, not really relevant but there it is.
-
Obviously when I said 'solid object' I meant to exclude stuff like sponges that would absorb some of the fluid. Unless you could first remove all air from the sponge and then have 1l of solid sponge left, but for simplicity let's just say one 10cm3 object is solid pvc and the other solid iron. Volumes are the same, they displace the same amount of fluid, but weight and density are very different.
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
I can literally see it with my very own eyes when I grab a bucket and stick stuff in it, belief has nothing to do with it.
Let me get this straight. You are not using any force on tehse two blocks, right? you are allowing each block to be put into the water to displace that water on their own, right?
Correct.
earlier I used 10cm3 interchangeably with 1l, this is ofc incorrect. One liter is 10003, not really relevant but there it is.
so your pvc block was dropped into the water and it displaced exactly the same amount of water as your iron block dropped into the water, without you applying any pressure to push down the pvc block, right?
-
sceptimatic's never heard of Archimedes apparently? ;D
-
Obviously when I said 'solid object' I meant to exclude stuff like sponges that would absorb some of the fluid. Unless you could first remove all air from the sponge and then have 1l of solid sponge left, but for simplicity let's just say one 10cm3 object is solid pvc and the other solid iron. Volumes are the same, they displace the same amount of fluid, but weight and density are very different.
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
I can literally see it with my very own eyes when I grab a bucket and stick stuff in it, belief has nothing to do with it.
Let me get this straight. You are not using any force on tehse two blocks, right? you are allowing each block to be put into the water to displace that water on their own, right?
Correct.
earlier I used 10cm3 interchangeably with 1l, this is ofc incorrect. One liter is 10003, not really relevant but there it is.
so your pvc block was dropped into the water and it displaced exactly the same amount of water as your iron block dropped into the water, without you applying any pressure to push down the pvc block, right?
That would be the idea, but just to be clear that pvc block was just an example, not an account of what I'd have just done. Anyway the principle applies. It may be tricky to find suitable objects of different weight but precisely identical dimensions (volume) in a household but I'm sure you can come up with something if you want to try it. What kind of precision would be required to satisfy you in an experiment like this? When I get to work I can scavenge and cut up various materials to size, steel and rubbers/plastics, will submerging them in a normal measuring cup such as used in the laboratory or kitchen be sufficient? That would be extremely easy to do. Naturally you will need to repeat the experiment yourself.
-
That would be the idea, but just to be clear that pvc block was just an example, not an account of what I'd have just done. Anyway the principle applies. It may be tricky to find suitable objects of different weight but precisely identical dimensions (volume) in a household but I'm sure you can come up with something if you want to try it. What kind of precision would be required to satisfy you in an experiment like this? When I get to work I can scavenge and cut up various materials to size, steel and rubbers/plastics, will submerging them in a normal measuring cup such as used in the laboratory or kitchen be sufficient? That would be extremely easy to do. Naturally you will need to repeat the experiment yourself.
I know we are dealing with atmospheric pressure upon an objects density and I'm showing you why water is going to prove what I'm saying.
I'd like you to pay absolute attention to what I type out. I'm not trying to be clever or anything. I'm being serious, ok?
The reason why I asked you about the pvc and the iron block was for very good reason and also as to why you cannot use a bucket to gain a true reflection of what I'm trying to explain with other similar sized sinkable objects.
I will do it one step at a time so we don't lose track. Are you up to observing and absorbing what I say? If you are, I will be back on later to show you why it all equates to what I'm saying and you might just grasp it all. Fair enough?
-
When I get to work I can scavenge and cut up various materials to size, steel and rubbers/plastics, will submerging them in a normal measuring cup such as used in the laboratory or kitchen be sufficient? That would be extremely easy to do. Naturally you will need to repeat the experiment yourself.
How about a 100cm3 block of iron, and a 100cm3 block of hardwood, such as Desert Ironwood with a density of 1,208 kg/m3. Ironwood is a fairly common hobbyist's timber.
-
I will do it one step at a time so we don't lose track. Are you up to observing and absorbing what I say? If you are, I will be back on later to show you why it all equates to what I'm saying and you might just grasp it all. Fair enough?
I'm guessing sceptimatic must be a failed kindergarten teacher? ;D
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Thats giving him a lot of credit. He also could have just not known that.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Thats giving him a lot of credit. He also could have just not known that.
Scepti isn't as stupid as he makes himself out to be. He deliberately constructs what he says in ways that he can say "I didn't say that" later. You'll see.
-
That would be the idea, but just to be clear that pvc block was just an example, not an account of what I'd have just done. Anyway the principle applies. It may be tricky to find suitable objects of different weight but precisely identical dimensions (volume) in a household but I'm sure you can come up with something if you want to try it. What kind of precision would be required to satisfy you in an experiment like this? When I get to work I can scavenge and cut up various materials to size, steel and rubbers/plastics, will submerging them in a normal measuring cup such as used in the laboratory or kitchen be sufficient? That would be extremely easy to do. Naturally you will need to repeat the experiment yourself.
I know we are dealing with atmospheric pressure upon an objects density and I'm showing you why water is going to prove what I'm saying.
I'd like you to pay absolute attention to what I type out. I'm not trying to be clever or anything. I'm being serious, ok?
The reason why I asked you about the pvc and the iron block was for very good reason and also as to why you cannot use a bucket to gain a true reflection of what I'm trying to explain with other similar sized sinkable objects.
I will do it one step at a time so we don't lose track. Are you up to observing and absorbing what I say? If you are, I will be back on later to show you why it all equates to what I'm saying and you might just grasp it all. Fair enough?
I can't see why I'd be more likely to lose track if it was just one post, if it's split up there are distractions in between with other people posting on the topic, quotes tend to get lost when they get too long and so on, I must have skipped and forgotten half of the details and points of argument I've had on my mind during this exchange just because of this. So I'd prefer if it wasn't necessary to go step by step. I read books for fun, I think I can take one forum post - as long as it's concise, to the point and not by Sandokhan.
If you think that submerging an object in a measuring cup with fluid in it isn't descriptive of how much fluid an object displaces (!?) perhaps you could suggest another experiment?
I'm very interested in how pvc is special in this regard.
(density of polyvinyl chloride is well over 1 g/cm3, there is variance in products but generally it actually does sink)
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Thats giving him a lot of credit. He also could have just not known that.
Scepti isn't as stupid as he makes himself out to be. He deliberately constructs what he says in ways that he can say "I didn't say that" later. You'll see.
Why do you guys think I'm asking so many specific questions?? ;)
-
Scepti isn't as stupid as he makes himself out to be. He deliberately constructs what he says in ways that he can say "I didn't say that" later. You'll see.
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. sceptimatic is actually more stupid than he makes out. :D
-
Scepti isn't as stupid as he makes himself out to be. He deliberately constructs what he says in ways that he can say "I didn't say that" later. You'll see.
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. sceptimatic is actually more stupid than he makes out. :D
Geoffrey you can't even tell when someone is telling you to shut up. Subtlety is not your forte.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Buoyancy is going to be the same if volumes are the same, right? They just need to have enough weight to overcome that. Ofc both objects should sink, much easier to eyeball displacement that way.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Buoyancy is going to be the same if volumes are the same, right? They just need to have enough weight to overcome that. Ofc both objects should sink, much easier to eyeball displacement that way.
Well these are exactly the type of questions scepti likes to mess with people on. You didn't specify if the blocks were hollow. When you first mentioned a 10 cm^3 block of plastic, I imagined that it would be hollow and when you first mentioned the 10 cm^3 block of iron I imagined that it wasn't and I have a feeling that is also what scepti was thinking. This is why he was asking you if you would have to apply force to them... The iron block would sink and the pvc block wouldn't, therefore the iron block would displace more water. If you don't get very specific he will do this.
For example, in the past he has said he is has 13 camera's and is a professional. He never said he was a professional photographer and people keep on accusing him of saying he is. So then he goes onto say, "show me where I've said I'm a professional photographer".
This is the type of thing he does.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Buoyancy is going to be the same if volumes are the same, right? They just need to have enough weight to overcome that. Ofc both objects should sink, much easier to eyeball displacement that way.
Well these are exactly the type of questions scepti likes to mess with people on. You didn't specify if the blocks were hollow. When you first mentioned a 10 cm^3 block of plastic, I imagined that it would be hollow and when you first mentioned the 10 cm^3 block of iron I imagined that it wasn't and I have a feeling that is also what scepti was thinking. This is why he was asking you if you would have to apply force to them... The iron block would sink and the pvc block wouldn't, therefore the iron block would displace more water. If you don't get very specific he will do this.
For example, in the past he has said he is has 13 camera's and is a professional. He never said he was a professional photographer and people keep on accusing him of saying he is. So then he goes onto say, "show me where I've said I'm a professional photographer".
This is the type of thing he does.
I did say 'solid objects'... well maybe it should have been 'non-hollow solid objects' :p I also specifically said that they would be submerged, so it wouldn't actually even matter if one was hollow, it still displaces the same amount of water or any fluid.
At least he made it clear that he believes that 10 cm^3 of plastic would not displace just as much water as 10 cm^3 of iron, we'll see how his explanation for that unfolds :)
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Buoyancy is going to be the same if volumes are the same, right? They just need to have enough weight to overcome that. Ofc both objects should sink, much easier to eyeball displacement that way.
Well these are exactly the type of questions scepti likes to mess with people on. You didn't specify if the blocks were hollow. When you first mentioned a 10 cm^3 block of plastic, I imagined that it would be hollow and when you first mentioned the 10 cm^3 block of iron I imagined that it wasn't and I have a feeling that is also what scepti was thinking. This is why he was asking you if you would have to apply force to them... The iron block would sink and the pvc block wouldn't, therefore the iron block would displace more water. If you don't get very specific he will do this.
For example, in the past he has said he is has 13 camera's and is a professional. He never said he was a professional photographer and people keep on accusing him of saying he is. So then he goes onto say, "show me where I've said I'm a professional photographer".
This is the type of thing he does.
I did say 'solid objects'... well maybe it should have been 'non-hollow solid objects' :p I also specifically said that they would be submerged, so it wouldn't actually even matter if one was hollow, it still displaces the same amount of water or any fluid.
At least he made it clear that he believes that 10 cm^3 of plastic would not displace just as much water as 10 cm^3 of iron, we'll see how his explanation for that unfolds :)
but listen to his important distinction that he mentioned...
so your pvc block was dropped into the water and it displaced exactly the same amount of water as your iron block dropped into the water, without you applying any pressure to push down the pvc block, right?
That right there tells you everything you need to know about what he is thinking. You didn't say solid or hollow. You may have said submerged but you didn't say that they would remain submerged and hollow pvc pip wouldn't remain submerged, that is of course, unless you held it down like he keeps asking you to clarify, to which you said:
That would be the idea.
You already gave him a passage out of this by conceding that you would not hold the blocks down and by not specifying whether these blocks are hollow or solid. With the lack of detail you've presented so far, he could easily be right that a 10cm^3 of plastic would not displace as much water as a 10 cm^3
of iron.
-
Well results are in, lets see who won?
As for the scale reading negative. They can only read negative to there set starting point. If I take the plate off to clean it, the scale will go negative and then error out. It can only go negative as to correct for the missing tared mass. In this case, the plate. They cannot go any more than that. Negative 100g isn't going to happen. Anyways here is the video. As with my PS Paints, this video is of high quality.
Scale Test (http://#)
-
It looks the registered weight of the plate was going up as the vacuum increased.
-
It looks the registered weight of the plate was going up as the vacuum increased.
Mass and weight do not change in a vacuum. The reading going up is either because of the air escaping or because it's a $40 scale. I found out the scale turns itself off fast, so I couldn't just sit at the final vacuum to see if it would go back down to the starting weight.
-
It looks the registered weight of the plate was going up as the vacuum increased.
Mass and weight do not change in a vacuum. The reading going up is either because of the air escaping or because it's a $40 scale. I found out the scale turns itself off fast, so I couldn't just sit at the final vacuum to see if it would go back down to the starting weight.
My first thought for the weight increase was lost buoyancy. What was the volume of your test mass? In your experiment the measured weight increases by 100 mg (100.17 to 100.27 g - I presume those were grams) as the vacuum goes from 0 to 19 inHg.
Density of air, ρ (rho), at 20° C and 1 atm is: (from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density))
ρ = 1.204 kg/m3
= 1.204 g/l (grams per liter)
= 1.204 mg / cc
This doesn't seem to be enough to explain it, by probably a factor of 10 or so for any reasonable size for your test mass unless I dropped a decimal point somewhere, which is always possible, even including the volume of the mass included in the tare weight of your scale. So it must be something else.
At any rate, the unexplained error change in weight is around 0.1 g / 100 g, or 0.1% increase in measured weight after reducing the air pressure by 19 inHg, or about 2/3 of atmospheric pressure. How does this fit with the premise that weight is due to air pressure?
[Edit] Revise presumption of error. It may be a significant change in weight due to change in air pressure we're seeing. Any ideas why this would be, anyone?
-
the original premise of this thread is almost too stupid for words.
to offer a balloon rocket as a comparison for rocketry would only be possible if the rocket was made of a flexible, self-retracting bladder, as is the nature of the smaller scale example.
unless with sufficient scaling up of a human person, said giant could pick up a space rocket (ha!) and stretch the two ends apart and flick it into the distance.
incredible, truly.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Yes, because he's not fully explaining exactly what he's doing, except when prompted.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Yes, because he's not fully explaining exactly what he's doing, except when prompted.
No, you just like playing silly games rather than having an honest debate.
-
I can't see why I'd be more likely to lose track if it was just one post, if it's split up there are distractions in between with other people posting on the topic, quotes tend to get lost when they get too long and so on, I must have skipped and forgotten half of the details and points of argument I've had on my mind during this exchange just because of this. So I'd prefer if it wasn't necessary to go step by step. I read books for fun, I think I can take one forum post - as long as it's concise, to the point and not by Sandokhan.
If you think that submerging an object in a measuring cup with fluid in it isn't descriptive of how much fluid an object displaces (!?) perhaps you could suggest another experiment?
I'm very interested in how pvc is special in this regard.
(density of polyvinyl chloride is well over 1 g/cm3, there is variance in products but generally it actually does sink)
Let me explain why it's important as to what you use and as to why a bucket isn't going to show you a true picture of displacement.
Ok, to start with, the iron sinks to the bottom of the bucket and obviously displaces the water.
The pvc won't sink so it won't displace as much. Now this is key, so keep this in mind as I move on.
Let's change the block to an iron block and a solid wood block of exactly the same size. Now you drop them in and they both fall to the bottom of the bucket and displace the same amount of water......but.....is that the whole story?
The answer is no. You see, the bottom of the bucket has stopped the objects from sinking any further because it's created a barrier. Now think about what I'm about to say, seriously.
To understand about mass and displacement in full you require super deep water to actually gauge displacement of water with any object.
For instance, let's get back to the iron and wooden block.
If you dropped them into a deep ocean, they would both sink....but, the iron block would continue to sink and the wooden block would stop sinking Why?
Because the wooden block still has trapped air inside of it and although the iron does, too, it's minute compared.
Because of this, it makes the wooden block more buoyant.
Now then, if we applied pressure to the wooden block to keep pushing it down to the same depth that the iron block was at, you would then see that it doesn't displace the same amount of water. Why?
Because it will be compressed into a smaller block by the pressure of the water, meaning the water will squeeze out the trapped air inside of it.
To give you an example of what I'm telling you is to look at a submarine.
Now imagine building a submarine out of solid iron, including inside of it. Basically a solid block in the shape of a sub.
Now you also have a normal sub of exact size, filled with the usual atmospheric pressure.
You drop them in the water and the solid one sinks but you have to force the other one down.
As you force it down, it will implode. Basically all of the air will be forced out and your sub will be a lot smaller and displacing a lot less water by this time.
On land it works similar, except you are measuring a mass that is subject to the amount of atmospheric pressure it can repel - or to put it in displacement terms, how much of that mass displaces the air it's in which is why I used the sponge and lead block to show you that absorbtion of atmospheric pressure will render the sponge lightweight when measured, as opposed to the lead block that will absorb very little, which is why it's so dense and why that density is measured on scales due to atmospheric pressure upon its mass.
To put it simply, measuring scales are simply denpressure scales, because that's what everything is and all that can be measured. It is not the actual object in itself, but what that object pushes against, which is atmospheric pressure and the ground. Put a measuring scale in between and that's what it weighs.
-
Scepti is being deliberately obtuse and not mentioning the fact that the PVC pipe would ve buoyant. We would need 2 objects with the same buoyancy of different densities and the same volumes.
Yes, because he's not fully explaining exactly what he's doing, except when prompted.
No, you just like playing silly games rather than having an honest debate.
No, I'm trying to explain reality instead of people thinking an unexplainable force is causing everything we see, like bullshit gravity.
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
Let's discuss them. What would you like to discuss?
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
Let's discuss them. What would you like to discuss?
Displace the same amount of water, different weights, fall at same speed.
Rewrite #458 with these materials.
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
Let's discuss them. What would you like to discuss?
Displace the same amount of water, different weights, fall at same speed.
Rewrite #458 with these materials.
First of all, look up which is easily compressed and look at how both material are made, then get back to me.
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
Let's discuss them. What would you like to discuss?
Displace the same amount of water, different weights, fall at same speed.
Rewrite #458 with these materials.
First of all, look up which is easily compressed and look at how both material are made, then get back to me.
Your explanation please. With numbers.
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
Let's discuss them. What would you like to discuss?
Displace the same amount of water, different weights, fall at same speed.
Rewrite #458 with these materials.
First of all, look up which is easily compressed and look at how both material are made, then get back to me.
Your explanation please. With numbers.
You are either a robot or you are sitting there combing your hair, waiting for a response, then typing out the same shit one sentence replies. You have one more chance to start putting some input in or you will be the second person to go on ignore for good. Geoffrey will have some company.
-
No response to the video?
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
Let's discuss them. What would you like to discuss?
Displace the same amount of water, different weights, fall at same speed.
Rewrite #458 with these materials.
First of all, look up which is easily compressed and look at how both material are made, then get back to me.
Your explanation please. With numbers.
You are either a robot or you are sitting there combing your hair, waiting for a response, then typing out the same shit one sentence replies. You have one more chance to start putting some input in or you will be the second person to go on ignore for good. Geoffrey will have some company.
I am asking you to prove that steel and aluminium blocks of the same size and shape fall at different rates as you state.
-
Please discuss steel and aluminium blocks of the same size. Different densities, both solid.
Let's discuss them. What would you like to discuss?
Displace the same amount of water, different weights, fall at same speed.
Rewrite #458 with these materials.
First of all, look up which is easily compressed and look at how both material are made, then get back to me.
Your explanation please. With numbers.
You are either a robot or you are sitting there combing your hair, waiting for a response, then typing out the same shit one sentence replies. You have one more chance to start putting some input in or you will be the second person to go on ignore for good. Geoffrey will have some company.
I am asking you to prove that steel and aluminium blocks of the same size and shape fall at different rates as you state.
And how am I going to physically do that?
Do you live near a high rise building? if so, you do the experiment and show me.
If you think dropping them in a 30 feet high evacuation chamber is going to prove anything for things like this, then you're deluding yourself.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
Explain why the weight didn't go down. Oh that's right you can't. Denpressure is shit and you know it. This is number three for destroying denpressure in this thread. Better luck next time, kid.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
It would only cost about $20.00 for a better scale that stays on for a few minutes.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
Explain why the weight didn't go down. Oh that's right you can't. Denpressure is shit and you know it. This is number three for destroying denpressure in this thread. Better luck next time, kid.
Yap yap yap, you showed nothing. You showed a scale inside a chamber that was hard to read and decipher and whatever was on it was obscure. You didn't show the setting before you put it in - nothing.
You're a cheating git and if you're not then do the experiments when you have the time to do so by how I want you to set it up. Are you willing to do this?
You have the equipment, so this should be easy for you. If you come back with any response as to why you can't do it, then don't waste my time with your crap.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
It would only cost about $20.00 for a better scale that stays on for a few minutes.
With the size of that chamber, he could use an old set of manual kitchen scales for pennies or nothing and he doesn't have to worry about it shutting down.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
How do you suppose he cheated his way through it? You yourself said that it looks like he did it as quickly as he could while his boss went out for a sandwich. Wouldn't it take more time to prepare a deception? You can clearly see the scale in the machine, you can clearly see the pressure on the machine change and you can clearly see the weight on the scale not decrease.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
How do you suppose he cheated his way through it? You yourself said that it looks like he did it as quickly as he could while his boss went out for a sandwich. Wouldn't it take more time to prepare a deception? You can clearly see the scale in the machine, you can clearly see the pressure on the machine change and you can clearly see the weight on the scale not decrease.
If you think that shows any real evidence then carry on. If he wants to play it genuinely then he does it by my rules, then he has the clear right to call my theory wrong. Will he do it? let's see.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
How do you suppose he cheated his way through it? You yourself said that it looks like he did it as quickly as he could while his boss went out for a sandwich. Wouldn't it take more time to prepare a deception? You can clearly see the scale in the machine, you can clearly see the pressure on the machine change and you can clearly see the weight on the scale not decrease.
If you think that shows any real evidence then carry on. If he wants to play it genuinely then he does it by my rules, then he has the clear right to call my theory wrong. Will he do it? let's see.
You can't possibly keep doing this. You don't seriously believe pressure will change somethings weight. It's so silly.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
How do you suppose he cheated his way through it? You yourself said that it looks like he did it as quickly as he could while his boss went out for a sandwich. Wouldn't it take more time to prepare a deception? You can clearly see the scale in the machine, you can clearly see the pressure on the machine change and you can clearly see the weight on the scale not decrease.
If you think that shows any real evidence then carry on. If he wants to play it genuinely then he does it by my rules, then he has the clear right to call my theory wrong. Will he do it? let's see.
You can't possibly keep doing this. You don't seriously believe pressure will change somethings weight. It's so silly.
Of course it will change it's weight. Weight is the sole purpose of pressure. Weight is a man made measurement of pressure upon any object.
The fact is that not many people can allow themselves to think on it, which is why they can't understand what's being said, because gravity keeps creeping into their heads.
-
It would only cost about $20.00 for a better scale that stays on for a few minutes.
[/quote]
It worked well enough. I don't need another scale.
Yap yap yap, you showed nothing. You showed a scale inside a chamber that was hard to read and decipher and whatever was on it was obscure. You didn't show the setting before you put it in - nothing.
Scales don't have settings. The check mass was of course the object on the scale, not that it matters.
You're a cheating git and if you're not then do the experiments when you have the time to do so by how I want you to set it up. Are you willing to do this?
You have the equipment, so this should be easy for you. If you come back with any response as to why you can't do it, then don't waste my time with your crap.
I can do it again, but the scale will still turn itself off. The outcome will still be the same. No change in weight.
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
How do you suppose he cheated his way through it? You yourself said that it looks like he did it as quickly as he could while his boss went out for a sandwich. Wouldn't it take more time to prepare a deception? You can clearly see the scale in the machine, you can clearly see the pressure on the machine change and you can clearly see the weight on the scale not decrease.
If you think that shows any real evidence then carry on. If he wants to play it genuinely then he does it by my rules, then he has the clear right to call my theory wrong. Will he do it? let's see.
You can't possibly keep doing this. You don't seriously believe pressure will change somethings weight. It's so silly.
Of course it will change it's weight. Weight is the sole purpose of pressure. Weight is a man made measurement of pressure upon any object.
The fact is that not many people can allow themselves to think on it, which is why they can't understand what's being said, because gravity keeps creeping into their heads.
Just give me your most simple definition of pressure that you can. Not denpressure, just pressure. Something as simple as this. Pressure is the result of an applied force.
-
It would only cost about $20.00 for a better scale that stays on for a few minutes.
It worked well enough. I don't need another scale.
Yap yap yap, you showed nothing. You showed a scale inside a chamber that was hard to read and decipher and whatever was on it was obscure. You didn't show the setting before you put it in - nothing.
Scales don't have settings. The check mass was of course the object on the scale, not that it matters.
You're a cheating git and if you're not then do the experiments when you have the time to do so by how I want you to set it up. Are you willing to do this?
You have the equipment, so this should be easy for you. If you come back with any response as to why you can't do it, then don't waste my time with your crap.
I can do it again, but the scale will still turn itself off. The outcome will still be the same. No change in weight.
[/quote]Are you willing to do the experiment under my stipulations?
I'll give you a rota in which to do things that lead up to an end result. Are you game for it?
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
How do you suppose he cheated his way through it? You yourself said that it looks like he did it as quickly as he could while his boss went out for a sandwich. Wouldn't it take more time to prepare a deception? You can clearly see the scale in the machine, you can clearly see the pressure on the machine change and you can clearly see the weight on the scale not decrease.
If you think that shows any real evidence then carry on. If he wants to play it genuinely then he does it by my rules, then he has the clear right to call my theory wrong. Will he do it? let's see.
You can't possibly keep doing this. You don't seriously believe pressure will change somethings weight. It's so silly.
Of course it will change it's weight. Weight is the sole purpose of pressure. Weight is a man made measurement of pressure upon any object.
The fact is that not many people can allow themselves to think on it, which is why they can't understand what's being said, because gravity keeps creeping into their heads.
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
-
Just give me your most simple definition of pressure that you can. Not denpressure, just pressure. Something as simple as this. Pressure is the result of an applied force.
Prerssure is the result of stacked matter/molecules or whatever name you want to give to that.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
-
Are you willing to do the experiment under my stipulations?
I'll give you a rota in which to do things that lead up to an end result. Are you game for it?[/b]
Post a procedure.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
Oh, you want the pressure to equalize? But why should the weight increase nominally when the pressure is being evacuated?
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
True I didn't want people to see me, but the real reason if you noticed was the scale turns itself off. I couldn't even make it to the 20 inches of Hg.
I think the real reason you don't have a response is because it completely destroys denpressure.
Sorry, your words are meaningless. An opportunity to prove me wrong with the equipment at hand and probably all the items needed to go further and the best you can come up with, is this and then having scales shut down. It stinks and you know it.
Denpressure destroys gravity and until you directly prove otherwise by following my directions, then you're simply trying to cheat your way through it for whatever reasons you have.
If you had any truthful thought, you would do this stuff properly instead of jumping up and down saying you've destroyed my theory when you know fine well you haven't.
How do you suppose he cheated his way through it? You yourself said that it looks like he did it as quickly as he could while his boss went out for a sandwich. Wouldn't it take more time to prepare a deception? You can clearly see the scale in the machine, you can clearly see the pressure on the machine change and you can clearly see the weight on the scale not decrease.
If you think that shows any real evidence then carry on. If he wants to play it genuinely then he does it by my rules, then he has the clear right to call my theory wrong. Will he do it? let's see.
You can't possibly keep doing this. You don't seriously believe pressure will change somethings weight. It's so silly.
Of course it will change it's weight. Weight is the sole purpose of pressure. Weight is a man made measurement of pressure upon any object.
The fact is that not many people can allow themselves to think on it, which is why they can't understand what's being said, because gravity keeps creeping into their heads.
This means that the weight of an item will change with the weather.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video? You want people to believe that weight changes with air pressure (heh) then you prove it.
All you do is willy wave and play games.
-
Just give me your most simple definition of pressure that you can. Not denpressure, just pressure. Something as simple as this. Pressure is the result of an applied force.
Prerssure is the result of stacked matter/molecules or whatever name you want to give to that.
So we agree then that pressure is the result of something. It's an effect and not the cause. The difference, it appears, is that my definition suggests that pressure can be caused by any applied force while yours specifically says the cause is stacked matter.
Okay, so then naturally the follow up question is, what makes them stack instead of just being stationary/floating?
Also, say I come up to you and push you backward. Did I not apply pressure on you or did stacked matter do it?
-
No response to the video?
Does it really merit a response?
What did you do? did you quickly set it up whilst your boss went out for a sandwich. You looked in one hell of a rush and your camera was all over the place.
It was a shit video to be honest.
If you have access to that without problems, then use it and do some experiments, starting off by showing me that scale from start to finish, in and out of the chamber.
LOL... sceptimatic... forever the class clown! It was actually a perfect visual example of why the vast majority of his make-believe ramblings are so hysterically funny. All thanks to sokarul for talking the time and effort to post this video.
I'll now await the results of sceptimatic's own experiment, on video, that he's personally carried out to prove his own theory about this.
But I'll bet my left testicle that sceptimatic will not post such a video. Not today, not tomorrow, not next week. he's been caught out lying so many times on these forums is the reason I'm quite confident that I won't be speaking an octave higher next week.
So c'mon sceptimatic... put your money where your mouth is. If you can.
-
I can't see why I'd be more likely to lose track if it was just one post, if it's split up there are distractions in between with other people posting on the topic, quotes tend to get lost when they get too long and so on, I must have skipped and forgotten half of the details and points of argument I've had on my mind during this exchange just because of this. So I'd prefer if it wasn't necessary to go step by step. I read books for fun, I think I can take one forum post - as long as it's concise, to the point and not by Sandokhan.
If you think that submerging an object in a measuring cup with fluid in it isn't descriptive of how much fluid an object displaces (!?) perhaps you could suggest another experiment?
I'm very interested in how pvc is special in this regard.
(density of polyvinyl chloride is well over 1 g/cm3, there is variance in products but generally it actually does sink)
Let me explain why it's important as to what you use and as to why a bucket isn't going to show you a true picture of displacement.
Ok, to start with, the iron sinks to the bottom of the bucket and obviously displaces the water.
The pvc won't sink so it won't displace as much. Now this is key, so keep this in mind as I move on.
Let's change the block to an iron block and a solid wood block of exactly the same size. Now you drop them in and they both fall to the bottom of the bucket and displace the same amount of water......but.....is that the whole story?
The answer is no. You see, the bottom of the bucket has stopped the objects from sinking any further because it's created a barrier. Now think about what I'm about to say, seriously.
To understand about mass and displacement in full you require super deep water to actually gauge displacement of water with any object.
For instance, let's get back to the iron and wooden block.
If you dropped them into a deep ocean, they would both sink....but, the iron block would continue to sink and the wooden block would stop sinking Why?
Because the wooden block still has trapped air inside of it and although the iron does, too, it's minute compared.
Because of this, it makes the wooden block more buoyant.
Now then, if we applied pressure to the wooden block to keep pushing it down to the same depth that the iron block was at, you would then see that it doesn't displace the same amount of water. Why?
Because it will be compressed into a smaller block by the pressure of the water, meaning the water will squeeze out the trapped air inside of it.
To give you an example of what I'm telling you is to look at a submarine.
Now imagine building a submarine out of solid iron, including inside of it. Basically a solid block in the shape of a sub.
Now you also have a normal sub of exact size, filled with the usual atmospheric pressure.
You drop them in the water and the solid one sinks but you have to force the other one down.
As you force it down, it will implode. Basically all of the air will be forced out and your sub will be a lot smaller and displacing a lot less water by this time.
On land it works similar, except you are measuring a mass that is subject to the amount of atmospheric pressure it can repel - or to put it in displacement terms, how much of that mass displaces the air it's in which is why I used the sponge and lead block to show you that absorbtion of atmospheric pressure will render the sponge lightweight when measured, as opposed to the lead block that will absorb very little, which is why it's so dense and why that density is measured on scales due to atmospheric pressure upon its mass.
To put it simply, measuring scales are simply denpressure scales, because that's what everything is and all that can be measured. It is not the actual object in itself, but what that object pushes against, which is atmospheric pressure and the ground. Put a measuring scale in between and that's what it weighs.
No. Really, no.
- If you use high pressure or whatever force or method to compress let's just say a 100cm3 object by 1% to 99cm3, then it displaces 99cm3 of the fluid it's in - it still displaces an amount of fluid equal to it's own volume and not any other amount.
- What may or may not happen in some extreme conditions is irrelevant, displacement, stuff falling down etc happens right here in our normal conditions too. If compression of a solid object by minute change of ambient pressure is significant to give rise to these effects then the compression must be sufficiently significant to be measured in our normal conditions as well, and it is not.
- I said forget about sponges even before I said anything about pvc. Wood is slightly porous and usually contains a little air & water, we all know that. I mentioned pvc just as an example of a solid material significantly lighter than iron, it can be any metal or such that definitely contains no air and definitely does not compress noticeably when submerged in a couple cm of water or any other fluid.
I'm trying to pry your theory out of you in sufficient detail and clarity that it could be put to test. It almost looks like you don't want your theory to be tested, why is that? Give clear details on exactly what it does and what it doesn't do. You wrote:
So a 10cm3 block of plastic is going to displace the same amount of water as a 10 cm3 block of iron. Do you seriously believe this?
I seriously do believe this, and yes I can test it with reasonable accuracy as well. As I said, a 10 cm3 solid object displaces 10 cm3 of fluid when submerged in it absolutely independent of it's weight. As I understand your theory, the displacement should change proportionally to weight, since you've asserted that heavier objects displace more air(pressure). Is it worth my time doing this test? The vacuum chamber test with the scale was nice, it showed that the weight does not decrease, is repeatable and you focus your attention on hurried camera work? Seriously now. This is not a pr video from nasa, this is something ordinary people can actually do and see for themselves, isn't that what you've always wanted?
Another thing I suggested we could test would be this:
No, silly, I ofc meant measuring it directly. With a pressure transducer for an example, if I calibrate it to zero sitting on my desk by itself and then for an example place the sensor head
at surface of a massive object, should the pressure reading change? Or if I attach it to a massive object, so that the sensor head is more or less flush with the surface, should I then see a change in the reading?
Let's fly past this or we are going to end up right back to square one. Try not to add things in and let's keep it as simple as possible.
How's that? This is something we can measure and verify. But I don't know what the model predicts so the results wouldn't mean anything to me.
But I need to know what your model predicts, otherwise there's no point. Other tests can be deviced as well, but we need more and better information to do that meaningfully.
-
This means that the weight of an item will change with the weather.
Does a barometer change with the weather? if you think it does, then tell me wh6y it does.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video? You want people to believe that weight changes with air pressure (heh) then you prove it.
All you do is willy wave and play games.
You can believe what you want to, I'm not interested what you believe. Sokarul had the means and opportunity to experiment and he goes and posts a complete load of crap like that which is typical or people like him.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video? You want people to believe that weight changes with air pressure (heh) then you prove it.
All you do is willy wave and play games.
You can believe what you want to, I'm not interested what you believe. Sokarul had the means and opportunity to experiment and he goes and posts a complete load of crap like that which is typical or people like him.
Even if you were to be granted that his experiment was crap (it wasn't) it is more than you have ever done to make your case. You cannot even level decent criticism at the experiment.
-
So we agree then that pressure is the result of something. It's an effect and not the cause. The difference, it appears, is that my definition suggests that pressure can be caused by any applied force while yours specifically says the cause is stacked matter.
The effect of pressure is caused by an applied force. It's the force of stacked matter/molecules from bottom to top. Just like stacking people on top of each other - who is going to be under the most pressure. The one at the bottom or the one at the top?
Simple isn't it?
Okay, so then naturally the follow up question is, what makes them stack instead of just being stationary/floating?
Energy/agitation makes them stack, from the ground, pushing up. For instance, steam rises because molecules are agitated and expanded and are pushed above the denser more compressed molecules.
A simple analogy is to put some small rubber ball into a jar and pour sand on top of them.
The rubber balls are covered. If the jar remains still, they will stay covered. Let's call this cold water.
Now if you vibrate that jar, you will see that the smaller sand grains in their amount, will force up the rubber balls to the top and condense under them. Call this boiling water. Take that as as analogy and nothing else, because i'm trying to explain it in very simple terms.
Also, say I come up to you and push you backward. Did I not apply pressure on you or did stacked matter do it?
You are stacked matter. All you are is compressed matter. But, let's deal with the norm.
Your push is energy. You applied energy to me which forced me to move backwards.
Let's say I was laid on top of you (no kissing) and you used your energy to push me off. The pressure you are applying to me, I'm applying right back to you, until you break free of that pressure. You can only do this by exerting more energy against me than I can exert back onto you.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video? You want people to believe that weight changes with air pressure (heh) then you prove it.
All you do is willy wave and play games.
You can believe what you want to, I'm not interested what you believe. Sokarul had the means and opportunity to experiment and he goes and posts a complete load of crap like that which is typical or people like him.
Even if you were to be granted that his experiment was crap (it wasn't) it is more than you have ever done to make your case. You cannot even level decent criticism at the experiment.
Well don't worry about it. Just accept what you feel you want to. I'm fine with it.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video? You want people to believe that weight changes with air pressure (heh) then you prove it.
All you do is willy wave and play games.
You can believe what you want to,
That's very kind of you, but completely ignored my question:
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video?
-
So we agree then that pressure is the result of something. It's an effect and not the cause. The difference, it appears, is that my definition suggests that pressure can be caused by any applied force while yours specifically says the cause is stacked matter.
The effect of pressure is caused by an applied force. It's the force of stacked matter/molecules from bottom to top. Just like stacking people on top of each other - who is going to be under the most pressure. The one at the bottom or the one at the top?
The one at the bottom, because of gravity. Without gravity it wouldn't be under any pressure.
Now, as you don't believe in gravity, what makes the molecules at the bottom of the "stack" experience more pressure than the ones at the top?
-
This means that the weight of an item will change with the weather.
Does a barometer change with the weather? if you think it does, then tell me wh6y it does.
As you know it measures atmospheric pressure, therefore, according to you, the measured weight of an object will change with changes in pressure.
-
This was a succinct counter example to denpressure. Air pressure went down and the weight did the exact opposite of what denpressure predicts. Scepti, you are in a position where all you can do is call him a cheater always or show evidence that supports your position. Anything else at this point is just hand waving.
No, not at all. Whilst he is evacuating pressure, the pump is pushing that pressure away and out of that chamber. As long as that pump is on, the readings are useless. It must be evacuated to whatever it can be and shut off. This is when you will see the reality of what's happening.
If anyone else has access to a chamber and who can do this experiment and show it, then please try it.
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video? You want people to believe that weight changes with air pressure (heh) then you prove it.
All you do is willy wave and play games.
You can believe what you want to,
That's very kind of you, but completely ignored my question:
Why don't you do it in your lab and post the video?
As I already told you.
-
This means that the weight of an item will change with the weather.
Does a barometer change with the weather? if you think it does, then tell me wh6y it does.
As you know it measures atmospheric pressure, therefore, according to you, the measured weight of an object will change with changes in pressure.
Let's take a balloon that is marginally inflated and put it in a vacuum chamber.
That balloon expands to fill the void created by the evacuation of pressure.
That balloon still weighs the same inside of that chamber because it hasn't expanded against atmospheric external pressure, it expanded to simply fill a void.
Once you start to equalise the chamber, the balloon goes back to how it was, because the pressure is crushing those molecules back into the state they were by exerting pressure around that balloon.
Now think of this.
If you were to put a barometer or even a thermometer inside of a vacuum chamber and took a reading. What do you think will happen to those readings when pressure ie evacuated?
Remember, they both measure pressure, it's just that people don't usually understand what's happening.
Obviously you people do because you're all world/univeral scientists that know wverything about the universe, the world and otehr universes anywhere and everywhere. There's nothing that you people don't know. Infact, you people even know stuff that isn't even known yet. ;D
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
-
This means that the weight of an item will change with the weather.
Does a barometer change with the weather? if you think it does, then tell me wh6y it does.
As you know it measures atmospheric pressure, therefore, according to you, the measured weight of an object will change with changes in pressure.
Let's take a balloon that is marginally inflated and put it in a vacuum chamber.
That balloon expands to fill the void created by the evacuation of pressure.
That balloon still weighs the same inside of that chamber because it hasn't expanded against atmospheric external pressure, it expanded to simply fill a void.
Once you start to equalise the chamber, the balloon goes back to how it was, because the pressure is crushing those molecules back into the state they were by exerting pressure around that balloon.
Now think of this.
If you were to put a barometer or even a thermometer inside of a vacuum chamber and took a reading. What do you think will happen to those readings when pressure ie evacuated?
Remember, they both measure pressure, it's just that people don't usually understand what's happening.
Obviously you people do because you're all world/univeral scientists that know wverything about the universe, the world and otehr universes anywhere and everywhere. There's nothing that you people don't know. Infact, you people even know stuff that isn't even known yet. ;D
Stop the insecure diatribe. you were shown an objects whose weight did not change with pressure in the way you predict in fact it was the opposite of what you needed. Other than making a vague reference to the evacuation itself affecting the reading, all of your responses have been unfounded incredulity and personal attacks. I think everyone would appreciate your work speaking for itself for once.
-
The effect of pressure is caused by an applied force.
So again here you agree that pressure is the effect and not the cause. You realize of course that you are attempting to replace gravity right?
It's the force of stacked matter/molecules from bottom to top. Just like stacking people on top of each other - who is going to be under the most pressure. The one at the bottom or the one at the top?
Simple isn't it?
Just like stacking people on top of each other? So if I take a vacuum chamber and stack people on the side of the chamber, or perhaps the top then should they stick to the side and top respectively? Remember, you think that removing air from a chamber makes objects in the chamber weightless, so presumably if you could start sokural's experiment off by taping the scale to the top of his chamber, released all the air and then had some way of removing the tape while it was still in a vacuum, then the scale would just stay on the top? Is that really what you think?
Energy/agitation makes them stack, from the ground, pushing up. For instance, steam rises because molecules are agitated and expanded and are pushed above the denser more compressed molecules.
A simple analogy is to put some small rubber ball into a jar and pour sand on top of them.
The rubber balls are covered. If the jar remains still, they will stay covered. Let's call this cold water.
Now if you vibrate that jar, you will see that the smaller sand grains in their amount, will force up the rubber balls to the top and condense under them. Call this boiling water. Take that as as analogy and nothing else, because i'm trying to explain it in very simple terms.
Gravity can be considered a mechanism. The very first sentence in it's definition is concise. It says that it is "the force that attracts a body toward another body (center of earth)". This is a homerun really because 1. It says its a force (you've downgraded pressure into an effect because there is no way around that) and 2. It says it attracts, which is the mechanistic part of it. Now it sounds like you are trying to make energy/agitation into the mechanistic cause of your theory right. Okay, well for one, revise your theory so that becomes the star of your theory instead of pressure and two, explain what it is about energy/agitation that causes the downward motion. Down, down, down.... that part is really making no sense. Atmospheric pressure pushes things up, up, up!
Maybe you've heard of this simple experiment you can do it wish a cup, some water and a card:
(http://)
It looks to me like atmospheric pressure is pushing up.
You are stacked matter. All you are is compressed matter. But, let's deal with the norm.
Your push is energy. You applied energy to me which forced me to move backwards.
Let's say I was laid on top of you (no kissing) and you used your energy to push me off. The pressure you are applying to me, I'm applying right back to you, until you break free of that pressure. You can only do this by exerting more energy against me than I can exert back onto you.
So it seems very clear to me now that you have graduated from the pressure is the cause of things world and are fully realizing it is an effect. Something causes pressure. Energy. You are even spouting off one of Newton's Laws here. Congratulations.
-
This means that the weight of an item will change with the weather.
Does a barometer change with the weather? if you think it does, then tell me wh6y it does.
As you know it measures atmospheric pressure, therefore, according to you, the measured weight of an object will change with changes in pressure.
Let's take a balloon that is marginally inflated and put it in a vacuum chamber.
That balloon expands to fill the void created by the evacuation of pressure.
That balloon still weighs the same inside of that chamber because it hasn't expanded against atmospheric external pressure, it expanded to simply fill a void.
Once you start to equalise the chamber, the balloon goes back to how it was, because the pressure is crushing those molecules back into the state they were by exerting pressure around that balloon.
Now think of this.
If you were to put a barometer or even a thermometer inside of a vacuum chamber and took a reading. What do you think will happen to those readings when pressure ie evacuated?
Remember, they both measure pressure, it's just that people don't usually understand what's happening.
Obviously you people do because you're all world/univeral scientists that know wverything about the universe, the world and otehr universes anywhere and everywhere. There's nothing that you people don't know. Infact, you people even know stuff that isn't even known yet. ;D
Stop the insecure diatribe. you were shown an objects whose weight did not change with pressure in the way you predict in fact it was the opposite of what you needed. Other than making a vague reference to the evacuation itself affecting the reading, all of your responses have been unfounded incredulity and personal attacks. I think everyone would appreciate your work speaking for itself for once.
Stop worrying youself about it all.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do.
:P
-
Scepti, pressure is not directly associated with temperature. The cold/warm air masses must exist first. Pressure indirectly influences temperature over a region. A pressure reading will not tell a meteorologist what the temperature is but it can help a forecaster forecast what the temperature will be because atmospheric pressure, which is caused by gravity, can cause an air mass to move from one region to another. Bringing the air from a colder region to a warmer region or vice-versa.
-
The effect of pressure is caused by an applied force.
So again here you agree that pressure is the effect and not the cause. You realize of course that you are attempting to replace gravity right?
Pressure is cause and effect
It's the force of stacked matter/molecules from bottom to top. Just like stacking people on top of each other - who is going to be under the most pressure. The one at the bottom or the one at the top?
Simple isn't it?
Just like stacking people on top of each other? So if I take a vacuum chamber and stack people on the side of the chamber, or perhaps the top then should they stick to the side and top respectively? Remember, you think that removing air from a chamber makes objects in the chamber weightless, so presumably if you could start sokural's experiment off by taping the scale to the top of his chamber, released all the air and then had some way of removing the tape while it was still in a vacuum, then the scale would just stay on the top? Is that really what you think?
No, because you have used energy to put that scale to the top. This is key to it all. Energy applied.[/quote]
Energy/agitation makes them stack, from the ground, pushing up. For instance, steam rises because molecules are agitated and expanded and are pushed above the denser more compressed molecules.
A simple analogy is to put some small rubber ball into a jar and pour sand on top of them.
The rubber balls are covered. If the jar remains still, they will stay covered. Let's call this cold water.
Now if you vibrate that jar, you will see that the smaller sand grains in their amount, will force up the rubber balls to the top and condense under them. Call this boiling water. Take that as as analogy and nothing else, because i'm trying to explain it in very simple terms.
Gravity can be considered a mechanism. The very first sentence in it's definition is concise. It says that it is "the force that attracts a body toward another body (center of earth)". This is a homerun really because 1. It says its a force (you've downgraded pressure into an effect because there is no way around that) and 2. It says it attracts, which is the mechanistic part of it. Now it sounds like you are trying to make energy/agitation into the mechanistic cause of your theory right. Okay, well for one, revise your theory so that becomes the star of your theory instead of pressure and two, explain what it is about energy/agitation that causes the downward motion. Down, down, down.... that part is really making no sense. Atmospheric pressure pushes things up, up, up!
Atmospheric pressure pushed things down against resistance. But energy pushes things up, up, up. Understand this and you will grasp what I'm saying.
Maybe you've heard of this simple experiment you can do it wish a cup, some water and a card:
(http://)
It looks to me like atmospheric pressure is pushing up.
Yes, it does look like that but that's not what's happening. The evacuated space left in the glass is the key to what's happening. If there's no push down, then the resistance is easy and this is the key. It the resistance to the downward pressure, meaning, no atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water in the glass means that the water is no match for pushing the card away from the glass due to resistance atmospheroc pressure. It's a great con.
You are stacked matter. All you are is compressed matter. But, let's deal with the norm.
Your push is energy. You applied energy to me which forced me to move backwards.
Let's say I was laid on top of you (no kissing) and you used your energy to push me off. The pressure you are applying to me, I'm applying right back to you, until you break free of that pressure. You can only do this by exerting more energy against me than I can exert back onto you.
So it seems very clear to me now that you have graduated from the pressure is the cause of things world and are fully realizing it is an effect. Something causes pressure. Energy. You are even spouting off one of Newton's Laws here. Congratulations.
Energy from below creates expanded matter which is vibrated up above by denser matter as in the ball and sand experiment I told you about.
It's cause and effect.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
What do you think expansion is?
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
What do you think expansion is?
Please explain how to measure a) pressure and b) temperature. Specify the units of measurement.
-
Scepti, pressure is not directly associated with temperature. The cold/warm air masses must exist first. Pressure indirectly influences temperature over a region. A pressure reading will not tell a meteorologist what the temperature is but it can help a forecaster forecast what the temperature will be because atmospheric pressure, which is caused by gravity, can cause an air mass to move from one region to another. Bringing the air from a colder region to a warmer region or vice-versa.
Yes but it's the reason for that flow that is the issue. People just see wind as blowing air and don't even think of the reason why the high and low pressures cause the effects we feel.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
What do you think expansion is?
Please explain how to measure a) pressure and b) temperature. Specify the units of measurement.
I just used a ruler. A helix I think it was. I only had a see through plastic one but I'm going to try it with a 30cm old school wooden one, later. ;)
-
Pressure is cause and effect
Pressure is the effect caused by itself? We've already established that pressure is the effect of something. If pressure a is the cause of pressure b then what caused pressure a?
No, because you have used energy to put that scale to the top. This is key to it all. Energy applied.
Was this not circumvented by removing air from the chamber? The scale was put on top and your theory ignorantly says the molecules above the scale want to push it down (nevermind the fact that if we introduce the scale to the chamber from the top first and then set it down on the bottom surface, it won't magically go up). Since we removed the air, the agitation is gone.
Atmospheric pressure pushed things down against resistance. But energy pushes things up, up, up. Understand this and you will grasp what I'm saying.
So you agree that since pressure is higher at the surface and that the energy that causes pressure pushes things up, things should float.
Yes, it does look like that but that's not what's happening. The evacuated space left in the glass is the key to what's happening. If there's no push down, then the resistance is easy and this is the key. It the resistance to the downward pressure, meaning, no atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water in the glass means that the water is no match for pushing the card away from the glass due to resistance atmospheroc pressure. It's a great con.
Hold the phone. Air was removed from the glass? I missed that part. I also didn't see myself doing that when I performed this same experiment before. There is a vacuum there when the glass is upside down but not above the water. All the air between the water and the card is removed. Thus what we are watching is a match between gravity pulling the water down and atmospheric pressure pushing the card up. If one calculate the amount of force by gravity in this case and then the pressure below the card then you can easily see why the card wins. The pressure is pushing up, up, up.
Energy from below creates expanded matter which is vibrated up above by denser matter as in the ball and sand experiment I told you about.
It's cause and effect.
So the energy (pressure?) that causes the effect of pressure is vibrated up and should cause things to float. Note that this doesn't happen.
Yes but it's the reason for that flow that is the issue. People just see wind as blowing air and don't even think of the reason why the high and low pressures cause the effects we feel.
The reason for that flow is that pressure is the sole mover. Things influenced by it will move from high pressure to low pressure. For example, if pressure is the sole mover of things in your yard and high pressure is below the low pressure, then things should float up. Note again that this does not happen.
Your failure is multifaceted. Not only are things in general not influenced by pressure enough to be moved by pressure, but when they are (if they are light enough in examples like air and helium balloons) then they work in the opposite way that you dream. High to low. High to low. High to low.
-
Pressure is cause and effect
Pressure is the effect caused by itself? We've already established that pressure is the effect of something. If pressure a is the cause of pressure b then what caused pressure a?
No, because you have used energy to put that scale to the top. This is key to it all. Energy applied.
Was this not circumvented by removing air from the chamber? The scale was put on top and your theory ignorantly says the molecules above the scale want to push it down (nevermind the fact that if we introduce the scale to the chamber from the top first and then set it down on the bottom surface, it won't magically go up). Since we removed the air, the agitation is gone.
Atmospheric pressure pushed things down against resistance. But energy pushes things up, up, up. Understand this and you will grasp what I'm saying.
So you agree that since pressure is higher at the surface and that the energy that causes pressure pushes things up, things should float.
Yes, it does look like that but that's not what's happening. The evacuated space left in the glass is the key to what's happening. If there's no push down, then the resistance is easy and this is the key. It the resistance to the downward pressure, meaning, no atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water in the glass means that the water is no match for pushing the card away from the glass due to resistance atmospheroc pressure. It's a great con.
Hold the phone. Air was removed from the glass? I missed that part. I also didn't see myself doing that when I performed this same experiment before. There is a vacuum there when the glass is upside down but not above the water. All the air between the water and the card is removed. Thus what we are watching is a match between gravity pulling the water down and atmospheric pressure pushing the card up. If one calculate the amount of force by gravity in this case and then the pressure below the card then you can easily see why the card wins. The pressure is pushing up, up, up.
Energy from below creates expanded matter which is vibrated up above by denser matter as in the ball and sand experiment I told you about.
It's cause and effect.
So the energy (pressure?) that causes the effect of pressure is vibrated up and should cause things to float. Note that this doesn't happen.
Yes but it's the reason for that flow that is the issue. People just see wind as blowing air and don't even think of the reason why the high and low pressures cause the effects we feel.
The reason for that flow is that pressure is the sole mover. Things influenced by it will move from high pressure to low pressure. For example, if pressure is the sole mover of things in your yard and high pressure is below the low pressure, then things should float up. Note again that this does not happen.
Your failure is multifaceted. Not only are things in general not influenced by pressure enough to be moved by pressure, but when they are (if they are light enough in examples like air and helium balloons) then they work in the opposite way that you dream. High to low. High to low. High to low.
I've just spent all this time explaining and you still can't grasp it. Whether you're doing this intentionally, I don't know.
If you are, then fair enough. If you aren't, then basic logic escapes you and I can't do anything to put that right.
There's nothing more I can say to you. The very fact that you mentioned what you did about my explaination of the video, shows you can't grasp what I said.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
What do you think expansion is?
Electromagnetic force from the interactions of Hg atom's electrons. Bond lengths do not change, unpopular to your claims.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
You cannot explain objects falling at the same speed, as proven.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
Understand that in science, the answer to the question, "what is gravity" is not completely understood. There are competing theories and some are taken more seriously than others. Over time, some of those theories have been ruled out and pressure, which isn't even a cause, hasn't been formally ruled out because it doesn't have the properties to even be considered ie. things go down and not up.
So the most widely accepted theory for what gravity is has been explained to you before. In general relativity, gravity too is the effect of something. I'll try to be brief and simple:
Space exists. Time exists. Without confusing you I'm just going to call these two things together, spacetime.
Matter also exists. It exists in space. It exists in time. It exists in spacetime.
Before jumping to conclusions, watch this video so that I can use terms that you understand.
(http://)
So to help let's refer to spacetime as a fabric. Like the fabric of this blue trampoline.
Spacetime without matter is linear, like the fabric. Nothing happens to it.
Introduce matter into spacetime and it will put a dent into the fabric of spacetime, like the trampoline. The more matter, the bigger the dent and the more other objects are seemingly attracted to each other. Notice that when object are placed on the fabric, they don't actually have attractive properties themselves. It is what they did to the fabric that makes it look like they are attracted to one another.
Now, don't get on science's case here. This is some pretty mindblowing stuff. Science doesn't say that this is a fact. It is a theory but there have been some pretty startling predictions and evidences that show that matter does "dent/warp" spacetime. You can see a lot of it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
So cause and effect? In general relativity it is this:
Matter > warps spacetime > makes things seem to be attracted to one another
This is why objects that have different densities but that are effected by air resistance in the same way fall at the same rate. Everything is under the same influence of spacetime warping, unless there are things in the way, like air resistance, or if the objects are lighter than the medium they are in (like a helium balloon). To illustrate watch this video of a helium balloon sinking in a partially evacuated chamber:
(http://)
Since the air was removed it is no longer pushing the balloon up, allowing gravity to do its work.
In denpressure it seems that the cause and effect sequence is this:
object are stacked (for no reason) > pressure > pressure > pressure (keep in mind objects move from high pressure to low if pressure is the dominant mover)
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
You cannot explain objects falling at the same speed, as proven.
I already explained that they don't, unless dientical.
Now, instead of trying to deflect from the issue. How about you explain what gravity is as a force.
You can't do it and no scientist alive can do it. Why?...because it does not exist and atmospheric pressure is the sole reason for what gravity is supposed to be.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object, now known as "denpressure."
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
You cannot explain objects falling at the same speed, as proven.
I already explained that they don't, unless dientical.
Now, instead of trying to deflect from the issue. How about you explain what gravity is as a force.
You can't do it and no scientist alive can do it. Why?...because it does not exist and atmospheric pressure is the sole reason for what gravity is supposed to be.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object, now known as "denpressure."
You simply stated that they don't. They do and when they don't, on earth, there is a reason why. That reason is air resistance.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
Understand that in science, the answer to the question, "what is gravity" is not completely understood. There are competing theories and some are taken more seriously than others. Over time, some of those theories have been ruled out and pressure, which isn't even a cause, hasn't been formally ruled out because it doesn't have the properties to even be considered ie. things go down and not up.
So the most widely accepted theory for what gravity is has been explained to you before. In general relativity, gravity too is the effect of something. I'll try to be brief and simple:
Space exists. Time exists. Without confusing you I'm just going to call these two things together, spacetime.
Matter also exists. It exists in space. It exists in time. It exists in spacetime.
Before jumping to conclusions, watch this video so that I can use terms that you understand.
(http://)
So to help let's refer to spacetime as a fabric. Like the fabric of this blue trampoline.
