We can all agree that Air pressure is a known and measurable force that allows Airplanes to Fly...Yes.
... and keeps Cars on the ground when driving.No.
I have to disagree about how air pressure validates the existence of gravity... Even science reveals how gases possess no gravitational pull of themselves...Not true.
I remember an experiment that sandokhan presented to the members of the forum... Matter supposedly creates gravitational forces according to some "predictable formula." However...Actually plumb lines will deflect next to mountains. Other types of experments will also show mass has a gravitational pull.
When one takes a plumb