Spacetime without matter is linear, like the fabric. Nothing happens to it.
Introduce matter into spacetime and it will put a dent into the fabric of spacetime, like the trampoline. The more matter, the bigger the dent and the more other objects are seemingly attracted to each other. Notice that when object are placed on the fabric, they don't actually have attractive properties themselves. It is what they did to the fabric that makes it look like they are attracted to one another.
Now, don't get on science's case here. This is some pretty mindblowing stuff. Science doesn't say that this is a fact. It is a theory but there have been some pretty startling predictions and evidences that show that matter does "dent/warp" spacetime. You can see a lot of it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
So cause and effect? In general relativity it is this:
Matter > warps spacetime > makes things seem to be attracted to one another
This is why objects that have different densities but that are effected by air resistance in the same way fall at the same rate. Everything is under the same influence of spacetime warping, unless there are things in the way, like air resistance, or if the objects are lighter than the medium they are in (like a helium balloon). To illustrate watch this video of a helium balloon sinking in a partially evacuated chamber:
(http://)
Since the air was removed it is no longer pushing the balloon up, allowing gravity to do its work.
In denpressure it seems that the cause and effect sequence is this:
object are stacked (for no reason) > pressure > pressure > pressure (keep in mind objects move from high pressure to low if pressure is the dominant mover)
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
So I'll ask you again very simply. Reply in the most basic terms as possible.
Can you prove that gravity is a real force?
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
You cannot explain objects falling at the same speed, as proven.
I already explained that they don't, unless dientical.
Now, instead of trying to deflect from the issue. How about you explain what gravity is as a force.
You can't do it and no scientist alive can do it. Why?...because it does not exist and atmospheric pressure is the sole reason for what gravity is supposed to be.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object, now known as "denpressure."
Gravity is now though of as not a force. This is why different masses can accelerate at the same rate when falling. Forces cannot do that.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
What do you think expansion is?
Electromagnetic force from the interactions of Hg atom's electrons. Bond lengths do not change, unpopular to your claims.
I have access to high quality resistance temperature detectors. The sensing heads are made of metal, encased in metal, so the sensing head does not come in contact with material that's being measured. I wonder how air pressure makes that thing work.
And I also have access to those pressure transducers & other similar instruments. So we could test these things. If only someone could give any predictions that the theory makes. Sadly my suggestions concerning that seem to have been left with no response.
I wonder if Scepti believes that magnets work by creating an air pressure field around them.
But I'm beginning to see a trend here about this denpressure, and it's that it can't be measured. It can only be explained, and the explanation can only be understood by those who already accept it as the truth. I think we can just start calling it a religion instead of a theory.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
You cannot explain objects falling at the same speed, as proven.
I already explained that they don't, unless dientical.
Now, instead of trying to deflect from the issue. How about you explain what gravity is as a force.
You can't do it and no scientist alive can do it. Why?...because it does not exist and atmospheric pressure is the sole reason for what gravity is supposed to be.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object, now known as "denpressure."
You simply stated that they don't. They do and when they don't, on earth, there is a reason why. That reason is air resistance.
Of course the reason is atmospheric resistance. I've been telling you this all along.
I've also been telling you that a vacuum chamber does not show the truth of falling object of different densities falling at the same time, basically due to the limited distance of the drop against amospheric resistance.
The difference between evacuated pressure and a true vacuum is like chalk and cheese.
You agree that we cannot make a true vacuum on Earth.
You also agree that we cannot get rid of resistance of atmopsheric pressure but we can make it much less resistant to mass dropped into it, even though that mass is still dropped in lower pressure.
To gain a true vacuum, where you and others think mass will fall at the same rate no matter what it is, is not possible and cannot ever be possible for us inside Earth.
To gain a true vacuum is to lose everything. In simple terms, to gain a true vacuum is not to exist at all.
This isn't fantasy, it's logical truth.
Why people choose to believe in warped space time is absolutely mind numbingly shocking, when the answer is right under your nose and slapping you hard in the face.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
You cannot explain objects falling at the same speed, as proven.
I already explained that they don't, unless dientical.
Now, instead of trying to deflect from the issue. How about you explain what gravity is as a force.
You can't do it and no scientist alive can do it. Why?...because it does not exist and atmospheric pressure is the sole reason for what gravity is supposed to be.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object, now known as "denpressure."
Gravity is now though of as not a force. This is why different masses can accelerate at the same rate when falling. Forces cannot do that.
So, if gravity is now not a force, the what is gravity. In simple terms, tell me what gravity is?
-
You tried to explain it. You just didn't make a coherent explanation and I concisely showed you why.
You fail.
Rip denpressure.
You cannot understand basic explanations. This is why you stick to bullshit gravity. RIP gravity.
Boy you really showed gravity. ::)
Your concepts aren't difficult to grasp. They're just wrong. Reference: reality.
Let's kill it once and for all. I've explained gravity with atmospheric pressure as the force.
If you disagree, all I want you to do, is to explain what gravity is as a force.
Understand that in science, the answer to the question, "what is gravity" is not completely understood. There are competing theories and some are taken more seriously than others. Over time, some of those theories have been ruled out and pressure, which isn't even a cause, hasn't been formally ruled out because it doesn't have the properties to even be considered ie. things go down and not up.
So the most widely accepted theory for what gravity is has been explained to you before. In general relativity, gravity too is the effect of something. I'll try to be brief and simple:
Space exists. Time exists. Without confusing you I'm just going to call these two things together, spacetime.
Matter also exists. It exists in space. It exists in time. It exists in spacetime.
Before jumping to conclusions, watch this video so that I can use terms that you understand.
(http://)
So to help let's refer to spacetime as a fabric. Like the fabric of this blue trampoline.
Spacetime without matter is linear, like the fabric. Nothing happens to it.
Introduce matter into spacetime and it will put a dent into the fabric of spacetime, like the trampoline. The more matter, the bigger the dent and the more other objects are seemingly attracted to each other. Notice that when object are placed on the fabric, they don't actually have attractive properties themselves. It is what they did to the fabric that makes it look like they are attracted to one another.
Now, don't get on science's case here. This is some pretty mindblowing stuff. Science doesn't say that this is a fact. It is a theory but there have been some pretty startling predictions and evidences that show that matter does "dent/warp" spacetime. You can see a lot of it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
So cause and effect? In general relativity it is this:
Matter > warps spacetime > makes things seem to be attracted to one another
This is why objects that have different densities but that are effected by air resistance in the same way fall at the same rate. Everything is under the same influence of spacetime warping, unless there are things in the way, like air resistance, or if the objects are lighter than the medium they are in (like a helium balloon). To illustrate watch this video of a helium balloon sinking in a partially evacuated chamber:
(http://)
Since the air was removed it is no longer pushing the balloon up, allowing gravity to do its work.
In denpressure it seems that the cause and effect sequence is this:
object are stacked (for no reason) > pressure > pressure > pressure (keep in mind objects move from high pressure to low if pressure is the dominant mover)
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
So I'll ask you again very simply. Reply in the most basic terms as possible.
Can you prove that gravity is a real force?
Did I say I am absolutely certain about what gravity is? I'm only certain that things fall. I said that general relativity is a theory among competing theories. Here is how this works.
Gravity, in the most definitive sense, is a placeholder name for this thing that we observe to happen. Things fall. We have multiple theories to explain how it happens such as:
objects are magically attractive
spacetime warps
denpressure (just to help you see what competing theories means)
the graviton
So we don't know, with certainty what is right but we can place values on what is more plausible and possible than the others based on evidence and predictions and we can therefore genuinely prefer one over the other.
Denpressure fails to even offer an explanation. Demonstrably. Pressure makes things rise, not fall. So that is automatically crossed off.
So among the rest, again, we don't know with certainty. It is understandably mysterious and in the most absolute sense I am fine with not knowing with certainty how things fall, no matter how much I would like to know why it happens.
So general relativity, in my opinion, is the most plausible, because it has the most evidence. It explains things with more accuracy than any other theory.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
What do you think expansion is?
Electromagnetic force from the interactions of Hg atom's electrons. Bond lengths do not change, unpopular to your claims.
I have access to high quality resistance temperature detectors. The sensing heads are made of metal, encased in metal, so the sensing head does not come in contact with material that's being measured. I wonder how air pressure makes that thing work.
And I also have access to those pressure transducers & other similar instruments. So we could test these things. If only someone could give any predictions that the theory makes. Sadly my suggestions concerning that seem to have been left with no response.
I wonder if Scepti believes that magnets work by creating an air pressure field around them.
But I'm beginning to see a trend here about this denpressure, and it's that it can't be measured. It can only be explained, and the explanation can only be understood by those who already accept it as the truth. I think we can just start calling it a religion instead of a theory.
You measure denpressure every single day with every known device of measurement from food scales to human scales to vehicle scales, to barometers, to temperature gauges. You name it, it all measures denpressure.
The sooner you crumple up bullshit gravity, the sooner you will understand it.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
I've just spent my time showing you what denpressure is. You choose to laugh at it and yet also choose to follow a theory of gravity that cannot be explained as a force, at all. It can only be explained using fantasy space and mass in space to show what it does, using a silly so called fabric of space time that makes no sense at all.
It only makes sense to people like you because it's a forced mass belief system. That's it.
If not, then explain gravity as a force. Tell me what the force actually is for it to do what it supposedly does.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
I've just spent my time showing you what denpressure is. You choose to laugh at it and yet also choose to follow a theory of gravity that cannot be explained as a force, at all. It can only be explained using fantasy space and mass in space to show what it does, using a silly so called fabric of space time that makes no sense at all.
It only makes sense to people like you because it's a forced mass belief system. That's it.
If not, then explain gravity as a force. Tell me what the force actually is for it to do what it supposedly does.
Why do you keep asking for people to explain it as a force when the explanation we offered is that it is not?
-
I have access to high quality resistance temperature detectors. The sensing heads are made of metal, encased in metal, so the sensing head does not come in contact with material that's being measured. I wonder how air pressure makes that thing work.
And I also have access to those pressure transducers & other similar instruments. So we could test these things. If only someone could give any predictions that the theory makes. Sadly my suggestions concerning that seem to have been left with no response.
I wonder if Scepti believes that magnets work by creating an air pressure field around them.
But I'm beginning to see a trend here about this denpressure, and it's that it can't be measured. It can only be explained, and the explanation can only be understood by those who already accept it as the truth. I think we can just start calling it a religion instead of a theory.
I don't see how he can act like they are correct when we just keep destroying everything he says.
You measure denpressure every single day with every known device of measurement from food scales to human scales to vehicle scales, to barometers, to temperature gauges. You name it, it all measures denpressure.
The sooner you crumple up bullshit gravity, the sooner you will understand it.
Heat has nothing to do with gravity. It is energy. What does heating a block of iron have to do with pressure? Are gas flames pressure? Does my propane grill and air compressor work the same way? Can I cook burgers with an air compressor?
Stop being so stupid and grow up.
-
Thermometers do not measure pressure. Please note this.
Yes they do. You just interpret it as temperature because of vibrating matter that expands and contracts. It's all high versus low pressure, so please note this.
Yes, matter vibrates more when it is hotter. But as thermometers are in a closed system, they cannot measure pressure. The liquid inside expands as it gets hotter. It does not expand because outside pressure changed. So no, they don't measure pressure. Please note this.
What do you think expansion is?
Electromagnetic force from the interactions of Hg atom's electrons. Bond lengths do not change, unpopular to your claims.
I have access to high quality resistance temperature detectors. The sensing heads are made of metal, encased in metal, so the sensing head does not come in contact with material that's being measured. I wonder how air pressure makes that thing work.
And I also have access to those pressure transducers & other similar instruments. So we could test these things. If only someone could give any predictions that the theory makes. Sadly my suggestions concerning that seem to have been left with no response.
I wonder if Scepti believes that magnets work by creating an air pressure field around them.
But I'm beginning to see a trend here about this denpressure, and it's that it can't be measured. It can only be explained, and the explanation can only be understood by those who already accept it as the truth. I think we can just start calling it a religion instead of a theory.
You measure denpressure every single day with every known device of measurement from food scales to human scales to vehicle scales, to barometers, to temperature gauges. You name it, it all measures denpressure.
The sooner you crumple up bullshit gravity, the sooner you will understand it.
An entirely worthless post from you. It's true because you say it's true, we've all heard that before. How about you crumple your bullshit diversion tactics and answer on how it affects air pressure at surface of objects of different weight, or how much the weight difference changes how much water an object displaces, make some predictions with your theory religion so we can check and see for ourselves. I'm of the opinion that that would be called science.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
I've just spent my time showing you what denpressure is. You choose to laugh at it and yet also choose to follow a theory of gravity that cannot be explained as a force, at all. It can only be explained using fantasy space and mass in space to show what it does, using a silly so called fabric of space time that makes no sense at all.
It only makes sense to people like you because it's a forced mass belief system. That's it.
If not, then explain gravity as a force. Tell me what the force actually is for it to do what it supposedly does.
Incorrect. You have spent your time explaining your thesis, you have showed nothing.
This discussion is not about proofs for gravity, it's about denpressure. I have not once claimed to be able to prove or even explain gravity. I don't think I need to repeat your claims concerning your knowledge of what is true.
I see that you are consistently unable to tell us anything that your thesis predicts.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
I've just spent my time showing you what denpressure is. You choose to laugh at it and yet also choose to follow a theory of gravity that cannot be explained as a force, at all. It can only be explained using fantasy space and mass in space to show what it does, using a silly so called fabric of space time that makes no sense at all.
It only makes sense to people like you because it's a forced mass belief system. That's it.
If not, then explain gravity as a force. Tell me what the force actually is for it to do what it supposedly does.
Incorrect. You have spent your time explaining your thesis, you have showed nothing.
This discussion is not about proofs for gravity, it's about denpressure. I have not once claimed to be able to prove or even explain gravity. I don't think I need to repeat your claims concerning your knowledge of what is true.
I see that you are consistently unable to tell us anything that your thesis predicts.
I have offered an explanation but I keep hammering home that I am not certain of it. I only say that it is plausible, in my opinion. What he doesn't seem to understand is that gravity is an observation, not an explanation. There are competing explanations for the observation of gravity and we judge those explanations based on their merits.
Denpressure as far as we are concerned is not a new thing, it's just another explanation for a thing we observe (gravity). It just has no merit.
-
Did I say I am absolutely certain about what gravity is? I'm only certain that things fall. I said that general relativity is a theory among competing theories. Here is how this works.
Yes,f air enough, you know things fall. Finding why they fall is what I've explained but your resistance to what I'm saying is blinding you.
Gravity, in the most definitive sense, is a placeholder name for this thing that we observe to happen. Things fall. We have multiple theories to explain how it happens such as:
The very thing I explained with denpressure.
objects are magically attractive
spacetime warps
denpressure (just to help you see what competing theories means)
the graviton
Objects are magically attractive? come on man, you can't just go with that. You're more intelligent than that.
Space time warps. I honestly don't even know why people go with this. It's just literally terrible. We are told what space is but what is space time. warped space time...a ficticious trampoline analogy that mass falls into and attracts like iron balls on a mattress. Seriously it's crazy as hell and makes no sense.
So we don't know, with certainty what is right but we can place values on what is more plausible and possible than the others based on evidence and predictions and we can therefore genuinely prefer one over the other.
How can you prefer bullshit over what I've just described?
Denpressure fails to even offer an explanation. Demonstrably. Pressure makes things rise, not fall. So that is automatically crossed off.
I've just told you that pressure does not make things rise but you appear to keep on about it when I've explained. Deliberate? probably.
So among the rest, again, we don't know with certainty. It is understandably mysterious and in the most absolute sense I am fine with not knowing with certainty how things fall, no matter how much I would like to know why it happens.
This is all you had to say in the first place. You're happy to just accept that things fall and you don't care what bullshit you are told...as long as it's by mainstream science books.
So general relativity, in my opinion, is the most plausible, because it has the most evidence. It explains things with more accuracy than any other theory.
You know fine well it doesn't. But having said that, I accept that your mind is set so I won't discuss this with you anymore.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
I've just spent my time showing you what denpressure is. You choose to laugh at it and yet also choose to follow a theory of gravity that cannot be explained as a force, at all. It can only be explained using fantasy space and mass in space to show what it does, using a silly so called fabric of space time that makes no sense at all.
It only makes sense to people like you because it's a forced mass belief system. That's it.
If not, then explain gravity as a force. Tell me what the force actually is for it to do what it supposedly does.
Incorrect. You have spent your time explaining your thesis, you have showed nothing.
This discussion is not about proofs for gravity, it's about denpressure. I have not once claimed to be able to prove or even explain gravity. I don't think I need to repeat your claims concerning your knowledge of what is true.
I see that you are consistently unable to tell us anything that your thesis predicts.
You can't prove nor explain gravity and yet you fight like hell to keep it alive against perfectly edxplained denpressure. Just leave it at that. I can't be arsed with people like you. You've had enough of my time.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
I've just spent my time showing you what denpressure is. You choose to laugh at it and yet also choose to follow a theory of gravity that cannot be explained as a force, at all. It can only be explained using fantasy space and mass in space to show what it does, using a silly so called fabric of space time that makes no sense at all.
It only makes sense to people like you because it's a forced mass belief system. That's it.
If not, then explain gravity as a force. Tell me what the force actually is for it to do what it supposedly does.
Incorrect. You have spent your time explaining your thesis, you have showed nothing.
This discussion is not about proofs for gravity, it's about denpressure. I have not once claimed to be able to prove or even explain gravity. I don't think I need to repeat your claims concerning your knowledge of what is true.
I see that you are consistently unable to tell us anything that your thesis predicts.
I have offered an explanation but I keep hammering home that I am not certain of it. I only say that it is plausible, in my opinion. What he doesn't seem to understand is that gravity is an observation, not an explanation. There are competing explanations for the observation of gravity and we judge those explanations based on their merits.
Denpressure as far as we are concerned is not a new thing, it's just another explanation for a thing we observe (gravity). It just has no merit.
Agreed. If anyone wanted to we could go on about force per surface area on a falling or thrown objects for an example, but I think it's a more interesting thing to look at stuff moving on the ground - be it a car or a metal ball, it's heavy obviously - but since there is no mass or inertia, how would air pressure give that extra resistance of a heavier object when pushing it - there would need to be some kind of a high pressure zone all around it, but it should somehow selectively weaken on the side it was pushed from... mayhaps :) But that pressure would be measurable. That's what I'd like to test :)
-
Why isn't there such a change in gravity from altitude?
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html)
Using the graph, I should only have 3/5 as much gravity as sea level. Can't say that I do.
-
So you'd rather go with an absolute made up load of clap trap than actually understand what I'm telling you is reality, simply because you trust in unprovable theories that make no rational sense and because it suits you to think I'm a nutter just so it keeps this ruse alive?
Weird. I thought you might want to try and figure out the truth rather than hang onto the silliness that MS gives out.
I've just explained perfectly why denpressure works and yet this stuff you've shown, has no basis whatsoever.
unprovable theories.... omg, I actually laughed out loud at that. Exactly what has been discussed for like ten pages here? Oh yeah, methods for testing denpressure. And it looks like there are none. We should just believe it because you say it's 100% true because it is true. Be honest for a change.
I've just spent my time showing you what denpressure is. You choose to laugh at it and yet also choose to follow a theory of gravity that cannot be explained as a force, at all. It can only be explained using fantasy space and mass in space to show what it does, using a silly so called fabric of space time that makes no sense at all.
It only makes sense to people like you because it's a forced mass belief system. That's it.
If not, then explain gravity as a force. Tell me what the force actually is for it to do what it supposedly does.
Incorrect. You have spent your time explaining your thesis, you have showed nothing.
This discussion is not about proofs for gravity, it's about denpressure. I have not once claimed to be able to prove or even explain gravity. I don't think I need to repeat your claims concerning your knowledge of what is true.
I see that you are consistently unable to tell us anything that your thesis predicts.
You can't prove nor explain gravity and yet you fight like hell to keep it alive against perfectly edxplained denpressure. Just leave it at that. I can't be arsed with people like you. You've had enough of my time.
And exactly how have I been 'fighting for gravity'? I've been asking to find ways to directly measure what you predict with denpressure theory dogma. Shit, it's like I was working for you on this. You're just not cooperating. You know 100% how it works in reality then how come we can't test and see for ourselves but should just take your word for it. Even asking anything specific about denpressure is hopeless, you just ignore it, or come up with what might happen if we put a sponge sub to the bottom of the ocean or whatever game or diversion you happen to like at the moment.
-
I put "things are magically attracted to each other" in there not because I believe it. I was giving you an example of what competing theories means without being biased about which ones I prefer. If I was being biased then both that and denpressure would not have been listed.
How can you prefer bullshit over what I've just described?
Because what you've described fails all tests. Literally all of them.
I've just told you that pressure does not make things rise but you appear to keep on about it when I've explained. Deliberate? probably.
No we demonstrated and proved to you that you are wrong.
As far as the rest, your incredulity does not make things false.
in·cre·du·li·ty
ˌinkrəˈd(y)o͞olədē/
noun
the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
"he stared down the street in incredulity"
-
I put "things are magically attracted to each other" in there not because I believe it. I was giving you an example of what competing theories means without being biased about which ones I prefer. If I was being biased then both that and denpressure would not have been listed.
How can you prefer bullshit over what I've just described?
Because what you've described fails all tests. Literally all of them.
I've just told you that pressure does not make things rise but you appear to keep on about it when I've explained. Deliberate? probably.
No we demonstrated and proved to you that you are wrong.
As far as the rest, your incredulity does not make things false.
in·cre·du·li·ty
ˌinkrəˈd(y)o͞olədē/
noun
the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
"he stared down the street in incredulity"
Yes, well, ok, let's leave at that. I'll explain it to people who are interested and who can attempt to grasp it.
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
Since you're the one claiming certainty, the onus is on you.
Nevertheless, we've provided evidence that general relativity is the most plausible. Not with certainty, but plausibility. At the same time, we've provided evidence of certainty that pressure is not why things fall. So cross it off.
-
Well results are in, lets see who won?
As for the scale reading negative. They can only read negative to there set starting point. If I take the plate off to clean it, the scale will go negative and then error out. It can only go negative as to correct for the missing tared mass. In this case, the plate. They cannot go any more than that. Negative 100g isn't going to happen. Anyways here is the video. As with my PS Paints, this video is of high quality.
Scale Test (http://#)
And this video was already posted.
(http://)
That was easy.
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
Since you're the one claiming certainty, the onus is on you.
Nevertheless, we've provided evidence that general relativity is the most plausible. Not with certainty, but plausibility. At the same time, we've provided evidence of certainty that pressure is not why things fall. So cross it off.
No problem. You stick to what you were trained to do. I'll keep the truth. Let's leave it there. No need for anymore conversation.
-
Well results are in, lets see who won?
As for the scale reading negative. They can only read negative to there set starting point. If I take the plate off to clean it, the scale will go negative and then error out. It can only go negative as to correct for the missing tared mass. In this case, the plate. They cannot go any more than that. Negative 100g isn't going to happen. Anyways here is the video. As with my PS Paints, this video is of high quality.
Scale Test (http://#)
And this video was already posted.
(http://)
That was easy.
I'm sure you can do better than that. Start reading what's already been wrote.
-
Put up or shut up. Prove your fairy tail.
-
Proof only exists in maths, if anyone remembers.
Anyway. If gravity isn't real like you say it can't obviously be 'proven'. If denpressure is real the possibility of 'proving' it should exist. Yet, denpressure fails to produce any predictions that we could measure and verify. I wonder why that is.
Denpressure failed the weight in vacuum chamber experiment. Simple as that. Let's do more experiments. Make predictions using denpressure and we can get on it.
-
Put up or shut up. Prove your fairy tail.
You put up or shut up and prove your fairy tale.
-
Proof only exists in maths, if anyone remembers.
Anyway. If gravity isn't real like you say it can't obviously be 'proven'. If denpressure is real the possibility of 'proving' it should exist. Yet, denpressure fails to produce any predictions that we could measure and verify. I wonder why that is.
Denpressure failed the weight in vacuum chamber experiment. Simple as that. Let's do more experiments. Make predictions using denpressure and we can get on it.
Don't come the crap with me about sokarul proving anything. There's a reason why his test was as bad as it was. He's not interested in proof against what he's been indoctrinated with, nor are you or rottingroom.
-
No problem. You stick to what you were trained to do being genuinely uncertain but weighing options with strict principles based on honesty. I'll keep the truth what I've made up in my head even if it makes no sense. Let's leave it there. No need for anymore conversation.
Fair enough.
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
-
Put up or shut up. Prove your fairy tail.
You put up or shut up and prove your fairy tale.
RIP Denpressure #3.
Proof only exists in maths, if anyone remembers.
Anyway. If gravity isn't real like you say it can't obviously be 'proven'. If denpressure is real the possibility of 'proving' it should exist. Yet, denpressure fails to produce any predictions that we could measure and verify. I wonder why that is.
Denpressure failed the weight in vacuum chamber experiment. Simple as that. Let's do more experiments. Make predictions using denpressure and we can get on it.
Yeah yeah yeah, I of course want evidence.
-
No problem. You stick to what you were trained to do being genuinely uncertain but weighing options with strict principles based on honesty. I'll keep the truth what I've made up in my head even if it makes no sense. Let's leave it there. No need for anymore conversation.
Fair enough.
Back in the bin for you.
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
Bin for you as well.
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
Bin for you as well.
You think you can keep them there for longer than a week this time?
-
No problem. You stick to what you were trained to do being genuinely uncertain but weighing options with strict principles based on honesty. I'll keep the truth what I've made up in my head even if it makes no sense. Let's leave it there. No need for anymore conversation.
Fair enough.
Back in the bin for you.
Wahmulance. RIP denpressure. How many times is this now? 20? 30?
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
Bin for you as well.
You think you can keep them there for longer than a week this time?
I only done it for a few days, like I did with you. This time they get a full week, including you.
-
Proof only exists in maths, if anyone remembers.
Anyway. If gravity isn't real like you say it can't obviously be 'proven'. If denpressure is real the possibility of 'proving' it should exist. Yet, denpressure fails to produce any predictions that we could measure and verify. I wonder why that is.
Denpressure failed the weight in vacuum chamber experiment. Simple as that. Let's do more experiments. Make predictions using denpressure and we can get on it.
Don't come the crap with me about sokarul proving anything. There's a reason why his test was as bad as it was. He's not interested in proof against what he's been indoctrinated with, nor are you or rottingroom.
Conveniently you've at no point told us how the test should be done to get the result you predicted. Nor have you made any other predictions that could be tested. So what was the story about believing in 'unproven theories' again?
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
Bin for you as well.
You think you can keep them there for longer than a week this time?
I only done it for a few days, like I did with you. This time they get a full week, including you.
I can't imagine how I will survive.
-
Proof only exists in maths, if anyone remembers.
Anyway. If gravity isn't real like you say it can't obviously be 'proven'. If denpressure is real the possibility of 'proving' it should exist. Yet, denpressure fails to produce any predictions that we could measure and verify. I wonder why that is.
Denpressure failed the weight in vacuum chamber experiment. Simple as that. Let's do more experiments. Make predictions using denpressure and we can get on it.
Don't come the crap with me about sokarul proving anything. There's a reason why his test was as bad as it was. He's not interested in proof against what he's been indoctrinated with, nor are you or rottingroom.
Conveniently you've at no point told us how the test should be done to get the result you predicted. Nor have you made any other predictions that could be tested. So what was the story about believing in 'unproven theories' again?
You're the only one out of this little crew that's not in the bin. If you're interested in finding the truth then let's go. If you're only interested in being put off by clowns then carry on and you'll follow. Your choice, I'm happy with either.
-
Proof only exists in maths, if anyone remembers.
Anyway. If gravity isn't real like you say it can't obviously be 'proven'. If denpressure is real the possibility of 'proving' it should exist. Yet, denpressure fails to produce any predictions that we could measure and verify. I wonder why that is.
Denpressure failed the weight in vacuum chamber experiment. Simple as that. Let's do more experiments. Make predictions using denpressure and we can get on it.
Don't come the crap with me about sokarul proving anything. There's a reason why his test was as bad as it was. He's not interested in proof against what he's been indoctrinated with, nor are you or rottingroom.
Conveniently you've at no point told us how the test should be done to get the result you predicted. Nor have you made any other predictions that could be tested. So what was the story about believing in 'unproven theories' again?
You're the only one out of this little crew that's not in the bin. If you're interested in finding the truth then let's go. If you're only interested in being put off by clowns then carry on and you'll follow. Your choice, I'm happy with either.
Give me a prediction. I will measure it. I have given you examples of what could be measured and tested. I've spent a dozen posts repeating that. Are you now saying that you are in fact capable of producing a prediction? If so, let's see it.
Displacement would be a good start, say aluminium and steel blocks in water - steel being ~3x heavier, displacement is different by how much?
Then we can move on to pressure accumulation on surface of objects, which is what makes them heavy in denpressure world. Will a pressure sensor pointed at the surface give a reading, at what distance and by how much?
-
fyi steel is 7850 kg/m3, al is 2720.
-
fyi steel is 7850 kg/m3, al is 2720.
So it's 2.9 times heavier rather than ~3 times heavier, depending on alloy. I think I can live with that.
-
LOL... I can see why any thread that sceptimatic gets involved with usually stretches into 80 or 90 pages.
Today, alone, in this thread our resident mental midget has posted thirty-three comments! And each and every one of them has been a farrago of absurd, nonsensical claims unsupported by even the tiniest iota of empirical evidence.
He's still failed to define his theory of "denpressure" which he alleges is a "combination" of density and pressure, which are of course two totally different entities and can't be "combined". He can't even tell us its alleged units of measure, or whether it's a scalar or a vector quantity. It was total bullshit 6 months ago, and it's still total bullshit today.
He obviously still can't understand the differences between weight and mass, or between force and pressure. He also confuses a material's density with its porosity, and seems to have never heard of Archimedes. There's just so much basic high-school science that this poor sap doesn't understand, you'll get more intelligent responses from a trained cockatoo LOL.
It's really pointless even encouraging him further with his dimwitted comments by repeatedly responding to his each and every comment here. I guess at the very least, his presence here has similar entertainment value to Bozo the Clown at a circus.
—And they do say laughter is the best medicine. ;D
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
Bin for you as well.
You say this like it is a punishment ???
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
Bin for you as well.
You say this like it is a punishment ???
A punishment for what? the reason why I bin people is so they know not to waste their time answering me and I can deal with those that can grasp stuff without going into spasms.
When I try to explain stuff in basic, some of these people cannot grasp it because they have been mind warped to accept numbers and silly equations for what they have been told to believe and think that grasping the alterneative requires the same.
Here's a simple example.
Gravity cannot be proven at all as a force of any description, except for science to mention mass pulling mass or coming up with stupid warped space time which means absolutely nothing, except that it sounds magically scientific for those that love to hang onto this crap.
The real shocker is, they can calculate it all. Something they do not know. If you don't find that odd then I'm wasting my time trying to explain the reality.
So as far as punishment goes, it's a bit silly saying that when the reality is, these people would prefer me not to be here in the first place because I'm one mind against what they are trained to believe, same as you are and why you are following them into the bin for a week, as well.
Punishment? nah, it's basically because it's easier for me to put my thoughts out and deal with people who have a brain that can think and ignore those that simply try their best to disrupt that or basically go clueless in understanding logic and common sense.
It's easier to see "you are ignoring this user" than to have to see the words they put, knowing exactly what it's going to be.
No need to reply to this, crabby.
-
Denpressure sucks.
-
Denpressure sucks.
It's all push against push. No sucking. ;D
-
Instead of explaining, prove it.
Explanations should be easy to grasp. When you prove gravity, I'll prove denpressure. You first.
So you cannot.
Bin for you as well.
You say this like it is a punishment ???
A punishment for what? the reason why I bin people is so they know not to waste their time answering me and I can deal with those that can grasp stuff without going into spasms.
When I try to explain stuff in basic, some of these people cannot grasp it because they have been mind warped to accept numbers and silly equations for what they have been told to believe and think that grasping the alterneative requires the same.
Here's a simple example.
Gravity cannot be proven at all as a force of any description, except for science to mention mass pulling mass or coming up with stupid warped space time which means absolutely nothing, except that it sounds magically scientific for those that love to hang onto this crap.
The real shocker is, they can calculate it all. Something they do not know. If you don't find that odd then I'm wasting my time trying to explain the reality.
So as far as punishment goes, it's a bit silly saying that when the reality is, these people would prefer me not to be here in the first place because I'm one mind against what they are trained to believe, same as you are and why you are following them into the bin for a week, as well.
Punishment? nah, it's basically because it's easier for me to put my thoughts out and deal with people who have a brain that can think and ignore those that simply try their best to disrupt that or basically go clueless in understanding logic and common sense.
It's easier to see "you are ignoring this user" than to have to see the words they put, knowing exactly what it's going to be.
No need to reply to this, crabby.
tl;dr
-
sceptimatic obviously neglected to take his medications this morning.
Again. ;D
-
A little earlier in this thread, Rottingroom put up this video to supposedly kill off denpressure and prove gravity. It actually destroyed gravity and proved that my theory of denpressure is correct. Can anyone see why?
Have a good look at it from both sides of the coin and tell me what you think is happening.
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply. All you have to do is to think about what I said in this thread and use your brain.
(http://)
Edit: for those who are genuinely interested; try and look past the expected onslaught of attempted ridicule. It's normal, so don't let it sway your thoughts. Use your own brain. that's all I ask.
-
A little earlier in this thread, Rottingroom put up this video to supposedly kill off denpressure and prove gravity. It actually destroyed gravity and proved that my theory of denpressure is correct. Can anyone see why?
Have a good look at it from both sides of the coin and tell me what you think is happening.
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply. All you have to do is to think about what I said in this thread and use your brain.
(http://)
What's wrong with the explanation given at the end of the video?
Also, how does your denpressure differ from the already well understood principle of buoyancy?
-
Oh scepti is rebuttling my argument and also ignoring me. How quaint.
Nobody is denying that pressure exists. What the video was meant to illustrate is that as far as atmospheric pressure is concerned, it pushes up.
This just shows how ridiculous it is to argue with scepti. He can't even comprehend what he is reading.
-
A little earlier in this thread, Rottingroom put up this video to supposedly kill off denpressure and prove gravity. It actually destroyed gravity and proved that my theory of denpressure is correct. Can anyone see why?
Have a good look at it from both sides of the coin and tell me what you think is happening.
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply. All you have to do is to think about what I said in this thread and use your brain.
(http://)
What's wrong with the explanation given at the end of the video?
Also, how does your denpressure differ from the already well understood principle of buoyancy?
The explanation is fine, except they missed out an important part of the explanation. The reason for this is because it destroys gravity if they add it in. Something I've been trying to tell you people for long enough. Can you see what they've missed out?
-
A little earlier in this thread, Rottingroom put up this video to supposedly kill off denpressure and prove gravity. It actually destroyed gravity and proved that my theory of denpressure is correct. Can anyone see why?
Have a good look at it from both sides of the coin and tell me what you think is happening.
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply. All you have to do is to think about what I said in this thread and use your brain.
(http://)
What's wrong with the explanation given at the end of the video?
Also, how does your denpressure differ from the already well understood principle of buoyancy?
The explanation is fine, except they missed out an important part of the explanation. The reason for this is because it destroys gravity if they add it in. Something I've been trying to tell you people for long enough. Can you see what they've missed out?
No, they basically said that the vacuum pulling the water up was stronger than the gravity pulling the water down.
-
A little earlier in this thread, Rottingroom put up this video to supposedly kill off denpressure and prove gravity. It actually destroyed gravity and proved that my theory of denpressure is correct. Can anyone see why?
Have a good look at it from both sides of the coin and tell me what you think is happening.
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply. All you have to do is to think about what I said in this thread and use your brain.
(http://)
What's wrong with the explanation given at the end of the video?
Also, how does your denpressure differ from the already well understood principle of buoyancy?
The explanation is fine, except they missed out an important part of the explanation. The reason for this is because it destroys gravity if they add it in. Something I've been trying to tell you people for long enough. Can you see what they've missed out?
No, they basically said that the vacuum pulling the water up was stronger than the gravity pulling the water down.
That wasn't the explanation. It was that the air pressure underneath the card is pushing up.
-
A little earlier in this thread, Rottingroom put up this video to supposedly kill off denpressure and prove gravity. It actually destroyed gravity and proved that my theory of denpressure is correct. Can anyone see why?
Have a good look at it from both sides of the coin and tell me what you think is happening.
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply. All you have to do is to think about what I said in this thread and use your brain.
(http://)
What's wrong with the explanation given at the end of the video?
Also, how does your denpressure differ from the already well understood principle of buoyancy?
The explanation is fine, except they missed out an important part of the explanation. The reason for this is because it destroys gravity if they add it in. Something I've been trying to tell you people for long enough. Can you see what they've missed out?
No, they basically said that the vacuum pulling the water up was stronger than the gravity pulling the water down.
The vacuum pulling the water up? are you literally being serious here?
How about explaining this a little.
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure
theory religion has ever made.
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure theory religion has ever made.
That video proves absolutely 100% what I've been saying about denpressure. You just can't see it and if I explain it to the likes of you, you will still refuse to see it when it slapping you hard in the face. Why?...because your goal is not to see it.
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure theory religion has ever made.
That video proves absolutely 100% what I've been saying about denpressure. You just can't see it and if I explain it to the likes of you, you will still refuse to see it when it slapping you hard in the face. Why?...because your goal is not to see it.
Incorrect. My goal in this thread has been to squeeze enough detail about your denpressure so that it could be meaningfully tested. You don't want that to happen, fine. Then you shouldn't be saying anything about people 'believing in unproven theories', you might get the point, or not.
At least do the courtesy of telling how the scale in vacuum chamber test was wrong in your opinion. It was fake because it wasn't HD or because it destroyed your idea?
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure theory religion has ever made.
That video proves absolutely 100% what I've been saying about denpressure. You just can't see it and if I explain it to the likes of you, you will still refuse to see it when it slapping you hard in the face. Why?...because your goal is not to see it.
I bet that if we turned the cup over, the card would no longer keep the water in. We could jolt the glass upward and the water would push the card out of the way.
Seriously, you don't understand what the point of the vid was.
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure theory religion has ever made.
That video proves absolutely 100% what I've been saying about denpressure. You just can't see it and if I explain it to the likes of you, you will still refuse to see it when it slapping you hard in the face. Why?...because your goal is not to see it.
Incorrect. My goal in this thread has been to squeeze enough detail about your denpressure so that it could be meaningfully tested. You don't want that to happen, fine. Then you shouldn't be saying anything about people 'believing in unproven theories', you might get the point, or not.
At least do the courtesy of telling how the scale in vacuum chamber test was wrong in your opinion. It was fake because it wasn't HD or because it destroyed your idea?
Do you know what's happening in the video. If so, explain it. You can yap on all you want about testing this and that. The proof is in your face. It doesn't require figures and crap equations to see that gravity is an absolute pile of crap and denpressure is reality.
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure theory religion has ever made.
That video proves absolutely 100% what I've been saying about denpressure. You just can't see it and if I explain it to the likes of you, you will still refuse to see it when it slapping you hard in the face. Why?...because your goal is not to see it.
Incorrect. My goal in this thread has been to squeeze enough detail about your denpressure so that it could be meaningfully tested. You don't want that to happen, fine. Then you shouldn't be saying anything about people 'believing in unproven theories', you might get the point, or not.
At least do the courtesy of telling how the scale in vacuum chamber test was wrong in your opinion. It was fake because it wasn't HD or because it destroyed your idea?
Do you know what's happening in the video. If so, explain it. You can yap on all you want about testing this and that. The proof is in your face. It doesn't require figures and crap equations to see that gravity is an absolute pile of crap and denpressure is reality.
What's happening is that the card keeps the water from spreading apart and falling out, because with the card the water acts more like a solid object. It's like a piston in a cylinder. Vacuum forms on the closed top of the inverted glass preventing the 'piston' from leaving the 'cylinder'. That is my understanding of it, knowing that the water won't stay in there if you take the card off. You might deny that ofc and argue that denpressure keeps the water in there with or without the card, that's your prerogative.
Proof is in that denpressure has failed and will fail any practical test. You're so sure of yourself why don't you enlighten us on how much more water a steel block displaces than an aluminium block of same size. It's because you know full well that your idea is a failure, that's my guess. How did that story of yours go again, the one about people believing in unproven ideas?
-
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply.
I can see the pressure reason for this, just not the den bit.
Take us through it big boy.
-
]The vacuum pulling the water up? are you literally being serious here?
How about explaining this a little.
Here is excerpt from a site with a more detailed explanation:
Isn’t the weight of the water enough to overcome the atmospheric pressure pushing against the card? That’s what most people would think, but if you look at the top of the glass of water (formerly the bottom), you’ll notice a small pocket of air. Actually there isn’t much of an opportunity for air to get into that space, so what we’ve created is a small pocket of low pressure (a place where there really isn’t that many air molecules). There are more air molecules pushing up against the bottom of the note card, creating a higher pressure area compared with the lower pressure area inside the air pocket in the glass. The force from the atmospheric pressure holds the card up and the low pressure zone in the glass prevents the water’s weight from pushing the card down.
So yes, a small volume of low pressure, also known as a (partial) vacuum.
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure theory religion has ever made.
That video proves absolutely 100% what I've been saying about denpressure. You just can't see it and if I explain it to the likes of you, you will still refuse to see it when it slapping you hard in the face. Why?...because your goal is not to see it.
Incorrect. My goal in this thread has been to squeeze enough detail about your denpressure so that it could be meaningfully tested. You don't want that to happen, fine. Then you shouldn't be saying anything about people 'believing in unproven theories', you might get the point, or not.
At least do the courtesy of telling how the scale in vacuum chamber test was wrong in your opinion. It was fake because it wasn't HD or because it destroyed your idea?
Do you know what's happening in the video. If so, explain it. You can yap on all you want about testing this and that. The proof is in your face. It doesn't require figures and crap equations to see that gravity is an absolute pile of crap and denpressure is reality.
What's happening is that the card keeps the water from spreading apart and falling out, because with the card the water acts more like a solid object. It's like a piston in a cylinder. Vacuum forms on the closed top of the inverted glass preventing the 'piston' from leaving the 'cylinder'. That is my understanding of it, knowing that the water won't stay in there if you take the card off. You might deny that ofc and argue that denpressure keeps the water in there with or without the card, that's your prerogative.
Proof is in that denpressure has failed and will fail any practical test. You're so sure of yourself why don't you enlighten us on how much more water a steel block displaces than an aluminium block of same size. It's because you know full well that your idea is a failure, that's my guess. How did that story of yours go again, the one about people believing in unproven ideas?
Ok, let me explain what is really happening in that video.
Now before I go into it, I want you to remember what I said about atmospheric pressure upon any dense mass/object.
When the glass is filled up and the card is placed over the glass then turned upside down, you will notice that there is always a small amount of space at the top of the upturned jar.
This is not a vacuum. It is a very low pressure atmpshere. The massive difference is that the upturned glass botton is now acting as a barrier against the force of atmospheric pressure pushing down, so it can't do it.
This means that the atmospheric resistance under the water in that glass, is much greater than the density (remember this) of the water inside of the glass, so the water cannot be pushed out of the glass unless you were to pierce a hole in the upturned bottom to allow it to happen.
Denpressure, not gravity.
If you make above pressure lower than below resistance, you create a barrier against any density.
It's the reason why your corned beef won't fall out of the tin to irritation of people. All they have to do when opened, is to pierce the other lid and bingo, atmospheric pressure to your rescue.
Now can you understand it or are you going to deny it?
-
]The vacuum pulling the water up? are you literally being serious here?
How about explaining this a little.
Here is excerpt from a site with a more detailed explanation:
Isn’t the weight of the water enough to overcome the atmospheric pressure pushing against the card? That’s what most people would think, but if you look at the top of the glass of water (formerly the bottom), you’ll notice a small pocket of air. Actually there isn’t much of an opportunity for air to get into that space, so what we’ve created is a small pocket of low pressure (a place where there really isn’t that many air molecules). There are more air molecules pushing up against the bottom of the note card, creating a higher pressure area compared with the lower pressure area inside the air pocket in the glass. The force from the atmospheric pressure holds the card up and the low pressure zone in the glass prevents the water’s weight from pushing the card down.
So yes, a small volume of low pressure, also known as a (partial) vacuum.
Weirdly that explanation was nearly there, except they're leaving out the killer blow for obvious reasons, because to add the reality in, it destroys gravity.
-
So again scepti is admitting that atmospheric pressure pushes up.
-
Pressure is a real thing. Noone has denied that. It just has nothing to do with denpressure. And it doesn't hurt gravity in any way. Unlike the lack of accurate predictions that denpressure theory religion has ever made.
That video proves absolutely 100% what I've been saying about denpressure. You just can't see it and if I explain it to the likes of you, you will still refuse to see it when it slapping you hard in the face. Why?...because your goal is not to see it.
Incorrect. My goal in this thread has been to squeeze enough detail about your denpressure so that it could be meaningfully tested. You don't want that to happen, fine. Then you shouldn't be saying anything about people 'believing in unproven theories', you might get the point, or not.
At least do the courtesy of telling how the scale in vacuum chamber test was wrong in your opinion. It was fake because it wasn't HD or because it destroyed your idea?
Do you know what's happening in the video. If so, explain it. You can yap on all you want about testing this and that. The proof is in your face. It doesn't require figures and crap equations to see that gravity is an absolute pile of crap and denpressure is reality.
What's happening is that the card keeps the water from spreading apart and falling out, because with the card the water acts more like a solid object. It's like a piston in a cylinder. Vacuum forms on the closed top of the inverted glass preventing the 'piston' from leaving the 'cylinder'. That is my understanding of it, knowing that the water won't stay in there if you take the card off. You might deny that ofc and argue that denpressure keeps the water in there with or without the card, that's your prerogative.
Proof is in that denpressure has failed and will fail any practical test. You're so sure of yourself why don't you enlighten us on how much more water a steel block displaces than an aluminium block of same size. It's because you know full well that your idea is a failure, that's my guess. How did that story of yours go again, the one about people believing in unproven ideas?
Ok, let me explain what is really happening in that video.
Now before I go into it, I want you to remember what I said about atmospheric pressure upon any dense mass/object.
When the glass is filled up and the card is placed over the glass then turned upside down, you will notice that there is always a small amount of space at the top of the upturned jar.
This is not a vacuum. It is a very low pressure atmpshere. The massive difference is that the upturned glass botton is now acting as a barrier against the force of atmospheric pressure pushing down, so it can't do it.
okay then.
This means that the atmospheric resistance under the water in that glass, is much greater than the density (remember this) of the water inside of the glass,
What? Atmospheric resistance, which I guess is denpressurese for one or other pressure-like thing, is greater than density? Apples and oranges man. Pressure is force per area and density is mass per volume, neither is greater than the other because they're totally different and unrelated things.
so the water cannot be pushed out of the glass unless you were to pierce a hole in the upturned bottom to allow it to happen.
This part seems to be true.
Denpressure, not gravity.
If you make above pressure lower than below resistance, you create a barrier against any density.
What is 'a barrier against density'? Try to not invent your own terminology, this is really difficult to follow.
It's the reason why your corned beef won't fall out of the tin to irritation of people. All they have to do when opened, is to pierce the other lid and bingo, atmospheric pressure to your rescue.
Now can you understand it or are you going to deny it?
I'm inclined to say yes, on both accounts. I kinda sort of get what you're trying to say but it's still bullshit. Yes, pressure differentials can do a lot. But replacing gravity is not on that list.
Can you say what is causing the vac... low pressure atmosphere in the glass when it's turned upside down to begin with - and as a consequence of that, why does the water fall out without the card?? Upside down glass is shielding the water from all directions except from below, where almighty air pressure is pushing it up, why does it fall??
-
Weirdly that explanation was nearly there, except they're leaving out the killer blow for obvious reasons, because to add the reality in, it destroys gravity.
No, it defies gravity. There's a difference.
Now when were you going to explain the difference between denpressure and buoyancy?
-
What? Atmospheric resistance, which I guess is denpressurese for one or other pressure-like thing, is greater than density? Apples and oranges man. Pressure is force per area and density is mass per volume, neither is greater than the other because they're totally different and unrelated things.
Remember when I said that denpressure is a push down force against resistance to that push?
Take a look at the glass and the card covering that glass. The atmospheric pressure is pushing down on the card sticking out from the glass but equal resistance is exerting the same force back under that card. Ok, have we got this?
Now then, the bottom of the upturned glass has a small amount of atmospheric pressure still inside it but it's extremely small compared to what is outside of it. The atmospheric pressure is pushing down on the glass bottom but that's all it can do because it cannot get in to equalise due to the bottom of the glass acting as a barrier.
This means that the amount of water in the glass is under minimal push from the little bit of trapped air inside which is no match for pushing the water out of the glass to overcome the atmospheric resistance of the atmosphere under the card.
The dense water cannot overcome it without that atmospheric push from above.
The apple and orange is a different thing because they are under that push from above so that density of the apple or orange is easily pushed through the resistant atmosphere below.
What is 'a barrier against density'? Try to not invent your own terminology, this is really difficult to follow.
The barrier is air resistance to the density of the water.
Can you say what is causing the vac... low pressure atmosphere in the glass when it's turned upside down to begin with
The lower pressure is because of the small amount of air trapped that cannot push with any force to overcome the larger force below the water due to the glass bottom creating a barrier against that push down pressure from above.
- and as a consequence of that, why does the water fall out without the card??
Because atmospheric pressure is always trying to equalise and if you give it a weak spot by taking away the card, it will simply push into the inside of the glass and force teh water out by a pressure push down as it always tries to equalise. It's about finding the wek point, which the card does not allow.
If you were to drill many holes in the middle of that card, the water would still not fall out because the atmosphere still cannot displace the water to get in and equalise. Drill near the edges and you make the passage easier for the pressure to get in.
Upside down glass is shielding the water from all directions except from below, where almighty air pressure is pushing it up, why does it fall??
Air pressure is not pushing it up. The air pressure is resisting the weak push on the water from the low pressure air inside.
-
Weirdly that explanation was nearly there, except they're leaving out the killer blow for obvious reasons, because to add the reality in, it destroys gravity.
No, it defies gravity. There's a difference.
Now when were you going to explain the difference between denpressure and buoyancy?
Of course it defies gravity, because gravity doesn't exist. I've just destroyed it by explaining what's happening.
When you explain buoyancy in your own words, we'll talk.
-
Air pressure is not pushing it up. The air pressure is resisting the weak push on the water from the low pressure air inside.
Why isn't it pushing up? There's a weak pressure in the glass, and a greater pressure on the outside, and pressure always pushes towards the weaker pressure side as you've pointed out in that dry leaves don't fly against the wind, so the water should be just pushed up. In every other context pressure pushes in every direction, at every surface it can reach. Are you saying that air pressure doesn't apply in 'up' direction?
-
This really looks no different then pushing a straw in a glass of water and then putting your finger over the top. The water will stay in the straw. The air on top of the water, I would think, doesn't have enough pressure to force the water down. The more air on top will eventually push the water out the bottom.
-
This really looks no different then pushing a straw in a glass of water and then putting your finger over the top. The water will stay in the straw. The air on top of the water, I would think, doesn't have enough pressure to force the water down. The more air on top will eventually push the water out the bottom.
That's exactly what it is.
-
This really looks no different then pushing a straw in a glass of water and then putting your finger over the top. The water will stay in the straw. The air on top of the water, I would think, doesn't have enough pressure to force the water down. The more air on top will eventually push the water out the bottom.
That's exactly what it is.
If that's the case then let's try again. Only this time after you've covered the straw with your finger, let's turn the straw around so that your finger is on the bottom and the water is on top. Remove your finger. Do you now think the extra air at what is now the bottom will push the water out of the top?
-
Weirdly that explanation was nearly there, except they're leaving out the killer blow for obvious reasons, because to add the reality in, it destroys gravity.
No, it defies gravity. There's a difference.
Now when were you going to explain the difference between denpressure and buoyancy?
Of course it defies gravity, because gravity doesn't exist. I've just destroyed it by explaining what's happening.
When you explain buoyancy in your own words, we'll talk.
I already did:
If you can tell me how you think buoyancy works in atmosphere, I'll be glad to expand on it.
Here is a kid's level explanation (http://mocomi.com/buoyancy/) and here is an adult level explanation (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pbuoy.html).
Basically, buoyancy is the tendency for less dense objects to float on top of a more dense medium. This is the principle that causes the less dense hot air in a balloons to rise into the cooler air of the atmosphere or for less dense wood to float on top of more dense water. Now, how does your denpressure differ from buoyancy?
-
A little earlier in this thread, Rottingroom put up [a] video to supposedly kill off denpressure and prove gravity. It actually destroyed gravity and proved that my theory of denpressure is correct.
There is NO "theory" of the imaginary "denpressure" beyond the limits of your blood-brain barrier sceptimatic. It's nothing more than a fanciful word you made up to purportedly explain your alternative notion about the effects of gravity we see around us every day. You've not once described its units of measurement, or how exactly it affects a mass, or any experiment that—at the very least—vaguely supports its existence.
If no one sees why denpressure is the reason for this, I will explain it very simply. All you have to do is to think about what I said in this thread and use your brain.
LOL... and sceptimatic is telling us to use our brains! This is just so funny considering that he seems totally unable to do the same thing.
For those who are genuinely interested; try and look past the expected onslaught of attempted ridicule.
Poor old sceptimatic doesn't seem to understand that our ridicule of both him personally, and his hare-brained notions is not merely "attempted"—it's a successful certainty.
-
Why isn't it pushing up? There's a weak pressure in the glass, and a greater pressure on the outside, and pressure always pushes towards the weaker pressure side as you've pointed out in that dry leaves don't fly against the wind, so the water should be just pushed up. In every other context pressure pushes in every direction, at every surface it can reach. Are you saying that air pressure doesn't apply in 'up' direction?
That's just the point though. Nothing is pushed up unless tehre is energy to do that.
Without someone or something applying that energy, then it's all a push down on any mass/density.
Getting back to the video.
The atmosphere isn't pushing up. It's resisting a push down from the weaker air in the upturned glass. It is never pushing up, it's pushing back, and as soon as people grasp this, they will understand that pushing back against a force is far different than pushing up, because pushing up implies a energy/force but pushing back, implies a resistance and this is the key.
The similarities to gravity and atmospheric pressure are there for all to see. the con is in the explanation they give.
-
Weirdly that explanation was nearly there, except they're leaving out the killer blow for obvious reasons, because to add the reality in, it destroys gravity.
No, it defies gravity. There's a difference.
Now when were you going to explain the difference between denpressure and buoyancy?
Of course it defies gravity, because gravity doesn't exist. I've just destroyed it by explaining what's happening.
When you explain buoyancy in your own words, we'll talk.
I already did:
If you can tell me how you think buoyancy works in atmosphere, I'll be glad to expand on it.
Here is a kid's level explanation (http://mocomi.com/buoyancy/) and here is an adult level explanation (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pbuoy.html).
Basically, buoyancy is the tendency for less dense objects to float on top of a more dense medium. This is the principle that causes the less dense hot air in a balloons to rise into the cooler air of the atmosphere or for less dense wood to float on top of more dense water. Now, how does your denpressure differ from buoyancy?
It's basically in the explanation given. They tell you, you can't have buoyancy without gravity. It's bullcrap.
As long as you can create a low pressure barrier between any dense object in the air, you will have buoyancy. If you keep creating a low pressure barrier by using energy (like heating the air) you will then be squeezed upwards, as long as energy is applied.
-
Why isn't it pushing up? There's a weak pressure in the glass, and a greater pressure on the outside, and pressure always pushes towards the weaker pressure side as you've pointed out in that dry leaves don't fly against the wind, so the water should be just pushed up. In every other context pressure pushes in every direction, at every surface it can reach. Are you saying that air pressure doesn't apply in 'up' direction?
That's just the point though. Nothing is pushed up unless tehre is energy to do that.
Without someone or something applying that energy, then it's all a push down on any mass/density.
Getting back to the video.
The atmosphere isn't pushing up. It's resisting a push down from the weaker air in the upturned glass. It is never pushing up, it's pushing back, and as soon as people grasp this, they will understand that pushing back against a force is far different than pushing up, because pushing up implies a energy/force but pushing back, implies a resistance and this is the key.
The similarities to gravity and atmospheric pressure are there for all to see. the con is in the explanation they give.
So you really are saying that atmospheric pressure does not push anything up, it can resist a push coming from above but won't actually push up, is that right?
-
Why isn't it pushing up? There's a weak pressure in the glass, and a greater pressure on the outside, and pressure always pushes towards the weaker pressure side as you've pointed out in that dry leaves don't fly against the wind, so the water should be just pushed up. In every other context pressure pushes in every direction, at every surface it can reach. Are you saying that air pressure doesn't apply in 'up' direction?
That's just the point though. Nothing is pushed up unless tehre is energy to do that.
Without someone or something applying that energy, then it's all a push down on any mass/density.
Getting back to the video.
The atmosphere isn't pushing up. It's resisting a push down from the weaker air in the upturned glass. It is never pushing up, it's pushing back, and as soon as people grasp this, they will understand that pushing back against a force is far different than pushing up, because pushing up implies a energy/force but pushing back, implies a resistance and this is the key.
The similarities to gravity and atmospheric pressure are there for all to see. the con is in the explanation they give.
So you really are saying that atmospheric pressure does not push anything up, it can resist a push coming from above but won't actually push up, is that right?
Correct. Only energy can push it up.
Just like anything on Earth (bear in mind it's not a globe), everything is pushed up by energy applied. A tree, gas, eruptions, etc...everything.
Getting back to the video. Once that glass is lifted up and the card put under it, it's now a case of water being the dense object picked up by energy but it cannot be forced back down by atmospherc pressure due to two things.
1. You holding the atual glass.
2.The weak force of atmospheric pressure left in that glass that cannot be acted on by the atmospheric pressure from above due to the glass bottom creating a barrier to that, along with your energy keeping the glass in that pressure.
The atmosphere wants to push your arms and glass down but your energy resists that as well.
There is no gravity pulling anything down and nothing pushing anything up. It's atmospheric pressure pushing down against mass/density against atmospheric push BACK/resistance.
Gravity does not exist, 100% certain. It's a made up load of garbage to make a global Earth fit what they tell us.
-
lol
-
When you explain buoyancy in your own words, we'll talk.
I already did:
If you can tell me how you think buoyancy works in atmosphere, I'll be glad to expand on it.
Here is a kid's level explanation (http://mocomi.com/buoyancy/) and here is an adult level explanation (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pbuoy.html).
Basically, buoyancy is the tendency for less dense objects to float on top of a more dense medium. This is the principle that causes the less dense hot air in a balloons to rise into the cooler air of the atmosphere or for less dense wood to float on top of more dense water. Now, how does your denpressure differ from buoyancy?
It's basically in the explanation given.
Okay, so instead of calling it "denpressure", we can just call it buoyancy. Good to know.
They tell you, you can't have buoyancy without gravity. It's bullcrap.
As long as you can create a low pressure barrier between any dense object in the air, you will have buoyancy.
Except that gravity is what causes the heavier, more dense things to sink to the bottom. In some ways, gravity is pretty much the opposite action of buoyancy.
If you keep creating a low pressure barrier by using energy (like heating the air) you will then be squeezed upwards, as long as energy is applied.
What if we're talking about a less dense object like a beach ball floating on top of water with no energy used?
-
Okay, so instead of calling it "denpressure", we can just call it buoyancy. Good to know.
You can only call it buoyancy when energy is applied in an upward motion. They are two different things.
Denpressure is atmospheric pressure acting against any mass/density that is placed within it.
On the other hand, you can call buoyancy when energy moves a mass/density up into the atmosphere or holds it in the atmosphere, if you like.
Two things to get your head around.
No gravity required - ever.
Except that gravity is what causes the heavier, more dense things to sink to the bottom. In some ways, gravity is pretty much the opposite action of buoyancy.
Weirdly, so is denpressure when you look at it that way. Strange eh?
What if we're talking about a less dense object like a beach ball floating on top of water with no energy used?
It's still under pressure but only on the skin of the beach ball. The rest is equalised with the air, so the air is only exerting a tiny force against the mass of water. No contest and the ball sits proudly on top of the water.
Use your energy to push that ball off the water and the atmospheric pressure will push it back onto the water, against that water resistance.
-
Except that gravity is what causes the heavier, more dense things to sink to the bottom. In some ways, gravity is pretty much the opposite action of buoyancy.
Weirdly, so is denpressure when you look at it that way. Strange eh?
No, not really. Denpressure is saying that pressure is pushing the objects down in the same way that buoyancy pushes an object up but in the atmosphere pressure is always greater below than it is above, hence why buoyancy happens. So if pressure is not greater above, then pressure cannot be the cause. Period.
-
Scepti, have you discovered this denpressure since coming to TFES or did you know it before?
-
Scepti, have you discovered this denpressure since coming to TFES or did you know it before?
To discover something, it must exist in the first place. He just made it up so stop kidding yourself. The fact that you can read these threads and not be convinced that he is wrong says a lot about your intellectual honesty.
I honestly had more hope for you because of the time when you were taking pictures of chesapeake bay and were, slowly but surely, proving to yourself that the earth is in fact round. I don't know what has happened since then, but the concept of intellectual honesty seems to have escaped your mind.
-
Scepti, have you discovered this denpressure since coming to TFES or did you know it before?
This place pushed me to go deep into stuff and critically think on this Earth situation.
If it wasn't for the theories on here to pick pieces from, I wouldn't have came up with denpressure.
It took some serious, serious jigsaw work to figure it all out and I'm still only a fraction there.
One thing for sure though. Denpressure is what gravity is and it destroys the globe and space as they tell us.
-
Scepti, have you discovered this denpressure since coming to TFES or did you know it before?
To discover something, it must exist in the first place. He just made it up so stop kidding yourself. The fact that you can read these threads and not be convinced that he is wrong says a lot about your intellectual honesty.
I honestly had more hope for you because of the time when you were taking pictures of chesapeake bay and were, slowly but surely, proving to yourself that the earth is in fact round. I don't know what has happened since then, but the concept of intellectual honesty seems to have escaped your mind.
Scepti seems to have no idea that hoppy is taking the piss.
-
If it wasn't for the theories on here to pick pieces from, I wouldn't have came up with denpressure.
Like what?
-
Scepti, have you discovered this denpressure since coming to TFES or did you know it before?
This place pushed me to go deep into stuff and critically think on this Earth situation.
If it wasn't for the theories on here to pick pieces from, I wouldn't have came up with denpressure.
It took some serious, serious jigsaw work to figure it all out and I'm still only a fraction there.
One thing for sure though. Denpressure is what gravity is and it destroys the globe and space as they tell us.
I mean seriously, how can this comment be interpreted to show anything but the fact that author is completely nuts?
It isn't hard. He agrees and we in fact all agree that pressure exists and that it pushes things from high pressure to low. So we measure atmospheric pressure and it goes from high at the surface to less with greater altitude. Then notice the initial observation that we set to explain... things falling down. So then ask yourself again, should we say that pressure causes this?
-
... I'm still only a fraction there.
This, I believe.
-
Why isn't it pushing up? There's a weak pressure in the glass, and a greater pressure on the outside, and pressure always pushes towards the weaker pressure side as you've pointed out in that dry leaves don't fly against the wind, so the water should be just pushed up. In every other context pressure pushes in every direction, at every surface it can reach. Are you saying that air pressure doesn't apply in 'up' direction?
That's just the point though. Nothing is pushed up unless tehre is energy to do that.
Without someone or something applying that energy, then it's all a push down on any mass/density.
Getting back to the video.
The atmosphere isn't pushing up. It's resisting a push down from the weaker air in the upturned glass. It is never pushing up, it's pushing back, and as soon as people grasp this, they will understand that pushing back against a force is far different than pushing up, because pushing up implies a energy/force but pushing back, implies a resistance and this is the key.
The similarities to gravity and atmospheric pressure are there for all to see. the con is in the explanation they give.
So you really are saying that atmospheric pressure does not push anything up, it can resist a push coming from above but won't actually push up, is that right?
Correct. Only energy can push it up.
Just like anything on Earth (bear in mind it's not a globe), everything is pushed up by energy applied. A tree, gas, eruptions, etc...everything.
Getting back to the video. Once that glass is lifted up and the card put under it, it's now a case of water being the dense object picked up by energy but it cannot be forced back down by atmospherc pressure due to two things.
1. You holding the atual glass.
2.The weak force of atmospheric pressure left in that glass that cannot be acted on by the atmospheric pressure from above due to the glass bottom creating a barrier to that, along with your energy keeping the glass in that pressure.
The atmosphere wants to push your arms and glass down but your energy resists that as well.
There is no gravity pulling anything down and nothing pushing anything up. It's atmospheric pressure pushing down against mass/density against atmospheric push BACK/resistance.
Gravity does not exist, 100% certain. It's a made up load of garbage to make a global Earth fit what they tell us.
Can you explain it using this example: I draw air out of a cylinder's top part, the plunger inside comes up because..?
-
Why isn't it pushing up? There's a weak pressure in the glass, and a greater pressure on the outside, and pressure always pushes towards the weaker pressure side as you've pointed out in that dry leaves don't fly against the wind, so the water should be just pushed up. In every other context pressure pushes in every direction, at every surface it can reach. Are you saying that air pressure doesn't apply in 'up' direction?
That's just the point though. Nothing is pushed up unless tehre is energy to do that.
Without someone or something applying that energy, then it's all a push down on any mass/density.
Getting back to the video.
The atmosphere isn't pushing up. It's resisting a push down from the weaker air in the upturned glass. It is never pushing up, it's pushing back, and as soon as people grasp this, they will understand that pushing back against a force is far different than pushing up, because pushing up implies a energy/force but pushing back, implies a resistance and this is the key.
The similarities to gravity and atmospheric pressure are there for all to see. the con is in the explanation they give.
So you really are saying that atmospheric pressure does not push anything up, it can resist a push coming from above but won't actually push up, is that right?
Correct. Only energy can push it up.
Just like anything on Earth (bear in mind it's not a globe), everything is pushed up by energy applied. A tree, gas, eruptions, etc...everything.
Getting back to the video. Once that glass is lifted up and the card put under it, it's now a case of water being the dense object picked up by energy but it cannot be forced back down by atmospherc pressure due to two things.
1. You holding the atual glass.
2.The weak force of atmospheric pressure left in that glass that cannot be acted on by the atmospheric pressure from above due to the glass bottom creating a barrier to that, along with your energy keeping the glass in that pressure.
The atmosphere wants to push your arms and glass down but your energy resists that as well.
There is no gravity pulling anything down and nothing pushing anything up. It's atmospheric pressure pushing down against mass/density against atmospheric push BACK/resistance.
Gravity does not exist, 100% certain. It's a made up load of garbage to make a global Earth fit what they tell us.
Can you explain it using this example: I draw air out of a cylinder's top part, the plunger inside comes up because..?
You draw out the air creating a lower pressure at the top which is transfered from above to force the air below to compress back into the cylinder, which pushes up the plunger to equalise the pressure.
The air is not pushing up from the bottom on it's own to fill the void, if that's what you're thinking.
To prove it, just think of having a drink through a straw, because this is what you're explaining, except you're using air as the example. The same thing happens.
For instance: when you suck on a straw, you create the low pressure you're talking about with the cylinder.
This forces the air you sucked out into the air above which compresses the water and forces it up te straw.
Can you see what I mean?
-
So despite air pressure being more at lower elevations than higher elevations, it does not push upward?
Also, (since I don't recall it ever really being explained) if there is no gravity attracting water, air, and objects toward the ground, then why is air pressure and denpressure directional?
Shouldn't air pressure equalize between high and low elevations?
-
Why isn't it pushing up? There's a weak pressure in the glass, and a greater pressure on the outside, and pressure always pushes towards the weaker pressure side as you've pointed out in that dry leaves don't fly against the wind, so the water should be just pushed up. In every other context pressure pushes in every direction, at every surface it can reach. Are you saying that air pressure doesn't apply in 'up' direction?
That's just the point though. Nothing is pushed up unless tehre is energy to do that.
Without someone or something applying that energy, then it's all a push down on any mass/density.
Getting back to the video.
The atmosphere isn't pushing up. It's resisting a push down from the weaker air in the upturned glass. It is never pushing up, it's pushing back, and as soon as people grasp this, they will understand that pushing back against a force is far different than pushing up, because pushing up implies a energy/force but pushing back, implies a resistance and this is the key.
The similarities to gravity and atmospheric pressure are there for all to see. the con is in the explanation they give.
So you really are saying that atmospheric pressure does not push anything up, it can resist a push coming from above but won't actually push up, is that right?
Correct. Only energy can push it up.
Just like anything on Earth (bear in mind it's not a globe), everything is pushed up by energy applied. A tree, gas, eruptions, etc...everything.
Getting back to the video. Once that glass is lifted up and the card put under it, it's now a case of water being the dense object picked up by energy but it cannot be forced back down by atmospherc pressure due to two things.
1. You holding the atual glass.
2.The weak force of atmospheric pressure left in that glass that cannot be acted on by the atmospheric pressure from above due to the glass bottom creating a barrier to that, along with your energy keeping the glass in that pressure.
The atmosphere wants to push your arms and glass down but your energy resists that as well.
There is no gravity pulling anything down and nothing pushing anything up. It's atmospheric pressure pushing down against mass/density against atmospheric push BACK/resistance.
Gravity does not exist, 100% certain. It's a made up load of garbage to make a global Earth fit what they tell us.
Can you explain it using this example: I draw air out of a cylinder's top part, the plunger inside comes up because..?
You draw out the air creating a lower pressure at the top which is transfered from above to force the air below to compress back into the cylinder, which pushes up the plunger to equalise the pressure.
The air is not pushing up from the bottom on it's own to fill the void, if that's what you're thinking.
To prove it, just think of having a drink through a straw, because this is what you're explaining, except you're using air as the example. The same thing happens.
For instance: when you suck on a straw, you create the low pressure you're talking about with the cylinder.
This forces the air you sucked out into the air above which compresses the water and forces it up te straw.
Can you see what I mean?
I think I do see what you mean, what I can not see is how you can think that could actually happen. Pulling air out of the cylinder, with a bit of tube I can lead that air out of the room, or out the window, and you're suggesting that increases the atmospheric pressure in my whole neighborhood and then very specifically my plunger in my cylinder twitches upwards. And with the drinking straw, the air I suck out of the straw doesn't immediately end up in the open atmosphere at all, it's hard to see how that is going to push any drink up through the straw.
-
So despite air pressure being more at lower elevations than higher elevations, it does not push upward?
It can never push upwards unless you apply energy to make it do so. It cannot do it on it's own.
Also, (since I don't recall it ever really being explained) if there is no gravity attracting water, air, and objects toward the ground, then why is air pressure and denpressure directional?
Because it is stacked from the bottom up, all the way to the dome.
Shouldn't air pressure equalize between high and low elevations?
It always is trying to equalise but never does, which is why we are alive. It has to always be an action and reaction of pressures. It's basically vibrational frequencies by energy applied.
It's like a cycle that changes variations but never stops. When it does, we are dead.
A simple wave of you hand. A bonk of an eye. Anything. It's always creating a high versus low pressure, just like your body is and everything else is.
-
I think I do see what you mean, what I can not see is how you can think that could actually happen. Pulling air out of the cylinder, with a bit of tube I can lead that air out of the room, or out the window, and you're suggesting that increases the atmospheric pressure in my whole neighborhood and then very specifically my plunger in my cylinder twitches upwards. And with the drinking straw, the air I suck out of the straw doesn't immediately end up in the open atmosphere at all, it's hard to see how that is going to push any drink up through the straw.
It doesn't matter what you do and where you think it goes. It's happening.
Look, I'll make it easier by using a water analogy so you understand what I'm saying.
Imagine you are underwater. You have a cylinder underwater that's also full of water. Basically it's equalised with the water.
You now suck out the water from the top of the cylinder and by doing this, you've made a lower pressure in that part. Now by sucking that water out, you can either spit it out which you would have to do anyway or you keep it in and have hamster cheeks, because either way you are putting that pressure back into the water by face expansion of water ejection, which immediately equalises into the other side of the cylinder and pushes the plunger up.
It doesn't matter whether you are in the ocean or a swimming pool, or even the bath. The same thing applies. Your energy sucking (action) which you either spit out the water, or breathe out if it was in the atmosphere and then a reaction from that which exerts that pressure right back to the other side.
It's not a case of the atmosphere just falling any old way. It has to be like for like, always. that's how it works.
-
I think I do see what you mean, what I can not see is how you can think that could actually happen. Pulling air out of the cylinder, with a bit of tube I can lead that air out of the room, or out the window, and you're suggesting that increases the atmospheric pressure in my whole neighborhood and then very specifically my plunger in my cylinder twitches upwards. And with the drinking straw, the air I suck out of the straw doesn't immediately end up in the open atmosphere at all, it's hard to see how that is going to push any drink up through the straw.
It doesn't matter what you do and where you think it goes. It's happening.
Look, I'll make it easier by using a water analogy so you understand what I'm saying.
Imagine you are underwater. You have a cylinder underwater that's also full of water. Basically it's equalised with the water.
You now suck out the water from the top of the cylinder and by doing this, you've made a lower pressure in that part. Now by sucking that water out, you can either spit it out which you would have to do anyway or you keep it in and have hamster cheeks, because either way you are putting that pressure back into the water by face expansion of water ejection, which immediately equalises into the other side of the cylinder and pushes the plunger up.
It doesn't matter whether you are in the ocean or a swimming pool, or even the bath. The same thing applies. Your energy sucking (action) which you either spit out the water, or breathe out if it was in the atmosphere and then a reaction from that which exerts that pressure right back to the other side.
It's not a case of the atmosphere just falling any old way. It has to be like for like, always. that's how it works.
That doesn't help. I can easily keep a couple cc of fluid in my mouth without puffing my cheeks out like a hamster, and it doesn't matter if we're in water or air. The problems are that
1) air from a small cylinder that goes in the open atmosphere equalizes there, and any change in pressure in the area is going to be so ludicrously small that it's not even measurable, let alone strong enough to lift any object even if the rise in ambient pressure could to that in the first place
2) only a specific item is lifted by a rise in local ambient pressure and there is no reason why that should happen, why won't other objects go up
3) plunger also rises when the air removed from cylinder is drawn into a rigid container so it has no effect on ambient pressure
More practical problems in earlier posts that you have ignored, in case you want to address them.
Do you realize that your response to silhouette did not answer his question on why there is a higher pressure at lower elevation? You just said that that's how it is.
-
That doesn't help. I can easily keep a couple cc of fluid in my mouth without puffing my cheeks out like a hamster, and it doesn't matter if we're in water or air. The problems are that
I was hoping that you would allow your logic to go with this. It would help if you give it some serious thought.
Whether you kept the water in your mouth and tried your best to not look like a hamster, you're still adding that water which is under pressure and if you don't release it, you don't push the plunger in the other side as you still have that pressure in your mouth pushing back into the straw. Can you see what I'm saying?
1) air from a small cylinder that goes in the open atmosphere equalizes there, and any change in pressure in the area is going to be so ludicrously small that it's not even measurable, let alone strong enough to lift any object even if the rise in ambient pressure could to that in the first place
Any air you suck from a cylinder....Ok let's use a bottle with the top off. You suck on that bottle and the air you suck out goes into the atmosphere as pressure back towards the bottle top but your tiongue is in the way and creating a seal, so it tries to push past your tongue.
Basically it's trying to push your tongue into the bottle until it can equalise that pressure you took from it. Action and equal and opposite reaction.
2) only a specific item is lifted by a rise in local ambient pressure and there is no reason why that should happen, why won't other objects go up
If you don't apply energy, then nothing can be pushed up.
3) plunger also rises when the air removed from cylinder is drawn into a rigid container so it has no effect on ambient pressure
You'll have to expand on this because I'm not quite sure what you mean. Plus, you are now making understanding it hard for yourself when you were starting to grasp it. Maybe you don;t want to grasp it.
More practical problems in earlier posts that you have ignored, in case you want to address them.
This is now telling me what yo7ur goal is. You're close to going in the bin.
Do you realize that your response to silhouette did not answer his question on why there is a higher pressure at lower elevation? You just said that that's how it is.
No more need to reply, you're binned. People like you aren't inetrested in understanding and I'm not wasting another second on you.
-
;D
oh my god, this is priceless.
-
it's hard for me to think that he's just trolling but for someone with a conviction in his idea he sure is working hard to not have his idea tested in any way. funny.
-
it's hard for me to think that he's just trolling but for someone with a conviction in his idea he sure is working hard to not have his idea tested in any way. funny.
Welcome to tfes. More to the point, welcome to the scepti-zone. It's so much fun cause no matter what you say, he never gives up.
-
it's hard for me to think that he's just trolling but for someone with a conviction in his idea he sure is working hard to not have his idea tested in any way. funny.
It's hard for me to think that he's just thinks he's a would be or wannabe comedian.....Like the Three Stooges for example. LOL.
Of course there is another train of thought....That if he really believes in all the stuff he posts. But any comments on that would be insulting or demeaning.
-
it's hard for me to think that he's just trolling but for someone with a conviction in his idea he sure is working hard to not have his idea tested in any way. funny.
Welcome to tfes. More to the point, welcome to the scepti-zone. It's so much fun cause no matter what you say, he never gives up.
I suppose if you were a person who first came upon this website you would find it hard to believe that this thread has been going on for 3759 views, 633 replies and 32 pages. But it's really about par for the course when sceptimatic is involved. LOL.
The old TV show "The Twilight Zone" was a piker !.
-
So despite air pressure being more at lower elevations than higher elevations, it does not push upward?
It can never push upwards unless you apply energy to make it do so. It cannot do it on it's own.
That's not really what you said earlier a couple pages ago;
The atmospheric pressure is pushing down on the card sticking out from the glass but equal resistance is exerting the same force back under that card. Ok, have we got this?
The lower pressure is because of the small amount of air trapped that cannot push with any force to overcome the larger force below the water due to the glass bottom creating a barrier against that push down pressure from above.
Because atmospheric pressure is always trying to equalise and if you give it a weak spot by taking away the card, it will simply push into the inside of the glass
So is there 14 pounds per square inch of pressure against the bottom of the card or not?
which immediately equalises into the other side of the cylinder and pushes the plunger up.
If we have a plunger halfway through a vertical cylinder with an open bottom and top, there is equal pressure (14 psi) on the top and bottom of the plunger correct?
Now let's seal the top and attach a hose to an air pump several (let's say 10) meters away, with an outlet 10 more meters away, and attach a barometer to the bottom of the plunger.
With the pump on, and the air pressure above the plunger becoming less, if the plunger begins moving upward, should there be an increase in the reading from the barometer?
If so, how much would you estimate?
Also, (since I don't recall it ever really being explained) if there is no gravity attracting water, air, and objects toward the ground, then why is air pressure and denpressure directional?
Because it is stacked from the bottom up, all the way to the dome.
And if nothing is attracting molecules (gravity) in any one direction, then why from the bottom up?
Shouldn't air pressure equalize between high and low elevations?
It always is trying to equalise but never does, which is why we are alive. It has to always be an action and reaction of pressures. It's basically vibrational frequencies by energy applied.
It's like a cycle that changes variations but never stops. When it does, we are dead.
A simple wave of you hand. A bonk of an eye. Anything. It's always creating a high versus low pressure, just like your body is and everything else is.
You still haven't explained why it's directional vertically.
-
it's hard for me to think that he's just trolling but for someone with a conviction in his idea he sure is working hard to not have his idea tested in any way. funny.
Welcome to tfes. More to the point, welcome to the scepti-zone. It's so much fun cause no matter what you say, he never gives up.
I suppose if you were a person who first came upon this website you would find it hard to believe that this thread has been going on for 3759 views, 633 replies and 32 pages. But it's really about par for the course when sceptimatic is involved. LOL.
The old TV show "The Twilight Zone" was a piker !.
Septic's threads are literally the reason I come here in the first place, it seems with more coherent fes people they just start asking if I've verified myself that the sun sets in every country at the time it's reported to or some daft *** like that... but Scepti, he delivers!!! ;D
-
I think we should have a poll for what everyone thinks was scepti's finest idea in this thread. Me, I'm kinda torn between rockets being like big gas torches that just heat up the air beneath them, and materials of different weight having different displacement, but I think I have to go with the latter. Ofc the best might be yet to come! ;)
-
I think we should have a poll for what everyone thinks was scepti's finest idea in this thread. Me, I'm kinda torn between rockets being like big gas torches that just heat up the air beneath them, and materials of different weight having different displacement, but I think I have to go with the latter. Ofc the best might be yet to come! ;)
Not just this thread. We need to take all of them into consideration. Surely the ice dome is the best one.
-
This place pushed me to go deep into stuff and critically think on this Earth situation.
Obviously not nearly deep enough LOL.
If it wasn't for the theories on here to pick pieces from, I wouldn't have came up with denpressure.
It took some serious, serious jigsaw work to figure it all out and I'm still only a fraction there.
One thing for sure though. Denpressure is what gravity is and it destroys the globe and space as they tell us.
And still no units of measurement for this absurd notion of "denpressure". I wonder why?
;D ;D ;D
-
This place pushed me to go deep into stuff and critically think on this Earth situation.
Obviously not nearly deep enough LOL.
If it wasn't for the theories on here to pick pieces from, I wouldn't have came up with denpressure.
It took some serious, serious jigsaw work to figure it all out and I'm still only a fraction there.
One thing for sure though. Denpressure is what gravity is and it destroys the globe and space as they tell us.
And still no units of measurement for this absurd notion of "denpressure". I wonder why?
;D ;D ;D
Can't be long now, he's just got to figure out the levels of entropergy and energalpy then he'll dream up some sh!t about denpressure.
-
This place pushed me to go deep into stuff and critically think on this Earth situation.
Obviously not nearly deep enough LOL.
If it wasn't for the theories on here to pick pieces from, I wouldn't have came up with denpressure.
It took some serious, serious jigsaw work to figure it all out and I'm still only a fraction there.
One thing for sure though. Denpressure is what gravity is and it destroys the globe and space as they tell us.
And still no units of measurement for this absurd notion of "denpressure". I wonder why?
;D ;D ;D
Can't be long now, he's just got to figure out the levels of entropergy and energalpy then he'll dream up some sh!t about denpressure.
Don't start septic on themiedinamlicks. All our motors will run backwards.
-
I think we should have a poll for what everyone thinks was scepti's finest idea in this thread. Me, I'm kinda torn between rockets being like big gas torches that just heat up the air beneath them, and materials of different weight having different displacement, but I think I have to go with the latter. Ofc the best might be yet to come! ;)
Not just this thread. We need to take all of them into consideration. Surely the ice dome is the best one.
It's not just the dome itself, but all the other stuff he's had to invent over the years: the Sauron type tower with the sun on top of it, the super glowing carbon crystals, the sun we see being a reflection from the Suaron tower and the moon a reflection of the sun's reflection (!), shooting stars being chunks of ice breaking off the dome, the earth being a cell in suspended animation....I can't even remember most of the crazy shit he's come out with.
Best of all: there is no evidence, you just have to use "logic".
-
it's hard for me to think that he's just trolling but for someone with a conviction in his idea he sure is working hard to not have his idea tested in any way. funny.
It's hard for me to think that he's just thinks he's a would be or wannabe comedian.....Like the Three Stooges for example. LOL.
Of course there is another train of thought....That if he really believes in all the stuff he posts. But any comments on that would be insulting or demeaning.
I firmly believe in what I'm saying, because I know it's more closer to the truth than anything mainstream science has given out.
-
So is there 14 pounds per square inch of pressure against the bottom of the card or not?
Yes, roughly.
If we have a plunger halfway through a vertical cylinder with an open bottom and top, there is equal pressure (14 psi) on the top and bottom of the plunger correct?
Correct.
Now let's seal the top and attach a hose to an air pump several (let's say 10) meters away, with an outlet 10 more meters away, and attach a barometer to the bottom of the plunger.
With the pump on, and the air pressure above the plunger becoming less, if the plunger begins moving upward, should there be an increase in the reading from the barometer?
If so, how much would you estimate?
If I'm reading you correct, then no there won't be any increase because all that's happening is, you are taking the pressure away from the top and feeding it straight back into the bottom. It's always like for like. Action/reaction in equal measures.
You might see an initial change in the barometer but only whilst the pump is operating, because action is always first before reaction.
And if nothing is attracting molecules (gravity) in any one direction, then why from the bottom up?
For that we have to start from Earth's make up.
I'll try and make it simple.
Let's assume the Earth has just started to give energy out, as in a sun build up. Ok, it creates a push up. Just for the sake of it, let's assume it was a volcano eruption.
Now we have gases into the vacuum above which has now made a thin layer of atmosphere that a bacteria lives under, for the sake of it. That is the sky for the bacteria and that is sitting on top of that bacteria as a pressure it feels.
And so on from there as more things are pushed into that.
Imagine you living under the soil. You push up a brick so it lays on top of the soil. Let's imagine that brick is a block of atmosphere.
Now you push another brick up, under that brick, so now you have the top brick on top of the brick below. The top of the brick freezes against the vacuum above it as it's under no pressure, but the bottom brick is under pressure from the top brick to the top of that brick and you are under pressure from them both.
The next time you push another brick up, you require more energy and so on.
All what you put up, you have used energy to do so - and that energy is potential energy pushing right back onto you. This is the pressure we are under, except we've moved on with a sky so big due to energy build up over time, with all masses/densities being pushed up by energy, we see as trees, weeds, flowers, volcanoes, water, etc, etc, etc.
If you can't grasp it then fair enough. I don't expect it to be grasped right away. It takes thought to rid yourself from the mainstream thoughts to actually see what I'm saying.
Gravity is your biggest killer, because this fictional force is seriously killing off people's chances of actually seeing what's really happening.
You still haven't explained why it's directional vertically.
Hopefully I have now, but somehow I doubt it.
-
This place pushed me to go deep into stuff and critically think on this Earth situation.
Obviously not nearly deep enough LOL.
If it wasn't for the theories on here to pick pieces from, I wouldn't have came up with denpressure.
It took some serious, serious jigsaw work to figure it all out and I'm still only a fraction there.
One thing for sure though. Denpressure is what gravity is and it destroys the globe and space as they tell us.
And still no units of measurement for this absurd notion of "denpressure". I wonder why?
;D ;D ;D
Can't be long now, he's just got to figure out the levels of entropergy and energalpy then he'll dream up some sh!t about denpressure.
The units of measurement are all there. It's just mixed in with bullshit gravity. A force that is suppiosedly measured that nobody knows about as a force. It's so ludicrous, it baffling, as to how people hang onto it like limpets.
I guarantee you that of denpressure was explained by science and I came along with gravity, I'd be ridiculed and righly so, because when someone said to me, " well what is it?" I'd say, " it doesn't matter what it is, it's what it does and I don't know what exactly it is as a force."
Weirdly, though, that's what mainstream science can do to people. They can literally tell you anything and like every gawping babies, you suck it all up, unconditionally.
-
I guarantee you that of denpressure was explained by science and I came along with gravity, I'd be ridiculed and righly so, because when someone said to me, " well what is it?" I'd say, " it doesn't matter what it is, it's what it does and I don't know what exactly it is as a force."
If you said that, then you would be honest.
-
And so on from there as more things are pushed into that.
Imagine you living under the soil. You push up a brick so it lays on top of the soil. Let's imagine that brick is a block of atmosphere.
A "block of atmosphere"? What does that even mean? ???
Now you push another brick up, under that brick, so now you have the top brick on top of the brick below. The top of the brick freezes against the vacuum above it as it's under no pressure, but the bottom brick is under pressure from the top brick to the top of that brick and you are under pressure from them both.
So, I take it that gasses in your world don't condense into liquids before they freeze into solids?
-
A "block of atmosphere"? What does that even mean? ???
Oh ok, so you can't think for yourself and decipher what I'm saying, yet you can fully understand a boat load of absolute crap about relativity and warped space time. Bollocks.
So, I take it that gasses in your world don't condense into liquids before they freeze into solids?
Gas is a liquid and what happens right now, is happening in my world and your world. It's just that your world happens to be a rotating ball in space that just happens to keep the gases on it for reasons that cannot be explained.
-
A "block of atmosphere"? What does that even mean? ???
Oh ok, so you can't think for yourself and decipher what I'm saying, yet you can fully understand a boat load of absolute crap about relativity and warped space time. Bollocks.
So, I take it that gasses in your world don't condense into liquids before they freeze into solids?
Gas is a liquid and what happens right now, is happening in my world and your world. It's just that your world happens to be a rotating ball in space that just happens to keep the gases on it for reasons that cannot be explained.
It is called gravity. You just don't want to believe it.
-
It's just that your world happens to be a rotating ball in space that just happens to keep the gases on it for reasons that cannot be explained.
Not only has it been explained, but your denpressure doesn't explain it.
Denpressure explains this:
(http://)
...but not nearly as well as buoyancy does.
-
A "block of atmosphere"? What does that even mean? ???
Oh ok, so you can't think for yourself and decipher what I'm saying, yet you can fully understand a boat load of absolute crap about relativity and warped space time. Bollocks.
So, I take it that gasses in your world don't condense into liquids before they freeze into solids?
Gas is a liquid and what happens right now, is happening in my world and your world. It's just that your world happens to be a rotating ball in space that just happens to keep the gases on it for reasons that cannot be explained.
It is called gravity. You just don't want to believe it.
Ok then. I've just explained mine. Now prove me wrong and explain gravity. Just tell me what gravity is. I hear it's not a force, so if it's not a force, then tell me exactly what it is. It has to be something.
If you say magic, then who's the actual fool here?
-
A "block of atmosphere"? What does that even mean? ???
Oh ok, so you can't think for yourself and decipher what I'm saying, yet you can fully understand a boat load of absolute crap about relativity and warped space time. Bollocks.
So, I take it that gasses in your world don't condense into liquids before they freeze into solids?
Gas is a liquid and what happens right now, is happening in my world and your world. It's just that your world happens to be a rotating ball in space that just happens to keep the gases on it for reasons that cannot be explained.
It is called gravity. You just don't want to believe it.
Ok then. I've just explained mine. Now prove me wrong and explain gravity. Just tell me what gravity is. I hear it's not a force, so if it's not a force, then tell me exactly what it is. It has to be something.
If you say magic, then who's the actual fool here?
I could not have explained general relativity earlier in this thread more simply.
-
A "block of atmosphere"? What does that even mean? ???
Oh ok, so you can't think for yourself and decipher what I'm saying, yet you can fully understand a boat load of absolute crap about relativity and warped space time. Bollocks.
Sorry, but my mind doesn't think of the atmosphere in terms of "blocks".
So, I take it that gasses in your world don't condense into liquids before they freeze into solids?
Gas is a liquid and what happens right now, is happening in my world and your world.
Sorry, but in my world gasses are fluids, not liquids.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_fluid_and_a_liquid (http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_fluid_and_a_liquid)
It's just that your world happens to be a rotating ball in space that just happens to keep the gases on it for reasons that cannot be explained.
The earth keeps a layer of gasses around it because of the mass of the earth warps space time causing the mass of those gas molecules to stack themselves on top of each other from the ground up.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
Scientific hypothesis don't need to be provable, they need to be falsifiable.
Outside of maths, you never prove theories, just build up a weight of evidence. If there is enough evidence we can treat it as a fact. Which doesn't mean it won't be falsified later.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
It is a geometric model that makes predictions. These predictions have been tested and have all come to pass as predicted: deflection of light, time dilation, frame-dragging, gravity waves, the perehelion of mercury. All of these things are modelled by warped spacetime accurately.
What might be unprovable or unknowable is why matter/energy/momentum should have the property of being able to warp spacetime at all.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Time dilation has been measured on planes flying in different directions as well as on GPS systems.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Time dilation has been measured on planes flying in different directions as well as on GPS systems.
And we can observe gravitational lensing without going into space anyway.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Time dilation has been measured on planes flying in different directions as well as on GPS systems.
And we can observe gravitational lensing without going into space anyway.
Sure, but you know, reflections in the ice dome, etc... Thought I would deal with something like airplanes so as to not blow scepti's mind.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Physically observing - as long as it doesn't involve measuring anything, that would be horrible. Things like displacement, or weight, should never be measured, that's where the conspiracy injects it's fakery, which we know to be the case because those results contradict denpressure which we know to be true. Denpressure is a theory of palpation - look at it, feel it, listen to it. Just don't measure any of it. Ever.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Physically observing - as long as it doesn't involve measuring anything, that would be horrible. Things like displacement, or weight, should never be measured, that's where the conspiracy injects it's fakery, which we know to be the case because those results contradict denpressure which we know to be true. Denpressure is a theory of palpation - look at it, feel it, listen to it. Just don't measure any of it. Ever.
Apparently we can't use formulas to make any sort of prediction either because all math is just bs.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Physically observing - as long as it doesn't involve measuring anything, that would be horrible. Things like displacement, or weight, should never be measured, that's where the conspiracy injects it's fakery, which we know to be the case because those results contradict denpressure which we know to be true. Denpressure is a theory of palpation - look at it, feel it, listen to it. Just don't measure any of it. Ever.
Apparently we can't use formulas to make any sort of prediction either because all math is just bs.
You don't need maths to get someone to understand the basics of anything. You only need maths of you want to measure and calculate that something. Maths does not tell you how things work and maths does not tell you anything about theoretical space crap unless you buy into made up crap.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Physically observing - as long as it doesn't involve measuring anything, that would be horrible. Things like displacement, or weight, should never be measured, that's where the conspiracy injects it's fakery, which we know to be the case because those results contradict denpressure which we know to be true. Denpressure is a theory of palpation - look at it, feel it, listen to it. Just don't measure any of it. Ever.
Apparently we can't use formulas to make any sort of prediction either because all math is just bs.
You don't need maths to get someone to understand the basics of anything. You only need maths of you want to measure and calculate that something.
Which is what you need to do if you want to design or build anything - which is why engineers use it every day. How can, for example, and aerospace engineer use "denpressure" in their calculations when they are building a new aircraft?
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Physically observing - as long as it doesn't involve measuring anything, that would be horrible. Things like displacement, or weight, should never be measured, that's where the conspiracy injects it's fakery, which we know to be the case because those results contradict denpressure which we know to be true. Denpressure is a theory of palpation - look at it, feel it, listen to it. Just don't measure any of it. Ever.
Apparently we can't use formulas to make any sort of prediction either because all math is just bs.
You don't need maths to get someone to understand the basics of anything. You only need maths of you want to measure and calculate that something. Maths does not tell you how things work and maths does not tell you anything about theoretical space crap unless you buy into made up crap.
crap crap made up crap crap everything is a crap lie crap
did I miss any of the key points in that post? I don't think I did.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Physically observing - as long as it doesn't involve measuring anything, that would be horrible. Things like displacement, or weight, should never be measured, that's where the conspiracy injects it's fakery, which we know to be the case because those results contradict denpressure which we know to be true. Denpressure is a theory of palpation - look at it, feel it, listen to it. Just don't measure any of it. Ever.
Apparently we can't use formulas to make any sort of prediction either because all math is just bs.
Well that's a given, isn't it. Just like pressure sensors reliably detecting <1Pa (0.00001% of 1atm) haven't been readily available for decades, so any measurements regarding denpressure are bs too.
-
Isn't warped space time an unprovable hypothesis?
I suppose that depends on what you consider proof. There are a number of phenomena that have been observed, like gravitational lensing, that are consistent with what would be expected with the warped space time.
Well seeing as we can't go to space to find out about these effects and have to rely on someone saying gravitational lensing, then we have to work on what happens for us to physically observe by sight or by feel or hearing, coupled with logical thought.
You buy into this warped space time and stuff. Fair enough. I'm having none of it, for reasons given in abundance.
Physically observing - as long as it doesn't involve measuring anything, that would be horrible. Things like displacement, or weight, should never be measured, that's where the conspiracy injects it's fakery, which we know to be the case because those results contradict denpressure which we know to be true. Denpressure is a theory of palpation - look at it, feel it, listen to it. Just don't measure any of it. Ever.
Apparently we can't use formulas to make any sort of prediction either because all math is just bs.
You don't need maths to get someone to understand the basics of anything. You only need maths of you want to measure and calculate that something. Maths does not tell you how things work and maths does not tell you anything about theoretical space crap unless you buy into made up crap.
We use maths to calculate the surface areas of 2 different shaped objects with the same volume and wonder why they weigh the same.
-
You don't need maths to get someone to understand the basics of anything. You only need maths of you want to measure and calculate that something.
People just love to measure and calculate things. How useful do you suppose denpressure is with out the math to make those measurements and calculations?
-
You don't need maths to get someone to understand the basics of anything. You only need maths of you want to measure and calculate that something.
People just love to measure and calculate things. How useful do you suppose denpressure is with out the math to make those measurements and calculations?
I don't have any issue with calculations when putting denpressure to use. It's used every day. It's just altered to make it look like gravity is involved. It's clever but see through.
The thing is. I don't need calculations to prove that gravity does not exist, which is what I did.
It doesn't matter what you think, or what the other globalists think. What counts is letting people who can think for themselves - know, that they are being duped by gravity and it is in fact "denpressure", which if they use their minds and be strong, they will see that denpressure destroys everything about the Earth they believed in.
It destroys the globe spinning in space. It destroys all planets, stars, man made objects in space.
It proves that we live in a cell, or a ice covered dome over Earth that does not move at all against a true vacuum.
Reliance on something that cannot be proved as to what it is as a force, will never alter a persons thinking and those people will forever be blind to the full potential of reality, because they choose to live in the fantasy that was handed to them on a plate.
-
You don't need maths to get someone to understand the basics of anything. You only need maths of you want to measure and calculate that something.
People just love to measure and calculate things. How useful do you suppose denpressure is with out the math to make those measurements and calculations?
I don't have any issue with calculations when putting denpressure to use. It's used every day. It's just altered to make it look like gravity is involved. It's clever but see through.
Then please provide us with the real denpressure calculations.
The thing is. I don't need calculations to prove that gravity does not exist, which is what I did.
But I want to measure and calculate. Please give me the formulas that I need.
It doesn't matter what you think, or what the other globalists think. What counts is letting people who can think for themselves - know, that they are being duped by gravity and it is in fact "denpressure", which if they use their minds and be strong, they will see that denpressure destroys everything about the Earth they believed in.
That's fine. Would you please give me the formulas so I can measure and calculate with denpressure? Pretty please?
It destroys the globe spinning in space. It destroys all planets, stars, man made objects in space.
It proves that we live in a cell, or a ice covered dome over Earth that does not move at all against a true vacuum.
Cool. Are you ready with those formulas yet? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
Reliance on something that cannot be proved as to what it is as a force, will never alter a persons thinking and those people will forever be blind to the full potential of reality, because they choose to live in the fantasy that was handed to them on a plate.
I don't care about any of that. I NEED FORMULAS SO I CAN MEASURE AND CALCULATE WITH DENPRESSURE!! AAAAAAARRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Easy. Your scales are denpressure scales. Just put your dense object onto the scale plate and read the measurement. Simple.
-
To the bin with markjo.
-
Easy. Your scales are denpressure scales. Just put your dense object onto the scale plate and read the measurement. Simple.
There are BS formulas that say how much an object weighs when it's accelerated at different rates. I want to know the right formulas so that I prove my physics professor wrong and demand a refund from my college.
-
I don't have any issue with calculations when putting denpressure to use. It's used every day. It's just altered to make it look like gravity is involved.
So it's exactly the same as gravity?
It's clever but see through.
Like cling film?
It destroys the globe spinning in space. It destroys all planets, stars, man made objects in space.
It proves that we live in a cell, or a ice covered dome over Earth that does not move at all against a true vacuum.
Maybe rottingroom is right, and you are a genuine lunatic.
-
I don't have any issue with calculations when putting denpressure to use.
Well, I do have an issue. I've asked you repeatedly to provide denpressure formulas so that I can do my own calculations, but you haven't provided any. What am I supposed to do, just take your word for it? That sounds like something that a bull crap scientist would expect, not a maverick free thinker like yourself.
-
I don't have any issue with calculations when putting denpressure to use.
Well, I do have an issue. I've asked you repeatedly to provide denpressure formulas so that I can do my own calculations, but you haven't provided any. What am I supposed to do, just take your word for it? That sounds like something that a bull crap scientist would expect, not a maverick free thinker like yourself.
You can do all the tests. Just do what you've always done. It's the same thing.
Every measurement of mass to weight is all down to atmospheric pressures, just take gravity out of the equation. It's not needed.
It's just a case of chaging the names of the measuring tools to realistic names and not fantasy names. You know, like gravimeters and stuff.
-
why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?
-
why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?
A cop out of what?
The cop out crew are those that type stuff like, "why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?"
-
why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?
Basically he's said: keep gravity just rename it.
That's it. All these hundreds of pages for that.
Of course it's new name will be denpressure, named after it's inventor: Dennis Pressure
-
All that the clever bullshitters have done, is to mix the word "gravity" in with atmospheric pressure to cater for you walking around on a rotating sphere and to give you space with it's planets, plus man made space exploits.
Without it, they're screwed.
This is why they can come out with absolute crap like special relativity and warped space time and a whole host of utter nonsense.
People believe it because they cannot ever prove, physically that it doesn't exist. Until I came along with my basic genius to give you, denpressure, which unfortunately kills off the fantasy that they had you living in.
Too many people are afraid to think for fear of ridicule. If I can handle the amount I've taken with ease, surely those that can think, can do the same. Very few do, though; and that's the world we live in; and why the masses will always believe any old shit. Seriously.
-
Basically he's said: keep gravity just rename it.
That's it. All these hundreds of pages for that.
Of course it's new name will be denpressure, named after it's inventor: Dennis Pressure
Aw, I was thinking denpressure was what caused Fox Cobs to behave like other Fox Cubs ;D
-
Basically he's said: keep gravity just rename it.
That's it. All these hundreds of pages for that.
Of course it's new name will be denpressure, named after it's inventor: Dennis Pressure
Aw, I was thinking denpressure was what caused Fox Cobs to behave like other Fox Cubs ;D
Fox on the cob is different to fox with its cub and you should understand this.
-
Scepti,
Special General Relativity
-
Scepti,
Special General Relativity
Special sceptivity
-
Scepti,
Special General Relativity
Special sceptivity
You're an enabler. Stahp.
-
You're an enabler..
Poor old scepti hasn't even worked out that hoppy is a pisstake,
-
Scepti,
Special General Relativity
Yes but we are back to this distortion of space time.
-
You're an enabler..
Poor old scepti hasn't even worked out that hoppy is a pisstake,
I don't need to work out anything from anyone in what their motives are. hoppy knows what hoppy is doing, you don't.
Stop getting all bad tempered because I haven't spoken to you. Look I'm typing to you. Be a good boy and I'll play. ;D
-
why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?
A cop out of what?
The cop out crew are those that type stuff like, "why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?"
A total cop out to that yes we can do 'all the tests' and they disprove your silly claims? ::)
-
why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?
A cop out of what?
The cop out crew are those that type stuff like, "why does that last answer sound like a total cop out?"
A total cop out to that yes we can do 'all the tests' and they disprove your silly claims? ::)
Ok then, stick to what you think.
-
Sceptic you might want to start thinking of excuses, I will be preforming another experiment tomorrow. I have a feeling you are not going to like the results.
-
Sceptic you might want to start thinking of excuses, I will be preforming another experiment tomorrow. I have a feeling you are not going to like the results.
How about explaining what you are going to do.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use
inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
-
I don't have one and household ones aren't made to go that low. Mercury barometer wouldn't fit. The vacuum pump evacuates a tank, there is a gauge on the tank. You will have to take my word that the tank is connected to the vacuum system I will be using.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
So this is likely a non-starter then.
-
I do not have a mechanical scale. Batteries cannot effect gravity or denpressure.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
So this is likely a non-starter then.
Why? there is nothing in that, that is out of easy reach.
You have to agree that to test this out, it cannot be done on just one certain thing. It has to go through many tests to rubberstamp it one way or another.
I'm simply asking for two scales, one at a time and separate objects, one at a time. It's no more than half an hours experimenting in a small chamber.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
So this is likely a non-starter then.
Why? there is nothing in that, that is out of easy reach.
You have to agree that to test this out, it cannot be done on just one certain thing. It has to go through many tests to rubberstamp it one way or another.
I'm simply asking for two scales, one at a time and separate objects, one at a time. It's no more than half an hours experimenting in a small chamber.
I suggest you use your millions of dollars and repeat the experiment but with a mechanical scale to see if you get different results.
-
I do not have a mechanical scale. Batteries cannot effect gravity or denpressure.
A small shop bought scale is pennies.
Something like this would fit in no problem without the bowl even, just using the plate.
(http://s1.postimg.org/gefrbp797/211_8139_PI_1000019_MN01.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
So this is likely a non-starter then.
Why? there is nothing in that, that is out of easy reach.
You have to agree that to test this out, it cannot be done on just one certain thing. It has to go through many tests to rubberstamp it one way or another.
I'm simply asking for two scales, one at a time and separate objects, one at a time. It's no more than half an hours experimenting in a small chamber.
I suggest you use your millions of dollars and repeat the experiment but with a mechanical scale to see if you get different results.
I will. I suggest anyone with a vacuum chamber to perform similar experiments.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
So this is likely a non-starter then.
Why? there is nothing in that, that is out of easy reach.
You have to agree that to test this out, it cannot be done on just one certain thing. It has to go through many tests to rubberstamp it one way or another.
I'm simply asking for two scales, one at a time and separate objects, one at a time. It's no more than half an hours experimenting in a small chamber.
I only say that because it seemed as if time was at a premium for sokarul. If he can do it, it would be great to see it done in every way you ask.
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
So this is likely a non-starter then.
Why? there is nothing in that, that is out of easy reach.
You have to agree that to test this out, it cannot be done on just one certain thing. It has to go through many tests to rubberstamp it one way or another.
I'm simply asking for two scales, one at a time and separate objects, one at a time. It's no more than half an hours experimenting in a small chamber.
I only say that because it seemed as if time was at a premium for sokarul. If he can do it, it would be great to see it done in every way you ask.
I think he's sneaking in at the weekend when his boss is playing golf, so he'll have plenty of time.
-
No, I'm stuck working tomorrow because my calcium oxide order was delayed. I can do the experiment with plastic and the metal calibration mass.
My boss wouldn't care if I was filming a desiccator. I just don't like looking weird. The air lock I used in the last video was not in my lab.
-
Every measurement of mass to weight is all down to atmospheric pressures, just take gravity out of the equation. It's not needed.
It's just a case of changing the names of the measuring tools to realistic names and not fantasy names. You know, like gravimeters and stuff.
LOL..... yet another dozen comments of absolutely absurd pseudo-scientific drivel. Truly outstanding! Just in the wrong sort of way LOL.
A measurement of "mass to weight"? I've known all along that sceptimatic had no idea at all that mass and weight are two different things. He can't seem to grasp that weight is a variable, whilst mass is a constant. And that's because he doesn't understand how gravity works.
I do agree with him though that—for the purpose of his argument—it's "just a case of changing the names". He does it repeatedly.
But tge he's unable to define the altered properties of the entity whose name he's changed. He still hasn't defined the units of measure for his imaginary re-named gravity, "denpressure". He reckons it's a "combination" of density and pressure, which is like saying "tempmoment" is a combination of temperature and momentum. And would be just as silly.
To save the poor tool any further embarrassment, I suggest that the forum admin adds "denpressure" to their word blocker. ;D
-
No, I'm stuck working tomorrow because my calcium oxide order was delayed. I can do the experiment with plastic and the metal calibration mass.
My boss wouldn't care if I was filming a desiccator. I just don't like looking weird. The air lock I used in the last video was not in my lab.
Ok, fair enough, just try your best with whatever you can muster up.
-
Ok, fair enough, just try your best with whatever you can muster up.
LOL..... such generosity from somebody who's never done one experiment of his own and/or posted the results on these forums. It always makes me laugh whenever I see sceptimatic virtually demanding that every round earther carries out his/her own experiments to prove a point, but then never does any of his own to prove his point.
Not only is the guy a total troll, he's also a lazy troll. ::)
-
I will. I suggest anyone with a vacuum chamber to perform similar experiments.
We look forward to pictures and/or video of your experiment. Can we expect results in the near future?
-
Can we expect results in the near future?
LOL..... you'll have a looong grey beard before you ever get to see the results of any of sceptimatic's purported "research".
Remember his rough sketch for his flat earth map from earlier this year? The one that he was gonna work on, and "soon" develop a more sophisticated version to post here? Never happened.
Remember his expensive scientific experiment with the specially-adapted laser and the 2km flat ice field? Never happened.
The guy is so full of BS I'm surprised he can talk without gargling. ;D
-
I am going to use a vacuum desiccator. The vacuum pump that it uses is not as strong and the vacuum gauge isn't right next to the desiccator. But, I can pick the desiccator up and use inertia magic fairys to keep the scale on. The desiccator will be able to reach it's peak vacuum and then sit there. The vacuum the pump pulls is somewhere around 15 inches of Hg.
How about just putting a barometer inside?
How about both?
Correct me if I am wrong, but what should happen is this if gravity is true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale remains the same or maybe goes up slightly.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
If denpressure if true:
- Air is evacuated.
- Mass/weight of object on scale goes down.
- Barometric pressure goes down. (optional if Sokarul can swing it)
Do we agree?
Yep but we also need to use two sets of scales. One digital and one manual. This is just to negate the battery influence of that scale.
It must also be done by clearly showing everything working as it should from start to finish.
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance. Not necessarily that but something like that.
So this is likely a non-starter then.
Why? there is nothing in that, that is out of easy reach.
You have to agree that to test this out, it cannot be done on just one certain thing. It has to go through many tests to rubberstamp it one way or another.
I'm simply asking for two scales, one at a time and separate objects, one at a time. It's no more than half an hours experimenting in a small chamber.
I suggest you use your millions of dollars and repeat the experiment but with a mechanical scale to see if you get different results.
This the first good suggestion I have seen frim Sokarul
-
Also it must be done with 3 separate objects of density. Wood, metal and plastic, for instance.
This request alone proves that sceptimatic has virtually zero scientific knowledge in that tiny brain of his. And that's being polite LOL. It's obvious he still has not the faintest of ideas about the properties of density or pressure or force, or mass or weight or volume. To make matters worse, he seems to think that the battery in the digital scale will somehow, magically "influence" the results.
The guy gets more laughs than Bozo the clown. :D
-
You can do all the tests. Just do what you've always done. It's the same thing.
Every measurement of mass to weight is all down to atmospheric pressures, just take gravity out of the equation. It's not needed.
It's just a case of chaging the names of the measuring tools to realistic names and not fantasy names. You know, like gravimeters and stuff.
I'm sorry, but I don't know of any mass to weight formulas that involve pressure, so I don't know how to make the substitution. That's why I keep asking you for the formula.
-
I dont know why doesnt anyone call on the bs that scepti execrates. You all seem to be falling for the typical weight/mass trolling he likes to use.
The truth is, rockets can work, independently of the prescence of measurable gravitatorial pull or gasseous countermass (atmosphere, for example), thanks to momentum. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) explains, rockets gain a deltaV based on the speed that fuel particles are expelled. This equation can be derived from Newton's laws and momentum. If scepti doesnt believe on momentum, I dare him to explain how Newton's cradle works BETTER at a vacuum:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes (http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes)
PS: Where's the youtube tag? I cant embed the player
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
-
I will. I suggest anyone with a vacuum chamber to perform similar experiments.
We look forward to pictures and/or video of your experiment. Can we expect results in the near future?
Let's wait and see. You can also do the experiments. You never know, they just might alter things.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
It doesn't kill it off. Let's be distinct. It implies that space doesn't exist. This is not evidence but you know that. Your denpressure could just as well be a round ceiling around a round planet as it could be a dome to a flat one. In fact, if anything the former is more likely because at least that would be consistent with the fact that the edge of the dome has never been seen and it would also be consistent with other simple proofs of rotundity such as sunsets and sinking ships.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
It doesn't kill it off. Let's be distinct. It implies that space doesn't exist. This is not evidence but you know that. Your denpressure could just as well be a round ceiling around a round planet as it could be a dome to a flat one. In fact, if anything the former is more likely because at least that would be consistent with the fact that the edge of the dome has never been seen and it would also be consistent with other simple proofs of rotundity such as sunsets and sinking ships.
If it implies that space doesn't exist then it has to imply that planets do not exist or stars or anything in space, such as man made objects.
It also cannot be a global atmosphere because it still has to have a central energy, which is why it has to be a dome.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
It doesn't kill it off. Let's be distinct. It implies that space doesn't exist. This is not evidence but you know that. Your denpressure could just as well be a round ceiling around a round planet as it could be a dome to a flat one. In fact, if anything the former is more likely because at least that would be consistent with the fact that the edge of the dome has never been seen and it would also be consistent with other simple proofs of rotundity such as sunsets and sinking ships.
If it implies that space doesn't exist then it has to imply that planets do not exist or stars or anything in space, such as man made objects.
It also cannot be a global atmosphere because it still has to have a central energy, which is why it has to be a dome.
Never mind your notions about what you believe or don't believe about space. I'm not talking about that.
Central energy? I'm talking of denpressure as it pertains to the dome. Never mind the energy source for a moment and consider this. If denpressure exists around a globe then that means an equal amount of atmosphere exists around its entirety. If it's a dome then it follows that the dome ceilings are tallest in the center and then exponentially smaller as it reaches the edges of earth. So then it follows that since more atmosphere exists in the center then the closer to the center you are then the more you would weigh as more atmosphere pushes down on you. Is this your position?
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
It doesn't kill it off. Let's be distinct. It implies that space doesn't exist. This is not evidence but you know that. Your denpressure could just as well be a round ceiling around a round planet as it could be a dome to a flat one. In fact, if anything the former is more likely because at least that would be consistent with the fact that the edge of the dome has never been seen and it would also be consistent with other simple proofs of rotundity such as sunsets and sinking ships.
If it implies that space doesn't exist then it has to imply that planets do not exist or stars or anything in space, such as man made objects.
It also cannot be a global atmosphere because it still has to have a central energy, which is why it has to be a dome.
Never mind your notions about what you believe or don't believe about space. I'm not talking about that.
Central energy? I'm talking of denpressure as it pertains to the dome. Never mind the energy source for a moment and consider this. If denpressure exists around a globe then that means an equal amount of atmosphere exists around its entirety. If it's a dome then it follows that the dome ceilings are tallest in the center and then exponentially smaller as it reaches the edges of earth. So then it follows that since more atmosphere exists in the center then the closer to the center you are then the more you would weigh as more atmosphere pushes down on you. Is this your position?
Yes, sort of.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
It doesn't kill it off. Let's be distinct. It implies that space doesn't exist. This is not evidence but you know that. Your denpressure could just as well be a round ceiling around a round planet as it could be a dome to a flat one. In fact, if anything the former is more likely because at least that would be consistent with the fact that the edge of the dome has never been seen and it would also be consistent with other simple proofs of rotundity such as sunsets and sinking ships.
If it implies that space doesn't exist then it has to imply that planets do not exist or stars or anything in space, such as man made objects.
It also cannot be a global atmosphere because it still has to have a central energy, which is why it has to be a dome.
Never mind your notions about what you believe or don't believe about space. I'm not talking about that.
Central energy? I'm talking of denpressure as it pertains to the dome. Never mind the energy source for a moment and consider this. If denpressure exists around a globe then that means an equal amount of atmosphere exists around its entirety. If it's a dome then it follows that the dome ceilings are tallest in the center and then exponentially smaller as it reaches the edges of earth. So then it follows that since more atmosphere exists in the center then the closer to the center you are then the more you would weigh as more atmosphere pushes down on you. Is this your position?
Yes, sort of.
So then as far as location is concerned it is measured that you weigh slightly more at both poles and less the closer you get to the equator (RE explains that this is because of centrifugal forces). So then does it not follow that your edges of earth must exist exactly at the equator?
-
And if by necessity, the edges of earth are at the equator then does it not also follow that the center would necessarily need to be at both poles? Wouldn't this necessarily mean that the earth is round, or at the very least not flat and some shape where polar opposites must exist? These two locations cannot both be the places where things weigh the most can they? After all, the location where things must weigh the most must necessarily be the center, where the dome is tallest.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass. Must weigh the same.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
It doesn't kill it off. Let's be distinct. It implies that space doesn't exist. This is not evidence but you know that. Your denpressure could just as well be a round ceiling around a round planet as it could be a dome to a flat one. In fact, if anything the former is more likely because at least that would be consistent with the fact that the edge of the dome has never been seen and it would also be consistent with other simple proofs of rotundity such as sunsets and sinking ships.
If it implies that space doesn't exist then it has to imply that planets do not exist or stars or anything in space, such as man made objects.
It also cannot be a global atmosphere because it still has to have a central energy, which is why it has to be a dome.
Never mind your notions about what you believe or don't believe about space. I'm not talking about that.
Central energy? I'm talking of denpressure as it pertains to the dome. Never mind the energy source for a moment and consider this. If denpressure exists around a globe then that means an equal amount of atmosphere exists around its entirety. If it's a dome then it follows that the dome ceilings are tallest in the center and then exponentially smaller as it reaches the edges of earth. So then it follows that since more atmosphere exists in the center then the closer to the center you are then the more you would weigh as more atmosphere pushes down on you. Is this your position?
Yes, sort of.
So then as far as location is concerned you weigh slightly more at both poles and less the closer you get to the equator because of centrifugal forces. So then does it not follow that your the edges of earth must exist exactly at the equator?
No, you're way you. Why should the equator be on the edge?
The edge would be ice, meaning no sun goes near it.
And what do you mean by centrifugal forces? explain because we are either crossing wires or something.
Are you trying to explain what my Earth is or your domed globe analogy?
-
And if by necessity, the edges of earth are at the equator then does it not also follow that the center would necessarily need to be at both poles? Wouldn't this necessarily mean that the earth is round, or at the very least not flat and some shape where polar opposites must exist? These two locations cannot both be the places where things weigh the most can they? After all, the location where things must weigh the most must necessarily be the center, where the dome is tallest.
What do you mean by both poles?
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass. Must weigh the same.
Start paying attention. I've never said brass and steel weight the same in the same shapes, so what are you talking about?
-
meaning no sun goes near it.
Doesn't your sun sit on a tower somewhere anyway? Surely the sun doesn't go near anywhere?
You still need to explain sunsets....
-
meaning no sun goes near it.
Doesn't your sun sit on a tower somewhere anyway? Surely the sun doesn't go near anywhere?
You still need to explain sunsets....
There's a lot of things I need to explain. At the minute, it's dealing with atmospheric pressure for gravity.
And where did you get this tower from? I've never said anything about a tower.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass. Must weigh the same.
Start paying attention. I've never said brass and steel weight the same in the same shapes, so what are you talking about?
The pressure around them will be the same, can be measured.
-
Scepti, do you not understand. It has been measured that as far as location is concerned, if we disregard elevation the place where things weigh the least (dome is shortest) is the equator. This implies that if the cause of things weighing less is simply having less molecules above a location then it would necessarily mean that this place must be the equator. It cannot be anywhere else if the dome is indeed tallest in the center. The poles, as far as measurements are concerned are both simultaneously the locations where the greatest values for g are measured. So then from that it follows that at both poles, if this dome exists, are the highest points of the domes ever found but they are in opposite directions from each other relative to the locations where the lowest values of g have been measured.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass. Must weigh the same.
Start paying attention. I've never said brass and steel weight the same in the same shapes, so what are you talking about?
The pressure around them will be the same, can be measured.
No, the pressure around them won't be the same. I've explained all this. Look back.
-
I will. I suggest anyone with a vacuum chamber to perform similar experiments.
We look forward to pictures and/or video of your experiment. Can we expect results in the near future?
Let's wait and see. You can also do the experiments. You never know, they just might alter things.
That sounds rather vague. You said "I will", so do you have a plan on 'when'? Do you plan on posting the pictures/video here? I could do the experiment, but I would have to get a sufficient vac pump, meter, and chamber. What results should I expect that would be different than already posted?
-
To help you understand here is a diagram.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/350ngaf.png)
You see, instead of trying to destroy denpressure, I'm destroying it as it relates to the shape you think it is compatible with. As you can see it is not compatible with a flat earth. By necessity, if the height of the dome dictates the value of g (the amount something weighs), then it follows that the shape of the dome would need to be equally as tall all around the ice wall as it is at the north pole. At the same time, it would need to be shortest at the equator which makes the equator the only logical place to put the edge of the dome but we know where the equator is and guess what isn't there?
-
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
Not really... if everything is trying to remain on the ground or deeper, and the air molecules themselves are trying to do the same (stacking and pushing down- we all agree that air pressure decreases the higher one goes, correct?) then air can simply get thinner and thinner until it's almost non-existent... or 'space'. There would be almost no atmospheric pressure to push down on things.
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space.
No, it keeps the globe/space craft falling toward the sun/planet. Velocity keeps them in space.
You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact.
If everything wants to sink toward the ground or center of a globe, including air, then I don't see a reason a globe isn't possible with denpressure.
Denpressure kills it.
Doesn't seem like it.
-
Videos made. Spoiler
Sceptic start making excuses.
-
I will. I suggest anyone with a vacuum chamber to perform similar experiments.
We look forward to pictures and/or video of your experiment. Can we expect results in the near future?
Let's wait and see. You can also do the experiments. You never know, they just might alter things.
That sounds rather vague. You said "I will", so do you have a plan on 'when'? Do you plan on posting the pictures/video here? I could do the experiment, but I would have to get a sufficient vac pump, meter, and chamber. What results should I expect that would be different than already posted?
Try stuff out and see.
-
Videos made. Spoiler
Sceptic start making excuses.
No video posted :(
-
To help you understand here is a diagram.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/350ngaf.png)
You see, instead of trying to destroy denpressure, I'm destroying it as it relates to the shape you think it is compatible with. As you can see it is not compatible with a flat earth. By necessity, if the height of the dome dictates the value of g (the amount something weighs), then it follows that the shape of the dome would need to be equally as tall all around the ice wall as it is at the north pole. At the same time, it would need to be shortest at the equator which makes the equator the only logical place to put the edge of the dome but we know where the equator is and guess what isn't there?
I really don't know how you've came to this, I really don't.
-
To help you understand here is a diagram.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/350ngaf.png)
You see, instead of trying to destroy denpressure, I'm destroying it as it relates to the shape you think it is compatible with. As you can see it is not compatible with a flat earth. By necessity, if the height of the dome dictates the value of g (the amount something weighs), then it follows that the shape of the dome would need to be equally as tall all around the ice wall as it is at the north pole. At the same time, it would need to be shortest at the equator which makes the equator the only logical place to put the edge of the dome but we know where the equator is and guess what isn't there?
I really don't know how you've came to this, I really don't.
Well, is it really that surprising that an argument as simple as this would go over your head?
Very simply, you think that the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh. This is dependent on how high the dome is above you. This explanation sort of works with mountains but it turns out that g doesn't seem to be exclusively dependent on elevation. So when looking at the values of g around the world it is clear that if there is some physical barrier there, it is not making any sense as it pertains to your description of the dome because g is least at the equator and most at the poles. So denpressure was already resting in peace but even if we pretend that you have debate skills and pretend that by some miracle you've convinced us that it is real, it doesn't imply that there is a dome as you've described and it also doesn't even imply that the earth is flat. Actually considering the data, it looks more like a round object than anything else.
-
Videos made. Spoiler
Sceptic start making excuses.
No video posted :(
He implied that they are coming soon and giving you a chance to dream up excuses.
-
I disagree about the pressure changing upon how much air is above you at your particular location. The pressure should be the same at ground level whether you are north, south or on the equator.
-
I disagree about the pressure changing upon how much air is above you at your particular location. The pressure should be the same at ground level whether you are north, south or on the equator.
Well this is demonstrably false as barometers show us everyday.
-
I disagree about the pressure changing upon how much air is above you at your particular location. The pressure should be the same at ground level whether you are north, south or on the equator.
Well this is demonstrably false as barometers show us everyday.
An example of what i mean. If you were diving in the ocean near cliffs, say at 30' deep, at the bottom there is a cave in the cliff and the cliff walls goes straight up. Just because there is maybe 2' of water just above your head to the cave ceiling. You are still in the same pressure as 30' of water.
-
I disagree about the pressure changing upon how much air is above you at your particular location. The pressure should be the same at ground level whether you are north, south or on the equator.
So what you are saying is that if denpressure is true, you should weigh the same everywhere, unless I am misinterpreting you.
-
Very simply, you think that the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh.
Yes, the more pressure that is upon any mass withing in.
This is dependent on how high the dome is above you.
Nope. Not al all and this is where I lost you but I think I get your thoughts.
You see, it look like you are implying that we live under the higest pressure. We don't. The highest pressure is what you know as the north pole. It's what's feeding the life giving energy (sun) but we won't go into that unless you want to.
The least pressure on us would be the furthest we could go to the ice dome foundation which would be elevated anyway, as the Earth isn't flat as a pancake, it's slightly concave, but nevertheless, let's move on.
Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.
This explanation sort of works with mountains but it turns out that g doesn't seem to be exclusively dependent on elevation.
It dependent on the energy needed to elevate a mass/density.
So when looking at the values of g around the world it is clear that if there is some physical barrier there, it is not making any sense as it pertains to your description of the dome because g is least at the equator and most at the poles.
As I said above.
So denpressure was already resting in peace but even if we pretend that you have debate skills and pretend that by some miracle you've convinced us that it is real, it doesn't imply that there is a dome as you've described and it also doesn't even imply that the earth is flat. Actually considering the data, it looks more like a round object than anything else.
Denp4ressure is never resting in peace, it's always there however minute.
-
I disagree about the pressure changing upon how much air is above you at your particular location. The pressure should be the same at ground level whether you are north, south or on the equator.
The thing is hoppy, the pressure doesn't differ a lot for us in terms of where we can feasibly travel and this is where it's hard to prove it doesn't get higher in the centre (which it does) and lower at the dome foundation.
These are the two we can't verify because we are human and can't survive.
-
Very simply, you think that the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh.
Yes, the more pressure that is upon any mass withing in.
This is dependent on how high the dome is above you.
Nope. Not al all and this is where I lost you but I think I get your thoughts.
You see, it look like you are implying that we live under the higest pressure. We don't. The highest pressure is what you know as the north pole. It's what's feeding the life giving energy (sun) but we won't go into that unless you want to.
The least pressure on us would be the furthest we could go to the ice dome foundation which would be elevated anyway, as the Earth isn't flat as a pancake, it's slightly concave, but nevertheless, let's move on.
Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.
This explanation sort of works with mountains but it turns out that g doesn't seem to be exclusively dependent on elevation.
It dependent on the energy needed to elevate a mass/density.
So when looking at the values of g around the world it is clear that if there is some physical barrier there, it is not making any sense as it pertains to your description of the dome because g is least at the equator and most at the poles.
As I said above.
So denpressure was already resting in peace but even if we pretend that you have debate skills and pretend that by some miracle you've convinced us that it is real, it doesn't imply that there is a dome as you've described and it also doesn't even imply that the earth is flat. Actually considering the data, it looks more like a round object than anything else.
Denp4ressure is never resting in peace, it's always there however minute.
So not really a dome then. So if we took a map of the values of g we would essentially be mapping the contours of the ceiling of the ice dome canopy and it just so happens to be slightly shorter all around the equator for no apparent reason at all? Is this your revision?
-
Also, presuming this is true would you say that a map showing values of g around the world would show some sort of relationship with a map showing the average values of pressure around the world?
-
Very simply, you think that the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh.
Yes, the more pressure that is upon any mass withing in.
This is dependent on how high the dome is above you.
Nope. Not al all and this is where I lost you but I think I get your thoughts.
You see, it look like you are implying that we live under the higest pressure. We don't. The highest pressure is what you know as the north pole. It's what's feeding the life giving energy (sun) but we won't go into that unless you want to.
The least pressure on us would be the furthest we could go to the ice dome foundation which would be elevated anyway, as the Earth isn't flat as a pancake, it's slightly concave, but nevertheless, let's move on.
Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.
This explanation sort of works with mountains but it turns out that g doesn't seem to be exclusively dependent on elevation.
It dependent on the energy needed to elevate a mass/density.
So when looking at the values of g around the world it is clear that if there is some physical barrier there, it is not making any sense as it pertains to your description of the dome because g is least at the equator and most at the poles.
As I said above.
So denpressure was already resting in peace but even if we pretend that you have debate skills and pretend that by some miracle you've convinced us that it is real, it doesn't imply that there is a dome as you've described and it also doesn't even imply that the earth is flat. Actually considering the data, it looks more like a round object than anything else.
Denp4ressure is never resting in peace, it's always there however minute.
So not really a dome then. So if we took a map of the values of g we would essentially be mapping the contours of the ceiling of the ice dome canopy and it just so happens to be slightly shorter all around the equator for no apparent reason at all? Is this your revision?
Yes it's a dome. And I haven;t a clue about the rest of what you're saying.
-
Also, presuming this is true would you say that a map showing values of g around the world would show some sort of relationship with a map showing the average values of pressure around the world?
You already know the pressure vary around the world. They vary for human survival though, that's why we are circled from the middle inwards.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass. Must weigh the same.
Start paying attention. I've never said brass and steel weight the same in the same shapes, so what are you talking about?
The pressure around them will be the same, can be measured.
No, the pressure around them won't be the same. I've explained all this. Look back.
Please provide your calculations and test results.
-
Just had a thought.
Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?
So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.
Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.
What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass. Must weigh the same.
Start paying attention. I've never said brass and steel weight the same in the same shapes, so what are you talking about?
The pressure around them will be the same, can be measured.
No, the pressure around them won't be the same. I've explained all this. Look back.
Please provide your calculations and test results.
Scepti - you have offered some explanation, true, but have not taken on my offer to measure both displacement of and pressure around objects of different densities. I'll do it as soon as you provide what denpressure predicts to result from those measurements.
-
Also, presuming this is true would you say that a map showing values of g around the world would show some sort of relationship with a map showing the average values of pressure around the world?
You already know the pressure vary around the world. They vary for human survival though, that's why we are circled from the middle inwards.
Yes pressure varies around the world but so does g. So will these two values have a proportional relationship or not? Presumably you would say yes since you think they are one in the same. As far all the rest of the stuff that I said before that, read it as many times as you need to get it. It's not difficult stuff.
-
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/104242-004-CAD02FCB.gif)
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3666/PIA04652_lrg.jpg)
The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.
-
Scepti, the cradle video I posted esentially disproves your concept of weight as pressure, since a Newton's craddle works better at a vacuum than on the atmosphere. Please explain.
-
Here are the videos.
(http://)
(http://)
Goodbye denpressure
-
So another thought scepti. You said:
Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.
If this is the case and if two locations, say Japan and the United States are on opposite sides of the world (at least opposite side of the north pole) then how many miles apart would these two locations if one took a flight between the two of them. On a RE the distance is something like 6000 miles, but now that you've amended your theory for all the flaws I've pointed it out it seems that you not only need to add the distance required to go around the north pole but we also need to add 1000s of miles for this huge expanse of area that is your north pole. So what are we talking about now 10000, 12000, 15000 miles for this trip or what? These are absurdly large distances to ride in a plane for and I've not heard of any passenger jets that travel at the speeds required to account for this.
-
Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.
-
Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.
Problem is, that is probably the weight of the air that was evacuated. Even if it wasnt an error, it is coherent with RET (FinalWeight = InitialWeight - EvacuatedMass), but not Denpressure.
-
Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.
Problem is, that is probably the weight of the air that was evacuated. Even if it wasnt an error, it is coherent with RET (FinalWeight = InitialWeight - EvacuatedMass), but not Denpressure.
Agreed but I wanted to clear this up before scepti tried to say otherwise.
-
septic may be in need of some mates when this denpressure bullshit dies from natural causes. Think I have found him some.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2852829/Was-secret-manned-mission-Mars-1979-Former-Nasa-employee-claims-saw-suited-men-running-red-planet.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2852829/Was-secret-manned-mission-Mars-1979-Former-Nasa-employee-claims-saw-suited-men-running-red-planet.html)
-
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/104242-004-CAD02FCB.gif)
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3666/PIA04652_lrg.jpg)
The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.
I've brought up this point with him over at "gravity=air pressure" at around the sixth page if you want to check out his general response.
I wouldn't use maps like this, because he will probably redirect the argument into semantics about the credibility of the data on the maps. That's why I asked him to address a hypothetical experiment he could conduct using a weather balloon (to remove any possible variables at low altitudes) and a regulated pressure chamber.
I didn't get a very satisfactory response, and he never really answered my question but: he claimed that air molecules expand at lower pressures, and that's why gravity stays the same. Of course, he didn't provide any evidence that they do, so there's that. Here's something else relevant to this that he's said:
People who climb Mt. Everest must just float around at the top.
It takes energy to move a mass up a mountain. This energy becomes potential energy because it's being pushed into the ground, except this ground is now Everest. It's still under pressure by expansion and the atmospheric pressure will still push that mass to the gound if you remove the mountain.
-
So sceptimatic agreed earlier that "the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh".
Using that supposition, this means that if I weigh a tennis ball at ground level, and it weighs 95g and then take it to the top of an eighty storey building, it'll weigh only (say) 94.9g because of 288m less atmosphere above it.
Or am I missing something here?
-
Get your head around this septic.
reduced gravity aircraft is a type of fixed-wing aircraft that provides brief near-weightless environments for training astronauts, conducting research and making gravity-free movie shots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft)
Looks like your dunny pressure is MIA.
-
So sceptimatic agreed earlier that "the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh".
Using that supposition, this means that if I weigh a tennis ball at ground level, and it weighs 95g and then take it to the top of an eighty storey building, it'll weigh only (say) 94.9g because of 288m less atmosphere above it.
Or am I missing something here?
Yes, you apparently have not read the thread.
-
Scepti - you have offered some explanation, true, but have not taken on my offer to measure both displacement of and pressure around objects of different densities. I'll do it as soon as you provide what denpressure predicts to result from those measurements.
Here's something for you. What you are measuring today is exactly hat denpressure actually is.
The problem is, you are saturated in gravity and otehr bullshit.
All I'm saying to you is, grasp what I'm saying and you can go and do as many experiments as you want to in real time to gain a proof.
I'm not going to sit here and calculate this and that when people will never grasp the actual basics of what I'm saying.
There's no need for calculation until you are putting something to work, safely, in any walk of life.
Explanation and grasping of it, is key to understading. I'm not being funny, I'm being serious.
Try and undertsand what I'm saying because you're allowing scientific clap trap to mask over the basics I'm giving out and it will just confuse the hell out of you.
Look: you're not in college or uni, here. You can use this as an exercise in alternative thought. Discard the gravity crap for a while. Discard what you've been battered with from a young age and try and use this as a chance to gather these explanations to actually put into logical format.
The worst that can happen is that you have expended your time on something you decide not to go with.
The best that can happen is that you can actually start to see that the world is not what they sold to you, plus space.
That's the best I can offer.
If you decide not to take this up and would rather just go into ridicule mode...save your energy as you know where that gets people with me. Just saying.
-
Yes, you apparently have not read the thread.
Are you denying that sceptimatic said "the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh"?
-
Scepti - you have offered some explanation, true, but have not taken on my offer to measure both displacement of and pressure around objects of different densities. I'll do it as soon as you provide what denpressure predicts to result from those measurements.
Here's something for you. What you are measuring today is exactly hat denpressure actually is.
The problem is, you are saturated in gravity and otehr bullshit.
All I'm saying to you is, grasp what I'm saying and you can go and do as many experiments as you want to in real time to gain a proof.
I'm not going to sit here and calculate this and that when people will never grasp the actual basics of what I'm saying.
There's no need for calculation until you are putting something to work, safely, in any walk of life.
Explanation and grasping of it, is key to understading. I'm not being funny, I'm being serious.
Try and undertsand what I'm saying because you're allowing scientific clap trap to mask over the basics I'm giving out and it will just confuse the hell out of you.
Look: you're not in college or uni, here. You can use this as an exercise in alternative thought. Discard the gravity crap for a while. Discard what you've been battered with from a young age and try and use this as a chance to gather these explanations to actually put into logical format.
The worst that can happen is that you have expended your time on something you decide not to go with.
The best that can happen is that you can actually start to see that the world is not what they sold to you, plus space.
That's the best I can offer.
If you decide not to take this up and would rather just go into ridicule mode...save your energy as you know where that gets people with me. Just saying.
More blah, blah, blah...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......... ::)
-
Yes pressure varies around the world but so does g. So will these two values have a proportional relationship or not? Presumably you would say yes since you think they are one in the same. As far all the rest of the stuff that I said before that, read it as many times as you need to get it. It's not difficult stuff.
Well this is the key. Of course your gravity and denpressure appear identical. That's because they are, on Earth.
It's mainly space that the gazump comes in which makes people go with gravity and I understand that. It's not like I'm ridiculing people for believing this stuff. I used to myself. We all did.
We simply get told that things fall on Earth and it's due to gravity. We get told that the tides are due to the moons gravitational pull and the Earth being supposedly 4 times bigger, pulls on the moon whilst the sun pulls on the Earth but they never fall in due to their orbits, etc, etc.
Very few people give a thought to what reality could be as they take the fantasy for what's told without thinking, " wait a minute, let's look into this."
Of course, the simple answer to that is, ~" well shouldn't that tell you you're wrong if all other people think differently?"#
No. Because our lives have been dictated that way. We were all dropped down a one way tube of thought with no turning back. The lucky ones manage to push themselves back out and resist going back in whilst the rest are simply enjoying the long slide into their fantasy land at the end without realising tehre is no end.
-
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/104242-004-CAD02FCB.gif)
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3666/PIA04652_lrg.jpg)
The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.
They're just pressure charts.
-
Scepti, the cradle video I posted esentially disproves your concept of weight as pressure, since a Newton's craddle works better at a vacuum than on the atmosphere. Please explain.
Of course it works better in low pressure. Less resistance. Remember energy applied?
Have a think about it.
-
Here are the videos.
(http://)
(http://)
Goodbye denpressure
Why waste your time doing this stuff if you're going to not show exact stuff?
You're all over the place. Why?
I simply can't trust you. This is twice now and you are not showing anything that can be verified.
-
So another thought scepti. You said:
Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.
If this is the case and if two locations, say Japan and the United States are on opposite sides of the world (at least opposite side of the north pole) then how many miles apart would these two locations if one took a flight between the two of them. On a RE the distance is something like 6000 miles, but now that you've amended your theory for all the flaws I've pointed it out it seems that you not only need to add the distance required to go around the north pole but we also need to add 1000s of miles for this huge expanse of area that is your north pole. So what are we talking about now 10000, 12000, 15000 miles for this trip or what? These are absurdly large distances to ride in a plane for and I've not heard of any passenger jets that travel at the speeds required to account for this.
No, it just means that they are closer in that circle and not at each end of it kind of thing.
Remember, the suns reflection is running around the middle of the Earth with Japan seeing it from their vantage point in rising and Anerica seeing it from their vantage point, setting is it moves closer and farther away around the circle, respectively.
-
Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.
Let's be fair. I know I'm fully against but seriously would something like that prove anything?
It doesn't to me.#
If sokarul has just decided to rush again without taking the time, then fair enough, I appreciate his effort anyay...but it's not proving anything ether way.
-
Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.
Problem is, that is probably the weight of the air that was evacuated. Even if it wasnt an error, it is coherent with RET (FinalWeight = InitialWeight - EvacuatedMass), but not Denpressure.
I can't see enough of it to make anything of it to be honest.
If he wants to follow an exact instruction from me then I'll have a much better chance to see it.
-
septic may be in need of some mates when this denpressure bullshit dies from natural causes. Think I have found him some.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2852829/Was-secret-manned-mission-Mars-1979-Former-Nasa-employee-claims-saw-suited-men-running-red-planet.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2852829/Was-secret-manned-mission-Mars-1979-Former-Nasa-employee-claims-saw-suited-men-running-red-planet.html)
I'll hope that this was just you having a joke. If not, you have no chance of ever grasping anything.
-
Get your head around this septic.
reduced gravity aircraft is a type of fixed-wing aircraft that provides brief near-weightless environments for training astronauts, conducting research and making gravity-free movie shots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft)
Looks like your dunny pressure is MIA.
The air craft is diving as fast as you can fall in that environment. That's not gravity and you should know this.
-
Yes pressure varies around the world but so does g. So will these two values have a proportional relationship or not? Presumably you would say yes since you think they are one in the same. As far all the rest of the stuff that I said before that, read it as many times as you need to get it. It's not difficult stuff.
Well this is the key. Of course your gravity and denpressure appear identical. That's because they are, on Earth.
It's mainly space that the gazump comes in which makes people go with gravity and I understand that. It's not like I'm ridiculing people for believing this stuff. I used to myself. We all did.
We simply get told that things fall on Earth and it's due to gravity. We get told that the tides are due to the moons gravitational pull and the Earth being supposedly 4 times bigger, pulls on the moon whilst the sun pulls on the Earth but they never fall in due to their orbits, etc, etc.
Very few people give a thought to what reality could be as they take the fantasy for what's told without thinking, " wait a minute, let's look into this."
Of course, the simple answer to that is, ~" well shouldn't that tell you you're wrong if all other people think differently?"#
No. Because our lives have been dictated that way. We were all dropped down a one way tube of thought with no turning back. The lucky ones manage to push themselves back out and resist going back in whilst the rest are simply enjoying the long slide into their fantasy land at the end without realising tehre is no end.
When you respond like this... I am going to just ignore all your talk about what people are told and yada. I asked you a simple question and just wanted a simple answer not your psychobabble.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/104242-004-CAD02FCB.gif)
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3666/PIA04652_lrg.jpg)
The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.
They're just pressure charts.
They cannot both be pressure charts if these are the results on two charts for the same time. The only way this could be true is if they looked the same. At least in some way. Use your brain.
-
Scepti, the cradle video I posted esentially disproves your concept of weight as pressure, since a Newton's craddle works better at a vacuum than on the atmosphere. Please explain.
Of course it works better in low pressure. Less resistance. Remember energy applied?
Have a think about it.
Are you kidding? Your claims are that high pressure equals more energy applied equals things weigh more equals things fall faster. Low pressure equals more energy applied now?
-
Yes pressure varies around the world but so does g. So will these two values have a proportional relationship or not? Presumably you would say yes since you think they are one in the same. As far all the rest of the stuff that I said before that, read it as many times as you need to get it. It's not difficult stuff.
Well this is the key. Of course your gravity and denpressure appear identical. That's because they are, on Earth.
It's mainly space that the gazump comes in which makes people go with gravity and I understand that. It's not like I'm ridiculing people for believing this stuff. I used to myself. We all did.
We simply get told that things fall on Earth and it's due to gravity. We get told that the tides are due to the moons gravitational pull and the Earth being supposedly 4 times bigger, pulls on the moon whilst the sun pulls on the Earth but they never fall in due to their orbits, etc, etc.
Very few people give a thought to what reality could be as they take the fantasy for what's told without thinking, " wait a minute, let's look into this."
Of course, the simple answer to that is, ~" well shouldn't that tell you you're wrong if all other people think differently?"#
No. Because our lives have been dictated that way. We were all dropped down a one way tube of thought with no turning back. The lucky ones manage to push themselves back out and resist going back in whilst the rest are simply enjoying the long slide into their fantasy land at the end without realising tehre is no end.
When you respond like this... I am going to just ignore all your talk about what people are told and yada. I asked you a simple question and just wanted a simple answer not your psychobabble.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/104242-004-CAD02FCB.gif)
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3666/PIA04652_lrg.jpg)
The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.
They're just pressure charts.
They cannot both be pressure charts if these are the results on two charts for the same time. The only way this could be true is if they looked the same. At least in some way. Use your brain.
I am using my brain. They are charts. What are they actually proving. I mean proving? ....they are charts. Where did you get them from and who made them and who gathered all the data?
You can ignore anything you want from me, I'm not bothered, but putting stuff like this up is not helping your cause, seriously.
-
Scepti, the cradle video I posted esentially disproves your concept of weight as pressure, since a Newton's craddle works better at a vacuum than on the atmosphere. Please explain.
Of course it works better in low pressure. Less resistance. Remember energy applied?
Have a think about it.
Scepti, dont you see the problem? What is causing the balls to fall back down in the pendulum, WHEN THERE IS LESS PRESSURE?
According to denpressure, the balls should be almost weightless, or at the very least, they shouldnt weight that much.
Also, could you please provide an actual counter to sokarul's claims? What do you think its weird about it? Im not even asking for proof, its just about what did sokarul wrong, so any future tester can get better results
-
Yes pressure varies around the world but so does g. So will these two values have a proportional relationship or not? Presumably you would say yes since you think they are one in the same. As far all the rest of the stuff that I said before that, read it as many times as you need to get it. It's not difficult stuff.
Well this is the key. Of course your gravity and denpressure appear identical. That's because they are, on Earth.
It's mainly space that the gazump comes in which makes people go with gravity and I understand that. It's not like I'm ridiculing people for believing this stuff. I used to myself. We all did.
We simply get told that things fall on Earth and it's due to gravity. We get told that the tides are due to the moons gravitational pull and the Earth being supposedly 4 times bigger, pulls on the moon whilst the sun pulls on the Earth but they never fall in due to their orbits, etc, etc.
Very few people give a thought to what reality could be as they take the fantasy for what's told without thinking, " wait a minute, let's look into this."
Of course, the simple answer to that is, ~" well shouldn't that tell you you're wrong if all other people think differently?"#
No. Because our lives have been dictated that way. We were all dropped down a one way tube of thought with no turning back. The lucky ones manage to push themselves back out and resist going back in whilst the rest are simply enjoying the long slide into their fantasy land at the end without realising tehre is no end.
When you respond like this... I am going to just ignore all your talk about what people are told and yada. I asked you a simple question and just wanted a simple answer not your psychobabble.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/104242-004-CAD02FCB.gif)
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3666/PIA04652_lrg.jpg)
The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.
They're just pressure charts.
They cannot both be pressure charts if these are the results on two charts for the same time. The only way this could be true is if they looked the same. At least in some way. Use your brain.
I am using my brain. They are charts. What are they actually proving. I mean proving? ....they are charts. Where did you get them from and who made them and who gathered all the data?
You can ignore anything you want from me, I'm not bothered, but putting stuff like this up is not helping your cause, seriously.
Pressure charts are made daily by weather agencies like NOAA and what you see above in the pressure chart is typical for July. The gravity chart was made by ESA. If you want turn this into a conspiracy thread because that is your routine then fine but if you think this helps you then your nuts. You have only one course of action and that is to scream "conspiracy!!!" Throughout this thread there has been one trend and that is a constant stream of a body of evidence against your claims to which you constantly dismiss as fake, untrustworthy, or need to ammend the flaws that your theory contains. You accuse round earthers of holding on to their beliefs but seriously.... Look into the mirror.
-
Scepti, dont you see the problem? What is causing the balls to fall back down in the pendulum, WHEN THERE IS LESS PRESSURE?
You need to understand what got the balls up there in the first place. Energy. Now they are suspended by thin wires hanging. They are potential ebergy just hanging there,
Further energy is needed to keep one ball away from the others, so now that ball also becomes potential energy until it's released. It's action and reaction in equal terms which is why only when that ball is released, its potential energy is now a force again which pushes the atmosphere out of the way by the push down force, as low as it is. The ball cannot fall to the floor because the wire its hanging on stops that, so it moves until it's energy is stopped by a resistence which is the resistance of all the denser balls in that atmosphere, except the last one cannot keep a full resistance, because it's the same density as the ball, plus energy applied, which is transferred through the speed of punch or push of the other 3, creating apunch/push onto that and applying that energy to that with a bit less force each time due to resistance of friction.
This is why a lower pressure allows a little bit more momentum than atmospheric sea level pressure or whatever.
It's the energy bit you keep leaving out which is why you cannot grasp any of it.
Just remember one thing. If you apply energy, it has to give it back, unless you hold it as potential energy, which does no work until you allow that.
According to denpressure, the balls should be almost weightless, or at the very least, they shouldnt weight that much.
Also, could you please provide an actual counter to sokarul's claims? What do you think its weird about it? Im not even asking for proof, its just about what did sokarul wrong, so any future tester can get better results
-
Pressure charts are made daily by weather agencies like NOAA and what you see above in the pressure chart is typical for July. The gravity chart was made by ESA. If you want turn this into a conspiracy thread because that is your routine then fine but if you think this helps you then your nuts. You have only one course of action and that is to scream "conspiracy!!!" Throughout this thread there has been one trend and that is a constant stream of a body of evidence against your claims to which you constantly dismiss as fake, untrustworthy, or need to ammend the flaws that your theory contains. You accuse round earthers of holding on to their beliefs but seriously.... Look into the mirror.
If you don't want me to scream, conspiracy then don't waste yout time putting a pressure chart up with a so called gravity chart.
You know fine well that I know gravity is crap, so why in the hell am I going to debate a chart made by mainstream?
Think about it. Your arguments are getting weaker by using this tosh, seriously.
-
Scepti, dont you see the problem? What is causing the balls to fall back down in the pendulum, WHEN THERE IS LESS PRESSURE?
You need to understand what got the balls up there in the first place. Energy. Now they are suspended by thin wires hanging. They are potential ebergy just hanging there,
Further energy is needed to keep one ball away from the others, so now that ball also becomes potential energy until it's released. It's action and reaction in equal terms which is why only when that ball is released, its potential energy is now a force again which pushes the atmosphere out of the way by the push down force, as low as it is. The ball cannot fall to the floor because the wire its hanging on stops that, so it moves until it's energy is stopped by a resistence which is the resistance of all the denser balls in that atmosphere, except the last one cannot keep a full resistance, because it's the same density as the ball, plus energy applied, which is transferred through the speed of punch or push of the other 3, creating apunch/push onto that and applying that energy to that with a bit less force each time due to resistance of friction.
This is why a lower pressure allows a little bit more momentum than atmospheric sea level pressure or whatever.
It's the energy bit you keep leaving out which is why you cannot grasp any of it.
Just remember one thing. If you apply energy, it has to give it back, unless you hold it as potential energy, which does no work until you allow that.
According to denpressure, the balls should be almost weightless, or at the very least, they shouldnt weight that much.
Also, could you please provide an actual counter to sokarul's claims? What do you think its weird about it? Im not even asking for proof, its just about what did sokarul wrong, so any future tester can get better results
So low pressure = more momentum now? How is this not the opposite of everything you've ever said?
-
Pressure charts are made daily by weather agencies like NOAA and what you see above in the pressure chart is typical for July. The gravity chart was made by ESA. If you want turn this into a conspiracy thread because that is your routine then fine but if you think this helps you then your nuts. You have only one course of action and that is to scream "conspiracy!!!" Throughout this thread there has been one trend and that is a constant stream of a body of evidence against your claims to which you constantly dismiss as fake, untrustworthy, or need to ammend the flaws that your theory contains. You accuse round earthers of holding on to their beliefs but seriously.... Look into the mirror.
If you don't want me to scream, conspiracy then don't waste yout time putting a pressure chart up with a so called gravity chart.
You know fine well that I know gravity is crap, so why in the hell am I going to debate a chart made by mainstream?
Think about it. Your arguments are getting weaker by using this tosh, seriously.
When you scream conspiracy or block me I take that as a win. I know you won't admit you're wrong.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
-
Scepti - you have offered some explanation, true, but have not taken on my offer to measure both displacement of and pressure around objects of different densities. I'll do it as soon as you provide what denpressure predicts to result from those measurements.
Here's something for you. What you are measuring today is exactly hat denpressure actually is.
The problem is, you are saturated in gravity and otehr bullshit.
All I'm saying to you is, grasp what I'm saying and you can go and do as many experiments as you want to in real time to gain a proof.
I'm not going to sit here and calculate this and that when people will never grasp the actual basics of what I'm saying.
There's no need for calculation until you are putting something to work, safely, in any walk of life.
Explanation and grasping of it, is key to understading. I'm not being funny, I'm being serious.
Try and undertsand what I'm saying because you're allowing scientific clap trap to mask over the basics I'm giving out and it will just confuse the hell out of you.
Look: you're not in college or uni, here. You can use this as an exercise in alternative thought. Discard the gravity crap for a while. Discard what you've been battered with from a young age and try and use this as a chance to gather these explanations to actually put into logical format.
The worst that can happen is that you have expended your time on something you decide not to go with.
The best that can happen is that you can actually start to see that the world is not what they sold to you, plus space.
That's the best I can offer.
If you decide not to take this up and would rather just go into ridicule mode...save your energy as you know where that gets people with me. Just saying.
I'm not calculating anything here, I'm observing what happens in the real world. Just saying that what you suggest to be 'the truth' does not comply with simple observation; that more dense (heavier) objects would displace more fluid, and that heavier objects at rest would have higher pressure acting on their top surface. These are things that we can verify and see what's what, no need for relying on any hypothetical models of anything, gravity or otherwise. Alternative thinking? Why not, but you see if most people me included are to 'grasp' and accept a theory, it needs to comply with reality. Experiments are the way to see if that is the case, and who has been selling what.
FYI 'putting to work', calculating and measuring stuff like volume and pressure of a fluid in a container is what I do for a living. So you see these specific claims you have made are what I can and would like to put to test. And again, I'm not asking you to provide a mathematical model or anything like that, simply asking for a prediction based on your denpressure, for approximately how much more fluid a three times as dense object should displace, and how much pressure I should find at surfaces of said objects.
So I guess this is where you ignore me again.
-
Here are the videos.
(http://)
(http://)
Goodbye denpressure
Why waste your time doing this stuff if you're going to not show exact stuff?
You're all over the place. Why?
I simply can't trust you. This is twice now and you are not showing anything that can be verified.
What didn't I show?
-
Here are the videos.
(http://)
(http://)
Goodbye denpressure
Why waste your time doing this stuff if you're going to not show exact stuff?
You're all over the place. Why?
I simply can't trust you. This is twice now and you are not showing anything that can be verified.
What didn't I show?
The results he was expecting. So obviously you are a NASA shill and your video is faked... ::)
-
Why waste your time doing this stuff if you're going to not show exact stuff?
You're all over the place. Why?
I simply can't trust you. This is twice now and you are not showing anything that can be verified.
I suggest you use your millions of dollars and repeat the experiment but with a mechanical scale to see if you get different results.
I will. I suggest anyone with a vacuum chamber to perform similar experiments.
Are you going to post the video? You do have the video equipment, so there's no reason not to. FE'rs and RE'rs alike are eagerly awaiting your proof.
Or are you going to disappoint us again like you did with your "laser experiment"?
-
Get your head around this septic.
reduced gravity aircraft is a type of fixed-wing aircraft that provides brief near-weightless environments for training astronauts, conducting research and making gravity-free movie shots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft)
Looks like your dunny pressure is MIA.
The air craft is diving as fast as you can fall in that environment. That's not gravity and you should know this.
The passengers are "weightless" while the aircraft is still ascending before it levels off and begins it's decent.
-
Get your head around this septic.
reduced gravity aircraft is a type of fixed-wing aircraft that provides brief near-weightless environments for training astronauts, conducting research and making gravity-free movie shots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft)
Looks like your dunny pressure is MIA.
The air craft is diving as fast as you can fall in that environment. That's not gravity and you should know this.
The passengers are "weightless" while the aircraft is still ascending before it levels off and begins it's decent.
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
-
So another thought scepti. You said:
Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.
If this is the case and if two locations, say Japan and the United States are on opposite sides of the world (at least opposite side of the north pole) then how many miles apart would these two locations if one took a flight between the two of them. On a RE the distance is something like 6000 miles, but now that you've amended your theory for all the flaws I've pointed it out it seems that you not only need to add the distance required to go around the north pole but we also need to add 1000s of miles for this huge expanse of area that is your north pole. So what are we talking about now 10000, 12000, 15000 miles for this trip or what? These are absurdly large distances to ride in a plane for and I've not heard of any passenger jets that travel at the speeds required to account for this.
No, it just means that they are closer in that circle and not at each end of it kind of thing.
Remember, the suns reflection is running around the middle of the Earth with Japan seeing it from their vantage point in rising and Anerica seeing it from their vantage point, setting is it moves closer and farther away around the circle, respectively.
Do you not understand? Your new claim is that there is uncharted territory at the north pole that extends for 1000s of miles? This makes the already incoherent claims about travel times on a flat earth even worse.
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
Yes but I can't do it to someone who thinks you are weightless , ascending.
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
Yes but I can't do it to someone who thinks you are weightless , ascending.
Well your problem is that you need a dictionary. Weight is a relative term and mass is not. If something floats it is weightless.
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
Yes but I can't do it to someone who thinks you are weightless , ascending.
Well your problem is that you need a dictionary. Weight is a relative term and mass is not. If something floats it is weightless.
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
Yes but I can't do it to someone who thinks you are weightless , ascending.
Well your problem is that you need a dictionary. Weight is a relative term and mass is not. If something floats it is weightless.
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
Because during ascent it is not weightless.
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
Yes but I can't do it to someone who thinks you are weightless , ascending.
Well your problem is that you need a dictionary. Weight is a relative term and mass is not. If something floats it is weightless.
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
Because during ascent it is not weightless.
Then tell your mate that, not me.
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
Yes but I can't do it to someone who thinks you are weightless , ascending.
Well your problem is that you need a dictionary. Weight is a relative term and mass is not. If something floats it is weightless.
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
Because during ascent it is not weightless.
Then tell your mate that, not me.
I thought you were talking about the entire ascent. Weightlessness begins at the end of the ascent and ends during the descent.
-
So... minutes ago I made a video of some beans that my wife has cooking in a pot on the stove. So Scepti, would you say that there is more pressure in a stove cooker with the lid on or would you say that the pressure is more when the lid is off?
-
Would you like to re-adjust your thoughts? I think you should, or you are going to lag way behind.
Nope, I'm good. ;D Can you explain zero-g parabolic flights in relation to denpressure?
Yes but I can't do it to someone who thinks you are weightless , ascending.
Well your problem is that you need a dictionary. Weight is a relative term and mass is not. If something floats it is weightless.
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
Because during ascent it is not weightless.
Then tell your mate that, not me.
I thought you were talking about the entire ascent. Weightlessness begins at the end of the ascent and ends during the descent.
This picture has been posted before.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Zero_gravity_flight_trajectory_C9-565.jpg)
Scpeitc
Here are the videos.
(http://)
(http://)
Goodbye denpressure
Why waste your time doing this stuff if you're going to not show exact stuff?
You're all over the place. Why?
I simply can't trust you. This is twice now and you are not showing anything that can be verified.
What didn't I show?
-
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
They're floating about the cabin while still gaining altitude. Guv posted a link to a wikipedia page that explains it. Are you saying that site is wrong?
-
So... minutes ago I made a video of some beans that my wife has cooking in a pot on the stove. So Scepti, would you say that there is more pressure in a stove cooker with the lid on or would you say that the pressure is more when the lid is off?
Can you be a bit more specific here.
-
So... minutes ago I made a video of some beans that my wife has cooking in a pot on the stove. So Scepti, would you say that there is more pressure in a stove cooker with the lid on or would you say that the pressure is more when the lid is off?
Can you be a bit more specific here.
1. Beans cooking on stove.
2. Lid.
3. Is pressure in pot greater with lid on or off?
-
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
They're floating about the cabin while still gaining altitude. Guv posted a link to a wikipedia page that explains it. Are you saying that site is wrong?
They do not appear to float whilst gaining altitude. Only on descent to match free fall, do they appear to float. That's all this zero g plane is. It's a free fall plane at height that can allow people to fall with it to simulate weightlessness. the truth is they are still falling at speed but the cabin pressure doesn't give the air friction upon them like it would be outside, so they appear to float.
-
So... minutes ago I made a video of some beans that my wife has cooking in a pot on the stove. So Scepti, would you say that there is more pressure in a stove cooker with the lid on or would you say that the pressure is more when the lid is off?
Can you be a bit more specific here.
1. Beans cooking on stove.
2. Lid.
3. Is pressure in pot greater with lid on or off?
Are we talking about a pressure cooker or a normal pan and lid?
-
So... minutes ago I made a video of some beans that my wife has cooking in a pot on the stove. So Scepti, would you say that there is more pressure in a stove cooker with the lid on or would you say that the pressure is more when the lid is off?
Can you be a bit more specific here.
1. Beans cooking on stove.
2. Lid.
3. Is pressure in pot greater with lid on or off?
Are we talking about a pressure cooker or a normal pan and lid?
Answer the question for both, I don't imagine that it would be a different answer for either but go ahead.
-
So... minutes ago I made a video of some beans that my wife has cooking in a pot on the stove. So Scepti, would you say that there is more pressure in a stove cooker with the lid on or would you say that the pressure is more when the lid is off?
Can you be a bit more specific here.
1. Beans cooking on stove.
2. Lid.
3. Is pressure in pot greater with lid on or off?
Are we talking about a pressure cooker or a normal pan and lid?
Answer the question for both, I don't imagine that it would be a different answer for either but go ahead.
Well, you see, it isn't as easy as it may look and I have to make sure what was being said.
A pressure cooker has a weight on top. It pushes up and let's out the pressure against atmospheric pressure.
A pan with no lid is creating low pressure against high pressure.
A pan with a simple lid will boil and rattle the lid against high pressure.
I'd like to know what the point of this is?
-
So... minutes ago I made a video of some beans that my wife has cooking in a pot on the stove. So Scepti, would you say that there is more pressure in a stove cooker with the lid on or would you say that the pressure is more when the lid is off?
Can you be a bit more specific here.
1. Beans cooking on stove.
2. Lid.
3. Is pressure in pot greater with lid on or off?
Are we talking about a pressure cooker or a normal pan and lid?
Answer the question for both, I don't imagine that it would be a different answer for either but go ahead.
Well, you see, it isn't as easy as it may look and I have to make sure what was being said.
A pressure cooker has a weight on top. It pushes up and let's out the pressure against atmospheric pressure.
A pan with no lid is creating low pressure against high pressure.
A pan with a simple lid will boil and rattle the lid against high pressure.
I'd like to know what the point of this is?
Well I'd be happy to get to that once you give me a straight answer. Do you need me ask you again in a different way?
-
Here are the videos.
(http://)
(http://)
Goodbye denpressure
Why waste your time doing this stuff if you're going to not show exact stuff?
You're all over the place. Why?
I simply can't trust you. This is twice now and you are not showing anything that can be verified.
What didn't I show?
-
I'll make this very easy for you to answer.
Which has a greater pressure?
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
In the blank you can just put a > or a <.
In fact you can respond to this with just a > or <. It's that easy.
-
I'll make this very easy for you to answer.
Which has a greater pressure?
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
In the blank you can just put a > or a <.
In fact you can respond to this with just a > or <. It's that easy.
<, if you are meaning the actual pressure inside the pan. I have to be careful with you people because you tend to take an answer and go with it jumping about shouting, " ahhh look, I asked about this and he said that."
You're just prolonging the frustration with yourselves by trying these little tricks because you never get any further forward in understanding denpressure but are happy to understand something that does not exist, except in some sci-fi writers mind.
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
-
Well that is quite unexpected. Is that really your answer? You think the inside of a pot while boiling has higher pressure with lid off than on? What's the point of the lid then?
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
It doesn't struggle with anything at all. It easily handles anything thrown at it. The issue is how you people try to interpret it by using stuff that you believe can kill it off when it's impossible to kill off the truth.
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
It doesn't struggle with anything at all. It easily handles anything thrown at it. The issue is how you people try to interpret it by using stuff that you believe can kill it off when it's impossible to kill off the truth.
You sure seem to be hiding from my videos and you are unable to explain what is wrong with them.
-
Well that is quite unexpected. Is that really your answer? You think the inside of a pot while boiling has higher pressure with lid off than on? What's the point of the lid then?
Obviously the point of putting a lid on is to lower the pressure. Just like when you put a lid on a pressure cooker. It lowers the pressure inside. Because that makes so much sense.
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
It doesn't struggle with anything at all. It easily handles anything thrown at it. The issue is how you people try to interpret it by using stuff that you believe can kill it off when it's impossible to kill off the truth.
You sure seem to be hiding from my videos and you are unable to explain what is wrong with them.
I'm not hiding from them. You didn't show everything and you didn't use the scales I mentioned, plus your footage again was crap.
Next time you do it, it will be to my instructions and followed to the letter, Do you undrstand?
-
Well that is quite unexpected. Is that really your answer? You think the inside of a pot while boiling has higher pressure with lid off than on? What's the point of the lid then?
How about looking at my answer again. No wonder you people cannot grasp anything. Intelligent people my arse.
-
Maybe there is a misunderstanding and you don't know what < means? ???
-
I'm not hiding from them. You didn't show everything and you didn't use the scales I mentioned, plus your footage again was crap.
I used one of the two. An electronic scale should not function any different.
What didn't I show?
[/quote]
Next time you do it, it will be to my instructions and followed to the letter, Do you undrstand?
The results weren't what you expected so it's invalid? How cute.
How about looking at my answer again. No wonder you people cannot grasp anything. Intelligent people my arse.
I'll make this very easy for you to answer.
Which has a greater pressure?
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
In the blank you can just put a > or a <.
In fact you can respond to this with just a > or <. It's that easy.
<, if you are meaning the actual pressure inside the pan. I have to be careful with you people because you tend to take an answer and go with it jumping about shouting, " ahhh look, I asked about this and he said that."
You're just prolonging the frustration with yourselves by trying these little tricks because you never get any further forward in understanding denpressure but are happy to understand something that does not exist, except in some sci-fi writers mind.
You said Pot boiling with lid on is less than a Pot boiling with lid off
That is what you said.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
Do you have a concussion by chance?
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
No guy. Anyone who looks at that who's at least been through grade school would not have thought it was a pointer. It's never a pointer.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
Do you have a concussion by chance?
Is this the best you people can do? Hahahahaha.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
No guy. Anyone who looks at that who's at least been through grade school would not have thought it was a pointer. It's never a pointer.
I never thought it was a pointer. I said I used it as a pointer because you are trying to play games, just like you did with the ascent and weightlessness.
Anyone can play games.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
No guy. Anyone who looks at that who's at least been through grade school would not have thought it was a pointer. It's never a pointer.
I never thought it was a pointer. I said I used it as a pointer because you are trying to play games, just like you did with the ascent and weightlessness.
Anyone can play games.
I wasn't playing games then and im not playing games now. It is evident that today marks the day that you learned what < means. You are in serious need of some grade school.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
Do you have a concussion by chance?
Is this the best you people can do? Hahahahaha.
Don't say stupid things and then we won't call you stupid.
I'm sure you looked up what "<" and ">" mean. I hope you remember what they are in the future.
Don't forget.
What didn't I show?
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
No guy. Anyone who looks at that who's at least been through grade school would not have thought it was a pointer. It's never a pointer.
I never thought it was a pointer. I said I used it as a pointer because you are trying to play games, just like you did with the ascent and weightlessness.
Anyone can play games.
I wasn't playing games then and im not playing games now. It is evident that today marks the day that you learned what < means. You are in serious need of some grade school.
Is this really the best you can do? ;D
No wonder you get yourself wound up all the time.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
Do you have a concussion by chance?
Is this the best you people can do? Hahahahaha.
Don't say stupid things and then we won't call you stupid.
I'm sure you looked up what "<" and ">" mean. I hope you remember what they are in the future.
Aren't they just horizontal V's?
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
No guy. Anyone who looks at that who's at least been through grade school would not have thought it was a pointer. It's never a pointer.
I never thought it was a pointer. I said I used it as a pointer because you are trying to play games, just like you did with the ascent and weightlessness.
Anyone can play games.
I wasn't playing games then and im not playing games now. It is evident that today marks the day that you learned what < means. You are in serious need of some grade school.
Is this really the best you can do? ;D
No wonder you get yourself wound up all the time.
Well there is a reason I brought up a boiling pot but I'm saving that for later and reveling in the latest findings about your education because frankly, it's funny as hell.
-
Pot boiling with lid on ____ Pot boiling with lid off
<
Let's look again.
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on. What's the problem?
Is this real? You don't know what a less than symbol is?
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than, more than silliness. I know your game and you're wasting your time.
No guy. Anyone who looks at that who's at least been through grade school would not have thought it was a pointer. It's never a pointer.
I never thought it was a pointer. I said I used it as a pointer because you are trying to play games, just like you did with the ascent and weightlessness.
Anyone can play games.
I wasn't playing games then and im not playing games now. It is evident that today marks the day that you learned what < means. You are in serious need of some grade school.
Is this really the best you can do? ;D
No wonder you get yourself wound up all the time.
Well there is a reason I brought up a boiling pot but I'm saving that for later and reveling in the latest findings about your education because frankly, it's funny as hell.
What is an education? it's as funny as hell.
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
It doesn't struggle with anything at all. It easily handles anything thrown at it. The issue is how you people try to interpret it by using stuff that you believe can kill it off when it's impossible to kill off the truth.
Then why won't you just tell us how much more fluid a steel object displaces than an aluminium object of same size. Oh right you won't because you already know that reality contradicts the bullshit you've made up. While on it maybe address how sokarul's video of weight not changing in vacuum is not descriptive of weight not changing in vacuum, which, as you already know, shows your made up denpressure crap to be bullshit. All you've got is excuses.
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
It doesn't struggle with anything at all. It easily handles anything thrown at it. The issue is how you people try to interpret it by using stuff that you believe can kill it off when it's impossible to kill off the truth.
Then why won't you just tell us how much more fluid a steel object displaces than an aluminium object of same size. Oh right you won't because you already know that reality contradicts the bullshit you've made up. While on it maybe address how sokarul's video of weight not changing in vacuum is not descriptive of weight not changing in vacuum, which, as you already know, shows your made up denpressure crap to be bullshit. All you've got is excuses.
When you say fluid, are you talking water or atmosphere?
Oh and sokarul's experiment is inonclusive and he knows it, or maybe he doesn't by the shit way he conducted it.
I wouldn't trust him with my neighbours dog.
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
It doesn't struggle with anything at all. It easily handles anything thrown at it. The issue is how you people try to interpret it by using stuff that you believe can kill it off when it's impossible to kill off the truth.
Then why won't you just tell us how much more fluid a steel object displaces than an aluminium object of same size. Oh right you won't because you already know that reality contradicts the bullshit you've made up. While on it maybe address how sokarul's video of weight not changing in vacuum is not descriptive of weight not changing in vacuum, which, as you already know, shows your made up denpressure crap to be bullshit. All you've got is excuses.
When you say fluid, are you talking water or atmosphere?
Oh and sokarul's experiment is inonclusive and he knows it, or maybe he doesn't by the shit way he conducted it.
I wouldn't trust him with my neighbours dog.
By fluid I mean any fluid. Would it be any different in your mind? In reality it isn't. Water would be ofc easiest to experiment with.
Sokarul's vid shows no weight change with change of pressure. If you feel like that's not the case, tell why. You haven't so far.
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
-
Excuse me, I have to fart.
-
Got this idea for a dunny pressure engine. Take the head of a motor so the dunny pressure can get to the piston tops and put some real smart dunny pressure valves in the crankcase and off you go. I mean this stuff does every thing but sing and dance, how could this go wrong?.
-
Unbelievable... and surely some sort of site record?
Today alone, sceptimatic has added THIRTY FOUR comments to this one thread. And in spite of this, has manage to not add anything of any substance to the debate, or prove any of his own bizarre claims, or disprove anybody else's legitimate claims.
I've not seen so much crap written by someone so confused about something so easily understood. I'm guessing now that poor old sceptimatic is sorry he ever made up the original fairy story about his "denpressure"—now that it's coming back repeatedly to bite him LOL.
And still no units of measure. How does he quantify it?
;D
-
This denpressure, it seems to struggle a lot with things like kitchens. And vacuum chambers. And displacement. And the rest of the world.
It doesn't struggle with anything at all. It easily handles anything thrown at it. The issue is how you people try to interpret it by using stuff that you believe can kill it off when it's impossible to kill off the truth.
Then why won't you just tell us how much more fluid a steel object displaces than an aluminium object of same size. Oh right you won't because you already know that reality contradicts the bullshit you've made up. While on it maybe address how sokarul's video of weight not changing in vacuum is not descriptive of weight not changing in vacuum, which, as you already know, shows your made up denpressure crap to be bullshit. All you've got is excuses.
When you say fluid, are you talking water or atmosphere?
Oh and sokarul's experiment is inonclusive and he knows it, or maybe he doesn't by the shit way he conducted it.
I wouldn't trust him with my neighbours dog.
By fluid I mean any fluid. Would it be any different in your mind? In reality it isn't. Water would be ofc easiest to experiment with.
Sokarul's vid shows no weight change with change of pressure. If you feel like that's not the case, tell why. You haven't so far.
Water is always a good analogy to try and get people to understand denpressure but it seems to go way over people's heads when it is explained this way, because somehow they can't seem to grasp there is a difference on the likes of objects in atmosphere as regards density of the atmosphere itself when married to the water analogy. This is why people get stuck and can't decipher, which shocks me considering you're supposed to be intelligent.
Just to see if you can grasp anything, I'll start off slow.
Have a think why a boat floats and we will go on from there. I'm taking you right back to kiddified stuff then I'll lead up to the better stuff to show you what's happening.
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
-
Got this idea for a dunny pressure engine. Take the head of a motor so the dunny pressure can get to the piston tops and put some real smart dunny pressure valves in the crankcase and off you go. I mean this stuff does every thing but sing and dance, how could this go wrong?.
Good luck. I hope you'll be using some fuel. Another one who cannot grasp simple context. No wonder you people believe in fictional gravity. ::)
-
How does a boat float septic. I cant nut that one out. You would think all the pressure above would sink the sucker A.
-
Yep, I do believe that's pointing to the lid on.
Of course I do. I was using it as a simple pointer rather than playing less than
I never thought it was a pointer.
(http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/double_facepalm.jpg)
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
Remember energy applied?
You caused the pressure by energy and you used a lid to stop it being released quickly, hence the heavy glass lid with the small hole in it.
You expanded the beans by creating a lower pressure that the outside pressure could not fill quickly and force out due to that small hole. This expanded your beans and allowed the water to push into them.
When you took off the lid, you allowed the force of atmospheric pressure to acts against the full pan size and it squeezed some water out, shrinking those beans, making them more dense.
Turn off the heat and allow the water to cool is allowing the full pressure to condense the beans more until it squeees all the water out of them. this is why you end up with dried beans when you leave them, or why water evaporates, etc.
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
Remember energy applied?
You caused the pressure by energy and you used a lid to stop it being released quickly, hence the heavy glass lid with the small hole in it.
You expanded the beans by creating a lower pressure that the outside pressure could not fill quickly and force out due to that small hole. This expanded your beans and allowed the water to push into them.
When you took off the lid, you allowed the force of atmospheric pressure to acts against the full pan size and it squeezed some water out, shrinking those beans, making them more dense.
Turn off the heat and allow the water to cool is allowing the full pressure to condense the beans more until it squeees all the water out of them. this is why you end up with dried beans when you leave them, or why water evaporates, etc.
So then you do think pressure is greater with the lid off?
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
Remember energy applied?
You caused the pressure by energy and you used a lid to stop it being released quickly, hence the heavy glass lid with the small hole in it.
You expanded the beans by creating a lower pressure that the outside pressure could not fill quickly and force out due to that small hole. This expanded your beans and allowed the water to push into them.
When you took off the lid, you allowed the force of atmospheric pressure to acts against the full pan size and it squeezed some water out, shrinking those beans, making them more dense.
Turn off the heat and allow the water to cool is allowing the full pressure to condense the beans more until it squeees all the water out of them. this is why you end up with dried beans when you leave them, or why water evaporates, etc.
So then you do think pressure is greater with the lid off?
Nope, why do you say that?
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
Remember energy applied?
You caused the pressure by energy and you used a lid to stop it being released quickly, hence the heavy glass lid with the small hole in it.
You expanded the beans by creating a lower pressure that the outside pressure could not fill quickly and force out due to that small hole. This expanded your beans and allowed the water to push into them.
When you took off the lid, you allowed the force of atmospheric pressure to acts against the full pan size and it squeezed some water out, shrinking those beans, making them more dense.
Turn off the heat and allow the water to cool is allowing the full pressure to condense the beans more until it squeees all the water out of them. this is why you end up with dried beans when you leave them, or why water evaporates, etc.
So then you do think pressure is greater with the lid off?
Nope, why do you say that?
Well when the lid is off isn't the whole atmosphere pushing down on the beans causing them to get smaller? I would think that if denpressure is correct, then you would be saying that this would be a greater amount of pressure, but no... The pressure is greater with the lid on and they don't get smaller, they get bigger because pressure is working in every direction just like we keep telling you.
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
Remember energy applied?
You caused the pressure by energy and you used a lid to stop it being released quickly, hence the heavy glass lid with the small hole in it.
You expanded the beans by creating a lower pressure that the outside pressure could not fill quickly and force out due to that small hole. This expanded your beans and allowed the water to push into them.
When you took off the lid, you allowed the force of atmospheric pressure to acts against the full pan size and it squeezed some water out, shrinking those beans, making them more dense.
Turn off the heat and allow the water to cool is allowing the full pressure to condense the beans more until it squeees all the water out of them. this is why you end up with dried beans when you leave them, or why water evaporates, etc.
So then you do think pressure is greater with the lid off?
Nope, why do you say that?
Well when the lid is off isn't the whole atmosphere pushing down on the beans causing them to get smaller? I would think that if denpressure is correct, then you would be saying that this would be a greater amount of pressure, but no... The pressure is greater with the lid on and they don't get smaller, they get bigger because pressure is working in every direction just like we keep telling you.
I'm getting a bit bored of this. Last time.
Your pan with the lid on and your pan without the lid, are both under the energy of the gas/electric heating that pan up.
The pan with the lid on made of heavy glass with a small hole in it, is stpping those agitated molecules of water from escaping the pan as the atmospheric pressure above is trying to fill the the void created by expanded molecules. It's trying to compress them back down but the lid is slowing that process, meaning a pressure build up.
The open pan is acted upon on anything within it and the expanded molecules are pushed out easily.
Can you not understand this?
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
What do you think is pushing that boat down into the water to displace that water?
This should actually tell you 100% that denpressure is the cause of it all.
The density of the boat and it's measured weight, will displace it's exact weight of water due to the amount of atmospheric pressure upon that boat.
-
Your pan with the lid on and your pan without the lid, are both under the energy of the gas/electric heating that pan up.
The pan with the lid on made of heavy glass with a small hole in it, is stepping those agitated molecules of water from escaping the pan as the atmospheric pressure above is trying to fill the the void created by expanded molecules. It's trying to compress them back down but the lid is slowing that process, meaning a pressure build up.
The open pan is acted upon on anything within it and the expanded molecules are pushed out easily.
Can you not understand this?
I wish sceptimatic would cease and desist from posting these absolutely hilarious comments... my sides are aching!
Who needs a Basil Fawlty when we've got sceptimatic?
;D ;D ;D
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
Remember energy applied?
You caused the pressure by energy and you used a lid to stop it being released quickly, hence the heavy glass lid with the small hole in it.
You expanded the beans by creating a lower pressure that the outside pressure could not fill quickly and force out due to that small hole. This expanded your beans and allowed the water to push into them.
When you took off the lid, you allowed the force of atmospheric pressure to acts against the full pan size and it squeezed some water out, shrinking those beans, making them more dense.
Turn off the heat and allow the water to cool is allowing the full pressure to condense the beans more until it squeees all the water out of them. this is why you end up with dried beans when you leave them, or why water evaporates, etc.
So then you do think pressure is greater with the lid off?
Nope, why do you say that?
Well when the lid is off isn't the whole atmosphere pushing down on the beans causing them to get smaller? I would think that if denpressure is correct, then you would be saying that this would be a greater amount of pressure, but no... The pressure is greater with the lid on and they don't get smaller, they get bigger because pressure is working in every direction just like we keep telling you.
I'm getting a bit bored of this. Last time.
Your pan with the lid on and your pan without the lid, are both under the energy of the gas/electric heating that pan up.
The pan with the lid on made of heavy glass with a small hole in it, is stpping those agitated molecules of water from escaping the pan as the atmospheric pressure above is trying to fill the the void created by expanded molecules. It's trying to compress them back down but the lid is slowing that process, meaning a pressure build up.
The open pan is acted upon on anything within it and the expanded molecules are pushed out easily.
Can you not understand this?
What are you not understanding about the argument? This is about how the video makes it evident that pressure works in all directions and not exclusively down. I'm not asking you to explain all this other fudgery.
-
Alright. So I'm finally done laughing from this < fiasco so now I'm going to get to it. I made the following video tonight while my wife was cooking beans for our dinner. If you maximize your screen then you can see that through the steam, within the pot, are plump beans. They are plump because the pressure is high in the pot. Then, at the end of the video I lift the lid and what happens? The little beans shrivel up because they release all the pressure that was in them. So it seems to me this is contradictory to denpressure where the high pressure should be pushing down on the beans and then plumping up a bit after removing the lid.
(http://)
I'm looking forward to the denpressure explanation for this.
I didn't mean to make you wait so long for this but it took you so long to give me a straight answer and then it took longer for you to learn what a less than symbol is. All I wanted to do was confirm that you agree that pressure in a pot with the lid closed is greater before I take the lid off.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all this time of me explaining things, you are still back to square one?
Let me clarify this before I go on with you.
Let me tell you what your problem is. You sit tehre with a stupid smug attitude on thinking you've destroyed what I've said and you simply can't see what's happening in the pan.
Would you like to go over it again before I come in and show you what's happening? ::)
Did you ever think you've made it past square one yourself? Remember, you are trying to explain how denpressure makes things fall and you still haven't. You explained how molecules could push something back to where it came from, which isn't exclusively down. The pressure inside the pot is clearly acting in all directions until it is released.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
That it doesn't look like pressure was pushing anything down more than any other direction when the pressure was high.
Remember energy applied?
You caused the pressure by energy and you used a lid to stop it being released quickly, hence the heavy glass lid with the small hole in it.
You expanded the beans by creating a lower pressure that the outside pressure could not fill quickly and force out due to that small hole. This expanded your beans and allowed the water to push into them.
When you took off the lid, you allowed the force of atmospheric pressure to acts against the full pan size and it squeezed some water out, shrinking those beans, making them more dense.
Turn off the heat and allow the water to cool is allowing the full pressure to condense the beans more until it squeees all the water out of them. this is why you end up with dried beans when you leave them, or why water evaporates, etc.
So then you do think pressure is greater with the lid off?
Nope, why do you say that?
Well when the lid is off isn't the whole atmosphere pushing down on the beans causing them to get smaller? I would think that if denpressure is correct, then you would be saying that this would be a greater amount of pressure, but no... The pressure is greater with the lid on and they don't get smaller, they get bigger because pressure is working in every direction just like we keep telling you.
I'm getting a bit bored of this. Last time.
Your pan with the lid on and your pan without the lid, are both under the energy of the gas/electric heating that pan up.
The pan with the lid on made of heavy glass with a small hole in it, is stpping those agitated molecules of water from escaping the pan as the atmospheric pressure above is trying to fill the the void created by expanded molecules. It's trying to compress them back down but the lid is slowing that process, meaning a pressure build up.
The open pan is acted upon on anything within it and the expanded molecules are pushed out easily.
Can you not understand this?
What are you not understanding about the argument? This is about how the video makes it evident that pressure works in all directions and not exclusively down. I'm not asking you to explain all this other fudgery.
But you're not understanding it at all. You're using a pan to think you've got some edge and you completely forget about what's happening because you are fixated on a lid and without a lid.
Let me try one more time on this piece because it's sriously getting boring.
Your pan and lid under energy are like trying to compress air into a cylinder. Eventually that cylinder is going to release it's safety valve if you overdo the compression against what the struture can handle.
Your pan and lid does not have that problem because your lid has a hole in the heavy glass lid but it still builds up a pressure due to the water molecules being expanded and the atmospheric pressure outside has to try and equalise by going through that hole, which is why you see the steam being forced out like a jet.
If you put more heat on, you could push the lid off if your cooker was powerful enough energy wise.
Aluminium ones rattle due to them being much less dense.
That pressure inside of the pan is not even as it's still pushing steam out by allowing atmospheric pressure into it.
Imagine sealing the pan. It would explode and that's when your pressure is even, because expanded molecules are pushing up against the lid and down against the base which expands to the sides on that push on push, or push on resistance of the bottom of the pan.
Your open pan cannot build up it's pressure because it's always acted upon. The more energy you apply to the water in that pan, or contents, the more expanded you make the molecules and the more the atmospheric pressure pushes down to fill the void or to make it plainer, to try and equalise - or to make it more plainer, to try and compress those molecules and they (for a kiddified version) simply get agitated up or pop up.
This is why the more energy/heat you apply, the more steam you see, because there's more expansion which the atmosphere will always look to equalise, forcing that steam, up.
-
But you're not understanding it at all.
(http://sinclairwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/pot20kettle20black20by20john20takai20dreamstime.jpg)
;D
-
So you agree that pressure acts in all directions?
-
Here is a picture of a water molecule. See how the angle and distance between atoms is listed? They don't change much. There is no expanding. You need to understand this.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/800px-H2O_2D_labelledsvg.png) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/800px-H2O_2D_labelledsvg.png.html)
-
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
They're floating about the cabin while still gaining altitude. Guv posted a link to a wikipedia page that explains it. Are you saying that site is wrong?
They do not appear to float whilst gaining altitude. Only on descent to match free fall, do they appear to float. That's all this zero g plane is. It's a free fall plane at height that can allow people to fall with it to simulate weightlessness. the truth is they are still falling at speed but the cabin pressure doesn't give the air friction upon them like it would be outside, so they appear to float.
So you're saying the site and diagram are wrong.
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
What do you think is pushing that boat down into the water to displace that water?
This should actually tell you 100% that denpressure is the cause of it all.
The density of the boat and it's measured weight, will displace it's exact weight of water due to the amount of atmospheric pressure upon that boat.
Then how can you get steel ships to float when steel blocks of exactly the same density sink?
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
What do you think is pushing that boat down into the water to displace that water?
This should actually tell you 100% that denpressure is the cause of it all.
The density of the boat and it's measured weight, will displace it's exact weight of water due to the amount of atmospheric pressure upon that boat.
If this were true then a oil container ship should ride the same height whether it was full or empty.
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
What do you think is pushing that boat down into the water to displace that water?
This should actually tell you 100% that denpressure is the cause of it all.
The density of the boat and it's measured weight, will displace it's exact weight of water due to the amount of atmospheric pressure upon that boat.
How do we measure that pressure?
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
-
So you agree that pressure acts in all directions?
Yes but only due to the cause which is downward pressure against resistance of denser matter, whether that's ground or sea or object on the ground or on the sea.
-
Here is a picture of a water molecule. See how the angle and distance between atoms is listed? They don't change much. There is no expanding. You need to understand this.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/800px-H2O_2D_labelledsvg.png) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/800px-H2O_2D_labelledsvg.png.html)
You need to undrstand that putting something like that up is pointless.
-
Yes but it doesn't float on ascent, so he has to understand this and maybe you do as well. Come back to me when you get your heads right.
They're floating about the cabin while still gaining altitude. Guv posted a link to a wikipedia page that explains it. Are you saying that site is wrong?
They do not appear to float whilst gaining altitude. Only on descent to match free fall, do they appear to float. That's all this zero g plane is. It's a free fall plane at height that can allow people to fall with it to simulate weightlessness. the truth is they are still falling at speed but the cabin pressure doesn't give the air friction upon them like it would be outside, so they appear to float.
So you're saying the site and diagram are wrong.
If that site says you are weightless on ascent, then yes, it's wrong. If you think otherwise, then it's no wonder you're struggling to grasp this stuff.
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
What do you think is pushing that boat down into the water to displace that water?
This should actually tell you 100% that denpressure is the cause of it all.
The density of the boat and it's measured weight, will displace it's exact weight of water due to the amount of atmospheric pressure upon that boat.
Then how can you get steel ships to float when steel blocks of exactly the same density sink?
Because water is denser than air. If you hollow out a dense metal , then it fills with air. Place that dense metal in dense water and that dense metal will start to be pushed down into the water but will equalise with the pressure outside that is already pushing down on the water, creating a grip.
If you push water away, that water comes back to equalise the pressure of what's pushed it away. In this case the air inside a boat pushing the boats mass/density down, so the water pushes back around the sides of it and grips it. or squeezes it, so it can't push down any further, unless you add more density/mass to that boat.
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
What do you think is pushing that boat down into the water to displace that water?
This should actually tell you 100% that denpressure is the cause of it all.
The density of the boat and it's measured weight, will displace it's exact weight of water due to the amount of atmospheric pressure upon that boat.
If this were true then a oil container ship should ride the same height whether it was full or empty.
When it's full it's displacing air and adding density. When it's empty is full of air and the water density can easily squeeze it up.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
I'm pleased you brought this up because it helps to show why dense objects sink or displace more than others.
A submarine sinks due to allowing atmospheric pressure to push water into it to give it more density. The more water you alloe into it, the more it sinks.
The thing is, it can only sink if it takes in water and the more water acting on the air inside of it, creates a crush against that air, as air compresses.
As soon as you stop water being allowed into the sub, it will simply stop sinking or rising. It will hold a depth.
The only way you can sink it, is to keep taking in water from the water pressure build up from above that is pushed in by the force of atmospheric pressure on top of the water that is constantly pushing down.
As you well know. A sub will be crushed if it goes too far down due to compression of air inside not able to withstand the outside pressure, whch will breach the hull and force out the air back to the top of the water to equalise with the atmospheric pressure above the water.
No matter what you can think of. Atmospheric pressure is they key to it all. No gravity involved.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
-
This thread gets increasingly amusing.
-
This thread gets increasingly amusing.
It would get more educational if you started taking notice of what I'm telling you. The winners will be those that grasp what I'm telling them, however long it takes to sink in.
-
This thread gets increasingly amusing.
It would get more educational if you started taking notice of what I'm telling you. The winners will be those that grasp what I'm telling them, however long it takes to sink in.
Do you ever think to yourself: "hmm...maybe I'm delusional?"
-
This thread gets increasingly amusing.
It would get more educational if you started taking notice of what I'm telling you. The winners will be those that grasp what I'm telling them, however long it takes to sink in.
Do you ever think to yourself: "hmm...maybe I'm delusional?"
No. Do you ever sit down and think, " how in the hell have I feel for this utter rubbish all of my life"...?
-
This thread gets increasingly amusing.
It would get more educational if you started taking notice of what I'm telling you. The winners will be those that grasp what I'm telling them, however long it takes to sink in.
Do you ever think to yourself: "hmm...maybe I'm delusional?"
No. Do you ever sit down and think, " how in the hell have I feel for this utter rubbish all of my life"...?
No, my thoughts tend to be more coherent than that.
-
It would get more educational if you started taking notice of what I'm telling you. The winners will be those that grasp what I'm telling them, however long it takes to sink in.
LOL... it would seem that sceptimatic's delusional state of mind [sic] would have him seriously believe that anybody—even one single person on this forum—takes any notice of what he says. And he still seems not to understand that any of his kindergarten-style reasoning was "grasped" months ago and dismissed as absolute drivel.
Anybody who accepted even for a nanosecond any of his absurd ramblings would undoubtedly have to admit to an IQ in double-digits.
sceptimatic + education = oxymoron
;D
-
Boats of course float because they are able to displace their weight in water. If a boat weighs 1,000 pounds then it will displace 1,000 pounds of water. I do not see where denpressure comes in.
What do you think is pushing that boat down into the water to displace that water?
This should actually tell you 100% that denpressure is the cause of it all.
The density of the boat and it's measured weight, will displace it's exact weight of water due to the amount of atmospheric pressure upon that boat.
Then how can you get steel ships to float when steel blocks of exactly the same density sink?
Because water is denser than air. If you hollow out a dense metal , then it fills with air. Place that dense metal in dense water and that dense metal will start to be pushed down into the water but will equalise with the pressure outside that is already pushing down on the water, creating a grip.
If you push water away, that water comes back to equalise the pressure of what's pushed it away. In this case the air inside a boat pushing the boats mass/density down, so the water pushes back around the sides of it and grips it. or squeezes it, so it can't push down any further, unless you add more density/mass to that boat.
Be careful scepti, that's very close to how an RE'er would explain it.
If that site says you are weightless on ascent, then yes, it's wrong. If you think otherwise, then it's no wonder you're struggling to grasp this stuff.
Poor scepti still can't quite grasp that inertia thing.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
-
A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
This last comment obviously excludes sceptimatic himself. ;D
-
Be careful scepti, that's very close to how an RE'er would explain it.
Of course it's close. That's because what I'm saying is true and all that's added is bullshit gravity to make it look like it's more complicated.
Poor scepti still can't quite grasp that inertia thing.
I can't grasp something that is fictional
-
Be careful scepti, that's very close to how an RE'er would explain it.
Of course it's close. That's because what I'm saying is true and all that's added is bullshit gravity to make it look like it's more complicated.
Buoyancy pushes up and gravity pulls down. How complicated is that? ???
Poor scepti still can't quite grasp that inertia thing.
I can't grasp something that is fictional
Then why does a ball keep going upwards for a while when you throw it upwards?
-
Buoyancy pushes up and gravity pulls down. How complicated is that? ???
It's not complicated to say, it just doesn't work when explained by MSS.
Then why does a ball keep going upwards for a while when you throw it upwards?
Due to the energy you exerted to overcome the pressure on that mass/density.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Don't forget you think I'm a troll so why are you even bothering with a troll?
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
-
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
While likely true, all he has proven is that he will just fuck around with you.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
-
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
sceptimatic invariably reverts to using these kindergarten-level parables whenever he's backed into a corner by questions that he can't answer. It's actually quite funny to see him wallowing in the truckloads of bovine excrement he repeatedly buries himself in—without a shovel.
I think my goldfish have a far better understanding of mass, displacement, buoyancy and pressure than poor old sceptimatic. Unlike sceptimatic, they're capable of utilising those theories every day, and to the best of my knowledge they've never even read a science book. Maybe sceptimatic should start eating fish food sandwiches and catch up with my carassius auratus auratus?
;D
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
I wrote you a haiku :-*
A denier calls foul
claims air can push it all down
but not a bubble
-
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?
I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.
-
Buoyancy pushes up and gravity pulls down. How complicated is that? ???
It's not complicated to say, it just doesn't work when explained by MSS.
What is MSS? Is it another name for denpressure?
Then why does a ball keep going upwards for a while when you throw it upwards?
Due to the energy you exerted to overcome the pressure on that mass/density.
Now, let's say that the ball is in the middle of an airplane that is going that exact same speed and path of that ball that was thrown upwards. Is the ball weightless relative to the plane?
-
I have an idea to save trillions of dollars. How about all cargo ships ship their cargo in a vacuum. Take an oil tanker for instance. All the shipping company would have to do is fill up the tanks and then pull the best vacuum they can on the head space. Then poof, the oil is weightless. Imagine how much easier it would be to ship things. I will go ahead and collect my Nobel Prize now.
-
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?
I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.
Can you answer this?
I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but you redefined how pressure moves things by saying molecules push down on other things and you thereby made it inconsequential that pressure is higher near the surface than above. Like you said the stack just pushes down. So then instead of asking why things fall down, how about why do things float? Why would denpressure be capable of pushing down a car, a building, a ball or even a naval ship, but it can't seem to push down a bubble or a helium balloon?
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Don't forget you think I'm a troll so why are you even bothering with a troll?
So was Thork, but at least he mumbled half-responses when asked. Also, all my questions are legitimate problems of your hypothesis. Regardless of my intention, the fact that you dont adress them says a lot, and, ofcourse, an hypothesis that can be disproven is a failed one.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.
I have explained but you just cannot seem to absorb it. So let me explain it simply again.
The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
Because of this, they are under a different resistance of friction. The more denser metals will push through resistance much easier than less denser metals, which is why they fall faster.
Now why can't you understand this?
-
What is MSS? Is it another name for denpressure?
No it's just mainstream science silliness.
Now, let's say that the ball is in the middle of an airplane that is going that exact same speed and path of that ball that was thrown upwards. Is the ball weightless relative to the plane?
Can you clarify what you mean here because I can't decide whether the ball is inside the plane or thrown up to the plane.
-
I have an idea to save trillions of dollars. How about all cargo ships ship their cargo in a vacuum. Take an oil tanker for instance. All the shipping company would have to do is fill up the tanks and then pull the best vacuum they can on the head space. Then poof, the oil is weightless. Imagine how much easier it would be to ship things. I will go ahead and collect my Nobel Prize now.
Tell them to take a raincheck on your nobel prize. You've just sunk your cargo ship. Not very wise, was it? ;D
-
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?
I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.
Can you answer this?
I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but you redefined how pressure moves things by saying molecules push down on other things and you thereby made it inconsequential that pressure is higher near the surface than above. Like you said the stack just pushes down. So then instead of asking why things fall down, how about why do things float? Why would denpressure be capable of pushing down a car, a building, a ball or even a naval ship, but it can't seem to push down a bubble or a helium balloon?
The pressure is higher near the surface due to the stacked matter above it compressing it.
If you blow a bubble from a kids bubble blowing container, you have to use energy to do so. That energy is the force of hot air expanding that detergent which pushes the atmosphere above it around it, then that bubble is then forced down against resistance which is why it falls slowly.
Your helium balloon is expanded molecules and is doing teh same thing. Forcing the air above around the balloon and because the molecules are much denser than helium molecules, they try to crush the balloon back to the ground but can't because each time they do it, they force the balloon up against the lesser force of atmosphere above that the expanded balloon has taken up. This is why they float upwards.
That helium balloon is not different to you being anchored to the bottom of a river then released. The pressure of water tries to force the air out of you, or crush you but all it does it force you back to the top, unless you give up your air, just like if the helium balloon went pop.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Don't forget you think I'm a troll so why are you even bothering with a troll?
So was Thork, but at least he mumbled half-responses when asked. Also, all my questions are legitimate problems of your hypothesis. Regardless of my intention, the fact that you dont adress them says a lot, and, ofcourse, an hypothesis that can be disproven is a failed one.
As soon as you put your questions to me without acting like a prick, let me know and I'll answer.
-
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?
I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.
Can you answer this?
I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but you redefined how pressure moves things by saying molecules push down on other things and you thereby made it inconsequential that pressure is higher near the surface than above. Like you said the stack just pushes down. So then instead of asking why things fall down, how about why do things float? Why would denpressure be capable of pushing down a car, a building, a ball or even a naval ship, but it can't seem to push down a bubble or a helium balloon?
The pressure is higher near the surface due to the stacked matter above it compressing it.
If you blow a bubble from a kids bubble blowing container, you have to use energy to do so. That energy is the force of hot air expanding that detergent which pushes the atmosphere above it around it, then that bubble is then forced down against resistance which is why it falls slowly.
Your helium balloon is expanded molecules and is doing teh same thing. Forcing the air above around the balloon and because the molecules are much denser than helium molecules, they try to crush the balloon back to the ground but can't because each time they do it, they force the balloon up against the lesser force of atmosphere above that the expanded balloon has taken up. This is why they float upwards.
That helium balloon is not different to you being anchored to the bottom of a river then released. The pressure of water tries to force the air out of you, or crush you but all it does it force you back to the top, unless you give up your air, just like if the helium balloon went pop.
In the case of the helium balloon why does it matter what is inside the balloon. Why can't the atmosphere just push down on the top surface of the balloon just like my hand could push down on the top surface of the balloon to push it down? Look, because of buoyancy, the heavier air underneath the balloon is pushing the balloon up right? This is why it goes up rather than down, right, or left. The pressure is slightly more underneath. So if this is what pressure does, then why doesn't it work this way with everything else?
I think your theory is both very wrong a very confusing. The mechanism here is pressure. The only way to understand how it can move something is with a helium balloon but in that case it is the heavier air underneath pushing the lighter air inside the helium balloon up. So if that the case, then it follows that in the case of something like a car, it is the heavier car pushing the air up, not the lighter air pushing the heavier car down. This is why you redefined what pressure means for your theory. You can't just switch it up and use the proper definition for buoyancy in the case of helium balloons and use a totally different definition for everything else.
Anyways this is somewhat unrelated, but I wanted you to try something:
Bear with me here. So you've seen many videos showing you how a feather and something like an iron ball would fall at the same rate in a vacuum right? You didn't believe these videos were honest but anyways, the point was that gravity works on the feather just as well as anything else as long as air resistance is removed. So another simple way that you can show this to yourself without having to worry about having a vacuum container is to use a book and a feather and instead of dropping the 2 side-by-side, you can drop them at the same time with the book directly underneath the feather so that the book shields the feather from air resistance. When you do this they drop together at the same rate. You can probably try this at home with things already available in your own house.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.
I have explained but you just cannot seem to absorb it. So let me explain it simply again.
The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
Because of this, they are under a different resistance of friction. The more denser metals will push through resistance much easier than less denser metals, which is why they fall faster.
Now why can't you understand this?
Please show the test results to prove it. Please explain how to measure 'resistance of friction'.
-
The pressure is higher near the surface due to the stacked matter above it compressing it.
This is what I wanted to hear again.
Why is it higher near the surface? Your explanation, that is because of stacked matter compressing it, literally requires gravity, or else there would be equal pressure all around inside the dome.
Why not turn your model upside down, or on its side? Why doesn't denpressure push us up since the stack of matter caused by the ground compresses the air up?
Denpressure by nature requires am extra force. What is it?
-
In the case of the helium balloon why does it matter what is inside the balloon. Why can't the atmosphere just push down on the top surface of the balloon just like my hand could push down on the top surface of the balloon to push it down? Look, because of buoyancy, the heavier air underneath the balloon is pushing the balloon up right?
The atmosphere cannot push down on anything until something pushes into it to compress it.
The helium in the balloon expands into the atmosphere and creates this push against the atmosphere as it compresses and forces that compressed air back over the balloon and around it to SQUEEZE the balloon to try and crush it but it can't, because just like you in the bath with a soapy hand and a bar of soap, you try and squeeze it and what happens?
It's the same thing, except different energies applied.
I think your theory is both very wrong a very confusing. The mechanism here is pressure. The only way to understand how it can move something is with a helium balloon but in that case it is the heavier air underneath pushing the lighter air inside the helium balloon up. So if that the case, then it follows that in the case of something like a car, it is the heavier car pushing the air up, not the lighter air pushing the heavier car down.
The car isn't heavier. It is the fact the the car is using the road or ground to push against atmosphere pushing down on it's dense body, minus the air actually inside of it. The so called lighter air above is not so. The pressure is enormous.
We only exist in it because we are simply made up of matter that mostly equalises the pressure because we are made up of mostly water, so we can resist it without being crushed. We still feel the pressure but we don't realsie we are because we are used to it and are born into it.
This is a little example of being used to something.
Walk about nude. No problems, right?
Now put on bug heavy boots - socks - heavy jeans - heavy jumper and coat. Top that off with a hard hat and even a back pack with your lunch in. Add a phone and a lap top and some change, etc.
You feel a difference but after being in them for a short whle, you forget you have them on because your body has adapted.
Well that's us against nature. We adapted because we grew into it by nature and we cannot survive without it and struggle with only minor changes to it.
This is why you redefined what pressure means for your theory. You can't just switch it up and use the proper definition for buoyancy in the case of helium balloons and use a totally different definition for everything else.
I haven't. I use it to highlight what I'm saying and hope logic kicks in with people to see it that way.
Anyways this is somewhat unrelated, but I wanted you to try something:
Bear with me here. So you've seen many videos showing you how a feather and something like an iron ball would fall at the same rate in a vacuum right? You didn't believe these videos were honest but anyways, the point was that gravity works on the feather just as well as anything else as long as air resistance is removed. So another simple way that you can show this to yourself without having to worry about having a vacuum container is to use a book and a feather and instead of dropping the 2 side-by-side, you can drop them at the same time with the book directly underneath the feather so that the book shields the feather from air resistance. When you do this they drop together at the same rate. You can probably try this at home with things already available in your own house.
But the book is going to do the exact same thing. It's going to compress the air below it and send it around the book - up against thelower pressure created behind it and compressing back onto the book and feather, clamping the feather to the book. The only time it won't happen is if the book is dropped unevenly which will push the feather away.
-
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.
About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium. ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.
I have explained but you just cannot seem to absorb it. So let me explain it simply again.
The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
Because of this, they are under a different resistance of friction. The more denser metals will push through resistance much easier than less denser metals, which is why they fall faster.
Now why can't you understand this?
Please show the test results to prove it. Please explain how to measure 'resistance of friction'.
No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations. Oh and let me say it before you do. I'm not interested what you think about me not being able to do them and this and that, so save yourself the bullshit, it's too tedious to deal with you.
You don't even attempt to learn it.
-
Please provide pressure measurements to prove.
-
This is what I wanted to hear again.
Why is it higher near the surface? Your explanation, that is because of stacked matter compressing it, literally requires gravity, or else there would be equal pressure all around inside the dome.
You know what. You are never going to understand what I'm saying. Why?...because you simply can't get this crap gravity out of your head to attempt to do so.
Why is it that you're so happy to believe in gravity when it can't be explained as to what it is as a force?
I;m explaining what it is using the real force of denpressure and you keep coming back with the gravity stuff when I've told you time and time again what causes the pressure.
Let me add it again.
The pressure is caused by energy pushing dense object up against the pressure pushing down. If the energy push8ing up, is larger than the pressure pushing down on it's mass/density, then it can exist in that pressure but will always have that pressure sitting on it because its added to the pressure in the atmosphere by forcing it out the way by density.
Why not turn your model upside down, or on its side? Why doesn't denpressure push us up since the stack of matter caused by the ground compresses the air up?
The ground does not compress the air up. The air at the ground us UNDER compression by the stacked atmosphere. All it's doing is resisting being crushed any further until something of density adds to it which can compress it even more.
Only energy can push it up.
A for instance: you are laid on the floor and I hand you a heavy barbel and weights. In order for you to push those weights up, you have to use your energy.
Now, once you've pushed them up, you now have to hold them by locking your arms. You are now under compression, beause you cannot do any more pushing, only resisting those weights wanting to crush you.
You will never be still doing this, just like the compressed air molecules are never still. They are always trying to resist and are contracting and exapnding a little to hold the resistance, only when the air pressure keeps changing by other dense objects being pushed by energy into the atmosphere, changing the pressures, slightly.
See what I'm saying?
Gravity is a lie, it really is.
Denpressure by nature requires am extra force. What is it?
See above.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
-
The atmosphere cannot push down on anything until something pushes into it to compress it.
The helium in the balloon expands into the atmosphere and creates this push against the atmosphere as it compresses and forces that compressed air back over the balloon and around it to SQUEEZE the balloon to try and crush it but it can't, because just like you in the bath with a soapy hand and a bar of soap, you try and squeeze it and what happens?
It's the same thing, except different energies applied.
A helium molecule can overcome the weight of all the stacked molecules above it in the atmosphere but a car can't?
The car isn't heavier. It is the fact the the car is using the road or ground to push against atmosphere pushing down on it's dense body, minus the air actually inside of it. The so called lighter air above is not so. The pressure is enormous.
We only exist in it because we are simply made up of matter that mostly equalises the pressure because we are made up of mostly water, so we can resist it without being crushed. We still feel the pressure but we don't realsie we are because we are used to it and are born into it.
This is a little example of being used to something.
Walk about nude. No problems, right?
Now put on bug heavy boots - socks - heavy jeans - heavy jumper and coat. Top that off with a hard hat and even a back pack with your lunch in. Add a phone and a lap top and some change, etc.
You feel a difference but after being in them for a short whle, you forget you have them on because your body has adapted.
Well that's us against nature. We adapted because we grew into it by nature and we cannot survive without it and struggle with only minor changes to it.
The car isn't heavier? Look, that is just one example. We can just say a car driving off a cliff.
I haven't. I use it to highlight what I'm saying and hope logic kicks in with people to see it that way.
Sorry, but your version of pressure is quite different from the one everyone else knows.
But the book is going to do the exact same thing. It's going to compress the air below it and send it around the book - up against thelower pressure created behind it and compressing back onto the book and feather, clamping the feather to the book. The only time it won't happen is if the book is dropped unevenly which will push the feather away.
So you don't think the feather is falling?
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
-
A helium molecule can overcome the weight of all the stacked molecules above it in the atmosphere but a car can't?
Please read what I'm saying.
Energy is the sole reason why a helium molecule or a car exists to be placed into teh atmosphere to start with,
Their densities obviously vary massively.
The car is made from all components, like metals and plastic, plus fabrics, etc. Not all of that mass displaces the atmosphere above, just the density of that mass. This is what the atmosphere is pushing down on and squeezing. The rest is equalised with that atmosphere.
A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.
Once it can't be crushed, it annot expand any more and tehre's no agitation, so it freezes or goes dormant and rests on the higher pressure resistance below it which is resting on the higher pressure below that, etc, all the way to the gound and beyond.
The car isn't heavier? Look, that is just one example. We can just say a car driving off a cliff.
It doesn't matter about a cliff or a mountain. To get the car up tehre requires an enormous amount of energy. to expend energy you have to reap energy from it, no matter what. It's like for like. Action and then a reaction in EQUAL terms.
Sorry, but your version of pressure is quite different from the one everyone else knows.
Of course it is because people simply believe what they're told and go with gravity as well as thinking the atmosphere works a little differently. The mainstream science world mixes the two because they know that atmospheric pressure kills off everyting we were taught about Earth and supposedly, beyond. It's no wonder.
So you don't think the feather is falling?
The feather is being pushed down with the book, against resistance. It's basically a squeeze once in motion. A grip when it's not.
-
How do you bullshit so hard?
Let's say the car factory exists in Denver. Then after that it is driven away from the factory away from the rocky mountains and then off a cliff.
torlolol
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
-
How do you bullshit so hard?
Let's say the car factory exists in Denver. Then after that it is driven away from the factory away from the rocky mountains and then off a cliff.
torlolol
It doesn't matter where the car was made. Wherever you put that car, it is in the pressure it is in and will displace the atmosphere it is in.
-
How do you bullshit so hard?
Let's say the car factory exists in Denver. Then after that it is driven away from the factory away from the rocky mountains and then off a cliff.
torlolol
It doesn't matter where the car was made. Wherever you put that car, it is in the pressure it is in and will displace the atmosphere it is in.
Zzzzzz.
This doesn't sound much like all this energy applied causes things to push down stuff. There is no energy applied. Just admit your a globulite.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
Get a air hose. One froma local garage will do. Just disconnect the gun from it, if one's connected and always make sure to ask the garage owner if it's ok.
Ok, you then get a large steel ball from your truck. Hire a crane as this steel ball needs to be 30 feet in circumference.
Ok you roll the ball into the garage, obviously after you've had it removed from your truck with the crane and told the crane driver to wait,a s you will want him to put it back on after your measuring.
Ok. always watch out for mechanics and cars as we don't want to damage those.
Now grab the air hose and force compressed air onto the ball. If it doesn't move, then forget that experiment and get the crane driver to put it back on the truck - pay him and then thank the garage owner, then maybe buy a remould tyre from him as a goodwill gesture for allowing you to use his air hose.
From there, get in your truck and go home. Go in your kitchen and put a battery or something on your kitchen scales and see what is measures. Write it down, then try and sell the steel ball as it's of no use to you unless you want to keep it in your garden as a big numb looking ornament that will rust.
Now stop asking.
-
A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.
Do you ever read this shit back to yourself, out loud? You should.
I've seen people on serious amounts of amphetamines talk like this - generally I don't take their pronouncements too seriously.
-
A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.
Do you ever read this shit back to yourself, out loud? You should.
I've seen people on serious amounts of amphetamines talk like this - generally I don't take their pronouncements too seriously.
Simply yap yap yapping in your little moods is not explaining anything to me, crabby.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
-
This is what I wanted to hear again.
Why is it higher near the surface? Your explanation, that is because of stacked matter compressing it, literally requires gravity, or else there would be equal pressure all around inside the dome.
You know what. You are never going to understand what I'm saying. Why?...because you simply can't get this crap gravity out of your head to attempt to do so.
Why is it that you're so happy to believe in gravity when it can't be explained as to what it is as a force?
I;m explaining what it is using the real force of denpressure and you keep coming back with the gravity stuff when I've told you time and time again what causes the pressure.
Let me add it again.
The pressure is caused by energy pushing dense object up against the pressure pushing down. If the energy push8ing up, is larger than the pressure pushing down on it's mass/density, then it can exist in that pressure but will always have that pressure sitting on it because its added to the pressure in the atmosphere by forcing it out the way by density.
Why not turn your model upside down, or on its side? Why doesn't denpressure push us up since the stack of matter caused by the ground compresses the air up?
The ground does not compress the air up. The air at the ground us UNDER compression by the stacked atmosphere. All it's doing is resisting being crushed any further until something of density adds to it which can compress it even more.
Only energy can push it up.
A for instance: you are laid on the floor and I hand you a heavy barbel and weights. In order for you to push those weights up, you have to use your energy.
Now, once you've pushed them up, you now have to hold them by locking your arms. You are now under compression, beause you cannot do any more pushing, only resisting those weights wanting to crush you.
You will never be still doing this, just like the compressed air molecules are never still. They are always trying to resist and are contracting and exapnding a little to hold the resistance, only when the air pressure keeps changing by other dense objects being pushed by energy into the atmosphere, changing the pressures, slightly.
See what I'm saying?
Gravity is a lie, it really is.
Denpressure by nature requires am extra force. What is it?
See above.
Thanks for not answering my question what-so-ever.
Either you didn't understand the question, or you can't find an explanation for why air is compressed down. You're just repeating the primary principle of denpressure over and over again.
Just because I found a flaw in your hypothesis, or have a question which to you might think sounds stupid, does not mean "I can't get gravity out of my head," especially when "gravity" was just an offhand comment I made. My question did not imply gravity. I genuinely want to learn about denpressure. I'm asking for an explanation for why air is only compressed down. I am not asking for another example of denpressure.
So, why is down a special direction?
If any RE'ers think they understand why from his explanations, please let me know.
See? This is why you need to express your hypothesis with mathematics. This way there will be no discrepancies in text, and your sometimes incoherent examples.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
It can't be done to prove gravity, because gravity doesn't rely on air pressure.
-
A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.
Do you ever read this shit back to yourself, out loud? You should.
I've seen people on serious amounts of amphetamines talk like this - generally I don't take their pronouncements too seriously.
Simply yap yap yapping in your little moods is not explaining anything to me, crabby.
Why do you think I'm trying to explain anything to you?
I'm pointing out that your missives read like amphetamine fueled gibber-jabber.
-
This is what I wanted to hear again.
Why is it higher near the surface? Your explanation, that is because of stacked matter compressing it, literally requires gravity, or else there would be equal pressure all around inside the dome.
You know what. You are never going to understand what I'm saying. Why?...because you simply can't get this crap gravity out of your head to attempt to do so.
Why is it that you're so happy to believe in gravity when it can't be explained as to what it is as a force?
I;m explaining what it is using the real force of denpressure and you keep coming back with the gravity stuff when I've told you time and time again what causes the pressure.
Let me add it again.
The pressure is caused by energy pushing dense object up against the pressure pushing down. If the energy push8ing up, is larger than the pressure pushing down on it's mass/density, then it can exist in that pressure but will always have that pressure sitting on it because its added to the pressure in the atmosphere by forcing it out the way by density.
Why not turn your model upside down, or on its side? Why doesn't denpressure push us up since the stack of matter caused by the ground compresses the air up?
The ground does not compress the air up. The air at the ground us UNDER compression by the stacked atmosphere. All it's doing is resisting being crushed any further until something of density adds to it which can compress it even more.
Only energy can push it up.
A for instance: you are laid on the floor and I hand you a heavy barbel and weights. In order for you to push those weights up, you have to use your energy.
Now, once you've pushed them up, you now have to hold them by locking your arms. You are now under compression, beause you cannot do any more pushing, only resisting those weights wanting to crush you.
You will never be still doing this, just like the compressed air molecules are never still. They are always trying to resist and are contracting and exapnding a little to hold the resistance, only when the air pressure keeps changing by other dense objects being pushed by energy into the atmosphere, changing the pressures, slightly.
See what I'm saying?
Gravity is a lie, it really is.
Denpressure by nature requires am extra force. What is it?
See above.
Thanks for not answering my question what-so-ever.
Either you didn't understand the question, or you can't find an explanation for why air is compressed down. You're just repeating the primary principle of denpressure over and over again.
Just because I found a flaw in your hypothesis, or have a question which to you might think sounds stupid, does not mean "I can't get gravity out of my head," especially when "gravity" was just an offhand comment I made. My question did not imply gravity. I genuinely want to learn about denpressure. I'm asking for an explanation for why air is only compressed down. I am not asking for another example of denpressure.
So, why is down a special direction?
If any RE'ers think they understand why from his explanations, please let me know.
See? This is why you need to express your hypothesis with mathematics. This way there will be no discrepancies in text, and your sometimes incoherent examples.
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
-
See above.
Thanks for not answering my question what-so-ever.
Good luck with that, I tried to get straight answers for approximately how much displacement of, and pressure on objects of different densities varies, but gave up after asking about a dozen times. He has no clue, so he just repeats his nonsense instead of even trying to answer.
If any RE'ers think they understand why from his explanations, please let me know.
nope.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
It can't be done to prove gravity, because gravity doesn't rely on air pressure.
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
-
A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.
Do you ever read this shit back to yourself, out loud? You should.
I've seen people on serious amounts of amphetamines talk like this - generally I don't take their pronouncements too seriously.
Simply yap yap yapping in your little moods is not explaining anything to me, crabby.
Why do you think I'm trying to explain anything to you?
I'm pointing out that your missives read like amphetamine fueled gibber-jabber.
Then stop jumping in like a little kid and yapping. Just accept that you can't take basics onboard and prefer star trek like bullshit to appease your mind. It's ok to admit that.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
It can't be done to prove gravity, because gravity doesn't rely on air pressure.
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
By comparing an objects weight with its mass.
-
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
This is completely irrelevant, we're talking about denpressure.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
It can't be done to prove gravity, because gravity doesn't rely on air pressure.
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
By comparing an objects weight with its mass.
How can you tell the weight of a mass whilst it is on the ground? not picking it up...just on the ground.
-
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
This is completely irrelevant, we're talking about denpressure.
It is relevant. Let's see your explanations for gravity and see if it makes any sense.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
It can't be done to prove gravity, because gravity doesn't rely on air pressure.
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
By comparing an objects weight with its mass.
How can you tell the weight of a mass whilst it is on the ground? not picking it up...just on the ground.
What? I have no idea what you mean but I still wonder if you know how mass is measured compared with how weight is measured.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
It can't be done to prove gravity, because gravity doesn't rely on air pressure.
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
By comparing an objects weight with its mass.
How can you tell the weight of a mass whilst it is on the ground? not picking it up...just on the ground.
What? I have no idea what you mean but I still wonder if you know how mass is measured compared with how weight is measured.
You need to measure mass. It is on the ground. to measure it, you have to pick it up to use a man made scale to measure that mass.
So tell me what force is on that mass to allow this measurement. There must be a force on it. If it's what I think you're going to say, then explain how and why this happens.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
Our vision for seeing denpressure would be much improved if simple experiments didn't show denpressure to be made up crap. Your inability to give straight answers to simple practical questions adds up to that effect. If you're right, give the answers, we will experiment and see what's what for ourselves. You know, instead of just taking someone's word for it, I thought that's what you wanted people to do but apparently it doesn't apply when the person speaking happens to be you. You never even said what was wrong with Sokarul's vacuum experiment, you just whined how it wasn't done how you wanted and blah blah.
-
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
This is completely irrelevant, we're talking about denpressure.
It is relevant. Let's see your explanations for gravity and see if it makes any sense.
No, it really isn't. You're just trying to detail this entire thing now, partly thanks to jroa. Sometimes it's almost like you pm him to make him change the subject after you know you've failed.
Oh well.
-
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.
They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?
It's obvious Scepti can't measure pressure around an object to prove his theory, go ahead and tell him how it is done to prove gravity.
It can't be done to prove gravity, because gravity doesn't rely on air pressure.
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
By comparing an objects weight with its mass.
How can you tell the weight of a mass whilst it is on the ground? not picking it up...just on the ground.
What? I have no idea what you mean but I still wonder if you know how mass is measured compared with how weight is measured.
You need to measure mass. It is on the ground. to measure it, you have to pick it up to use a man made scale to measure that mass.
So tell me what force is on that mass to allow this measurement. There must be a force on it. If it's what I think you're going to say, then explain how and why this happens.
You are speaking a different language. If a scale used to measure mass is used then you will get the same measurement for mass everywhere on earth. It doesn't matter if you are on a mountain, on the equator, or whatever. On the other hand, a weight scale doesn't do this. Do you think you know why this is?
What's the difference between these two types of scales?
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
Our vision for seeing denpressure would be much improved if simple experiments didn't show denpressure to be made up crap. Your inability to give straight answers to simple practical questions adds up to that effect. If you're right, give the answers, we will experiment and see what's what for ourselves. You know, instead of just taking someone's word for it, I thought that's what you wanted people to do but apparently it doesn't apply when the person speaking happens to be you. You never even said what was wrong with Sokarul's vacuum experiment, you just whined how it wasn't done how you wanted and blah blah.
Ok, fair enough, I'll make a deal with you.
You describe your gravity to me and how you measure it, nice and simple so I can understand and I'll question it all so I can be clear on it and let's see if it makes more sense than mine. If it does, I'll drop denpressure.
Ok over to you.
First question. What kind of force is it and how does it know to pull or whatever it does?
-
So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
This is completely irrelevant, we're talking about denpressure.
It is relevant. Let's see your explanations for gravity and see if it makes any sense.
No, it really isn't. You're just trying to detail this entire thing now, partly thanks to jroa. Sometimes it's almost like you pm him to make him change the subject after you know you've failed.
Oh well.
Ok fair enough I'll get back on with denpressure. I'll put a topic up in a few seconds. See if you can answer it. It's a topic all about gravity, so all of you are experts on it, so I'd love the full explanations that I can understand.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
Our vision for seeing denpressure would be much improved if simple experiments didn't show denpressure to be made up crap. Your inability to give straight answers to simple practical questions adds up to that effect. If you're right, give the answers, we will experiment and see what's what for ourselves. You know, instead of just taking someone's word for it, I thought that's what you wanted people to do but apparently it doesn't apply when the person speaking happens to be you. You never even said what was wrong with Sokarul's vacuum experiment, you just whined how it wasn't done how you wanted and blah blah.
Ok, fair enough, I'll make a deal with you.
You describe your gravity to me and how you measure it, nice and simple so I can understand and I'll question it all so I can be clear on it and let's see if it makes more sense than mine. If it does, I'll drop denpressure.
Ok over to you.
First question. What kind of force is it and how does it know to pull or whatever it does?
Its like your deaf or blind. Gravity is defined as a thing that happens. That's it. Things fall down. That is gravity. We can measure how fast they fall and all that.
The reason why it happens is another topic. So you are just providing what you think is just another explanation for why gravity happens. Einsteins spacetime stuff is another explanation but it isn't alternative to gravity. It just attempts to explain how and why, just like you are doing. Saying gravity doesn't exist is a stupid comment. All you have to do is drop something and see that it happens because that is all that the definition of gravity entails. We are arguing about explanations for gravity. You don't have to explain why it happens to in order to make note of the fact that it does.
I just want to make that clear. You believe things fall so therefore you believe in gravity. You just have an alternate explanation for why.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
Our vision for seeing denpressure would be much improved if simple experiments didn't show denpressure to be made up crap. Your inability to give straight answers to simple practical questions adds up to that effect. If you're right, give the answers, we will experiment and see what's what for ourselves. You know, instead of just taking someone's word for it, I thought that's what you wanted people to do but apparently it doesn't apply when the person speaking happens to be you. You never even said what was wrong with Sokarul's vacuum experiment, you just whined how it wasn't done how you wanted and blah blah.
Ok, fair enough, I'll make a deal with you.
You describe your gravity to me and how you measure it, nice and simple so I can understand and I'll question it all so I can be clear on it and let's see if it makes more sense than mine. If it does, I'll drop denpressure.
Ok over to you.
First question. What kind of force is it and how does it know to pull or whatever it does?
I'm not interested in 'proving' gravity. Your discussion with me in this thread has been entirely about denpressure, I have not insisted gravity to be true or that I could experimentally prove it, while air pressure and displacement are things I can measure. I see that you have zero interest in what is real, clinging to your idea very own special idea must be so much more fun.
As for mass and inertia (which you say don't exist), here's a 5 year old level experiment: try moving an object along a low friction surface. Let's just say a curling stone on a curling track, damn slippery, you can first experiment how much more grippy it gets if you push the object down while moving it around; not by much, so change in reluctance to move due to change in friction proportional to weight is near irrelevant. More mass your object has, more force you need to get it moving along the surface. Push it hard enough to get it moving and see how far it goes and how forcefully it impacts another object. If possible repeat with a lighter, otherwise similar object. Weight is only acting in the down direction, so differences that you see are due to difference in mass. Happy experimenting.
And no I'm not interested in debating any possible flaws or merits of that method. I just wanted to directly measure effects of denpressure but if you don't give a shit about your own theory, well what can I do.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
Our vision for seeing denpressure would be much improved if simple experiments didn't show denpressure to be made up crap. Your inability to give straight answers to simple practical questions adds up to that effect. If you're right, give the answers, we will experiment and see what's what for ourselves. You know, instead of just taking someone's word for it, I thought that's what you wanted people to do but apparently it doesn't apply when the person speaking happens to be you. You never even said what was wrong with Sokarul's vacuum experiment, you just whined how it wasn't done how you wanted and blah blah.
Ok, fair enough, I'll make a deal with you.
You describe your gravity to me and how you measure it, nice and simple so I can understand and I'll question it all so I can be clear on it and let's see if it makes more sense than mine. If it does, I'll drop denpressure.
Ok over to you.
First question. What kind of force is it and how does it know to pull or whatever it does?
I'm not interested in 'proving' gravity. Your discussion with me in this thread has been entirely about denpressure, I have not insisted gravity to be true or that I could experimentally prove it, while air pressure and displacement are things I can measure. I see that you have zero interest in what is real, clinging to your idea very own special idea must be so much more fun.
As for mass and inertia (which you say don't exist), here's a 5 year old level experiment: try moving an object along a low friction surface. Let's just say a curling stone on a curling track, damn slippery, you can first experiment how much more grippy it gets if you push the object down while moving it around; not by much, so change in reluctance to move due to change in friction proportional to weight is near irrelevant. More mass your object has, more force you need to get it moving along the surface. Push it hard enough to get it moving and see how far it goes and how forcefully it impacts another object. If possible repeat with a lighter, otherwise similar object. Weight is only acting in the down direction, so differences that you see are due to difference in mass. Happy experimenting.
And no I'm not interested in debating any possible flaws or merits of that method. I just wanted to directly measure effects of denpressure but if you don't give a shit about your own theory, well what can I do.
You absolute waste of time. Leave it at that.
-
I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.
So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:
Why is down so special?
Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"
I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
Our vision for seeing denpressure would be much improved if simple experiments didn't show denpressure to be made up crap. Your inability to give straight answers to simple practical questions adds up to that effect. If you're right, give the answers, we will experiment and see what's what for ourselves. You know, instead of just taking someone's word for it, I thought that's what you wanted people to do but apparently it doesn't apply when the person speaking happens to be you. You never even said what was wrong with Sokarul's vacuum experiment, you just whined how it wasn't done how you wanted and blah blah.
Ok, fair enough, I'll make a deal with you.
You describe your gravity to me and how you measure it, nice and simple so I can understand and I'll question it all so I can be clear on it and let's see if it makes more sense than mine. If it does, I'll drop denpressure.
Ok over to you.
First question. What kind of force is it and how does it know to pull or whatever it does?
I'm not interested in 'proving' gravity. Your discussion with me in this thread has been entirely about denpressure, I have not insisted gravity to be true or that I could experimentally prove it, while air pressure and displacement are things I can measure. I see that you have zero interest in what is real, clinging to your idea very own special idea must be so much more fun.
As for mass and inertia (which you say don't exist), here's a 5 year old level experiment: try moving an object along a low friction surface. Let's just say a curling stone on a curling track, damn slippery, you can first experiment how much more grippy it gets if you push the object down while moving it around; not by much, so change in reluctance to move due to change in friction proportional to weight is near irrelevant. More mass your object has, more force you need to get it moving along the surface. Push it hard enough to get it moving and see how far it goes and how forcefully it impacts another object. If possible repeat with a lighter, otherwise similar object. Weight is only acting in the down direction, so differences that you see are due to difference in mass. Happy experimenting.
And no I'm not interested in debating any possible flaws or merits of that method. I just wanted to directly measure effects of denpressure but if you don't give a shit about your own theory, well what can I do.
You absolute waste of time. Leave it at that.
Trying to measure denpressure certainly seems to be a waste of time. I guess it often is that way with things that don't exist.
-
A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.
Do you ever read this shit back to yourself, out loud? You should.
I've seen people on serious amounts of amphetamines talk like this - generally I don't take their pronouncements too seriously.
Simply yap yap yapping in your little moods is not explaining anything to me, crabby.
Why do you think I'm trying to explain anything to you?
I'm pointing out that your missives read like amphetamine fueled gibber-jabber.
Then stop jumping in
No.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?
-
I have an idea to save trillions of dollars. How about all cargo ships ship their cargo in a vacuum. Take an oil tanker for instance. All the shipping company would have to do is fill up the tanks and then pull the best vacuum they can on the head space. Then poof, the oil is weightless. Imagine how much easier it would be to ship things. I will go ahead and collect my Nobel Prize now.
Tell them to take a raincheck on your nobel prize. You've just sunk your cargo ship. Not very wise, was it? ;D
Why? According to you 100,000 tons of oil should weigh -100,000 tons under a vacuum of 20 inches of mercury. Just imagine how small of an engine you would need to move -100,000 tons of oil across the ocean.
Here is a picture of a water molecule. See how the angle and distance between atoms is listed? They don't change much. There is no expanding. You need to understand this.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/800px-H2O_2D_labelledsvg.png) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/800px-H2O_2D_labelledsvg.png.html)
You need to undrstand that putting something like that up is pointless.
I know simple science is above your head.
-
No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations.
Scepti, have you ever considered the possibility that some of us feel that denpressure is a concept that would be a lot easier to grasp if we were able to do a few calculations and test them with experiments? Or are you afraid that denpressure won't be able to stand up to some real world testing?
-
No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations.
Scepti, have you ever considered the possibility that some of us feel that denpressure is a concept that would be a lot easier to grasp if we were able to do a few calculations and test them with experiments? Or are you afraid that denpressure won't be able to stand up to some real world testing?
He is also, for some reason, avoiding challenges to his hypothesis, something quite unscientific. To be honest, I wouldnt care if he couldnt elaborate an extensive analysis, the ability to answer challenges should be mostly sufficient for the informal standard of a forum
-
I apologise in advance for causing anybody any unnecessary synaptic dysfunction, or possibly uncontrollable fits of laughter likely to cause a myocardial infarction, but as I was responsible for starting this ultimately deplorable thread, I though that this list of sceptimatic's highly articulate [sic] offerings for today alone warranted it. And bear in mind that these examples are just a fraction of the total amount of absolute bullshit he's posted so far today...
• The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
• No it's just mainstream science silliness.
• Tell them to take a rain-check on your Nobel prize. You've just sunk your cargo ship. Not very wise, was it?
• As soon as you put your questions to me without acting like a prick, let me know and I'll answer.
• I use it to highlight what I'm saying and hope logic kicks in with people to see it that way.
• No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations.
• You are never going to understand what I'm saying. Why?...because you simply can't get this crap gravity out of your head to attempt to do so.
• Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
• Wherever you put that car, it is in the pressure it is in and will displace the atmosphere it is in.
• Simply yap yap yapping in your little moods is not explaining anything to me.
• I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem.
• You need to understand that putting something like that up is pointless.
• If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
• So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
• Then stop jumping in like a little kid and yapping.
• Just accept that you can't take basics on-board and prefer star trek like bullshit to appease your mind.
• Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
• Let's see your explanations for gravity and see if it makes any sense.
• I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
• It's a topic all about gravity, so all of you are experts on it, so I'd love the full explanations that I can understand.
I tender this sort of absurd rubbish as incontrovertible proof that sceptimatic has not the slightest knowledge of scientific principles—at even a basic level required to graduate from high school. The single fact that he's unable to comprehend even the elemental science behind the simple balloon "rocket" is sufficient to affirm my opinion.
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
I like your optimism sokarul. Although sceptimatic has thirteen academic qualifications, there's absolutely zero likelihood of him ever being able to work out this sort of mechanics problem. Now the going's getting tougher, you won't see him posting in this thread again. This intellectual cowardice is typical of liars like this guy, who can't ultimately back up the bullshit they spew, and have to make an embarrassing departure from the debate.
sceptimatic wouldn't even be able to work out the force necessary to move his dick, although a pair of tweezers would probably help. :D
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
Ouch... sceptimatic just made a liar out of me by posting what he considered a detailed, technically relevant response. Although I was right in claiming that he couldn't answer your question, and then tried to shrug it off with one of his typically childish comments.
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
Ouch... sceptimatic just made a liar out of me by posting what he considered a detailed, technically relevant response. Although I was right in claiming that he couldn't answer your question, and then tried to shrug it off with one of his typically childish comments.
I didn't think he would.
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
i suppose you are right. I would have guessed a little one would be fine, but I'm now thinking a big engine is required to keep the ship with it's -100,000 tons of oil from floating away.
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that? Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big. You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that? Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big. You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.
What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.
Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.
I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.
-
What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.
Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.
I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.
Major LULZ..... whenever poor old sceptimatic is backed into a corner and asked for a few simple calculations to support his claims, he invariably resorts to quaint little homilies about logic and ethics, and how fearful we all of his intellectual superiority etc. This sort of stuff keeps me laughing for hours, plus it's free. And then he stamps his dainty little foot..... so there!
As I think about it, I've not once seen any mathematical formulae posted by sceptimatic—despite his thousands of comments on these forums. I'm guessing he doesn't have any physics or mathematical abilities whatsoever, as he can't even define the units of measure for his pet "denpressure" hypothesis LOL.
The fact that he can't grasp the mechanics of the balloon "rocket" kinda reinforces this point. ;D
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that? Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big. You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.
What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.
Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.
I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.
Oh, so we are the ones who can't grasp math. I have never seen any math in any of your posts, and we use math all the time to prove that the Eartg is round. How about you give math a go, unless math is a government conspiracy. ::)
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that? Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big. You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.
What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.
Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.
I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.
Oh, so we are the ones who can't grasp math. I have never seen any math in any of your posts, and we use math all the time to prove that the Eartg is round. How about you give math a go, unless math is a government conspiracy. ::)
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
I think this statement gets my award for the most idiotic post of the day LOL.
... and the larfs just keep on comin' :P
-
So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?
A big one.
Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that? Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big. You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.
What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.
Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.
I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.
Oh, so we are the ones who can't grasp math. I have never seen any math in any of your posts, and we use math all the time to prove that the Eartg is round. How about you give math a go, unless math is a government conspiracy. ::)
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
You don't need math to explain how a car engine works but you need math if you want to prove to someone that it works who thinks that the concept of engines was made up. Most of us round earthers know what flat earth theory is, but we don't believe it. Telling us more about FET won't persuade anybody if anything. Math is considered concrete evidence by all round earthers, and if you can mathematically prove that FET is more correct then the standard model then I will become a flat earther.
-
What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.
It is no more necessary to understand the inner workings of gravity in order to use formulas to predict its behavior that it is to understand the inner workings of an internal combustion engine in order to drive a car. So why don't you skip the explanation and give us the formulas so that we can test the properties of your denpressure?
Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out.
Denpressure must be at least as mysterious as gravity because no science boffin has figured out denpressure either.
It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.
Except that you have yet to explain how your denpressure air molecules know which way is down so that they can properly stack themselves.
I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.
If denpressure is so friendly and cuddly, then why are you scared to give us the formulas that describe its properties?
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Just proving lemmiwinks point. It would be much more reasonable for you to say you don't have an equation or you don't know enough about math to provide one rather than this shady obfuscation you just trotted out.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Just proving lemmiwinks point. It would be much more reasonable for you to say you don't have an equation or you don't know enough about math to provide one rather than this shady obfuscation you just trotted out.
Oh, ok. Give me a calculation for gravity and show me how you came to that as a definite, without using magic tricks.
Over to you, as yapping won't solve anything.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
mm that smell.. must be cop-out... what would be the point anyway? Why would you need to know these "magician maths"? I'm almost pretty sure there is no math involved in performing that trick.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
mm that smell.. must be cop-out... what would be the point anyway? Why would you need to know these "magician maths"? I'm almost pretty sure there is no math involved in performing that trick.
It looks like the cop out is with you people. You can't give out equations for gravity because it doesn't exist, so how can you?
You don't know what it is as a force so how can you calculate something that isn't a force?
If you think you can and without trying to slither out of it; explain how you calculate gravity in real time and with what and how it works to get the claculations you say is a constant.
Over to you.
Remember, don't come out with magical bullshit. Let people see how it's done.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
Easily available, please give any links you disagree with.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Use Google and comment.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Use Google and comment.
Great answer and expected. You see, the parrot fashion is all you people can do. You have no clue about calculations for anything unless you use your friend google.
I can see how silly some of you are by the mere fact that very few of you display any logic and common sense and are devoid of humour along the way.
The type of questions I ask can only be answered by using magic formulas that any dick head can make up to fit something that nobody can ever test in reality.
Asking me to use google, the very type of thing that you people use. Hahahahaha.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?
Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.
Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?
Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?
Answer these and we can see where we are going.
-
Guys, guys..... c'mon! haven't you all realised by now that sceptimatic is nothing more than an extremely persistent and irritating TROLL who's probably laughing himself silly at all our well-considered, logical, science-based comments in response to his ongoing puerile schoolboy drivel.
I can only suggest to totally ignore his comments and/or "questions" or manage to get yourselves on his "ignore" list as I did.
It'll save you a lot of bandwidth if nothing else. And he might just go away. ::)
As they say... don't feed the trolls.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?
Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.
Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?
Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?
Answer these and we can see where we are going.
I agree with those things but you need to understand that every part of the sun that is facing us has some photon that also heads to earth. It isn't like a surface off to the right side of the sun only propogates lights toward your right. Most of that surfaces energy does go to the right but not all of it. The flashlight example I just mentioned should illustrate this for you easily. You could be that observer off to the right and be completely shrouded in darkness but you'd still be able to see all of the source of light coming from the flashlight.
-
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?
Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.
Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?
Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?
Answer these and we can see where we are going.
Round earthers believe that there is no ice wall, space just continues further and further where there are other stars making up our galaxy and many galaxies populating the observable universe, but because light only travels at the speed of light we can't see the whole universe. If you put a lightbulb 100 feet away from you and turn it on, it only takes a portion of your field of view, so why should the sun be any different?
-
Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?
Close enough. Sure.
Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?
Earth receives about 0.5 X 10-9 (that's 0.00000005%) of the Sun's light directly from the Sun. I already did this calculation for you a couple of days ago. The rest goes in other directions; whether that light is reflected off other objects or not matters how?
Answer these and we can see where we are going.
Carry on, please.
-
Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.
Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?
Agreed, but completely irrelevant.
Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?
Agreed. Then again, does a street lamp send all of its light to your eyes?
Answer these and we can see where we are going.
Yes, we are going farther and farther away from you ever providing any formulas for denpressure.
-
Yes, we are going farther and farther away from you ever providing any formulas for denpressure.
I'm guessing by now that sceptimatic wishes to [insert deity of choice] he'd never concocted his silly fairy tale about the effects of his imaginary denpressure. ;D It's gonna haunt him until he reaches adulthood.
-
Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?
Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?
Answer these and we can see where we are going.
Sure, so now where are we going?
-
Yes, we are going farther and farther away from you ever providing any formulas for denpressure.
I'm guessing by now that sceptimatic wishes to [insert deity of choice] he'd never concocted his silly fairy tale about the effects of his imaginary denpressure. ;D It's gonna haunt him until he reaches adulthood.
On the contrary, I think that he's having fun trying to milk denpressure for far more than it's worth, and then some.
-
Just for septic,a not so simple rocket. And a good read for the rest of you.
http://msnwllc.com/Papers/ELF_IEPC-2009-265.pdf (http://msnwllc.com/Papers/ELF_IEPC-2009-265.pdf)
Before you tell me I am brainwashed septic, I think you have brainwashed yourself,short for bat shit crazy.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Sorry, was away from work.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Sorry, was away from work.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?
Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Sorry, was away from work.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?
Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.
lf you have an alternative equation then please post it. Until then we will go with this proven one.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Sorry, was away from work.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?
Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.
lf you have an alternative equation then please post it. Until then we will go with this proven one.
Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Sorry, was away from work.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?
Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.
lf you have an alternative equation then please post it. Until then we will go with this proven one.
Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?
It's how we work things out in the real world. Do you agree equations are useful, like for calculating things?
-
Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?
That you're not much of a genius.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Sorry, was away from work.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?
Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.
lf you have an alternative equation then please post it. Until then we will go with this proven one.
Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?
That you clearly don't know how to use equations?
However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.
If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.
So again, denpressures equation, please.
-
I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
Sorry, was away from work.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?
Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.
lf you have an alternative equation then please post it. Until then we will go with this proven one.
Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?
The thing about math is that it can be proven (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html). That's why I have been asking you for math.
-
So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.
-
So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.
However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.
If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.
So again, denpressures equation, please.
-
So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.
However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.
If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.
So again, denpressures equation, please.
Explain the equation and how it proves gravity.
-
So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.
However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.
If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.
So again, denpressures equation, please.
Explain the equation and how it proves gravity.
However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.
If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.
So again, denpressures equation, please.
-
So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.
Oh, you want the equasion explained? Why didn't you say so?
F=(MmG)/d2
F is force
M and m are the masses of the two objects in question
G is the gravitational constant
d is the distance
The reason that d is in the denominator and squared is because of the inverse square law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html), which applies to light too. Look at the link for mathematical proofs.
This equasion can account for the gravitational strength differences between different parts of the world and it also can be used to deduce orbital mechanics.
All math supports the round Earth model, unless the fundemental laws of math are being controlled by the government :o
-
I'm sure that now, we're all waiting for sceptimatic's equation—and unit of measure—that proves his theory of "denpressure", which apparently combines the two dissimilar entities of density and pressure.
Presumably, it'll be something like D = d + P / s, or Ps / d, or P/d — s, where D=denpressure, d = a rational number representing density, P = a rational number representing pressure, and s = a numerical value to be known as the "sceptimatic" constant. And its unit of measure = ? ? ?
Let's wait and see shall we?
-
So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.
Oh, you want the equasion explained? Why didn't you say so?
F=(MmG)/d2
F is force
M and m are the masses of the two objects in question
G is the gravitational constant
d is the distance
The reason that d is in the denominator and squared is because of the inverse square law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html), which applies to light too. Look at the link for mathematical proofs.
This equasion can account for the gravitational strength differences between different parts of the world and it also can be used to deduce orbital mechanics.
All math supports the round Earth model, unless the fundemental laws of math are being controlled by the government :o
F+fv+EV/DM*rM
There you go. There's my formula.
-
So sceptimatic has claimed that "denpressure" = F+fv+EV/DM*rM
We now need a further two things:
1) What F, fv, EV, DM, and rM stand for.
2) What is the unit of measurement for "denpressure"?
Without these definitions, the "formula" is meaningless and untestable.
-
Go septic, can you tell us how it works.
-
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
-
So the more the air expands the more dunny pressure and the more density and mass the less.
Is fv your hand on your dick?.
-
So the more the air expands the more dunny pressure and the more density and mass the less.
Is fv your hand on your dick?.
Nope. The vibration and frequency of it decides the energy we see and use. That energy is creating expansion by friction that creates a force upon any dense mass which resists that force due to energy expended.
-
There you go. There's my formula.
So, no formula then. Just a bunch of your usual bullshit.
-
So bang in some numbers,lets see this at work up a mountain and on the flat.
-
There you go. There's my formula.
So, no formula then. Just a bunch of your usual bullshit.
To you, yes. I mean it's similar to your Einsteinain bullshit of gravity and the other absolute laughable piece of bullshit in the equation, E=mc2
-
So bang in some numbers,lets see this at work up a mountain and on the flat.
Let's see you bang in some numbers for your equation first for the mountain and on the flat. Off you go.
-
Top of mt Everest it is 9.78 m/sec
-
Top of mt Everest it is 9.78 m/sec
How did you come to this?
-
Went back too school as an old fart a few years ago,it was an exam question.
-
Went back too school as an old fart a few years ago,it was an exam question.
Never mind the exam question. I want you to tell me how YOU know that the top of everest is what you say it is. Just tell me how it was calculated.
-
Get on with your dunny pressure sum and watch the fv under the table. It seems to make you forget things.
-
Get on with your dunny pressure sum and watch the fv under the table. It seems to make you forget things.
Just as I thought. You can't come up with an answer and have to try and use silliness to avoid it. Hahahaha.
You and your cronies are living like parrots. All youa re doing is looking for equations that are there for you and when asked how the measured force came into being, you can't describe it. Why?
The reason is very simple. None of you have a clue what the hell you are doing and you rely on the full back up of shoehorned science to aid you. As I said before. None of you are capable of rational thought. Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought. Cannot think outside of the box and prefer the comfort of that box you are sealed inside.
Prove me wrong and lay out the basics of how your gravity equation came about to be what it is.
Also, tell me when the equation was first recognised as that equation.
Come back with the silliness and it makes you the clown that I knew you were and that goes for all otherswho can't think for themselves.
-
Your formula makes no sense septic,how about you prove it.
You sound like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar trying too bullshit a way out of it.
-
The reason is very simple. None of you have a clue what the hell you are doing and you rely on the full back up of shoehorned science to aid you. As I said before. None of you are capable of rational thought. Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought. Cannot think outside of the box and prefer the comfort of that box you are sealed inside..
Whenever you are stuck in a corner it is always this. The emotional rant full of insults about how we are all "Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought." or whatever.
We've heard a million times, and all it shows is that you've got nothing.
-
Your formula makes no sense septic,how about you prove it.
You sound like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar trying too bullshit a way out of it.
How about you make sense of your own equations and spew out what they mean and how they are what they are. Come on, give me something to work on. Be basic and let's understand what they mean. Come on my little bow legged friend, I'm sure you can manage this.
Don't try and bullshit your way out of it.
-
The reason is very simple. None of you have a clue what the hell you are doing and you rely on the full back up of shoehorned science to aid you. As I said before. None of you are capable of rational thought. Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought. Cannot think outside of the box and prefer the comfort of that box you are sealed inside..
Whenever you are stuck in a corner it is always this. The emotional rant full of insults about how we are all "Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought." or whatever.
We've heard a million times, and all it shows is that you've got nothing.
I'm in no corner, crabby. I'm out in the open. I'm stood in the circle with you all around me and I'm beckoning you all at once to show me how your gravity equations work and how they came about.
All I see is hot air and spouted clap trap.
Show me what your equations mean and what they do and how they calculate the thing you stock rigidly to.
Tell me who first calculated the math and by what means was the experiment performed to get to it.
Come on crabby, let's be having you.
-
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
If you are trying to calculate the force made by denpressure, the final answer would be in Force which is Mass*Distance/Time2.
Force is force
frequency is time
expansion and volume is probably distance3
Density and mass I am assuming is mass
Resistance of mass is force
From this, I can come up with the units for your final answer with simple algebra, which is (Time*Distance3)/Mass.
Those units make no sense, you would expect that equation to output Force, but it outputs units that nobody has ever heard of. Your equation does not work.
-
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
And in one fell swoop sceptimatic has totally destroyed any possible credibility for his "denpressure" hypothesis.
;D ;D ;D
-
F+fv+EV/DM*rM
There you go. There's my formula [for denpressure].
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
Force has dimensions mass * length / time2, written as m l t-2
Frequency is 1 / time, or t-1
Expansion is dimensionless
Volume is length3, or l3
Density is mass / volume = mass / length3, or m l-3
Resistance is, I suppose, friction, which has the same dimensions as Force, so m l t-2
Is that right? When you say "friction of mass" in that last factor in the last term, do you mean friction times mass? If the former, it's just force, if the latter, force * mass. I'm going with the latter for the first try since I don't know what "friction of mass" means[nb]And the units are a little closer to matching as originally proposed.[/nb], but we'll see later that this may be wrong.
Anyway, your formula
Q = F+fv+EV/DM*rM [Q is "denpressure", I guess]
has dimensions:
? = m l t-2 + t-1 + (l3) (m l-3 m)-1 (m) (m l t-2)
= m l t-2 + t-1 + (l3) (m-1 l3 m-1) (m) (m l t-2)
= m l t-2 + t-1 + l7 t-2
We can see there's a problem here. You can't add terms unless they have the same units, and these are clearly different (thus the '?' on the left, since we can't tell what the dimensions are). In the last term, if you should have multiplied by density instead of dividing, its dimensions would change from l7 t-2 to m2 l t-2 (volume divided by mass is simply the inverse of density, and multiplying by density leaves only the dimensionless Expansion factor and friction of mass factor, which is force times mass - or is it?) Perhaps that friction of mass factor really doesn't have a distinct mass dimension and is simply friction (force), m l t-2, so we now have dimensions for the last term, which is the same as the first, which are those of a force. Ta daaa! Maybe squaring the frequency term is needed so all three terms have a common t-2? That would help, but still isn't a force to match the first or last terms; another possibility is that you're missing a constant with dimensions that supply the missing m l and possibly t-1 if fv is, in fact, not squared. Let's conjure up a constant S with dimensions m l or S' with dimensions m l t-1. If we do that, then the "denpressure formula" becomes:
Q = F+S*fv2+EVD/M*rM
or
Q = F+S'*fv+EVD/M*rM
Since V = M/D, then these can be simplified to
Q = F+S*fv2+E*rM
or
Q = F+S'*fv+E*rM
Hey, at least the units will work now[nb]Many students when introduced to dimensional analysis dread it and think it's dumb. When applied, though, it's actually a very powerful way to tell if there are fundamental errors in your approach; if the units don't work, the answer is wrong.[/nb]. What say, sceptimatic? It's your formula. If this is correct, what is the value for S or S' as appropriate? Or is this way off track and it's really something completely different?
BTW, what force does 'F' in your original represent? Was that mis-typed and should have been F = fv+EV/DM*rM [making 'F' "denpressure"]?
[Edit] Corrected 'volume' to 'density' in description of suggested correction to formula.
-
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
So rM is inertia?
What part of your equation allows an object in lower pressure to weigh less?
-
Looks to me like expansion makes things heavier and more mass makes things lighter. So in septic land they must have cold air balloons that throw out ballast to land.
SMDDD
-
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
So rM is inertia?
What part of your equation allows an object in lower pressure to weigh less?
and is there a part that explains the difference between only working in a straight down direction, and not working in the infinite number of other directions?
-
This is a bit better septic.
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sfall.htm (http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sfall.htm)
And keep the fv under the table, mum will cut your nuts out.
-
Wow! Thanks for your thorough debunking of sceptimatic's absurd "denpressure" notion Alpha2Omega.
I'm guessing we won't be seeing him back here to respond to your exposure of his nonsensical ideas. You've also exposed his ignorance of both physics and maths by pointing out all the obvious errors in his absurd "formula"—which I'm guessing he just made up on the spot and hoped it wouldn't be challenged for its authenticity.
So... it's farewell "denpressure" our old friend. You've served sceptimatic well for hundreds of hours of fun and games on these forums, but now it's time to commit you to the graveyard of scientific absurdities—along with phlogiston and all the other similar crackpot notions.
-
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the gravity equation works and how it is tested to prove it works as we are told.
I see a lot of equations put up about all sorts of stuff and it is less than impressive. You see, we are humans, we are primitive. We need PROOF that these equations relate to reality and not just a bunch of numbers and letters describing crap.
Don't come back with anything other than explaianing it for gravity to show how it works.
I'm never impressed with comebacks of, "oh ho, look at scepti, he can't work them out, any kindergarten kid does this before breakfast."
And blah blah blah.
Omega looks like he may have a chance to explain a few things, so here we go.
Omega: Can you explain in basic terms the gravity equation and how it proves what it supposedly proves.
Can you also tell me when this equation was first used as absolute proof the equation works.
An experiment that gives a person no doubt it is what it is, that cannot be rigged to fit will also be good.
Can you try and refrain from coming out with stuff like, " everyone knows what gravity is, it's been tested" and what not, just lay it out in basic terms what the equation means in testable science.
Remember not to forget who first done this equation for it to be valid today, regardless of nobody knowing what the hell it is.
If anyone else can do it, then do it. Stop the idle chit chat about denpressure being destroyed. Denpressure is alive and kicking because it's as real as it gets for any layperson to understand.
I understand that you people work on copying stuff and making out the equations are all valid, etc, which naturally destroys your ability to actually critically think against that system.
I'll bypass the usual onslaught but inbetween it, I expect some clarification for what I've asked, or I'll be forced to pur gravity where it belongs. In the fantasy books.
-
Why do you need to be told here, can you not do your own research?
-
Why do you need to be told here, can you not do your own research?
Well yes, I suppose I could. I mean, we could all just go and do research on everything. Then what?
Then it becomes a case of whether a person believes it or not, which I clearly don't or has this escaped your limited attention span?
I come here to think. I come here to see different takes on stuff as well as giving out my own. It matters not that people like you come into it to attempt to destroy people's thoughts, because I'm not here for the likes of you. Get this firmly planted into that one track brain of yours and you might not keep coming out with one liners that mean absolutely eff all.
Your contrbution in any topic is usually, " so how come satellite dishes are all pointed the same way, then?"
This will be said in a thread about anything. You have nothing to give and appear to hang onto the coat tails of those that do give out answers. You're the little kid that pops your head out from behind bully beef who's giving it large, to shout "yeah."
I've told you time and time again that your goal here is to make yourself appear smart due to having all the so called answers at your fingertips. It doesn't make you smart. It makes you as dumb and naive as they come.
The definition of parrot; is you.
-
Why do you need to be told here, can you not do your own research?
Uh... no he can't. sceptimatic's proven that fact dozens of times here LOL.
-
Why don't you try your new sum septic, now it has been fixed by a smarter man than you.
-
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the gravity equation works and how it is tested to prove it works as we are told.
*sigh* The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–98 by British scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory[1] and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant.
-
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the gravity equation works and how it is tested to prove it works as we are told.
I see a lot of equations put up about all sorts of stuff and it is less than impressive. You see, we are humans, we are primitive. We need PROOF that these equations relate to reality and not just a bunch of numbers and letters describing crap.
Don't come back with anything other than explaianing it for gravity to show how it works.
I'm never impressed with comebacks of, "oh ho, look at scepti, he can't work them out, any kindergarten kid does this before breakfast."
And blah blah blah.
Omega looks like he may have a chance to explain a few things, so here we go.
Omega: Can you explain in basic terms the gravity equation and how it proves what it supposedly proves.
Can you also tell me when this equation was first used as absolute proof the equation works.
An experiment that gives a person no doubt it is what it is, that cannot be rigged to fit will also be good.
Can you try and refrain from coming out with stuff like, " everyone knows what gravity is, it's been tested" and what not, just lay it out in basic terms what the equation means in testable science.
Remember not to forget who first done this equation for it to be valid today, regardless of nobody knowing what the hell it is.
If anyone else can do it, then do it. Stop the idle chit chat about denpressure being destroyed. Denpressure is alive and kicking because it's as real as it gets for any layperson to understand.
I understand that you people work on copying stuff and making out the equations are all valid, etc, which naturally destroys your ability to actually critically think against that system.
I'll bypass the usual onslaught but inbetween it, I expect some clarification for what I've asked, or I'll be forced to pur gravity where it belongs. In the fantasy books.
Well, here's the thing, sceptimatic. Several times now you've asked that we show some calculation or give a detailed detailed explanation for something and you'll show in detail how it's wrong. After providing the requested calculations or details, you simply refuse to hold up your end of the bargain, continuing to deny the correctness of the responses while refusing to show why you think so, as promised.
So, no, not this time. Lets discuss the shortcomings with the denpressure formula as originally presented, and how it could possibly be made to work before moving on to another detailed spoon feeding that you will then declare "not good enough!"
Of course I realize that detailed explanations of the gravity equation are available from many places, so you can simply bypass us and get the same information elsewhere; refusing to deliver it to your feet tied up in a bow is little hardship on you. Meanwhile, relevant results on searches for "denpressure" only point to this site, and you seem to be the only one here who claims to know anything about it. Since this seems to be the only place where this can be examined, we're stuck with you as the only source of explanation.
I'll tell you what, though. I'm willing to move on to the gravity equation without a satisfactory resolution of your denpressure formula if you'll first make good on your promise to show your calculations that give the average acceleration necessary to accelerate from 0 to 17,000 mi/hr in 8 minutes as 5 miles/sec2 or whatever else you think it is now. The details are here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61836.msg1633765#msg1633765 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61836.msg1633765#msg1633765) and here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61836.msg1633875#msg1633875 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61836.msg1633875#msg1633875).
So, back to the changes I suggested to your formula. Can you see why I say changes are necessary? You cannot add Hz to Newtons or meters to the seventh power per second squared. If one of the the changes suggested looks promising, which do you think is more likely to be right?
Can you come up with a value for the constant S or S' (or reformulate your expression) so a brick dropped from 5 m takes about one second to fall and a similar brick dropped from 20 m takes about two seconds to fall? Gravity can answer these and gives answers that compare well with experiments. How do you make your formula give the known answers? What values should be used for fv, E, and rM in these cases?
-
..............Since V = M/D, then these can be simplified to
Q = F+S*fv2+E*rM
or
Q = F+S'*fv+E*rM ................
Nice work on all of that by the way.
Many students when introduced to dimensional analysis dread it and think it's dumb. When applied, though, it's actually a very powerful way to tell if there are fundamental errors in your approach; if the units don't work, the answer is wrong.
I wouldn't think it's dumb, it's just unfortunate my current math abilities aren't even at that level.
-
Do your sum septic or shut up. Putting shit on other people wont help you out of this one. The old wife's tale about a fool will show his form in the end just bit you real hard.
-
Do your sum septic or shut up. Putting shit on other people wont help you out of this one. The old wife's tale about a fool will show his form in the end just bit you real hard.
There is no old wives tale about what you just said. You just made that up.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for one of you air heads to show me how gravity is calculated and by what means was it tested. Plus, I'd like to know when this calculation was first made to show accuracy and legitimacy of the actual equation/formula or whatever you wannabe scientists want to call it.
Don't sit there barking on about my denpressure theory and pretending you know the equations and formula when you don't even understand the theory, you pack of clowns.
-
Here you go septic, same sum used for electrostatic force as for gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
Maths seems to do your head in, like most people with big dumb ideas. Still recon you are only 1/2 mad but 100% bulshit.
-
1/2 mad but 100% bulshit
About right.
I notice how he completely ignores A2A's post.....
-
Here you go septic, same sum used for electrostatic force as for gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
Maths seems to do your head in, like most people with big dumb ideas. Still recon you are only 1/2 mad but 100% bulshit.
Oh ok, so gravity is now electrostatically charged particles, or something like that, or acts the same but isn't the same, it's just coincidentally the same?
Like I said before. Make some sense about how gravity is shown and why the eqwuations make sense.
Do this in your own words and explain them very simply.
Also, I'd like to know who was the frist person to physically test out the equations to get the 9.81m/s gravity carry on. You know; things like that.
Stop bringing up silly wiki stuff related to nothing if it's not what we are talking about.
-
1/2 mad but 100% bulshit
About right.
I notice how he completely ignores A2A's post.....
His post means nothing. He's rigged up a formula for something he doesn't understand.
-
1/2 mad but 100% bulshit
About right.
I notice how he completely ignores A2A's post.....
His post means nothing. He's rigged up a formula for something he doesn't understand.
Stop stalling and take us through your denpressure formula.
-
1/2 mad but 100% bulshit
About right.
I notice how he completely ignores A2A's post.....
His post means nothing. He's rigged up a formula for something he doesn't understand.
Stop stalling and take us through your denpressure formula.
Stop stalling and take me through your bullshit gravity baloney.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
-
septic Cavendish did it. Why do you think I keep sticking it under your nose. Read the bloody link.
-
I think at this point in time, we should all thank sceptimatic for reducing to school playground nonsense what could've shaped up as an interesting debate. I've noted over some time now that every thread this moron gets involved with invariably runs to ten or more pages, versus those where he doesn't average out at 2 or 3 pages. There's an obvious correlation.
At any rate, it's now more than obvious that sceptimatic is totally incapable of clarifying the maths behind the fictitious formula he made up to "explain" his notion of denpressure.
As Shakespeare said, sceptimatic has been "hoist with his own petard". How embarrassing. Maybe now he'll shut up for 5 minutes LOL.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
The gravity equasion was actually deduced to explain celestial motion and it also explains the gravitational strength differences found on Earth and it has been used to calculate the trajectories of space ships. It also makes geometric sense and it follows the inverse square law.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
Let's be fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
Let's be fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
Please provide the results of your experiments to prove that things of different mass do not fall at the same speed.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
Let's be fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
Please provide the results of your experiments to prove that things of different mass do not fall at the same speed.
Try and learn to read.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
Let's be fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
This just shows your inability to comprehend the theory.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
Let's be fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
This just shows your inability to comprehend the theory.
Is it any wonder when it's tarnished with different shades of bullshit.
You people bark on about mass being the key to the strength of gravity. The bigger the mass, the greater the gravitational pull. This is what you people say.
So if that's the case then the same should apply to objects of different mass falling towards your big ball Earth in free fall, yet you people harp on about any mass falls at the same rate. It destroys your gravity theory.
You can keep coming back saying I don't understand it whilst you pretend you do but the truth is, it's a theory that makes no sense at all and can't be explained, as I said before.
-
All explained here - http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/The-Big-Misconception (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/The-Big-Misconception)
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
Let's be fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
Things of different masses actually do feel different amounts of force do to gravity, but they also have different ammounts of mass. The gravity equasion outputs a force that's proportional to the mass of the object in question, and some simple algebra will tell you that all objects no matter what the mass is accelerate at the same rate do to gravity.
The gravity equasion also suggests that if you drop something then the Earth then Earth will fall towards that object by a tiny ammount that's way too small to measure with everyday objects, but the Moon actually tugs around the Earth as it orbits.
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant
No, it doesn't. See below.
unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
No bullshit here except for yours.
The force gravity exerts on an object is directly proportional to its mass (and some other things that are constants on or near the surface of the Earth[nb]They can vary ever so slightly slightly, but close enough for everyday work.[/nb]).
Acceleration is directly proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass. Since the force due to gravity is directly proportional to mass, the acceleration of an object due to gravity both directly proportional and inversely proportional to mass, meaning the mass factors out, making the acceleration independent of mass.
Let's be fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
Let's be fair here[nb]Yeah, right. ::)[/nb]. We've given you more information about how gravity works. Now, you give us more information about how to use your denpressure formula.
What should I use for fv, E, and rM for, say, a brick dropped from 5 m? Let's say the brick has a mass of 2.920 kg (weight 6 lb 7 oz) [My wife would kill me if she knew what I was using her kitchen scale for!], length 203 mm, width 90 mm, and thickness 64 mm (8" X 3.5" X 2.5") If you don't know how to calculate volume and density from that information, I can show you.
I suspect you were just pulling that "formula" out of your butt since it clearly had no chance of working. Like most of your ideas, it appears to be gibberish. In case there is actually anything there, how are the parameters listed above applied to your formula in this case: dropping a brick from 5 meters? If this is somehow related to air pressure or temperature, (these don't appear directly in your formula), then use 1 atm and 20 C. If you need other parameters, choose something typical and tell us what they are.
Any more progress on that shuttle acceleration problem if you want to postpone what looks more and more like the denpressure debacle?
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
If gravity is bullshit, then who cares how the equation works? If your denpressure formula is so much better than gravity, then why don't you want to show us an example of how it works?
-
Come on septic stop with the fv under the table and do us some sums.
Come on Guv stop with the BS and tell me how this gravity equation came about and how it marries up with real life observations and who first used it to verify its authenticity.
Current gravitation came up in part because no force is felt when in free fall. A force will be felt. There are other reasons why gravitation came about as well. Another example is that different masses fall at the same rate on free fall. Once again a force can't do that.
Hmmm. If different masses fall at the same rate on free fall, then that destroys gravity in an instant unless you can come up with some more bullshit to get out of it.
Why?
Gravity is not a force. That is how. I don't know how many times you can be told this. When objects are not in free fall, a force can be measured though. Thus the for equation that was posted, plus other equations.
By default, denpressure would be a force, and that could be felt. But it never is, strange.
Because if gravity is dependent on mass, then things of different mass should not fall at the same rate in what you people deem as a vacuum. They should be pulled or whatever you people call the gravity force or whatever the hell it is - differently.
Yes, that s why we know it's not a force.
Let's b fair here. You use the moon and lots of other differing sized planets to show us this and you harp on about the larger the mass the more it changes the gravity pull.
And? Are you going to come up with an excuse on why denpressure can't be felt?
-
septic can you explain how you think the line in a fraction works, 1/2, your formula was at least upside down if not 100% bullshit.
Stop trying to avoid your math's lesson, you need it badly. Your last few questions would answer themselves if you did the sums handed to you on a platter. Stop with the fv under the table, you may need two hands.
-
I'm still waiting for gravity to be explained in how I asked. I'm patient, I'll wait as long as necessary for someone to actually answer the questions how I asked.
-
What else do you want. grow up.
-
What else do you want. grow up.
I want exactly what I asked for. What I don't want is a load of old flannel for an explanation. Now get to it or leave it to someone who can read and understand what I've asked for. If none of you can explain what I've asked for, just say and I'll accept that.
-
Shut up.
-
Shut up.
Not going to happen kiddo. Anyway, when you people are ready to grasp basic understanding, common sense and logic, let me know because your Earth view and your view of history and the lies will start to become much clearer.
Bathing yourself in formulas that describe fantasy will only soak you forever in that until you decide to dry yourself and apply a heavy dose of all over body spray consisting of an ingredient called wakeupsheepiesia.
-
What else do you want. grow up.
I want exactly what I asked for. What I don't want is a load of old flannel for an explanation. Now get to it or leave it to someone who can read and understand what I've asked for. If none of you can explain what I've asked for, just say and I'll accept that.
Why do you need it written here when you should be looking at a science site or book? Do you just want to post a childish reply?
-
What else do you want. grow up.
I want exactly what I asked for. What I don't want is a load of old flannel for an explanation. Now get to it or leave it to someone who can read and understand what I've asked for. If none of you can explain what I've asked for, just say and I'll accept that.
Why do you need it written here when you should be looking at a science site or book? Do you just want to post a childish reply?
Listen WOPR. This is a site for discussion. Get this programmed in to your computer head.
I want the explanations from people that come on here giving it the I am in the science world. Those that are capable of answering exactly what I've asked for. If none of you are capable, then fair enough.
Let's see if you can try it, WOPR.
Peruse through your scientific journals and such like for what I'm asking for. Then all you do is take out the basics and explain them to me as in what I've asked for.
Don't keep telling me to go and look this stuff up. They are silly and not worth looking up anymore than the once where their explanations make about as much sense as a whale for a taxi driver.
-
Shut up.
Not going to happen kiddo. Anyway, when you people are ready to grasp basic understanding, common sense and logic, let me know because your Earth view and your view of history and the lies will start to become much clearer.
So does that mean you are too dumb to do the sum. You have lost septic. Get over it.
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly. I'm being serious.
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly. I'm being serious.
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
We are aware of the erroneous views you hold. We eagerly await you being able to back it up.
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly. I'm being serious.
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
We are aware of the erroneous views you hold. We eagerly await you being able to back it up.
I'm still waiting patiently for you lot to back up your gravity. The questions are there to look at. Observe them and deal with them in how I asked.
I know you are limited but there is some that could answer, surely.
-
I'm still waiting for gravity to be explained in how I asked. I'm patient, I'll wait as long as necessary for someone to actually answer the questions how I asked.
You should be asking at http://www.thescienceforum.com/ (http://www.thescienceforum.com/)
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly. I'm being serious.
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
We are aware of the erroneous views you hold. We eagerly await you being able to back it up.
I'm still waiting patiently for you lot to back up your gravity. The questions are there to look at. Observe them and deal with them in how I asked.
I know you are limited but there is some that could answer, surely.
Deep breath. Go back and read the thread. The equation has been explained to you. You were referred to the Cavendish experiment for confirmation and you can also refer to the discovery of Neptune (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune)) for further confirmation.
For your part, we are awaiting further explanation of your denpressure equation as well as your demonstration of how an object accelerating at 5km/s2 arrives at 17,000km/h after 8 minutes, as you promised.
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly. I'm being serious.
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
We are aware of the erroneous views you hold. We eagerly await you being able to back it up.
I'm still waiting patiently for you lot to back up your gravity. The questions are there to look at. Observe them and deal with them in how I asked.
I know you are limited but there is some that could answer, surely.
Deep breath. Go back and read the thread. The equation has been explained to you. You were referred to the Cavendish experiment for confirmation and you can also refer to the discovery of Neptune (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune)) for further confirmation.
For your part, we are awaiting further explanation of your denpressure equation as well as your demonstration of how an object accelerating at 5km/s2 arrives at 17,000km/h after 8 minutes, as you promised.
I'm still waiting for the explanation in how I asked for it. Look back a little.
As for my part, I gave people what they asked for. If you don't accept it, tough.
-
Here is all you need to know
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation)
Now we wait for similar explanations of denpressure and how it works in reality. We also want equations, how did you come up with them, experiments to do the tests and results we should get.
-
Here is all you need to know
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation)
Now we wait for similar explanations of denpressure and how it works in reality. We also want equations, how did you come up with them, experiments to do the tests and results we should get.
Like I keep saying. My questions are there so if you can answer them from your own brain, do so; as I asked for them to be answered.
Stop sticking up useless pasted web pages.
-
I'm still waiting for the explanation in how I asked for it. Look back a little.
As for my part, I gave people what they asked for. If you don't accept it, tough.
Unlike you, I can go back through a thread and read it.
The gravity equation has been explained simply:
(https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608026202527566415&pid=15.1&P=0)
On the left is F which stands for force, the force gravity exerts. Simple enough.
On the right of the equation are a couple of terms which break down to this explanation: Two masses attract each other(m1m2) at a specific rate (G) which gets weaker the further they are from one another (/d2)
It is that simple.
You want an experiment that could never ever be tampered with? They don't exist. You could not concoct one for anything. However, there is an experiment which has been performed hundreds of thousands of times called the Cavendish experiment. In essence, it hangs two masses close together and then measures if there is an attraction between them and if so, how much. In variably there is an attraction and depending on the equipment used, you can get extremely precise readings of G, the gravitational constant.
There is also a prediction that this equation made based on the model we currently employ of the solar system. Newton's equation successfully predicted the location of Neptune. Astronomers were seeing odd movements in Uranus' orbit and so a mathematician go to crunching numbers and proposed that there might be a heretofore unseen planet causing it. The astronomer told observers where to look and on what date and it was there!
Now, good will has been flowing in your direction, so why don't you reciprocate? Can you please take us through your denpressure formula now? Or how about showing your calculations proving that a rocket must accelerate at 5km/s2 to reach a speed in 17,000 km/h in 8 minutes?
EDIT: Fixed typos
-
Here is all you need to know
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation)
Now we wait for similar explanations of denpressure and how it works in reality. We also want equations, how did you come up with them, experiments to do the tests and results we should get.
Like I keep saying. My questions are there so if you can answer them from your own brain, do so; as I asked for them to be answered.
Stop sticking up useless pasted web pages.
You have an obsession with asking totally unknown people to post stuff here for you when you can look up recognised sources easily. Very strange.
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly. I'm being serious.
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
We are aware of the erroneous views you hold. We eagerly await you being able to back it up.
I'm still waiting patiently for you lot to back up your gravity. The questions are there to look at. Observe them and deal with them in how I asked.
I know you are limited but there is some that could answer, surely.
And I'm still waiting patiently for you to correct your "equation" for calculating denpressure so it can actually be used. We know from your first attempt that you don't have a clue about what you're saying, and from previous and ongoing behavior that you will try to stall forever instead of addressing the failure. Reminding everyone occasionally of the outlandish claims you make and your refusal to deliver promised explanations is becoming part of the routine of visiting here. This topic is clearly destined for the same pile (an apt term, don't you think?) and will probably become another classic like the one about "the impossibility of the space shuttle because it can't accelerate at 5 mi/sec2".
Here's my stance on this, quoted here for your convenience so you don't even have to click a link:
Well, here's the thing, sceptimatic. Several times now you've asked that we show some calculation or give a detailed detailed explanation for something and you'll show in detail how it's wrong. After providing the requested calculations or details, you simply refuse to hold up your end of the bargain, continuing to deny the correctness of the responses while refusing to show why you think so, as promised.
So, no, not this time. Lets discuss the shortcomings with the denpressure formula as originally presented, and how it could possibly be made to work before moving on to another detailed spoon feeding that you will then declare "not good enough!"
Once again:
What should we use for fv, E, and rM in your "denpressure equation" for, say, a brick with a mass of 2.920 kg (weight 6 lb 7 oz), length 203 mm, width 90 mm, and thickness 64 mm (8" X 3.5" X 2.5") dropped from 5 m (or 16 ft - your choice)?
You first. Prove me wrong by answering the question. It should be easy enough to do since you've "proved to yourself" (but, apparently no one else) that it works.
-
I'm still waiting for the explanation in how I asked for it. Look back a little.
As for my part, I gave people what they asked for. If you don't accept it, tough.
Unlike you, I can go back through a thread and read it.
The gravity equation has been explained simply:
(https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608026202527566415&pid=15.1&P=0)
On the left is F which stands for force, the force gravity exerts. Simple enough.
On the right of the equation are a couple of terms which break down to this explanation: Two masses attract each other(m1m2) at a specific rate (G) which gets weaker the further they are from one another (/d2)
It is that simple.
You want an experiment that could never ever be tampered with? They don't exist. You could not concoct one for anything. However, there is an experiment which has been performed hundreds of thousands of times called the Cavendish experiment. In essence, it hangs two masses close together and then measures if there is an attraction between them and if so, how much. In variably there is an attraction and depending on the equipment used, you can get extremely precise readings of G, the gravitational constant.
There is also a prediction that this equation made based on the model we currently employ of the solar system. Newton's equation successfully predicted the location of Neptune. Astronomers were seeing odd movements in Uranus' orbit and so a mathematician go to crunching numbers and proposed that there might be a heretofore unseen planet causing it. The astronomer told observers where to look and on what date and it was there!
Now, good will has been flowing in your direction, so why don't you reciprocate? Can you please take us through your denpressure formula now? Or how about showing your calculations proving that a rocket must accelerate at 5km/s2 to reach a speed in 17,000 km/h in 8 minutes?
EDIT: Fixed typos
I haven't made a formula for it. So how can it be tested?
Just use the same way you test things now by using atmospheric pressure as it's used. that's all you need to know.
You've been explained to as to how atmospheric pressure works on density.
Unless a smart arse wants to rig a decent equation up for it.
The simple thing is, atmospheric pressure acting on any dense matter pushed against it and taking up that space by compressing that matter out of the way of the objects surface area and volume, creating a push on push effect that determines the measured weight of that object upon man made scales.
Taking the pressure of 1kg per cm2 or around 14.7 lbs per square inch.
Anyone wants to make a formula out of, then do so.
It's real and gravity isn't, so once people understand what the truth is, a lot more stuff will become much clearer.
Edie: maybe omega can rig one up, he seems very smart.
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly.
They work just fine, better actually.
I'm being serious.
;D
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
As long as it's straight up and down right?
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Nope. They accelerate from zero. If you would like to see how well a vehicle of any type responds to instantaneous thrust, (let's say 80kmh), park a car on the railroad tracks and see what happens when the train(instantaneous thrust) is applied.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
No, they also must accelerate from zero.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
Again, they accelerate from zero, turn at a higher elevation, inertia, burn, go into orbit.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
And the people who watch it in person?
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly.
They work just fine, better actually.
I'm being serious.
;D
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
As long as it's straight up and down right?
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Nope. They accelerate from zero. If you would like to see how well a vehicle of any type responds to instantaneous thrust, (let's say 80kmh), park a car on the railroad tracks and see what happens when the train(instantaneous thrust) is applied.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
No, they also must accelerate from zero.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
Again, they accelerate from zero, turn at a higher elevation, inertia, burn, go into orbit.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
And the people who watch it in person?
I don't think you quite grasped what I said. Deliberate? I'm not sure.
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Now do you grasp it?
-
Just use the same way you test things now by using atmospheric pressure as it's used. that's all you need to know.
You've been explained to as to how atmospheric pressure works on density.
Unless a smart arse wants to rig a decent equation up for it.
The simple thing is, atmospheric pressure acting on any dense matter pushed against it and taking up that space by compressing that matter out of the way of the objects surface area and volume, creating a push on push effect that determines the measured weight of that object upon man made scales.
And it all only works in one direction.
I don't think you quite grasped what I said. Deliberate? I'm not sure.
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Now do you grasp it?
And yet, this is what happens.
*edited bold placement
-
Just use the same way you test things now by using atmospheric pressure as it's used. that's all you need to know.
You've been explained to as to how atmospheric pressure works on density.
Unless a smart arse wants to rig a decent equation up for it.
The simple thing is, atmospheric pressure acting on any dense matter pushed against it and taking up that space by compressing that matter out of the way of the objects surface area and volume, creating a push on push effect that determines the measured weight of that object upon man made scales.
And it all only works in one direction.
I don't think you quite grasped what I said. Deliberate? I'm not sure.
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Now do you grasp it?
And yet, this is what happens.
*edited bold placement
No, it's not what happens. It happens on TV because it's blatant fakery. It can't happen in real time and this should be obvious to anyone with a mind to actually look a little bit more logical at it.
It's right there in your face if you took a little time out to see what's happening.
You know for a fine fact that a rocket has to full thrust to take off. It has to. This is all you need to know about how it can work.
It cannot gain any more thrust than what it's given out, so cannot gain any additional speed that it already gained on full thrust, unless it went into an arc back to the ground, nose first.
I honestly don't know why people cannot see this.
-
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Why is a rocket different than a helicopter or Harrier jump jet? Don't they all operate on the same fundamental principle of action/reaction?
-
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Why is a rocket different than a helicopter or Harrier jump jet? Don't they all operate on the same fundamental principle of action/reaction?
There was another thread were his claims were debunked with numerous demonstrations of jump jets taking off. He went quiet and dropped out the thread, now he pretends it never happened... ::)
-
Just use the same way you test things now by using atmospheric pressure as it's used. that's all you need to know.
You've been explained to as to how atmospheric pressure works on density.
Unless a smart arse wants to rig a decent equation up for it.
The simple thing is, atmospheric pressure acting on any dense matter pushed against it and taking up that space by compressing that matter out of the way of the objects surface area and volume, creating a push on push effect that determines the measured weight of that object upon man made scales.
And it all only works in one direction.
I don't think you quite grasped what I said. Deliberate? I'm not sure.
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Now do you grasp it?
And yet, this is what happens.
*edited bold placement
No, it's not what happens. It happens on TV because it's blatant fakery. It can't happen in real time and this should be obvious to anyone with a mind to actually look a little bit more logical at it.
It's right there in your face if you took a little time out to see what's happening.
You know for a fine fact that a rocket has to full thrust to take off. It has to. This is all you need to know about how it can work.
It cannot gain any more thrust than what it's given out, so cannot gain any additional speed that it already gained on full thrust, unless it went into an arc back to the ground, nose first.
I honestly don't know why people cannot see this.
As a model rocketeer, I have launched many small rockets that start off going slow and then accelerate up faster and faster just like how the NASA ones do. So do my rockets disobey the laws of physics?
Let's say we have a rocket that has the engine power to accelerate at 15 m/s2 without gravity and gravity is pulling down at 9.8 m/s2.
Thrust - Gravity
The above equasion can be used to determine how fast a rocket is accelerating up, and with the values I previously specified it spits out 5.2 m/s2, which could also be stated as 5.2 meters per second per second, which means that every second the rocket goes 5.2 meters per second faster then the second before. Even if the thrust is always the same, the rocket will keep accelerating up.
Fun fact: as rockets fly, they burn fuel and in turn become lighter. This means that the thrust to weight ratio is higher and the rocket accelerates faster.
-
Let's make something clear about rockets. They don't work without atmosphere so get this out of your heads. Seriously get it out of your heads and start using your heads properly.
They work just fine, better actually.
I'm being serious.
;D
Action and reaction in EQUAL measures, no matter what. Action and then reaction is the order of the day in all things in all ways, in all atmospheric changes.
As long as it's straight up and down right?
A rocket uses full thrust of its fuel to aascend VERTICALLY. It cannot use so much and just accelerate faster and faster. It just can't be done vertically.
Once a rocket is at full thrust for lift off, it either lifts off at speed or it falls to the ground.
If it lifts off at speed in how they are meant to, then it will lift off at full thrust. There is no more thrust to be had. It has to hit full speed right there and then and will only keep that speed if the fuel is there to allow it at full thrust.
Nope. They accelerate from zero. If you would like to see how well a vehicle of any type responds to instantaneous thrust, (let's say 80kmh), park a car on the railroad tracks and see what happens when the train(instantaneous thrust) is applied.
Note. This does not apply to Horizontal aircraft. Please note this before jumping in head first.
No, they also must accelerate from zero.
You get one shot at full thrust vertical lift off with a rocket. If it doesn't shoot into the air at great speed, it's going to lose stability and crash. There is no other way it can work to get high into the sky.
When I say high into the sky, I mean to a certain height and then it's spent due to the fuel being used up within a minute or so; and that's basically it.
Again, they accelerate from zero, turn at a higher elevation, inertia, burn, go into orbit.
All the rest of it that people view on their TV sets, is all bunkum.
And the people who watch it in person?
I don't think you quite grasped what I said. Deliberate? I'm not sure.
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Now do you grasp it?
I think you are getting mixed up between speed and acceleration. Speed is how fast a thing is going and acceleration is how fast speed changes. Gravity and rocket engines accelerate things at a (more or less) constant rate, and that means that the speed will just keep on changing unless acceleration is zero.
-
I haven't made a formula for it. So how can it be tested?
Playing games again?
F+fv+EV/DM*rM
There you go. There's my formula.
ib4 "Where did I post a formula about denpressure?"
You know that being willfully misleading is about the same as lying don't you?
Just use the same way you test things now by using atmospheric pressure as it's used. that's all you need to know.
You've been explained to as to how atmospheric pressure works on density.
Ok, but the Cavendish experiment works perpindicular to the Earth's gravitational pull. In short, gravity is pulling sideways in the Cavendish experiment. You have not been able to explain denpressure working sideways. Gravity has no problem with this since it pulls towards the center of mass.
Unless a smart arse wants to rig a decent equation up for it.
The simple thing is, atmospheric pressure acting on any dense matter pushed against it and taking up that space by compressing that matter out of the way of the objects surface area and volume, creating a push on push effect that determines the measured weight of that object upon man made scales.
Taking the pressure of 1kg per cm2 or around 14.7 lbs per square inch.
Anyone wants to make a formula out of, then do so.
It's real and gravity isn't, so once people understand what the truth is, a lot more stuff will become much clearer.
Edie: maybe omega can rig one up, he seems very smart.
Alpha 2 Omega is very smart.
-
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Why is a rocket different than a helicopter or Harrier jump jet? Don't they all operate on the same fundamental principle of action/reaction?
There was another thread were his claims were debunked with numerous demonstrations of jump jets taking off. He went quiet and dropped out the thread, now he pretends it never happened... ::)
Looks like thats happened again. :P
-
We already explained gravity to you. Why don't you just pay attention. It actually explains why I didn't see a change in weight in my videos. You can't explain why. You can't explain why objects in free fall don't feel a force. Are you going to try? Forces can be felt. Depressure being a force should be felt. It should accelerate different masses differently. But that's not what is observed. Are you going to explain why?
-
I'm still waiting for the explanation in how I asked for it. Look back a little.
As for my part, I gave people what they asked for. If you don't accept it, tough.
Unlike you, I can go back through a thread and read it.
The gravity equation has been explained simply:
(https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608026202527566415&pid=15.1&P=0)
On the left is F which stands for force, the force gravity exerts. Simple enough.
On the right of the equation are a couple of terms which break down to this explanation: Two masses attract each other(m1m2) at a specific rate (G) which gets weaker the further they are from one another (/d2)
It is that simple.
You want an experiment that could never ever be tampered with? They don't exist. You could not concoct one for anything. However, there is an experiment which has been performed hundreds of thousands of times called the Cavendish experiment. In essence, it hangs two masses close together and then measures if there is an attraction between them and if so, how much. In variably there is an attraction and depending on the equipment used, you can get extremely precise readings of G, the gravitational constant.
There is also a prediction that this equation made based on the model we currently employ of the solar system. Newton's equation successfully predicted the location of Neptune. Astronomers were seeing odd movements in Uranus' orbit and so a mathematician go to crunching numbers and proposed that there might be a heretofore unseen planet causing it. The astronomer told observers where to look and on what date and it was there!
Now, good will has been flowing in your direction, so why don't you reciprocate? Can you please take us through your denpressure formula now? Or how about showing your calculations proving that a rocket must accelerate at 5km/s2 to reach a speed in 17,000 km/h in 8 minutes?
EDIT: Fixed typos
I haven't made a formula for it. So how can it be tested?
Well, that's a relief! That old formula you gave clearly wouldn't work for denpressure, since it wouldn't work at all. It's good of you to outright state you don't have a formula for it instead of implying you do.
Progress!
Just use the same way you test things now by using atmospheric pressure as it's used. that's all you need to know.
You've been explained to as to how atmospheric pressure works on density.
Unless a smart arse wants to rig a decent equation up for it.
The simple thing is, atmospheric pressure acting on any dense matter pushed against it and taking up that space by compressing that matter out of the way of the objects surface area and volume, creating a push on push effect that determines the measured weight of that object upon man made scales.
Taking the pressure of 1kg per cm2 or around 14.7 lbs per square inch.
Anyone wants to make a formula out of, then do so.
It's real and gravity isn't, so once people understand what the truth is, a lot more stuff will become much clearer.
It's real but can't be described, mathematically or otherwise?
I think I'll stick with gravity, thanks. It can at least be described and used to calculate useful things like weight given mass or density and volume, fall times, etc. It gives very accurate answers and is much simpler.
Edie: maybe omega can rig one up, he seems very smart.
Thanks for the compliment, but you're the self-professed and only expert on the topic of denpressure. I haven't a clue how such a thing would work. That's why I keep asking for specific details. All I've seen is evasion, hand waving, and double talk.
At least we know you've given up on devising a formula and have no intention of trying further. Your nominee went down in flames very quickly and you have, as usual, disavowed it.
-
I haven't made a formula for it. So how can it be tested?
It's more than clear by now that sceptimatic has become mentally deranged or is simply proven to be an inveterate liar—which is what I've claimed before.
He's now denying that he's made a "formula" for denpressure a few days ago, but to prove this a lie, I quote the following two comments of his:
F+fv+EV/DM*rM There you go. There's my formula [for denpressure].
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
It's now been shown that he's unable to make any sense of his own "formula" or describe its units or even how it works from a mathematical aspect. His proposed "formula" was nothing more than a meaningless collection of terms that made no logical sense, and which he couldn't even define.
DM was supposed to mean "density and mass" for example. In actuality it's nothing more than two letters of the alphabet. He may as well have said TG or AX or QQ.
Until he satisfactorily clarifies his "formula" for denpressure, I can only suggest that he's wasting his time repeatedly demanding we define the gravitational force equation—particularly as he's chosen to ignore any/all previous explanations.
Arguing with a liar is like arguing with a 3-year-old about candies. It's a waste of time.
-
Has anyone checked to see if septic has formula in his bottle. Don't want the twit starving to death.
-
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Why is a rocket different than a helicopter or Harrier jump jet? Don't they all operate on the same fundamental principle of action/reaction?
A rocket is different for very obvious reasons. A rocket is basically a mechanically operated dart. It's specific operation is for vertical flight. It's specific goal is to achieve altitude by expending it's fuel to force it's own mass and the mass of its unburned fuel into the sky until that fuel stops creating the force required to keep it moving.
A rocket MUST achieve immediate acceleration to achieve constant speed until that fuel runs out.
A rocket will immediately lose vertical momentum if the fuel expended becomes less than it was to lift it off.
Basically if your rocket doesn't spring into the sky then it's a dud.
Any rocket that slowly lifts off, will be a wreckage of twisted and burned metal in short order.
Your helicopter and Harrier do not use full thrust to hover vertically and can stabilise using wing and tail flaps.
Your rocket has none of this. It achieves immediate acceleration and cannot achieve any more acceleration thereafter. It will be a constant speed after that until it runs out of propellant.
Anything you see on TV of slow moving lift off, of any so called space rocket, you are watching nothing more than a film of fantasy.
Any rocket you see lifting off as I said they would; is REAL. It's as simple as that.
-
Of course anything that moves has to accelerate but that wasn't what I said. I said vertical acceleration for a ROCKET requires FULL thrust, as in, it requires FULL acceleration. It cannot just build up acceleration like a car or a plane can moving horizontally.
Why is a rocket different than a helicopter or Harrier jump jet? Don't they all operate on the same fundamental principle of action/reaction?
There was another thread were his claims were debunked with numerous demonstrations of jump jets taking off. He went quiet and dropped out the thread, now he pretends it never happened... ::)
Who are you appealing to? who's internet coat tails are you tugging on?
Explain why instead of just jumping in with your silliness and hiding behind those that attempt to think.
-
As a model rocketeer, I have launched many small rockets that start off going slow and then accelerate up faster and faster just like how the NASA ones do. So do my rockets disobey the laws of physics?
No, your rockets obey the laws of real physics as in, your rockets that lifted off like the NASA ones, fell back to the ground and blew up
If you mean they started off slow and then built up speed all the way into the sky, you're a liar and you know you are lying.
Let's say we have a rocket that has the engine power to accelerate at 15 m/s2 without gravity and gravity is pulling down at 9.8 m/s2.
Thrust - Gravity
The above equasion can be used to determine how fast a rocket is accelerating up, and with the values I previously specified it spits out 5.2 m/s2, which could also be stated as 5.2 meters per second per second, which means that every second the rocket goes 5.2 meters per second faster then the second before. Even if the thrust is always the same, the rocket will keep accelerating up.
Nope, it's not going to happen. No constant acceleration will ever be seen on a vertical flight. It's immediate acceleration and constant speed thereafter. No other way for a successful rocket flight, vertically.
Fun fact: as rockets fly, they burn fuel and in turn become lighter. This means that the thrust to weight ratio is higher and the rocket accelerates faster.
Correct but you forget one massive factor. The fuel gets lighter but so does the atmosphere it is flying in. They simply work in unison and the rocket simply keeps a constant speed until , either it's fuuel runs out or the atmosphere becomes too thin for the burning fuel to acts against. Usually the fuel is burned up in less than a minute in any rocket, no matter what it is, on vertical flight.
-
I think you are getting mixed up between speed and acceleration. Speed is how fast a thing is going and acceleration is how fast speed changes. Gravity and rocket engines accelerate things at a (more or less) constant rate, and that means that the speed will just keep on changing unless acceleration is zero.
No. I'm only talking about immediate acceleration on lift off. After that there is no further acceleration, it simply becomes constant speed. Let's call it a jump start acceleration.
-
We already explained gravity to you. Why don't you just pay attention. It actually explains why I didn't see a change in weight in my videos. You can't explain why. You can't explain why objects in free fall don't feel a force. Are you going to try? Forces can be felt. Depressure being a force should be felt. It should accelerate different masses differently. But that's not what is observed. Are you going to explain why?
Explain what I asked for or just slip quietly away.
-
Here's a good read for you septic,the maths gets a bit out there but if you read the first chapter you may get the idea. If you answer back about this in less than a few hours then you have not read it. If you say it is all bullshit that just means that you are too dumb to understand it. have fun.
http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/2013_Shabshelowitz_thesis.pdf (http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/2013_Shabshelowitz_thesis.pdf)
don't try your normal bullshit,I have heard it all before.
-
I think I'll stick with gravity, thanks. It can at least be described and used to calculate useful things like weight given mass or density and volume, fall times, etc. It gives very accurate answers and is much simpler.
Thanks for the compliment, but you're the self-professed and only expert on the topic of denpressure. I haven't a clue how such a thing would work. That's why I keep asking for specific details. All I've seen is evasion, hand waving, and double talk.
At least we know you've given up on devising a formula and have no intention of trying further. Your nominee went down in flames very quickly and you have, as usual, disavowed it.
You stick to your gravity that cannot be explained. I'll stick to mine that can.
I could put up a formula for it but I would have to basically change everything to my way for it, discarding your gravity.
What would that gain?
You see, I could put out a 10 page equation/formula with diagrams and the time would be wasted because none of you people are ever going to say, " hmmm, yes it works and it kills gravity." Why?
Because you people live in space with your planets and my denpressure kills it all off.
None of you will ever understand a formula if you can't understand the actual logic and the basics of how denpressure works.
Gravity is stuck to (pun intended) because science gave you a formula and a reason for why it is what it is. Those reasons cannot be explained but it doesn't matter.
It's mass attracts mass and that's it. Things fall, in free fall at 9.81m/s/s and that's that. No reason why. No experiment that shows it to be true...no scientist knows what gravity is and yet it can all be worked out due to observation of planets. For crying out loud. ::)
-
Here's a good read for you septic,the maths gets a bit out there but if you read the first chapter you may get the idea. If you answer back about this in less than a few hours then you have not read it. If you say it is all bullshit that just means that you are too dumb to understand it. have fun.
http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/2013_Shabshelowitz_thesis.pdf (http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/2013_Shabshelowitz_thesis.pdf)
don't try your normal bullshit,I have heard it all before.
It's all files. Put up the main points yourself or I won't be reading it.
-
Too dumb A. Maybe you know it will prove you are full of shit.
-
Too dumb A. Maybe you know it will prove you are full of shit.
Stop yapping like a little girl for crying out loud. Post up the main points or sit in the corner and suck your thumb. ;D
-
Here's a good read for you septic,the maths gets a bit out there but if you read the first chapter you may get the idea. If you answer back about this in less than a few hours then you have not read it. If you say it is all bullshit that just means that you are too dumb to understand it. have fun.
http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/2013_Shabshelowitz_thesis.pdf (http://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/2013_Shabshelowitz_thesis.pdf)
don't try your normal bullshit,I have heard it all before.
It's all files. Put up the main points yourself or I won't be reading it.
What's the problem with reading it?
-
I haven't made a formula for it. So how can it be tested?
It's more than clear by now that sceptimatic has become mentally deranged or is simply proven to be an inveterate liar—which is what I've claimed before.
He's now denying that he's made a "formula" for denpressure a few days ago, but to prove this a lie, I quote the following two comments of his:
F+fv+EV/DM*rM There you go. There's my formula [for denpressure].
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
It's now been shown that he's unable to make any sense of his own "formula" or describe its units or even how it works from a mathematical aspect. His proposed "formula" was nothing more than a meaningless collection of terms that made no logical sense, and which he couldn't even define.
DM was supposed to mean "density and mass" for example. In actuality it's nothing more than two letters of the alphabet. He may as well have said TG or AX or QQ.
Until he satisfactorily clarifies his "formula" for denpressure, I can only suggest that he's wasting his time repeatedly demanding we define the gravitational force equation—particularly as he's chosen to ignore any/all previous explanations.
Arguing with a liar is like arguing with a 3-year-old about candies. It's a waste of time.
This says it all and saves me typing.
-
If this sort of childish rubbish is the best poor old sceptimatic can post, then there's not much hope for him in the adult world LOL...
Stop yapping like a little girl for crying out loud. Post up the main points or sit in the corner and suck your thumb.
At least we've conclusively called his bluff by asking him to define his "formula" for "denpressure". He's tried to avoid responding to questions about it for days now, so it's all becoming a rather sad little effort on his part.
One of the problems for inveterate liars is that they all too often forget what lies they've told in the past, as sceptimatic has frequently.
He's lied about his "academic" qualifications—13 of them—and the dozen books he's "written", and about being a "scientist" and a "genius", and an inventor with dozens of "patents" to his name. He's also lied about owning a helicopter and a jet plane, and having licenses for both. And his father being a renowned North Korean scientist. What next... a personal friend of Kim Jong-un?
-
Here you go septic merry Xmas, this may help with your dunny pressure sums.
Bored with Algebra? Confused by Algebra? Hate Algebra? Yeah, Coolmath can fix that. Totally dig Algebra? What to get ahead in Algebra? Need to review your Algebra? Yep, Coolmath is here for that too!
Coolmath Algebra has a ton of really easy to follow lessons and examples (below) that will make you a successful algebra student.
http://www.coolmath.com/algebra/ (http://www.coolmath.com/algebra/)
Hope it helps man, not a lot of fun conversing with a total ejit.
-
Here you go septic merry Xmas, this may help with your dunny pressure sums.
Bored with Algebra? Confused by Algebra? Hate Algebra? Yeah, Coolmath can fix that. Totally dig Algebra? What to get ahead in Algebra? Need to review your Algebra? Yep, Coolmath is here for that too!
Coolmath Algebra has a ton of really easy to follow lessons and examples (below) that will make you a successful algebra student.
http://www.coolmath.com/algebra/ (http://www.coolmath.com/algebra/)
Hope it helps man, not a lot of fun conversing with a total ejit.
The only issue I foresee is that sceptimatic won't be able to comprehend even the most basic of algebraic theories. Therefore, your linked site is gonna be all Christmas wrapping but no present.
The only thing that could make sceptimatic a "successful" algebra student would be a brain transplant. ;D
-
I think I'll stick with gravity, thanks. It can at least be described and used to calculate useful things like weight given mass or density and volume, fall times, etc. It gives very accurate answers and is much simpler.
Thanks for the compliment, but you're the self-professed and only expert on the topic of denpressure. I haven't a clue how such a thing would work. That's why I keep asking for specific details. All I've seen is evasion, hand waving, and double talk.
At least we know you've given up on devising a formula and have no intention of trying further. Your nominee went down in flames very quickly and you have, as usual, disavowed it.
You stick to your gravity that cannot be explained. I'll stick to mine that can.
I could put up a formula for it but I would have to basically change everything to my way for it, discarding your gravity.
What would that gain?
You see, I could put out a 10 page equation/formula with diagrams and the time would be wasted because none of you people are ever going to say, " hmmm, yes it works and it kills gravity." Why?
Because you people live in space with your planets and my denpressure kills it all off.
None of you will ever understand a formula if you can't understand the actual logic and the basics of how denpressure works.
Gravity is stuck to (pun intended) because science gave you a formula and a reason for why it is what it is. Those reasons cannot be explained but it doesn't matter.
It's mass attracts mass and that's it. Things fall, in free fall at 9.81m/s/s and that's that. No reason why. No experiment that shows it to be true...no scientist knows what gravity is and yet it can all be worked out due to observation of planets. For crying out loud. ::)
Your prejudgment and defensiveness belies a fear of something; perhaps of ridicule, perhaps of failing, it is tough to say. Regardless, nothing will ever come of denpressure while you are too scared to let others put it to the test. At some point you will have to open it up to outside criticism and I look forward to that day.
-
Your prejudgment and defensiveness belies a fear of something; perhaps of ridicule, perhaps of failing, it is tough to say. Regardless, nothing will ever come of denpressure while you are too scared to let others put it to the test. At some point you will have to open it up to outside criticism and I look forward to that day.
Denpressure will always be my theory. It would never be accepted even if a formula for it was produced.
It goes against the indoctrinated view and will remain just a silly saying to those that will never take the time to understand the basics of it.
Gravity will always win. Gravity has to win or the whole system collapses like a pack of cards and the ruse would be up, so it's not going to happen and I'm well aware of that.
Denpressure is the reason why this Earth is what it is and does what it does, 100%.
-
Your prejudgment and defensiveness belies a fear of something; perhaps of ridicule, perhaps of failing, it is tough to say. Regardless, nothing will ever come of denpressure while you are too scared to let others put it to the test. At some point you will have to open it up to outside criticism and I look forward to that day.
Denpressure will always be my theory. It would never be accepted even if a formula for it was produced.
It goes against the indoctrinated view and will remain just a silly saying to those that will never take the time to understand the basics of it.
Gravity will always win. Gravity has to win or the whole system collapses like a pack of cards and the ruse would be up, so it's not going to happen and I'm well aware of that.
Denpressure is the reason why this Earth is what it is and does what it does, 100%.
No scepti, its not.
Look, this is the way science works.
You make an observation, in this case denpressure. You layout your claims which you have done. Then you test your claims and see if they support your claims.
We have used a vacuum chamber to show you weight doesn't change in a vacuum, we have practically begged you to provide an equation for denpressure so we could plug in some numbers and see if the numbers it spits out are what can be observed in reality and you cant, we have shown multiple hypotheticals that even before the testing phase blow holes in your theory.
I get it, the scientific community needs people with your willingness to look outside the box for theories, to question everything is the greatest trait of a scientist. However, you lack the other half of what makes a great scientist; the will to let your theory's go when they are proven wrong time and again.
You are wrong, if you produced an equation that spit out things observable in the real world I would be the first to take a long hard second look at your theory.
But you cant, and your weak attempts to claim that understanding math and physics is "indoctrination" is just a defense mechanism to cover the fact that you have indoctrinated yourself and are terrified to let your delusion go.
High School trig proves the world is round, high school trig proves the sun is millions upon millions of miles away, a hundred dollar telescope would prove the ISS is real, going to a lab with an accurate scale and asking politely to use their vacuum chamber to test a theory would prove air pressure has nothing to do with holding items down or weight.
Don't sit here and claim that because we believe that numbers do not lie that we are indoctrinated, out of the people in this debate you are the only person operating on blind faith and indoctrination.
-
Don't sit here and claim that because we believe that numbers do not lie that we are indoctrinated, out of the people in this debate you are the only person operating on blind faith and indoctrination.
sceptimatic's also the only person in this debate with an IQ in double digits. ;D
-
You make an observation, in this case denpressure. You layout your claims which you have done. Then you test your claims and see if they support your claims.
I have tested it all and it's true. I've done all the tests and that's why I know it's all true. Any genuine person can do all the tests abnd find it's all true. Unfortunately there are too many liars among you. Not saying you are one but tehre's a good few.
We have used a vacuum chamber to show you weight doesn't change in a vacuum, we have practically begged you to provide an equation for denpressure so we could plug in some numbers and see if the numbers it spits out are what can be observed in reality and you cant, we have shown multiple hypotheticals that even before the testing phase blow holes in your theory.
No, you have used a lie by a person who is untrustworthy, who wouldn't follow the plan.
I get it, the scientific community needs people with your willingness to look outside the box for theories, to question everything is the greatest trait of a scientist. However, you lack the other half of what makes a great scientist; the will to let your theory's go when they are proven wrong time and again.
No, the scientific community don't need anyone like me. They need people who can aid them in in keeping up a ruse which is why free energy is not given to us because it's all about control and power.
You are wrong, if you produced an equation that spit out things observable in the real world I would be the first to take a long hard second look at your theory.
If you were that truthful you would try and understand denpressure instead of taking every opportunity to attempt to ridicule it, aided by a posse of other globalists.
If you understood it then you could test it out and prove it to yourself. Will you? Like shite you will.
But you cant, and your weak attempts to claim that understanding math and physics is "indoctrination" is just a defense mechanism to cover the fact that you have indoctrinated yourself and are terrified to let your delusion go.
You don't need equations to understand it. You only need them when putting it to use. Strangely it's in use every day but masked by bullshit gravity.
High School trig proves the world is round, high school trig proves the sun is millions upon millions of miles away, a hundred dollar telescope would prove the ISS is real, going to a lab with an accurate scale and asking politely to use their vacuum chamber to test a theory would prove air pressure has nothing to do with holding items down or weight.
Trig does not prove anything about the sun or the Earth or anything else like that. It can prove stuff on Earth when used for Earth going things.
The rest of it is bullshit, where so called planets are concerned.
Don't sit here and claim that because we believe that numbers do not lie that we are indoctrinated, out of the people in this debate you are the only person operating on blind faith and indoctrination.
You are indoctrinated, severely. So severely that as an adult it's masked your ability to actually rid yourself of the santa claus syndrome.
If you gave yourself a small amount of time to genuinely look at this stuff in a real light, you would see it for what it is. Clap trap.
-
I think I'll stick with gravity, thanks. It can at least be described and used to calculate useful things like weight given mass or density and volume, fall times, etc. It gives very accurate answers and is much simpler.
Thanks for the compliment, but you're the self-professed and only expert on the topic of denpressure. I haven't a clue how such a thing would work. That's why I keep asking for specific details. All I've seen is evasion, hand waving, and double talk.
At least we know you've given up on devising a formula and have no intention of trying further. Your nominee went down in flames very quickly and you have, as usual, disavowed it.
You stick to your gravity that cannot be explained. I'll stick to mine that can.
I could put up a formula for it but I would have to basically change everything to my way for it, discarding your gravity.
What would that gain?
You see, I could put out a 10 page equation/formula with diagrams and the time would be wasted because none of you people are ever going to say, " hmmm, yes it works and it kills gravity." Why?
Because you people live in space with your planets and my denpressure kills it all off.
None of you will ever understand a formula if you can't understand the actual logic and the basics of how denpressure works.
Gravity is stuck to (pun intended) because science gave you a formula and a reason for why it is what it is. Those reasons cannot be explained but it doesn't matter.
It's mass attracts mass and that's it. Things fall, in free fall at 9.81m/s/s and that's that. No reason why. No experiment that shows it to be true...no scientist knows what gravity is and yet it can all be worked out due to observation of planets. For crying out loud. ::)
Magnetism can't be explained either, but it obviously exists. If gravity was part of a conspiracy then don't you think they would make up an explenation for it? The reason that gravity is so widely accepted is because it explains the motion of planets, gravity strength differences on Earth, tides, and many other things that denpressure does not.
Denpressure does not explain why things fall in a vacuum and get lighter when submerged in water, yet this stuff happens. Denpressure doesn't even make any sense because it suggests that air really likes to push things down but not any other direction and and it pushes all objects at a constant rate despise different objects having different aerodynamic properties. Denpressure is no more then speculation while gravity is a law that has been proven over and over.
-
Magnetism can't be explained either, but it obviously exists. If gravity was part of a conspiracy then don't you think they would make up an explenation for it?
Denpressure easily explains magnetism but you people can't grasp denpressure in basic form so you're hardly going to understand magnetism.
The reason that gravity is so widely accepted is because it explains the motion of planets, gravity strength differences on Earth, tides, and many other things that denpressure does not.
Yes it explains them because it's made to explain them by bullshit, nothing more, nothing less.
Denpressure does not explain why things fall in a vacuum and get lighter when submerged in water, yet this stuff happens.
Nothing falls in a vacuum. We can't make one so this point is pointless.
And things don't get lighter when submerged in water. Do your homework.
Denpressure doesn't even make any sense because it suggests that air really likes to push things down but not any other direction and and it pushes all objects at a constant rate despise different objects having different aerodynamic properties.
It doesn't push anything down. Dense objects push against pressure. It's the object pushing against the ground into the atmosphere that creates it's measured weight, if placed on a measuring scale.
Denpressure is no more then speculation while gravity is a law that has been proven over and over.
Denpressure is reality. Gravity is 100% clap trap.
-
Is denpressure.. falsifiable?
-
You make an observation, in this case denpressure. You layout your claims which you have done. Then you test your claims and see if they support your claims.
I have tested it all and it's true. I've done all the tests and that's why I know it's all true. Any genuine person can do all the tests abnd find it's all true. Unfortunately there are too many liars among you. Not saying you are one but tehre's a good few.
We have used a vacuum chamber to show you weight doesn't change in a vacuum, we have practically begged you to provide an equation for denpressure so we could plug in some numbers and see if the numbers it spits out are what can be observed in reality and you cant, we have shown multiple hypotheticals that even before the testing phase blow holes in your theory.
No, you have used a lie by a person who is untrustworthy, who wouldn't follow the plan.
I get it, the scientific community needs people with your willingness to look outside the box for theories, to question everything is the greatest trait of a scientist. However, you lack the other half of what makes a great scientist; the will to let your theory's go when they are proven wrong time and again.
No, the scientific community don't need anyone like me. They need people who can aid them in in keeping up a ruse which is why free energy is not given to us because it's all about control and power.
You are wrong, if you produced an equation that spit out things observable in the real world I would be the first to take a long hard second look at your theory.
If you were that truthful you would try and understand denpressure instead of taking every opportunity to attempt to ridicule it, aided by a posse of other globalists.
If you understood it then you could test it out and prove it to yourself. Will you? Like shite you will.
But you cant, and your weak attempts to claim that understanding math and physics is "indoctrination" is just a defense mechanism to cover the fact that you have indoctrinated yourself and are terrified to let your delusion go.
You don't need equations to understand it. You only need them when putting it to use. Strangely it's in use every day but masked by bullshit gravity.
High School trig proves the world is round, high school trig proves the sun is millions upon millions of miles away, a hundred dollar telescope would prove the ISS is real, going to a lab with an accurate scale and asking politely to use their vacuum chamber to test a theory would prove air pressure has nothing to do with holding items down or weight.
Trig does not prove anything about the sun or the Earth or anything else like that. It can prove stuff on Earth when used for Earth going things.
The rest of it is bullshit, where so called planets are concerned.
Don't sit here and claim that because we believe that numbers do not lie that we are indoctrinated, out of the people in this debate you are the only person operating on blind faith and indoctrination.
You are indoctrinated, severely. So severely that as an adult it's masked your ability to actually rid yourself of the santa claus syndrome.
If you gave yourself a small amount of time to genuinely look at this stuff in a real light, you would see it for what it is. Clap trap.
Nothing falls in a vacuum. We can't make one so this point is pointless.
And things don't get lighter when submerged in water. Do your homework.
If you do not believe that humans can create a vacuum, which is startling to me. Then why not go to a vacuum chamber, step inside and have them turn it on. Nothing will happen if you are right.
I cannot in good conscious believe that you do not think humans can create a vacuum. We can create metals that withstand bombs and other tremendous force, and all creating a vacuum is is sucking the gasses out of a space. Do you think in 2014 we do not possess a Hoover strong enough to suck the vast majority of gasses out of a space?
However, lets go along with your hypothesis that all human technology is smoke and mirrors and held together with duct tape. Even if said lab could remove half the air pressure from a room, or even a 1/16th of the pressure, then you would see an equal drop in the items weight under denpressure. Not a perfect vacuum, since you think we don't have the knowledge to do those but still able to prove or disprove your theory. So its hard for me to sit back and discard a vacuum chamber experiment when even a partial vacuum would provide the proof needed.
I am being truthful, I am trying to understand denpressure by asking for the math behind it. That is how I understand things, if I didn't care then I wouldn't ask for the math.
To say I don't need equations to understand it is the same as a person telling me that God works in mysterious ways and to just have faith and never question him ever. That kind of thinking led to the dark ages.
Speaking of math, how could you say that trig doesn't prove anything with the sun or earth? It most certainly does. It doesn't stop working just because the thing is far away. You could from New Jersey look at the New World Trade Center Tower in New York City, measure the angle and as long as you know the distance to the base of the vertical you are observing know the height of it to within inches.
Again, I do not see how knowing that math is the true language of the universe and understanding it means I am indoctrinated. You presented a theory that under every test we have performed fails, and I have a theory that has an equation that under virtually all circumstances has stood up to the tests thrown at it for a few hundred years.
Hell man, if you know the Truth(tm) then why havent you written a book about it, even if its only published online. I can tell you I would be the first person to read it.
-
There is a formula,
F+fv+EV/DM*rM
There you go. There's my formula.
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
I gave people what they asked for. If you don't accept it, tough.
but now there isn't.
I haven't made a formula for it. So how can it be tested?
Denpressure will always be my theory. It would never be accepted even if a formula for it was produced.
I'll stick to mine that can.
I could put up a formula for it but I would have to basically change everything to my way for it, discarding your gravity.
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
-
Is denpressure.. falsifiable?
Yes it is.
-
If you do not believe that humans can create a vacuum, which is startling to me. Then why not go to a vacuum chamber, step inside and have them turn it on. Nothing will happen if you are right.
This is showing you up severely. Do you know what a vacuum is?
I cannot in good conscious believe that you do not think humans can create a vacuum.
Well believe it because it cannot be done by humans.
We can create metals that withstand bombs and other tremendous force, and all creating a vacuum is is sucking the gasses out of a space.
There is no sucking involved. Nothing sucks, it's all push on push.
Do you think in 2014 we do not possess a Hoover strong enough to suck the vast majority of gasses out of a space?
Nothing sucks and a hoover may push a low pressure but that's it. No vacuum.
However, lets go along with your hypothesis that all human technology is smoke and mirrors and held together with duct tape. Even if said lab could remove half the air pressure from a room, or even a 1/16th of the pressure, then you would see an equal drop in the items weight under denpressure. Not a perfect vacuum, since you think we don't have the knowledge to do those but still able to prove or disprove your theory. So its hard for me to sit back and discard a vacuum chamber experiment when even a partial vacuum would provide the proof needed.
Try it and see.
I am being truthful, I am trying to understand denpressure by asking for the math behind it. That is how I understand things, if I didn't care then I wouldn't ask for the math.
You won't understand it with math. You have to understand it for what it does before you apply anything to it like that.
To say I don't need equations to understand it is the same as a person telling me that God works in mysterious ways and to just have faith and never question him ever. That kind of thinking led to the dark ages.
This isn't a god, this is something that is in your face and real, unlike gravity which is like believing you can calculate the presence of a ghost.
Speaking of math, how could you say that trig doesn't prove anything with the sun or earth? It most certainly does. It doesn't stop working just because the thing is far away. You could from New Jersey look at the New World Trade Center Tower in New York City, measure the angle and as long as you know the distance to the base of the vertical you are observing know the height of it to within inches.
You need a reference point, as you point out. You have none where pretend space is concerned.
Again, I do not see how knowing that math is the true language of the universe and understanding it means I am indoctrinated.
there's math and there's bullshit math. It's up to you to grasp which one is aiding us and which is duping us.
You presented a theory that under every test we have performed fails, and I have a theory that has an equation that under virtually all circumstances has stood up to the tests thrown at it for a few hundred years.
It's never failed anything. It passes all the tests, you just don;t accept that it does.
Hell man, if you know the Truth(tm) then why havent you written a book about it, even if its only published online. I can tell you I would be the first person to read it.
I have written a book on it, well, not fully, I'm 56 A4 sheets into it all. Still another similar amount to finish off.
-
You make an observation, in this case denpressure. You layout your claims which you have done. Then you test your claims and see if they support your claims.
I have tested it all and it's true. I've done all the tests and that's why I know it's all true. Any genuine person can do all the tests abnd find it's all true. Unfortunately there are too many liars among you. Not saying you are one but tehre's a good few.
We have used a vacuum chamber to show you weight doesn't change in a vacuum, we have practically begged you to provide an equation for denpressure so we could plug in some numbers and see if the numbers it spits out are what can be observed in reality and you cant, we have shown multiple hypotheticals that even before the testing phase blow holes in your theory.
No, you have used a lie by a person who is untrustworthy, who wouldn't follow the plan.
I get it, the scientific community needs people with your willingness to look outside the box for theories, to question everything is the greatest trait of a scientist. However, you lack the other half of what makes a great scientist; the will to let your theory's go when they are proven wrong time and again.
No, the scientific community don't need anyone like me. They need people who can aid them in in keeping up a ruse which is why free energy is not given to us because it's all about control and power.
You are wrong, if you produced an equation that spit out things observable in the real world I would be the first to take a long hard second look at your theory.
If you were that truthful you would try and understand denpressure instead of taking every opportunity to attempt to ridicule it, aided by a posse of other globalists.
If you understood it then you could test it out and prove it to yourself. Will you? Like shite you will.
But you cant, and your weak attempts to claim that understanding math and physics is "indoctrination" is just a defense mechanism to cover the fact that you have indoctrinated yourself and are terrified to let your delusion go.
You don't need equations to understand it. You only need them when putting it to use. Strangely it's in use every day but masked by bullshit gravity.
High School trig proves the world is round, high school trig proves the sun is millions upon millions of miles away, a hundred dollar telescope would prove the ISS is real, going to a lab with an accurate scale and asking politely to use their vacuum chamber to test a theory would prove air pressure has nothing to do with holding items down or weight.
Trig does not prove anything about the sun or the Earth or anything else like that. It can prove stuff on Earth when used for Earth going things.
The rest of it is bullshit, where so called planets are concerned.
Don't sit here and claim that because we believe that numbers do not lie that we are indoctrinated, out of the people in this debate you are the only person operating on blind faith and indoctrination.
You are indoctrinated, severely. So severely that as an adult it's masked your ability to actually rid yourself of the santa claus syndrome.
If you gave yourself a small amount of time to genuinely look at this stuff in a real light, you would see it for what it is. Clap trap.
Math is basically logic in it's purest form and it is capable of describing and proving things as well as predicting them. If you made and posted a denpressure equasion then anyone with high school level math skills would be able to prove it for themselves mathematically.
I noticed that you mentioned free energy, I am the kind of person who needs to see proofs of a physics concept before I accept it as fact and when I first learned that energy cannot be created or destroyed I didn't believe it. For about 3 years I came up with many designs for free energy machines that never worked because if some law of physics that I overlooked, and that's how I know that the law of conservation of energy is true. In the process of doing this I learned a lot about physics and that's how I became so fascinated with it. I experimented with many things from rockets to circuitry and I have never encountered anything to make me believe that physics is all a lie.
The more I learned about physics, the more I realized that math plays a huge roll. Every object behaves according to mathematical rules, and the brilliant thing about math is that it can be proven or disproven via dimensional analysis, algebra, and real world observations. Any true theory should have mathematics backing it up, so please get to work on that denpressure equasion. If your equasion conforms with observations even better then gravity then I will become a flat earther.
-
There is a formula,
F+fv+EV/DM*rM
There you go. There's my formula.
F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume
DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.
I gave people what they asked for. If you don't accept it, tough.
but now there isn't.
I haven't made a formula for it. So how can it be tested?
Denpressure will always be my theory. It would never be accepted even if a formula for it was produced.
I'll stick to mine that can.
I could put up a formula for it but I would have to basically change everything to my way for it, discarding your gravity.
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
-
If you do not believe that humans can create a vacuum, which is startling to me. Then why not go to a vacuum chamber, step inside and have them turn it on. Nothing will happen if you are right.
This is showing you up severely. Do you know what a vacuum is?
I cannot in good conscious believe that you do not think humans can create a vacuum.
Well believe it because it cannot be done by humans.
We can create metals that withstand bombs and other tremendous force, and all creating a vacuum is is sucking the gasses out of a space.
There is no sucking involved. Nothing sucks, it's all push on push.
Do you think in 2014 we do not possess a Hoover strong enough to suck the vast majority of gasses out of a space?
Nothing sucks and a hoover may push a low pressure but that's it. No vacuum.
However, lets go along with your hypothesis that all human technology is smoke and mirrors and held together with duct tape. Even if said lab could remove half the air pressure from a room, or even a 1/16th of the pressure, then you would see an equal drop in the items weight under denpressure. Not a perfect vacuum, since you think we don't have the knowledge to do those but still able to prove or disprove your theory. So its hard for me to sit back and discard a vacuum chamber experiment when even a partial vacuum would provide the proof needed.
Try it and see.
I am being truthful, I am trying to understand denpressure by asking for the math behind it. That is how I understand things, if I didn't care then I wouldn't ask for the math.
You won't understand it with math. You have to understand it for what it does before you apply anything to it like that.
To say I don't need equations to understand it is the same as a person telling me that God works in mysterious ways and to just have faith and never question him ever. That kind of thinking led to the dark ages.
This isn't a god, this is something that is in your face and real, unlike gravity which is like believing you can calculate the presence of a ghost.
Speaking of math, how could you say that trig doesn't prove anything with the sun or earth? It most certainly does. It doesn't stop working just because the thing is far away. You could from New Jersey look at the New World Trade Center Tower in New York City, measure the angle and as long as you know the distance to the base of the vertical you are observing know the height of it to within inches.
You need a reference point, as you point out. You have none where pretend space is concerned.
Again, I do not see how knowing that math is the true language of the universe and understanding it means I am indoctrinated.
there's math and there's bullshit math. It's up to you to grasp which one is aiding us and which is duping us.
You presented a theory that under every test we have performed fails, and I have a theory that has an equation that under virtually all circumstances has stood up to the tests thrown at it for a few hundred years.
It's never failed anything. It passes all the tests, you just don;t accept that it does.
Hell man, if you know the Truth(tm) then why havent you written a book about it, even if its only published online. I can tell you I would be the first person to read it.
I have written a book on it, well, not fully, I'm 56 A4 sheets into it all. Still another similar amount to finish off.
I am not one to just believe what I am told, my scientific acceptance came with much testing. I used to think that things like the law of conservation of energy and general relativity were nonsense until I learned more about them and did tests to prove them. I have played with electricity, launched rockets, programmed computers, experimented with rotation and momentum, and many other such things. Don't you try to tell me that it's all a lie, because I have experienced a lot of science first hand.
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
-
So now you'll argue semantics with me? It doesn't matter if its sucked or pushed or removed or teleported or wished out by tapping your heels three times together, the process is the same, remove the matter from the area. How hard is that? If we can make a submarine that can go to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, then we can handle making a container that can hold a vacuum. So I assume your issue is that we cant for some reason remove the gasses from the space?
A scale being put into a vacuum (or partial one if you must) was tried, and posted here and you called him a liar. So I can only assume that anyone on earth that tries that and comes up with the obvious answer that no, air doesn't hold things down, will then be a liar to you as well. Why would I, using Legions words when telling me why he wont look at the ISS himself, waste my money and time with that?
For the trig part, yes you do need a reference point, maybe check this thread out (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62431.0#.VJHMCSuInkU (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62431.0#.VJHMCSuInkU)) It explains the premise of the experiment, if you have issues with its methodology then I would recommend posting there.
And no, there is Math and there is Math. There is no such thing as bullshit math because math is incapable of telling a lie.
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
-
Is denpressure.. falsifiable?
It's better than that, it's falsified.
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
I see. What is "trivity"?
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
I see. What is "trivity"?
I googled it, its some dude on Steam. http://steamcommunity.com/id/Trivity/ (http://steamcommunity.com/id/Trivity/)
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
Ummm... Your formula was proven to be crap by me and one or two others independently using dimensional analisis to prove that your equasion outputs units that are nonsense. Face it, your denpressure equasion is junk.
-
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html)
You should sit under an apple tree septic.
Why? what does that prove?
Can you explain why a rocket works as we are led to believe, or not?
If you can, then put up a diagram and explain it better than Geoffrey did, as to how it manages to push itself up without the aid of atmosphere.
Your physics works...but you forgot to use equal and opposite reactions in the last part. The atmospheric pressure does indeed push the air out of the balloon as a result of the high pressure in the balloon diffusing into the lower pressure atmosphere, and when this happens you generate a force outside of the balloon, but this force has a back end which links to the front of the balloon also and this is what pushes it
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
I see. What is "trivity"?
It's an unknown force that just is.
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
Ummm... Your formula was proven to be crap by me and one or two others independently using dimensional analisis to prove that your equasion outputs units that are nonsense. Face it, your denpressure equasion is junk.
I've never gave you an equation for denpressure so how can you prove it wrong.
You don't even understand the simplicity of it so you're hardly in any position to debunk it.
-
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html)
You should sit under an apple tree septic.
Why? what does that prove?
Can you explain why a rocket works as we are led to believe, or not?
If you can, then put up a diagram and explain it better than Geoffrey did, as to how it manages to push itself up without the aid of atmosphere.
Your physics works...but you forgot to use equal and opposite reactions in the last part. The atmospheric pressure does indeed push the air out of the balloon as a result of the high pressure in the balloon diffusing into the lower pressure atmosphere, and when this happens you generate a force outside of the balloon, but this force has a back end which links to the front of the balloon also and this is what pushes it
No, I didn't forget anything. You people assume a balloon pushes itself from inside. This is absolute nonsense and you should really try to understand it.
The balloon moves because of what happens outside of it by ejected air pressure.
Let me try and explain what's happening. I'm sure you'll deny it but that's your problem and is why you will forever feed into the bull crap given to you by bogus science.
As you know, when you blow up a balloon you are compressing the air into a container. In this case it's a container that expands.
The air pressure inside of this balloon is acted upon by the external pressure that the balloon has compressed out of it's way by being expanded into the atmosphere and that atmosphere pushes back onto the balloon gripping it evenly around it.
Once you open up the balloon, the compressed air inside is forced out by the EXTERNAL squeeze of the atmosphere around it that had it in a grip and you gave that
grip it's momentum to push that air out.
As that air is pushed out it hits the air that is gripping the balloon and pushes it out of the way. It's a fight of push on push.
This squeezes the balloon in the opposite direction to it's expanding compressed air.
Nothing inside the balloon is doing anything to propel it. All that is happening inside the balloon is a EQUAL action and reaction sequence.
I'll explain this simply to you.
Imagine you have a bus full of people in a fantasy near vacuum. They are crammed so tight into the bus that they are all pushing against each other in all directions to find a weak spot to relieve the pressure.
Someone tears the back door off the bus. The people at the front of the bus and those at the back are all fighting to get out and it's a knock on effect of pushing or expanding their bodies when each person ejects from the back of the bus.
Those people that are ejected can fully expand into the open space because there is nothing acting on them to resist that.
As this happens, all the rest in the bus start to expland a little more as each person is ejected in open space.
They can't force the bus in the opposite direction because they are simply falling out of that bus and expanding fully into open space. They are not expanding against resistance.
Now let's assume the same scenario with the bus but this time the people crammed inside are in an atmosphere of sponges all around the bus and everywhere.
The door opens and the same happens where one person starts to expand out of the bus...BUT, there is a problem, because this person now hits and compresses the sponges in front so cannot expand easily because the next person behind is also expanding onto him. This creates a severe push against those sponges and compresses them even more which becomes hard for the people to push those sponges out of the way because the sponges are resisting by compressing back which spring the people back as they come out and also compress against the bus forcing it forwards as they come out the back.
Now if you read what I've said carefully it should make sense to you. I bet it won't because your head has been battered into submission by thinking that a rocket works by kicking itself up its own arse and your common sense should laugh at this, because it's a massive con to keep space exploits alive and kicking.
Seriously, read and understand what I've said.
If you can't. then I urge anyone with a brain to look at it.
-
Oh noes..... not this silly bus thing again!
What is this? Back to the future?
;D ;D ;D
-
Holy shit septic, about 500 words just to tell us you are a dickhead, we new that.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?
Once again, here we go:
Scepti, this is serious problem with the definition of denpressure. I will keep quoting myself until answered.
Regarding you thought experiment, sponges arent fluid. In a gasseous atmosphere, flowing takes less work than compressing the air back in a spring like fashion. This flux in a direction is what causes the balloon to move (via momentum). You are also ignoring that any compresion/deompresion of an area compresses/decompresses nearby areas. If you take a minute thinking on it, you will notice that, mostly all of the energy is disipated, except that one that hits the balloon. Indeed, this effect may actually help with the movement of the balloon.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?
Once again, here we go:
Scepti, this is serious problem with the definition of denpressure. I will keep quoting myself until answered.
Regarding you thought experiment, sponges arent fluid. In a gasseous atmosphere, flowing takes less work than compressing the air back in a spring like fashion. This flux in a direction is what causes the balloon to move (via momentum). You are also ignoring that any compresion/deompresion of an area compresses/decompresses nearby areas. If you take a minute thinking on it, you will notice that, mostly all of the energy is disipated, except that one that hits the balloon. Indeed, this effect may actually help with the movement of the balloon.
Sponges may not be fluid but as an anology they work in the same manner as compressing air. If you cannot take an analogy for what it is then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
Stop being a weak arsed follower and use your logic for crying out loud.
It's all there in your face if you choose to look and open your indoctrinated mind to it, seriously.
You science is bogus. It's a lie. It's deliberate deviation from reality. Reality is tehre. It's in your face. Look at reality instead of books displaying fantasy as reality.
Only logical free thinkers will grasp what I'm saying. People like you will deliberately go into defence mode. You have no chance doing it like that.
You are scared to be labelled for thinking outside the box. Terrified even - because your peers, who you regard as intelligent, are merely parrots, nothing more.
-
Outstanding stuff sceptimatic!
You should consider reworking the old Monty Python shows with new scripts.
I can easily see you as John Cleese.
;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html)
You should sit under an apple tree septic.
Why? what does that prove?
Can you explain why a rocket works as we are led to believe, or not?
If you can, then put up a diagram and explain it better than Geoffrey did, as to how it manages to push itself up without the aid of atmosphere.
Your physics works...but you forgot to use equal and opposite reactions in the last part. The atmospheric pressure does indeed push the air out of the balloon as a result of the high pressure in the balloon diffusing into the lower pressure atmosphere, and when this happens you generate a force outside of the balloon, but this force has a back end which links to the front of the balloon also and this is what pushes it
No, I didn't forget anything. You people assume a balloon pushes itself from inside. This is absolute nonsense and you should really try to understand it.
The balloon moves because of what happens outside of it by ejected air pressure.
Let me try and explain what's happening. I'm sure you'll deny it but that's your problem and is why you will forever feed into the bull crap given to you by bogus science.
As you know, when you blow up a balloon you are compressing the air into a container. In this case it's a container that expands.
The air pressure inside of this balloon is acted upon by the external pressure that the balloon has compressed out of it's way by being expanded into the atmosphere and that atmosphere pushes back onto the balloon gripping it evenly around it.
Once you open up the balloon, the compressed air inside is forced out by the EXTERNAL squeeze of the atmosphere around it that had it in a grip and you gave that
grip it's momentum to push that air out.
As that air is pushed out it hits the air that is gripping the balloon and pushes it out of the way. It's a fight of push on push.
This squeezes the balloon in the opposite direction to it's expanding compressed air.
Nothing inside the balloon is doing anything to propel it. All that is happening inside the balloon is a EQUAL action and reaction sequence.
I'll explain this simply to you.
Imagine you have a bus full of people in a fantasy near vacuum. They are crammed so tight into the bus that they are all pushing against each other in all directions to find a weak spot to relieve the pressure.
Someone tears the back door off the bus. The people at the front of the bus and those at the back are all fighting to get out and it's a knock on effect of pushing or expanding their bodies when each person ejects from the back of the bus.
Those people that are ejected can fully expand into the open space because there is nothing acting on them to resist that.
As this happens, all the rest in the bus start to expland a little more as each person is ejected in open space.
They can't force the bus in the opposite direction because they are simply falling out of that bus and expanding fully into open space. They are not expanding against resistance.
Now let's assume the same scenario with the bus but this time the people crammed inside are in an atmosphere of sponges all around the bus and everywhere.
The door opens and the same happens where one person starts to expand out of the bus...BUT, there is a problem, because this person now hits and compresses the sponges in front so cannot expand easily because the next person behind is also expanding onto him. This creates a severe push against those sponges and compresses them even more which becomes hard for the people to push those sponges out of the way because the sponges are resisting by compressing back which spring the people back as they come out and also compress against the bus forcing it forwards as they come out the back.
Now if you read what I've said carefully it should make sense to you. I bet it won't because your head has been battered into submission by thinking that a rocket works by kicking itself up its own arse and your common sense should laugh at this, because it's a massive con to keep space exploits alive and kicking.
Seriously, read and understand what I've said.
If you can't. then I urge anyone with a brain to look at it.
Firstly, you're quite the offensive individual and this is why no one will want to believe you.
Second, in your scenario, in actual life, this balloon would simply lose all of its air without movement. A force in one direction also exerts a force in an equal and opposite direction. You're not stupid, but your explanation only would have a full-size rocket flying up to the length of its fire, and then the rocket would have nothing to push on and fall. What I think you think I'm saying is that there is a magical force generated from the inside, but what I'm talking about is the force of ejection outside of the balloons or rockets forces the air particles still inside of the balloon to shuffle and rebound as they get knocked out of the balloon at awkward angles. This explains why a balloon doesn't go straight
Your bus doesn't work because people aren't fluids and science uses fluid dynamics to describe the movements
-
Firstly, you're quite the offensive individual and this is why no one will want to believe you.
Don't sit and give me that. Take a look at some of the bozo's attacking me with put downs. I'm almost pleasant to you people, so don't use that as a belief of no belief system.
If I said it as meekly as a kitten your stance would still be the same or worse, believing that I'm a soft toucj and easy pickings for ridicule, which you can see, I'm far from it and you like-minded peers get no change playing those games.
Next time you deal with me, cut this crap out because it also doesn't get you anywhere, either.
Second, in your scenario, in actual life, this balloon would simply lose all of its air without movement. A force in one direction also exerts a force in an equal and opposite direction. You're not stupid, but your explanation only would have a full-size rocket flying up to the length of its fire, and then the rocket would have nothing to push on and fall.
No; it's not just the length of its flame and then kaput. It's about continued full thrust to weight ratio in a changing environment of more to less atmospheric pressure.
As long as the rocket is thrusting against the atmosphere at full thrust then it becomes lighter as the fuel gets expended.
It still keeps it's speed constant because of this. It cannot build up acceleration because although it's at full thrust it's also thrusting against more expanded/less dense atmosphere as it keeps its vertical fight.
This means that the thrust still does the same thing against the atmosphere in less dense air as it moves up but it is counteracted by the loss of fuel as it does so, meaning it keeps a constant motion.
The only way that motion can be changed is by arcing towards the ground.
The very second that rocket takes off; it's at full power and if it doesn't spring into the air under that full power, it becomes a heap of scrap metal in short order.
The only reason a rocket can work to gain altitude is to lift off in this manner or it immediately loses stability.
A slow rocket like the NASA ones, etc would all be a mass of burning scrap at the launch pad.
Spring board lift off or dud rocket. There's no compromise.
End result? Space rockets are fantasy.
What I think you think I'm saying is that there is a magical force generated from the inside, but what I'm talking about is the force of ejection outside of the balloons or rockets forces the air particles still inside of the balloon to shuffle and rebound as they get knocked out of the balloon at awkward angles. This explains why a balloon doesn't go straight
No they don't at all. You have this totally wrong.
Once you open that balloon nozzle, the atmospheric pressure tries to force the balloon flat or back to its original form.
The problem is, it can't do it quick enough because of the small air nozzle it's ejecting the air through, against the air that is already closing in on it from outside as it deflates.
This pushed compressed air molecules inside into expanded molecules as they release, which push through the air outside, which naturally tries to fill the higher pressure by squeezing back which pushes the balloon away.
All that's happening inside is a last one out stinks, scenario.
Your bus doesn't work because people aren't fluids and science uses fluid dynamics to describe the movements
I see you're another one that just can't grasp analogies. I'd like to believe this is on purpose but somehow I just think that you people just cannot grasp basic stuff.
That's probably because your heads are getting filled with equations the minute someone says something and it stops you frm thinking rationally.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?
Once again, here we go:
Scepti, this is serious problem with the definition of denpressure. I will keep quoting myself until answered.
Regarding you thought experiment, sponges arent fluid. In a gasseous atmosphere, flowing takes less work than compressing the air back in a spring like fashion. This flux in a direction is what causes the balloon to move (via momentum). You are also ignoring that any compresion/deompresion of an area compresses/decompresses nearby areas. If you take a minute thinking on it, you will notice that, mostly all of the energy is disipated, except that one that hits the balloon. Indeed, this effect may actually help with the movement of the balloon.
Sponges may not be fluid but as an anology they work in the same manner as compressing air. If you cannot take an analogy for what it is then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
The purpose of an analogy is to resist analysis. If you make a shitty analogy, dont expect me to accept it.
Stop being a weak arsed follower and use your logic for crying out loud.
It's all there in your face if you choose to look and open your indoctrinated mind to it, seriously.
You science is bogus. It's a lie. It's deliberate deviation from reality. Reality is tehre. It's in your face. Look at reality instead of books displaying fantasy as reality.
Only logical free thinkers will grasp what I'm saying. People like you will deliberately go into defence mode. You have no chance doing it like that.
Which is why you have ignored 5 times now the original challenge to denpressure. Remember, burden of proof, and this challenge seems to be unadressed by denpressure.
You are scared to be labelled for thinking outside the box. Terrified even - because your peers, who you regard as intelligent, are merely parrots, nothing more.
I actually regard many of my peers as parrots. It doesnt terrify me on the slightest. Also, if you claim that my peers are wrong, the burden of proof is still on you. Once again, you havent given a single proof of your hypothesis, or solved clear conflicts with reality. Not only is your hypothesis incomplete and unproven, it has been proven wrong, and you havent disprooved those claims.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?
Once again, here we go:
Scepti, this is serious problem with the definition of denpressure. I will keep quoting myself until answered.
Regarding you thought experiment, sponges arent fluid. In a gasseous atmosphere, flowing takes less work than compressing the air back in a spring like fashion. This flux in a direction is what causes the balloon to move (via momentum). You are also ignoring that any compresion/deompresion of an area compresses/decompresses nearby areas. If you take a minute thinking on it, you will notice that, mostly all of the energy is disipated, except that one that hits the balloon. Indeed, this effect may actually help with the movement of the balloon.
Sponges may not be fluid but as an anology they work in the same manner as compressing air. If you cannot take an analogy for what it is then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
The purpose of an analogy is to resist analysis. If you make a shitty analogy, dont expect me to accept it.
Stop being a weak arsed follower and use your logic for crying out loud.
It's all there in your face if you choose to look and open your indoctrinated mind to it, seriously.
You science is bogus. It's a lie. It's deliberate deviation from reality. Reality is tehre. It's in your face. Look at reality instead of books displaying fantasy as reality.
Only logical free thinkers will grasp what I'm saying. People like you will deliberately go into defence mode. You have no chance doing it like that.
Which is why you have ignored 5 times now the original challenge to denpressure. Remember, burden of proof, and this challenge seems to be unadressed by denpressure.
You are scared to be labelled for thinking outside the box. Terrified even - because your peers, who you regard as intelligent, are merely parrots, nothing more.
I actually regard many of my peers as parrots. It doesnt terrify me on the slightest. Also, if you claim that my peers are wrong, the burden of proof is still on you. Once again, you havent given a single proof of your hypothesis, or solved clear conflicts with reality. Not only is your hypothesis incomplete and unproven, it has been proven wrong, and you havent disprooved those claims.
No, it hasn't been proven wrong and this is simply tit for tat and I will go on as long as necessary to give you the same crap back in your tit for tat pretence that my theory is proven wrong.
I've proved gravity is bullcrap, 100%. There isn't even an argument except for people's reliance on the fantasy of it.
You can't even explain it for crying out loud. It just simply is and that's that. You people are happy with it because the fantasy explains what you want to believe is true for some strange reason.
To actually believe you live on a spinning ball in space is ridiculous enough for those people who've looked into it.
Those who haven't are the ones that can be excused. You have no excuse.
Change your physics books on this stuff. Bin them because they are not worth a carrot.
-
Blah blah blah, too long.
No, it hasn't been proven wrong and this is simply tit for tat and I will go on as long as necessary to give you the same crap back in your tit for tat pretence that my theory is proven wrong.
I've proved gravity is bullcrap, 100%. There isn't even an argument except for people's reliance on the fantasy of it.
You can't even explain it for crying out loud. It just simply is and that's that. You people are happy with it because the fantasy explains what you want to believe is true for some strange reason.
To actually believe you live on a spinning ball in space is ridiculous enough for those people who've looked into it.
Those who haven't are the ones that can be excused. You have no excuse.
Change your physics books on this stuff. Bin them because they are not worth a carrot.
This isnt a boxing match, scepti. Even if I granted you that gravity was proven wrong (it hasnt), it tells us NOTHING about the truth of you claims. You provide NO evidence for your claims, and you havent answered to the challenges that you have been given. I have proven my claims of your hypothesis being wrong, and you havent disproven them. Your hypothesis cant explain pendulums in a vacuum (or, if you only believe in partial vacuum, you cant explain the ascense in the amount of energy conservated by the pendulum, for that matter), since the field that causes (acording to you) the pendulum's movement has decreased. THE FORCE THAT PULLS THE BALLS DOWN IS DECREASING ON A VACUUM CHAMBER, acording to denpressure. When you address this clear challenge, your hypothesis cant be accepted, since evidence suggests it is false. Remember, this has NOTHING to do with RET being or not correct, or gravity. Your hypothesis is being evaluated on its own.
-
Firstly, you're quite the offensive individual and this is why no one will want to believe you.
Don't sit and give me that. Take a look at some of the bozo's attacking me with put downs. I'm almost pleasant to you people, so don't use that as a belief of no belief system.
If I said it as meekly as a kitten your stance would still be the same or worse, believing that I'm a soft toucj and easy pickings for ridicule, which you can see, I'm far from it and you like-minded peers get no change playing those games.
Next time you deal with me, cut this crap out because it also doesn't get you anywhere, either.
Second, in your scenario, in actual life, this balloon would simply lose all of its air without movement. A force in one direction also exerts a force in an equal and opposite direction. You're not stupid, but your explanation only would have a full-size rocket flying up to the length of its fire, and then the rocket would have nothing to push on and fall.
No; it's not just the length of its flame and then kaput. It's about continued full thrust to weight ratio in a changing environment of more to less atmospheric pressure.
As long as the rocket is thrusting against the atmosphere at full thrust then it becomes lighter as the fuel gets expended.
It still keeps it's speed constant because of this. It cannot build up acceleration because although it's at full thrust it's also thrusting against more expanded/less dense atmosphere as it keeps its vertical fight.
This means that the thrust still does the same thing against the atmosphere in less dense air as it moves up but it is counteracted by the loss of fuel as it does so, meaning it keeps a constant motion.
The only way that motion can be changed is by arcing towards the ground.
The very second that rocket takes off; it's at full power and if it doesn't spring into the air under that full power, it becomes a heap of scrap metal in short order.
The only reason a rocket can work to gain altitude is to lift off in this manner or it immediately loses stability.
A slow rocket like the NASA ones, etc would all be a mass of burning scrap at the launch pad.
Spring board lift off or dud rocket. There's no compromise.
End result? Space rockets are fantasy.
What I think you think I'm saying is that there is a magical force generated from the inside, but what I'm talking about is the force of ejection outside of the balloons or rockets forces the air particles still inside of the balloon to shuffle and rebound as they get knocked out of the balloon at awkward angles. This explains why a balloon doesn't go straight
No they don't at all. You have this totally wrong.
Once you open that balloon nozzle, the atmospheric pressure tries to force the balloon flat or back to its original form.
The problem is, it can't do it quick enough because of the small air nozzle it's ejecting the air through, against the air that is already closing in on it from outside as it deflates.
This pushed compressed air molecules inside into expanded molecules as they release, which push through the air outside, which naturally tries to fill the higher pressure by squeezing back which pushes the balloon away.
All that's happening inside is a last one out stinks, scenario.
Your bus doesn't work because people aren't fluids and science uses fluid dynamics to describe the movements
I see you're another one that just can't grasp analogies. I'd like to believe this is on purpose but somehow I just think that you people just cannot grasp basic stuff.
That's probably because your heads are getting filled with equations the minute someone says something and it stops you frm thinking rationally.
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?
Once again, here we go:
Scepti, this is serious problem with the definition of denpressure. I will keep quoting myself until answered.
Regarding you thought experiment, sponges arent fluid. In a gasseous atmosphere, flowing takes less work than compressing the air back in a spring like fashion. This flux in a direction is what causes the balloon to move (via momentum). You are also ignoring that any compresion/deompresion of an area compresses/decompresses nearby areas. If you take a minute thinking on it, you will notice that, mostly all of the energy is disipated, except that one that hits the balloon. Indeed, this effect may actually help with the movement of the balloon.
Sponges may not be fluid but as an anology they work in the same manner as compressing air. If you cannot take an analogy for what it is then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
The purpose of an analogy is to resist analysis. If you make a shitty analogy, dont expect me to accept it.
Stop being a weak arsed follower and use your logic for crying out loud.
It's all there in your face if you choose to look and open your indoctrinated mind to it, seriously.
You science is bogus. It's a lie. It's deliberate deviation from reality. Reality is tehre. It's in your face. Look at reality instead of books displaying fantasy as reality.
Only logical free thinkers will grasp what I'm saying. People like you will deliberately go into defence mode. You have no chance doing it like that.
Which is why you have ignored 5 times now the original challenge to denpressure. Remember, burden of proof, and this challenge seems to be unadressed by denpressure.
You are scared to be labelled for thinking outside the box. Terrified even - because your peers, who you regard as intelligent, are merely parrots, nothing more.
I actually regard many of my peers as parrots. It doesnt terrify me on the slightest. Also, if you claim that my peers are wrong, the burden of proof is still on you. Once again, you havent given a single proof of your hypothesis, or solved clear conflicts with reality. Not only is your hypothesis incomplete and unproven, it has been proven wrong, and you havent disprooved those claims.
No, it hasn't been proven wrong and this is simply tit for tat and I will go on as long as necessary to give you the same crap back in your tit for tat pretence that my theory is proven wrong.
I've proved gravity is bullcrap, 100%. There isn't even an argument except for people's reliance on the fantasy of it.
You can't even explain it for crying out loud. It just simply is and that's that. You people are happy with it because the fantasy explains what you want to believe is true for some strange reason.
To actually believe you live on a spinning ball in space is ridiculous enough for those people who've looked into it.
Those who haven't are the ones that can be excused. You have no excuse.
Change your physics books on this stuff. Bin them because they are not worth a carrot.
You suffer from both delusional paranoia and a personality flaw of a superiority complex. You saw my being kind to you as me mocking you or belittling you or something but what I was attempting to do is have a simple intelligent conversation with you, which you seem to resist. Your superiority complex also is evident by your clinging to the legitimacy of your denpressure equation (which others have dimensionally analysed and saw it false) and the rebuttal that we're indoctrinated sheep who are too stupid to posses the logic that you do with your 13 degrees (which may be either a delusion and you truly believe it, or its your superiority complex attempting to compensate for your lack of understanding). Even your fellow FE 'ers, whom I respect as they're asking mentally taxing questions, don't believe the ludicrous nature of your arguments.
Your physics is abysmally under-developed and if you truly had a grasp of what gravity was in the first place, you'd see how inarguably secure the concept is. Your calculations are flawed as you tend to forget about things like friction and your spatial-visual skills are, at best, akin to that of a lunatic as you say that your explanation of how the world works would be, in act, similar to real-life by explaining how real life works, but this is flawed because it is physically hypocritical.
Become rude and offensive to me and I'll tear your theories apart by psychoanalysis and the harsh truth which you shall fervently deny.
-
RIP Denpressure. (https://www.gozerog.com)
-
This isnt a boxing match, scepti. Even if I granted you that gravity was proven wrong (it hasnt), it tells us NOTHING about the truth of you claims.
The truth of my claims requires you to use s8imple logic and you'll find that truth. refusal to do so is not my problem.
You provide NO evidence for your claims, and you havent answered to the challenges that you have been given.
I've provided plenty of evidence for you to try and you simply reject it like your likeminded peers. Again it's not my problem.
I have proven my claims of your hypothesis being wrong, and you havent disproven them.
No you haven't and yes I have.
Your hypothesis cant explain pendulums in a vacuum (or, if you only believe in partial vacuum, you cant explain the ascense in the amount of energy conservated by the pendulum, for that matter), since the field that causes (acording to you) the pendulum's movement has decreased.
Show me a pendulum in a vacuum?
THE FORCE THAT PULLS THE BALLS DOWN IS DECREASING ON A VACUUM CHAMBER, acording to denpressure.
There isn't any force that pulls. It's all push against push or resistance against resistance. Get some manual kitchen scales that can read below zero or set them to a specific weight and then try it out.
When you address this clear challenge, your hypothesis cant be accepted, since evidence suggests it is false. Remember, this has NOTHING to do with RET being or not correct, or gravity. Your hypothesis is being evaluated on its own.
I'm not interested in whether you accept it or not. Anyone who cares to use their logic, it will help them understand how badly they've been duped by bogus science. What you decide is entirely up to you. You're a globalist so I expect nothing from you.
-
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
It never ceases to amaze me how little you people know about real physics.
You have copied and memorised bullcrap in abundance and believe it to be real life. It's not. My physics is more reality.
-
You suffer from both delusional paranoia and a personality flaw of a superiority complex.
No, I suffer from the ability to be able to see logic against bullcrap. I have the ability to see deliberate misinformation for what it shows.
I have the ability to spot liars.
I have the ability to wipe out nonsense equations and replace them with simple common sense and logic to show them up for what they are in the stuff we are arguing over.
I have the ability to frustrate people who try to pretend they are intellectually smarter than the average bear and yet never realise that all they are is parrots for the system of nonsense given out as a truth which is clearly a lie.
You saw my being kind to you as me mocking you or belittling you or something but what I was attempting to do is have a simple intelligent conversation with you, which you seem to resist.
Your above post makes you a hypocrite. Don't sit there and attempt ridicule and display a high and mighty stance then in the next sentence pretend you are being kind, or that I think you are kind and take advantage of it. be what the hell you like, it matters not.
Your superiority complex also is evident by your clinging to the legitimacy of your denpressure equation (which others have dimensionally analysed and saw it false) and the rebuttal that we're indoctrinated sheep who are too stupid to posses the logic that you do with your 13 degrees (which may be either a delusion and you truly believe it, or its your superiority complex attempting to compensate for your lack of understanding).
I'm not clinging to any equation. I am clinging to the truth of denpressure and explaining it to those who have a mind to see that truth, against a pathetic made up force of gravity that should be as clear as glass as being ridiculous.
Even your fellow FE 'ers, whom I respect as they're asking mentally taxing questions, don't believe the ludicrous nature of your arguments.
If you'd taken notice you will see that the flat Earth theorists, in the main can't stand me. They are on your side as far as that goes in terms of the dislike but they play a fair game and stay out of my stuff instead of letting me know what they think I am.
I'm capable of fighting my own battles.
Your physics is abysmally under-developed and if you truly had a grasp of what gravity was in the first place, you'd see how inarguably secure the concept is.
No. My physics is as basic as needed to explain truths. Your physics is merely books that explain fantasy. It's not real where Earth and space are involved, in terms of what they are supposed to be.
There's a lot of lies and deliberate misinformation, plus some stuff that borders on potential truth, just used in different ways to keep you all duped.
Your reality is fantasy. My reality is seeing through that fantasy we've been coaxed into accepting.
Your calculations are flawed as you tend to forget about things like friction and your spatial-visual skills are, at best, akin to that of a lunatic as you say that your explanation of how the world works would be, in act, similar to real-life by explaining how real life works, but this is flawed because it is physically hypocritical.
I don't forget about friction if you take notice. Your idea of atmosphere is clouded (pardon the pun) and your mind is on scattered particles and photons and all the rest of the crap. It's nothing like you think it is. Take notice and you might learn. Burn your crap science books first or shove them under your bed and get real.
Become rude and offensive to me and I'll tear your theories apart by psychoanalysis and the harsh truth which you shall fervently deny.
You don't know the meaning of the words "rude" and "offensive" if you think I've been anything like that to you.
You're also, once again - a hypocrite.
Before you tear my theories apart, learn to play the game and stop getting frustrated or you won't last 5 minutes with me.
I had to bin one person who was the biggest cry baby this forum has ever seen in ausGeoff. I had to do it because he tried tot ake me on...got angry when I swatted him like a fly, then the mods reprimanded me because he kept pressing the complaint button every 5 minutes.
Want to know what was weird about that?
He was the one trying to play the ridicule game and I smacked his bum on all occasions, so his last ditch effort was to beg for my banning to such an extent that the mods were fed up of dealing with it, so I got warned a few times.
It's easier to let people like that go and that way they can't complain if I fight back.
You need to learn this if you want to take me on because I will frustrate the hell out of you, so be warned and heed it.
-
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
It never ceases to amaze me how little you people know about real physics.
You have copied and memorised bullcrap in abundance and believe it to be real life. It's not. My physics is more reality.
Have you not read my previous posts? I have EXPERIMENTED to figure out and prove many laws of physics for myself. I have even done experiments with low pressure environments and how things still fall at 9.8 m/s2 even at lower and higher pressure. The reason that denpressure has not been disproven to you is because you tack the word "lie" on anything that disproves it.
-
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
It never ceases to amaze me how little you people know about real physics.
You have copied and memorised bullcrap in abundance and believe it to be real life. It's not. My physics is more reality.
Have you not read my previous posts? I have EXPERIMENTED to figure out and prove many laws of physics for myself. I have even done experiments with low pressure environments and how things still fall at 9.8 m/s2 even at lower and higher pressure. The reason that denpressure has not been disproven to you is because you tack the word "lie" on anything that disproves it.
What did you do? did you drop a penny in a bell jar or something?
Let me guess. You have a huge NASA sized chamber and evacuate enough pressure to drop things from a bigger height and that proves it all.
My guess is you've never done one experiment and you're all hot air.
-
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
It never ceases to amaze me how little you people know about real physics.
You have copied and memorised bullcrap in abundance and believe it to be real life. It's not. My physics is more reality.
Have you not read my previous posts? I have EXPERIMENTED to figure out and prove many laws of physics for myself. I have even done experiments with low pressure environments and how things still fall at 9.8 m/s2 even at lower and higher pressure. The reason that denpressure has not been disproven to you is because you tack the word "lie" on anything that disproves it.
What did you do? did you drop a penny in a bell jar or something?
Let me guess. You have a huge NASA sized chamber and evacuate enough pressure to drop things from a bigger height and that proves it all.
My guess is you've never done one experiment and you're all hot air.
Actually I used this one device that I had that was a container hooked up to a hand pump with it you could lower the pressure in the container by a significant ammount. I admit that I used it to suffocate a few insects but I also experimented with gravity by putting objects in it and dropping it. The object in it floated weightlessly while the container was falling and then fell to the bottom once it landed, just like gravity says would happen and denpressure says would not happen. The object and the container always fall at the same speed as each other no matter what the pressure is inside of it and also the object in it floated weightlessly when it was falling even though the air in the container was moving with it. RIP denpressure.
-
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
It never ceases to amaze me how little you people know about real physics.
You have copied and memorised bullcrap in abundance and believe it to be real life. It's not. My physics is more reality.
Have you not read my previous posts? I have EXPERIMENTED to figure out and prove many laws of physics for myself. I have even done experiments with low pressure environments and how things still fall at 9.8 m/s2 even at lower and higher pressure. The reason that denpressure has not been disproven to you is because you tack the word "lie" on anything that disproves it.
What did you do? did you drop a penny in a bell jar or something?
Let me guess. You have a huge NASA sized chamber and evacuate enough pressure to drop things from a bigger height and that proves it all.
My guess is you've never done one experiment and you're all hot air.
Actually I used this one device that I had that was a container hooked up to a hand pump with it you could lower the pressure in the container by a significant ammount. I admit that I used it to suffocate a few insects but I also experimented with gravity by putting objects in it and dropping it. The object in it floated weightlessly while the container was falling and then fell to the bottom once it landed, just like gravity says would happen and denpressure says would not happen. The object and the container always fall at the same speed as each other no matter what the pressure is inside of it and also the object in it floated weightlessly when it was falling even though the air in the container was moving with it. RIP denpressure.
Well, that's your credibility destroyed if you were actually looking for some. What a blatant liar you are. Hahahaha.
You should have chosen your words carefully. ;D
-
Anything that goes against denpressure is a lie to you. Why aren't you open to arguments that really challenges it? Stating that is reality 100% doesn't help as nothing is 100% proof or anything. So far we have lots of evidence for how gravity works and what it does. 0% evidence from denpressure. What would a "logical person with common sense" would move towards to?
-
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
It never ceases to amaze me how little you people know about real physics.
You have copied and memorised bullcrap in abundance and believe it to be real life. It's not. My physics is more reality.
Have you not read my previous posts? I have EXPERIMENTED to figure out and prove many laws of physics for myself. I have even done experiments with low pressure environments and how things still fall at 9.8 m/s2 even at lower and higher pressure. The reason that denpressure has not been disproven to you is because you tack the word "lie" on anything that disproves it.
What did you do? did you drop a penny in a bell jar or something?
Let me guess. You have a huge NASA sized chamber and evacuate enough pressure to drop things from a bigger height and that proves it all.
My guess is you've never done one experiment and you're all hot air.
Actually I used this one device that I had that was a container hooked up to a hand pump with it you could lower the pressure in the container by a significant ammount. I admit that I used it to suffocate a few insects but I also experimented with gravity by putting objects in it and dropping it. The object in it floated weightlessly while the container was falling and then fell to the bottom once it landed, just like gravity says would happen and denpressure says would not happen. The object and the container always fall at the same speed as each other no matter what the pressure is inside of it and also the object in it floated weightlessly when it was falling even though the air in the container was moving with it. RIP denpressure.
Well, that's your credibility destroyed if you were actually looking for some. What a blatant liar you are. Hahahaha.
You should have chosen your words carefully. ;D
You keep telling yourself that. I just disproved denpressure and you do your signature move of calling it a lie. You can't even give me an equasion for denpressure, and until you do it will remain an absurd theory. Math doesn't lie, maybe that's why it's not on your side.
-
It never fails to amaze me how little you know about physics. If you actually knew anything about what you are rejecting then you would know that it's true.
It never ceases to amaze me how little you people know about real physics.
You have copied and memorised bullcrap in abundance and believe it to be real life. It's not. My physics is more reality.
Have you not read my previous posts? I have EXPERIMENTED to figure out and prove many laws of physics for myself. I have even done experiments with low pressure environments and how things still fall at 9.8 m/s2 even at lower and higher pressure. The reason that denpressure has not been disproven to you is because you tack the word "lie" on anything that disproves it.
What did you do? did you drop a penny in a bell jar or something?
Let me guess. You have a huge NASA sized chamber and evacuate enough pressure to drop things from a bigger height and that proves it all.
My guess is you've never done one experiment and you're all hot air.
Actually I used this one device that I had that was a container hooked up to a hand pump with it you could lower the pressure in the container by a significant ammount. I admit that I used it to suffocate a few insects but I also experimented with gravity by putting objects in it and dropping it. The object in it floated weightlessly while the container was falling and then fell to the bottom once it landed, just like gravity says would happen and denpressure says would not happen. The object and the container always fall at the same speed as each other no matter what the pressure is inside of it and also the object in it floated weightlessly when it was falling even though the air in the container was moving with it. RIP denpressure.
Well, that's your credibility destroyed if you were actually looking for some. What a blatant liar you are. Hahahaha.
You should have chosen your words carefully. ;D
You keep telling yourself that. I just disproved denpressure and you do your signature move of calling it a lie. You can't even give me an equasion for denpressure, and until you do it will remain an absurd theory. Math doesn't lie, maybe that's why it's not on your side.
Scepti's signature is incredibly apropos. I mean I know he put it there to show us sheep how we are wrong. But those of us not suffering from paranoid delusional schizophrenia just see it as the reality of his life. Living that lie and vehemently attacking anyone and anything that threatens to show him the truth.
-
My guess is you've never done one experiment and you're all hot air.
Did you do that vacuum chamber experiment yet to your standards like you said you were going to do? How about the laser on the frozen lake? Is that one ready for public viewing yet? Photographs or video of these shouldn't be a problem with all that photography equipment you have, right?
Well, that's your credibility destroyed if you were actually looking for some. What a blatant liar you are. Hahahaha.
You should have chosen your words carefully. ;D
That shoe fits pretty good doesn't it.
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
I see. What is "trivity"?
It's an unknown force that just is.
Sorta like gravity?
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
I see. What is "trivity"?
It's an unknown force that just is.
Sorta like gravity?
Not at all, because trivity being an unknown force that is unexplainable at the moment but through sceptis observations can be shown to exist is totally different than gravity, which is an unknown force that is unexplainable at the moment but through millions of scientists observations can be shown to exist.
Get it?
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
I see. What is "trivity"?
It's an unknown force that just is.
Sorta like gravity?
Not at all, because trivity being an unknown force that is unexplainable at the moment but through sceptis observations can be shown to exist is totally different than gravity, which is an unknown force that is unexplainable at the moment but through millions of scientists observations can be shown to exist.
Get it?
*sigh* Of course I get it. I just want to see if scepti gets it.
-
Scepti, did you provide a formula for denpressure? Yes or no.
Nope. I provided a formula.
What is the formula you provided for?
Trivity.
I see. What is "trivity"?
It's an unknown force that just is.
Sorta like gravity?
Not at all, because trivity being an unknown force that is unexplainable at the moment but through sceptis observations can be shown to exist is totally different than gravity, which is an unknown force that is unexplainable at the moment but through millions of scientists observations can be shown to exist.
Get it?
*sigh* Of course I get it. I just want to see if scepti gets it.
Never. :P
-
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.
You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.
- What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
- In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease
Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?
Once again, here we go:
Scepti, this is serious problem with the definition of denpressure. I will keep quoting myself until answered.
Regarding you thought experiment, sponges arent fluid. In a gasseous atmosphere, flowing takes less work than compressing the air back in a spring like fashion. This flux in a direction is what causes the balloon to move (via momentum). You are also ignoring that any compresion/deompresion of an area compresses/decompresses nearby areas. If you take a minute thinking on it, you will notice that, mostly all of the energy is disipated, except that one that hits the balloon. Indeed, this effect may actually help with the movement of the balloon.
Sponges may not be fluid but as an anology they work in the same manner as compressing air. If you cannot take an analogy for what it is then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
The purpose of an analogy is to resist analysis. If you make a shitty analogy, dont expect me to accept it.
Stop being a weak arsed follower and use your logic for crying out loud.
It's all there in your face if you choose to look and open your indoctrinated mind to it, seriously.
You science is bogus. It's a lie. It's deliberate deviation from reality. Reality is tehre. It's in your face. Look at reality instead of books displaying fantasy as reality.
Only logical free thinkers will grasp what I'm saying. People like you will deliberately go into defence mode. You have no chance doing it like that.
Which is why you have ignored 5 times now the original challenge to denpressure. Remember, burden of proof, and this challenge seems to be unadressed by denpressure.
You are scared to be labelled for thinking outside the box. Terrified even - because your peers, who you regard as intelligent, are merely parrots, nothing more.
I actually regard many of my peers as parrots. It doesnt terrify me on the slightest. Also, if you claim that my peers are wrong, the burden of proof is still on you. Once again, you havent given a single proof of your hypothesis, or solved clear conflicts with reality. Not only is your hypothesis incomplete and unproven, it has been proven wrong, and you havent disprooved those claims.
No, it hasn't been proven wrong and this is simply tit for tat and I will go on as long as necessary to give you the same crap back in your tit for tat pretence that my theory is proven wrong.
I've proved gravity is bullcrap, 100%. There isn't even an argument except for people's reliance on the fantasy of it.
You can't even explain it for crying out loud. It just simply is and that's that. You people are happy with it because the fantasy explains what you want to believe is true for some strange reason.
To actually believe you live on a spinning ball in space is ridiculous enough for those people who've looked into it.
Those who haven't are the ones that can be excused. You have no excuse.
Change your physics books on this stuff. Bin them because they are not worth a carrot.
The only experiments om denpressure are the ones I did. They showed no change in weight when atmospheric pressure is dropped.
-
Do you remember a toy called a yo yo septic. How would dunny pressure work with them. And how long do we wait for your sums and experiments. 3 days now you have been acting like a cornered cat. Run out of flat cookies A.
-
You suffer from both delusional paranoia and a personality flaw of a superiority complex.
No, I suffer from the ability to be able to see logic against bullcrap. I have the ability to see deliberate misinformation for what it shows.
I have the ability to spot liars.
I have the ability to wipe out nonsense equations and replace them with simple common sense and logic to show them up for what they are in the stuff we are arguing over.
I have the ability to frustrate people who try to pretend they are intellectually smarter than the average bear and yet never realise that all they are is parrots for the system of nonsense given out as a truth which is clearly a lie.
You saw my being kind to you as me mocking you or belittling you or something but what I was attempting to do is have a simple intelligent conversation with you, which you seem to resist.
Your above post makes you a hypocrite. Don't sit there and attempt ridicule and display a high and mighty stance then in the next sentence pretend you are being kind, or that I think you are kind and take advantage of it. be what the hell you like, it matters not.
Your superiority complex also is evident by your clinging to the legitimacy of your denpressure equation (which others have dimensionally analysed and saw it false) and the rebuttal that we're indoctrinated sheep who are too stupid to posses the logic that you do with your 13 degrees (which may be either a delusion and you truly believe it, or its your superiority complex attempting to compensate for your lack of understanding).
I'm not clinging to any equation. I am clinging to the truth of denpressure and explaining it to those who have a mind to see that truth, against a pathetic made up force of gravity that should be as clear as glass as being ridiculous.
Even your fellow FE 'ers, whom I respect as they're asking mentally taxing questions, don't believe the ludicrous nature of your arguments.
If you'd taken notice you will see that the flat Earth theorists, in the main can't stand me. They are on your side as far as that goes in terms of the dislike but they play a fair game and stay out of my stuff instead of letting me know what they think I am.
I'm capable of fighting my own battles.
Your physics is abysmally under-developed and if you truly had a grasp of what gravity was in the first place, you'd see how inarguably secure the concept is.
No. My physics is as basic as needed to explain truths. Your physics is merely books that explain fantasy. It's not real where Earth and space are involved, in terms of what they are supposed to be.
There's a lot of lies and deliberate misinformation, plus some stuff that borders on potential truth, just used in different ways to keep you all duped.
Your reality is fantasy. My reality is seeing through that fantasy we've been coaxed into accepting.
Your calculations are flawed as you tend to forget about things like friction and your spatial-visual skills are, at best, akin to that of a lunatic as you say that your explanation of how the world works would be, in act, similar to real-life by explaining how real life works, but this is flawed because it is physically hypocritical.
I don't forget about friction if you take notice. Your idea of atmosphere is clouded (pardon the pun) and your mind is on scattered particles and photons and all the rest of the crap. It's nothing like you think it is. Take notice and you might learn. Burn your crap science books first or shove them under your bed and get real.
Become rude and offensive to me and I'll tear your theories apart by psychoanalysis and the harsh truth which you shall fervently deny.
You don't know the meaning of the words "rude" and "offensive" if you think I've been anything like that to you.
You're also, once again - a hypocrite.
Before you tear my theories apart, learn to play the game and stop getting frustrated or you won't last 5 minutes with me.
I had to bin one person who was the biggest cry baby this forum has ever seen in ausGeoff. I had to do it because he tried tot ake me on...got angry when I swatted him like a fly, then the mods reprimanded me because he kept pressing the complaint button every 5 minutes.
Want to know what was weird about that?
He was the one trying to play the ridicule game and I smacked his bum on all occasions, so his last ditch effort was to beg for my banning to such an extent that the mods were fed up of dealing with it, so I got warned a few times.
It's easier to let people like that go and that way they can't complain if I fight back.
You need to learn this if you want to take me on because I will frustrate the hell out of you, so be warned and heed it.
You only prove to me that you have a superiority complex by referring to others as less intelligent than the average bear.
My initial kindness wasn't hypocritical because you refused it by insult.
And denpressure is evident? We in the scientific community call your denpressure atmospheric pressure and is a known fact to exist, but this doesn't explain as to why other planets without atmospheres still exert a force downwards onto an object.
It isn't what I think you are. It's what I know you are. You almost shout out your disorders by your refusal of maths, your touting of yourself as a genius, and your refusal to admit you may've been wrong when you can't produce any evidence whatsoever of your denpressure working, or your 13 degrees.
What you're telling me is that you don't believe in particles and photons? If so, then why do fiber optics work?
Unlike the freak you're talking about, I have plenty of things to do besides get frustrated with you and your belittling of me. You call me a shill, an indoctrinated less-than-bear intelligent person, and call me a hypocrite...but who was the first one to pose insult? You.
-
learn to play the game and stop getting frustrated or you won't last 5 minutes with me.
I had to bin one person who was the biggest cry baby this forum has ever seen in ausGeoff. I had to do it because he tried tot ake me on...got angry when I swatted him like a fly, then the mods reprimanded me because he kept pressing the complaint button every 5 minutes.
Want to know what was weird about that?
He was the one trying to play the ridicule game and I smacked his bum on all occasions, so his last ditch effort was to beg for my banning to such an extent that the mods were fed up of dealing with it, so I got warned a few times.
It's easier to let people like that go and that way they can't complain if I fight back.
You need to learn this if you want to take me on because I will frustrate the hell out of you, so be warned and heed it.
All hilarious considering you were the one who once got fed up, quit, and tried deleting all your previous comments.
-
Looks like septic ran out of flat cookies. Shit A
-
learn to play the game and stop getting frustrated or you won't last 5 minutes with me.
I had to bin one person who was the biggest cry baby this forum has ever seen in ausGeoff. I had to do it because he tried tot ake me on...got angry when I swatted him like a fly, then the mods reprimanded me because he kept pressing the complaint button every 5 minutes.
Want to know what was weird about that?
He was the one trying to play the ridicule game and I smacked his bum on all occasions, so his last ditch effort was to beg for my banning to such an extent that the mods were fed up of dealing with it, so I got warned a few times.
It's easier to let people like that go and that way they can't complain if I fight back.
You need to learn this if you want to take me on because I will frustrate the hell out of you, so be warned and heed it.
All hilarious considering you were the one who once got fed up, quit, and tried deleting all your previous comments.
This sort of reaction from sceptimatic is becoming increasingly common in all the threads he takes part in. He rolls in with a veritable truckload of pseudo-scientific bovine excrement, battles on relentlessly with a gazillion idiotic "arguments" and absurd "facts", realizes that he's fighting a losing battle against an onslaught of scientific facts and empirical evidence, and then runs away with his tail between his legs, never to be seen in the thread again.
I'm actually surprised that the poor guy has the perseverance he has—considering the sheer number of time his silly notions have been shot down in flames. He's either some sort of intellectual masochist, or a very obtuse, imperceptive individual.
To refresh sceptimatic's memory, these pics show a couple of "senior infants" carrying out the balloon rocket experiment....
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DZG2AQlQpgY/TrrMPf0zVtI/AAAAAAAAaPU/jSPm47Vb0C8/s1600/CIMG1746.JPG) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UM0-Vx6RsPA/TrrMZuvS1EI/AAAAAAAAaPc/J2TCds42XJU/s1600/CIMG1748.JPG)
It never cease to astound me that this sort of simple science that even five-year-old kids can comprehend escapes sceptimatic's understanding completely. No wonder he's so embarrassed LOL.
EDIT: Corrected [img] coding AGAIN. Is site admin EVER gonna fix this glitch?
-
Found another septic.
3
Flat Earth General / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 08:25:49 AM »
Quote from: Gulliver on December 16, 2014, 09:15:31 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2014, 06:10:40 PM
Nah, if they were running a fake space program they wouldn't create a Saturn V with the official specs, with the ability to reach escape velocity at 4 miles a second, with a mass of over 6.5 million pounds, filled to the brim with dangerous rocket fuel. They would have created an inferior version that only needed to fly out of sight.
It was a rocket masquerading as it's bigger brother in a show: A firework.
Just how much smaller could such a "smaller brother" be and still fly out of sight of the international press? How why to you refer to "reach escape velocity"? We've repeatedly pointed out your ignorance on this point. Please stop referring to escape velocity as though a rocket must reach that velocity for whatever reason you erroneously invoke it.
The Saturn V is significantly bigger than, say, the V2 rocket technology the US stole from postwar germany. The V2 had no problem going up into the air until they got out of sight.
Gee the mob over there are real smart. This is the dude with the bishop constant.
-
You only prove to me that you have a superiority complex by referring to others as less intelligent than the average bear.
No. It's not about being less intelligent. It's about being naive. You people display it in abundance. I have no qualms about you being intelligent but intelligence doesn't quite paint the larger picture.
I person in a quiz who answers all the questions before any other can be classes as super intelligent. Are they?
Can super intelligent people be super naive?
Have a think on this.
My initial kindness wasn't hypocritical because you refused it by insult.
I haven't insulted you no more than you have tried to do to me, you hypocrite.
And denpressure is evident? We in the scientific community call your denpressure atmospheric pressure and is a known fact to exist, but this doesn't explain as to why other planets without atmospheres still exert a force downwards onto an object.
Yes, you in the scientific community (whatever that is) call it atmospheric pressure but you can't marry it up to what objects do and are, in it by denpressure crushing your gravity nonsense.
Learn it and you will become much better at figuring out truths and lies.
It isn't what I think you are. It's what I know you are. You almost shout out your disorders by your refusal of maths, your touting of yourself as a genius, and your refusal to admit you may've been wrong when you can't produce any evidence whatsoever of your denpressure working, or your 13 degrees.
As I said before and I'll say it again. Maths is fine when they're needed. In explanations for my denpressure; it is not required for someone to grasp it. Your reliance of equations is sad for the things you harp on about. Things that you cannot physically prove, except to say, "it is", and it's as simple as that.
For real life construction and what not...this is the time when math comes in. For working out angles/areas and what not, in real life - this is where equations and forumlas come in, which is fine.
When trying to make a layman try to understand denpressure and why it's the true purpose of why we are even alive and why gravity is simply made up to dupe us, they need to be taught how it works, basically. You people are so head crammed with figures that the basics in life escape you. It's called naivety, gullible.
You can be pickpocketed at traffic lights because you tried to work out the equations for the sequence and timing of the lights as your wallet and watch, plus tie was taken from you. You lose what reality is. You cannot see the woods for the trees.
What you're telling me is that you don't believe in particles and photons? If so, then why do fiber optics work?
Your idea of particles and photons are some scattered matter just going about it's own business. You fail to understand what's really happening. You can't grasp that every element on earth is attached with no gaps. No free space. Get this right and you have a chance. Stick to clap trap and you're a waste of time.
Unlike the freak you're talking about, I have plenty of things to do besides get frustrated with you and your belittling of me. You call me a shill, an indoctrinated less-than-bear intelligent person, and call me a hypocrite...but who was the first one to pose insult? You.
Look. You - like others, come here with the sole purpose of believing you are going to be the one to belittle and put to bed people's notions on what the Earth is. When you realise that you're not smart enough to do that, you try to up it and get a bit more personal, then cry like a baby when you get a bit back.
The thing is, I'm not being personal unless you take it like that. I don't call you names or bad mouth your family or anything. I simply call you naive and what not, just like you do to me.
Aceept it and get on with it. Just remember. Geoffrey has tried and better tried and has failed. He's tried all the tricks in the book and I'm still smiling. Don't become another Geoffrey.
If you believe I'm nuts, stupid, backward or anything else then do not take me on. If you think you're so smart then what are you doing arguing with a dummy like me for?
Start to learn that coming here with your head up your arse thinking you're this scientific smart guy, learn that I don't give a rats arse about it.
-
learn to play the game and stop getting frustrated or you won't last 5 minutes with me.
I had to bin one person who was the biggest cry baby this forum has ever seen in ausGeoff. I had to do it because he tried tot ake me on...got angry when I swatted him like a fly, then the mods reprimanded me because he kept pressing the complaint button every 5 minutes.
Want to know what was weird about that?
He was the one trying to play the ridicule game and I smacked his bum on all occasions, so his last ditch effort was to beg for my banning to such an extent that the mods were fed up of dealing with it, so I got warned a few times.
It's easier to let people like that go and that way they can't complain if I fight back.
You need to learn this if you want to take me on because I will frustrate the hell out of you, so be warned and heed it.
All hilarious considering you were the one who once got fed up, quit, and tried deleting all your previous comments.
Careful there , son, you appear to be damping down a little. Man up a bit and work on your bladder control.
-
Looks like septic ran out of flat cookies. Shit A
I think you've ran out of the ability to actually type a full line. Put some effort in. ;D
-
Here's a NASA explanation as to how their rockets work.
Pay attention to it.
Note the part where they put a tablet in the water and close the lid. This is how they are pretending they work all the way up.
Can anyone see a problem with this?
Notice how the build up of pressure inside the little container forces the container up and leaves the lid on the desk.
Can anyone see any problem?
They are trying to tell you that the rocket uses action/reaction as if it was a bullet. Would this really power a rocket to accelrate into the sky or would this springboard a rocket into the sky in one fell swoop?
Here's the problem.
You see, in a way, this is what happens but the difference is the lid being left, because that lid is the ground as it's sat on the ground, or table.
Now what we have is a pressure build up that pushes against the top and the lid. Think of it like you being compressed inside of it and trying to force your head up by using your feet to push against the lid.
Naturally you can push the ground way, so the container gets pushed up by your head.
Makes sense, right?
So this is how you get duped into believing rockets work but do you see the problem?
The problem is the lid and your feet pushing against that lid in an ENCLOSED environment where pressure has to give.
Can anyone not see a problem though?
Ok, here's the problem. You see, the rockets we are told to believe work all the way to space constantly have this lid on and a ground to keep it put putting into space in an action/reaction way.
So why dont you test it out as it's easy to do.
Instead of this rocket container and tablet being on the ground. Let's use it as to how we are told it works.
Tie your container up on the ceiling from string. Put the same water in and then the tablet with the lid facing down as it hangs.
Now observe what happens when the pressure builds up and the lid blows off, then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.
(http://)
-
So many words, so little content...
-
So many words, so little content...
sceptimatic must think that if he posts 400 words of absolute drivel, there may just be one or two phrases that make sense?
Dunno? The guy seems to be intellectually crippled. ???
-
then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.
Easy enough, the pressure is continuous.
*eta
Careful there , son, you appear to be damping down a little. Man up a bit and work on your bladder control.
Lol, what?
-
Here's a NASA explanation as to how their rockets work.
Pay attention to it.
Note the part where they put a tablet in the water and close the lid. This is how they are pretending they work all the way up.
Can anyone see a problem with this?
Notice how the build up of pressure inside the little container forces the container up and leaves the lid on the desk.
Can anyone see any problem?
They are trying to tell you that the rocket uses action/reaction as if it was a bullet. Would this really power a rocket to accelrate into the sky or would this springboard a rocket into the sky in one fell swoop?
Here's the problem.
You see, in a way, this is what happens but the difference is the lid being left, because that lid is the ground as it's sat on the ground, or table.
Now what we have is a pressure build up that pushes against the top and the lid. Think of it like you being compressed inside of it and trying to force your head up by using your feet to push against the lid.
Naturally you can push the ground way, so the container gets pushed up by your head.
Makes sense, right?
So this is how you get duped into believing rockets work but do you see the problem?
The problem is the lid and your feet pushing against that lid in an ENCLOSED environment where pressure has to give.
Can anyone not see a problem though?
Ok, here's the problem. You see, the rockets we are told to believe work all the way to space constantly have this lid on and a ground to keep it put putting into space in an action/reaction way.
So why dont you test it out as it's easy to do.
Instead of this rocket container and tablet being on the ground. Let's use it as to how we are told it works.
Tie your container up on the ceiling from string. Put the same water in and then the tablet with the lid facing down as it hangs.
Now observe what happens when the pressure builds up and the lid blows off, then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.
(http://)
I have launched my own rockets propelled by solid rocket motors and they seem to fly (unless there are actually government agents hoisting it up with a fishing line). Also, NASA's rocket launches are actually public events to which anybody can come and spectate a rocket launch. The reason that rocket engines work is because gas is matter too and it has mass just like the lid in your example.
-
So many words, so little content...
So many words, so little content...
sceptimatic must think that if he posts 400 words of absolute drivel, there may just be one or two phrases that make sense?
Dunno? The guy seems to be intellectually crippled. ???
Please watch the low content posts. Thanks.
-
Here's a NASA explanation as to how their rockets work.
Pay attention to it.
Note the part where they put a tablet in the water and close the lid. This is how they are pretending they work all the way up.
Can anyone see a problem with this?
Notice how the build up of pressure inside the little container forces the container up and leaves the lid on the desk.
Can anyone see any problem?
They are trying to tell you that the rocket uses action/reaction as if it was a bullet. Would this really power a rocket to accelrate into the sky or would this springboard a rocket into the sky in one fell swoop?
Here's the problem.
You see, in a way, this is what happens but the difference is the lid being left, because that lid is the ground as it's sat on the ground, or table.
Now what we have is a pressure build up that pushes against the top and the lid. Think of it like you being compressed inside of it and trying to force your head up by using your feet to push against the lid.
Naturally you can push the ground way, so the container gets pushed up by your head.
Makes sense, right?
So this is how you get duped into believing rockets work but do you see the problem?
The problem is the lid and your feet pushing against that lid in an ENCLOSED environment where pressure has to give.
Can anyone not see a problem though?
Ok, here's the problem. You see, the rockets we are told to believe work all the way to space constantly have this lid on and a ground to keep it put putting into space in an action/reaction way.
So why dont you test it out as it's easy to do.
Instead of this rocket container and tablet being on the ground. Let's use it as to how we are told it works.
Tie your container up on the ceiling from string. Put the same water in and then the tablet with the lid facing down as it hangs.
Now observe what happens when the pressure builds up and the lid blows off, then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.
(http://)
The funny thing is, scepti, rockets do work using pressure. You seem to think pressure can only come in the shape of closed enviroments, which, as someone who has built jet engines, I can confirm you it is not a requirement.
This conspiracy url, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html), also shows common rocket thrust equations, which clearly take into account chamber pressure into it.
-
Here's a NASA explanation as to how their rockets work.
Pay attention to it.
Note the part where they put a tablet in the water and close the lid. This is how they are pretending they work all the way up.
Can anyone see a problem with this?
Notice how the build up of pressure inside the little container forces the container up and leaves the lid on the desk.
Can anyone see any problem?
They are trying to tell you that the rocket uses action/reaction as if it was a bullet. Would this really power a rocket to accelrate into the sky or would this springboard a rocket into the sky in one fell swoop?
Here's the problem.
You see, in a way, this is what happens but the difference is the lid being left, because that lid is the ground as it's sat on the ground, or table.
Now what we have is a pressure build up that pushes against the top and the lid. Think of it like you being compressed inside of it and trying to force your head up by using your feet to push against the lid.
Naturally you can push the ground way, so the container gets pushed up by your head.
Makes sense, right?
So this is how you get duped into believing rockets work but do you see the problem?
The problem is the lid and your feet pushing against that lid in an ENCLOSED environment where pressure has to give.
Can anyone not see a problem though?
Ok, here's the problem. You see, the rockets we are told to believe work all the way to space constantly have this lid on and a ground to keep it put putting into space in an action/reaction way.
So why dont you test it out as it's easy to do.
Instead of this rocket container and tablet being on the ground. Let's use it as to how we are told it works.
Tie your container up on the ceiling from string. Put the same water in and then the tablet with the lid facing down as it hangs.
Now observe what happens when the pressure builds up and the lid blows off, then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.
(http://)
The funny thing is, scepti, rockets do work using pressure. You seem to think pressure can only come in the shape of closed enviroments, which, as someone who has built jet engines, I can confirm you it is not a requirement.
This conspiracy url, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html), also shows common rocket thrust equations, which clearly take into account chamber pressure into it.
So go and do the test what I just mentioned and see if it works out for you.
Your jet like a rocket, works because of atmospheric resistance to it's released energy. It's as simple as that. You have either been duped or you know fine well I am right and are just a denier.
-
Here's a NASA explanation as to how their rockets work.
Pay attention to it.
Note the part where they put a tablet in the water and close the lid. This is how they are pretending they work all the way up.
Can anyone see a problem with this?
Notice how the build up of pressure inside the little container forces the container up and leaves the lid on the desk.
Can anyone see any problem?
They are trying to tell you that the rocket uses action/reaction as if it was a bullet. Would this really power a rocket to accelrate into the sky or would this springboard a rocket into the sky in one fell swoop?
Here's the problem.
You see, in a way, this is what happens but the difference is the lid being left, because that lid is the ground as it's sat on the ground, or table.
Now what we have is a pressure build up that pushes against the top and the lid. Think of it like you being compressed inside of it and trying to force your head up by using your feet to push against the lid.
Naturally you can push the ground way, so the container gets pushed up by your head.
Makes sense, right?
So this is how you get duped into believing rockets work but do you see the problem?
The problem is the lid and your feet pushing against that lid in an ENCLOSED environment where pressure has to give.
Can anyone not see a problem though?
Ok, here's the problem. You see, the rockets we are told to believe work all the way to space constantly have this lid on and a ground to keep it put putting into space in an action/reaction way.
So why dont you test it out as it's easy to do.
Instead of this rocket container and tablet being on the ground. Let's use it as to how we are told it works.
Tie your container up on the ceiling from string. Put the same water in and then the tablet with the lid facing down as it hangs.
Now observe what happens when the pressure builds up and the lid blows off, then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.
(http://)
The funny thing is, scepti, rockets do work using pressure. You seem to think pressure can only come in the shape of closed enviroments, which, as someone who has built jet engines, I can confirm you it is not a requirement.
This conspiracy url, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html), also shows common rocket thrust equations, which clearly take into account chamber pressure into it.
So go and do the test what I just mentioned and see if it works out for you.
Your jet like a rocket, works because of atmospheric resistance to it's released energy. It's as simple as that. You have either been duped or you know fine well I am right and are just a denier.
As someone who has designed engines for model rockets I can tell you that to get an engine to work, you need to not just release gas but you need to release it going REALLY FAST. That is why your experiment doesn't work, you need a controlled explosion to generate TONS of gas and then you need a parabolic nozzle to direct it down with as much velocity as possible. The reason that your example works with the lid on is because it builds up pressure and releases it all at once which makes it powerful enough to lift off.
-
This is an easy "rocket" experiment tat you do with stuff from your kitchen; it illustrates nicely the basic principals of rocket propulsion...
Water Bottle Rocket (http://bit.ly/1sNoAjW)
I'd be interested to see if sceptimatic's prepared to give this a go to at least give him some idea of what we're talking about with rockets.
Or—as I'm guessing in advance—will he simply dismiss it because it proves a couple of simple science principles he refutes as being "bullcrap"?
The ball is in your court sceptimatic.
PS: Can someone please quote this comment as he's got me on his "ignore" list. Thanks.
-
This is an easy "rocket" experiment tat you do with stuff from your kitchen; it illustrates nicely the basic principals of rocket propulsion...
Water Bottle Rocket (http://bit.ly/1sNoAjW)
I'd be interested to see if sceptimatic's prepared to give this a go to at least give him some idea of what we're talking about with rockets.
Or—as I'm guessing in advance—will he simply dismiss it because it proves a couple of simple science principles he refutes as being "bullcrap"?
The ball is in your court sceptimatic.
PS: Can someone please quote this comment as he's got me on his "ignore" list. Thanks.
I am just quoting this so scepti will see it just like ausGeoff requested.
-
I am just quoting this so scepti will see it just like ausGeoff requested.
Thanks. :)
-
This isnt a boxing match, scepti. Even if I granted you that gravity was proven wrong (it hasnt), it tells us NOTHING about the truth of you claims.
The truth of my claims requires you to use s8imple logic and you'll find that truth. refusal to do so is not my problem.
Circular reasoning, I dont get it since I dont use logic and I dont use logic because I dont get it. Maybe I dont get it because it is not an evident proposition to me?.
You provide NO evidence for your claims, and you havent answered to the challenges that you have been given.
I've provided plenty of evidence for you to try and you simply reject it like your likeminded peers. Again it's not my problem.
You haven't. My peers and I are usually in disagreement with many things. Please prove the experiment I showed you to be false.
I have proven my claims of your hypothesis being wrong, and you havent disproven them.
No you haven't and yes I have.
Where have you explained why does denpressure's energy field generate more force when reduced?
Your hypothesis cant explain pendulums in a vacuum (or, if you only believe in partial vacuum, you cant explain the ascense in the amount of energy conservated by the pendulum, for that matter), since the field that causes (acording to you) the pendulum's movement has decreased.
Show me a pendulum in a vacuum?
A nice thing about the quoting system is that I can just go and quote you the experiment we sent you:
I dont know why doesnt anyone call on the bs that scepti execrates. You all seem to be falling for the typical weight/mass trolling he likes to use.
The truth is, rockets can work, independently of the prescence of measurable gravitatorial pull or gasseous countermass (atmosphere, for example), thanks to momentum. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) explains, rockets gain a deltaV based on the speed that fuel particles are expelled. This equation can be derived from Newton's laws and momentum. If scepti doesnt believe on momentum, I dare him to explain how Newton's cradle works BETTER at a vacuum:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes (http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes)
PS: Where's the youtube tag? I cant embed the player
THE FORCE THAT PULLS THE BALLS DOWN IS DECREASING ON A VACUUM CHAMBER, acording to denpressure.
There isn't any force that pulls. It's all push against push or resistance against resistance. Get some manual kitchen scales that can read below zero or set them to a specific weight and then try it out.
What makes the balls loose both vertical and horizontal speed, that is gained again when transversing the route once again on the way back to the balls? If you are gonna say "A field", you are correct, but you must say WHAT field and WHAT causes that field. Equations, and proof of the existance of the field would be nice.
When you address this clear challenge, your hypothesis cant be accepted, since evidence suggests it is false. Remember, this has NOTHING to do with RET being or not correct, or gravity. Your hypothesis is being evaluated on its own.
I'm not interested in whether you accept it or not. Anyone who cares to use their logic, it will help them understand how badly they've been duped by bogus science. What you decide is entirely up to you. You're a globalist so I expect nothing from you.
If you are going to start insulting me, we arent going to get along very well. By the way, you still havent addressed the field problem
PS: I thought I had sent this a long time ago, but aparently it didnt. I'll send it now
-
More proof.
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Shooting_the_Moon_with_Satellite_Laser_Ranging_999.html (http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Shooting_the_Moon_with_Satellite_Laser_Ranging_999.html)
-
This sort of attitude is typical of too many of sceptimatic's responses.....
I'm not interested in whether you accept it or not. Anyone who cares to use their logic, it will help them understand how badly they've been duped by bogus science. What you decide is entirely up to you. You're a globalist so I expect nothing from you.
It shows a completely closed mind; a mind that's not at all open to diametrically alternate concepts; an inflexible mind that refuses to even consider other peoples' points of view; a mind that's totally locked rigidly into one narrow perspective; an immature mind lacking the properties of rational thinking, logic, and reasoning.
Rather than think things through logically and methodically sceptimatic merely resorts to juvenile insults—like a petulant little kid stamping his foot—rather than doing the hard yards and coming up with any reasoned thinking to support his bizarre notions.
As a philosopher or a logician, sceptimatic would make a good house painter LOL.
-
More proof.
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Shooting_the_Moon_with_Satellite_Laser_Ranging_999.html (http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Shooting_the_Moon_with_Satellite_Laser_Ranging_999.html)
More bullcrap you mean. I proved the laser is garbage. I done it with the moon laser reflector and you people came out with a large heap of clap trap to get yourselves out of it.
I'm sure your memory hasn't gone as to when I showed the massive flaw.
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?
No wonder you people are easily fooled.
-
Looks to me that you are fooling yourself. If that is the case you need a giggle suit.
-
This sort of attitude is typical of too many of sceptimatic's responses.....
I'm not interested in whether you accept it or not. Anyone who cares to use their logic, it will help them understand how badly they've been duped by bogus science. What you decide is entirely up to you. You're a globalist so I expect nothing from you.
It shows a completely closed mind; a mind that's not at all open to diametrically alternate concepts; an inflexible mind that refuses to even consider other peoples' points of view; a mind that's totally locked rigidly into one narrow perspective; an immature mind lacking the properties of rational thinking, logic, and reasoning.
Rather than think things through logically and methodically sceptimatic merely resorts to juvenile insults—like a petulant little kid stamping his foot—rather than doing the hard yards and coming up with any reasoned thinking to support his bizarre notions.
As a philosopher or a logician, sceptimatic would make a good house painter LOL.
Scepti would be a terrible house painter.
"Can you please paint my house white?" - Owner
"How stupid are you? Clearly white is part of The Conspiracy(tm), only imbeciles with weak bladders and pee stained pants paint their houses white! I have 13 certifications from regionally recognized online tradeschools that tell me you are wrong. Clearly the house should be painted red!" - scepti
"No, I would really like it white." - Owner
"Would you like it white? How do you know you like it white? Who measured your 'like' of the color white? Only idiots trust that evidence! White doesnt even exist you sheep!" - scepti
"No, it exists, its right here, look." - Owner
<car door slams and scepti drives away in the face of concrete evidence>
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?
No wonder you people are easily fooled.
I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics? Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model. The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.
-
Found a mate for septic, just maybe they will get on.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Streetcap1&oq=Streetcap1&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrom (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Streetcap1&oq=Streetcap1&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrom)
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?
No wonder you people are easily fooled.
I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics? Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model. The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.
The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.
-
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? ???
-
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? ???
Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.
You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.
-
I get a bad reaction when I read the shit you post septic.
-
I get a bad reaction when I read the shit you post septic.
There's an ignore button you can use. Go to your profile and you will be able to put me on it. This should cure your bad reaction. Good luck.
-
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? ???
Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.
You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.
Im still waiting for you to disprove my job. Until then, stop claiming photon physics is wrong. Everything I do works. So put up or shut up. Your baseless claims are getting old.
-
Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushing against the atmosphere.
Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.
You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.
It never ceases to amaze me how effortlessly sceptimatic can reduce every known scientific fact to the nescient level of a 3-year-old pre-schooler.
I've often wondered if he's a kindergarten teacher, as their BA (Batchelor of Arts) qualification certainly doesn't include any science units whatsoever. His misconceptions about rocketry are astounding. Well, frankly, so is his knowledge [sic] of everything else scientific LOL.
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?
No wonder you people are easily fooled.
I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics? Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model. The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.
The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.
So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true? I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure. Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic? Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel. How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work? Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?
No wonder you people are easily fooled.
I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics? Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model. The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.
The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.
So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true? I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure. Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic? Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel. How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work? Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?
Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.
If rockets work better in lower pressure then ships work better in lower pressures, meaning their propellers will work better pushing against air rather than water. Is this the case ?
Stop kidding yourself and especially don't try to kid someone who knows better.
-
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? ???
Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.
You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.
The problem with your objection is that the "bogus physics" have the maths that give an outcome that match real world observations. You have not provided any maths, so how can you say that your "real physics" give the same outcome?
-
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? ???
Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.
You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.
The problem with your objection is that the "bogus physics" have the maths that give an outcome that match real world observations. You have not provided any maths, so how can you say that your "real physics" give the same outcome?
They have made up maths to suit the bogus theory, that's it.
Just like your planet distances and what not. Just made up crap to make believe.
When asked how you get the calculations, it always comes down to the same old stuff of, " oh you don't know trig" and "oh you don't understand redshift"...you know, classic garbage like that.
Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.
-
Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.
I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s2 value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine. If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth.
You keep going on about how everyone else is wrong and you are right, but you never offer a way for anyone else test the accuracy of your claims. Why is that?
-
Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.
I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s2 value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine. If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth.
Ok then, tell me how you did it and then tell me how it proved gravity.
-
Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.
I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s2 value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine. If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth.
Ok then, tell me how you did it and then tell me how it proved gravity.
You posted the video that proved the value.
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?
No wonder you people are easily fooled.
I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics? Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model. The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.
The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.
So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true? I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure. Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic? Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel. How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work? Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?
Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.
If rockets work better in lower pressure then ships work better in lower pressures, meaning their propellers will work better pushing against air rather than water. Is this the case ?
Stop kidding yourself and especially don't try to kid someone who knows better.
Rockets and props work on different principles. I want you to say you understand.
-
Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.
I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s2 value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine. If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth.
Ok then, tell me how you did it and then tell me how it proved gravity.
If what I did was a lie, then what does it matter? I want to know how to do it the right way.
-
I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.
What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?
No wonder you people are easily fooled.
I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics? Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model. The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.
The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.
Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.
It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.
So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true? I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure. Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic? Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel. How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work? Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?
Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.
If rockets work better in lower pressure then ships work better in lower pressures, meaning their propellers will work better pushing against air rather than water. Is this the case ?
Stop kidding yourself and especially don't try to kid someone who knows better.
Rockets and propellers work differently although they exploit the same laws of motion. Propellers take external liquid or gas and accelerate it back to push the vehicle forward and they need at atmosphere to work but a rocket generates it's own gas with a controlled explosion and ejects that gas out of the back and the lack of an atmosphere would make the gas expand out more violently and quickly which increases the efficiency of the engine. Does that make sense?
-
Monthy reminder that scepti's pet hypothesis is completelly disproven by this experiment, and that he still refuses to address this problem:
I dont know why doesnt anyone call on the bs that scepti execrates. You all seem to be falling for the typical weight/mass trolling he likes to use.
The truth is, rockets can work, independently of the prescence of measurable gravitatorial pull or gasseous countermass (atmosphere, for example), thanks to momentum. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) explains, rockets gain a deltaV based on the speed that fuel particles are expelled. This equation can be derived from Newton's laws and momentum. If scepti doesnt believe on momentum, I dare him to explain how Newton's cradle works BETTER at a vacuum:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes (http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes)
PS: Where's the youtube tag? I cant embed the player
-
Just a note also that there is little hope of Scepti understanding the principles of rocketry when he doesn't even understand the properties of a gas under pressure and couldn't explain Brownian motion.....
-
Just a note also that there is little hope of Scepti understanding the principles of rocketry when he doesn't even understand the properties of a gas under pressure and couldn't explain Brownian motion.....
I wouldn't be too sure about that Mainframes...
One of his recent rebuttals directed at Mikeman7918 was pretty convincing, and showed that he can mount a sound defence of his theories.
Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.
It's hard to argue with logic like that.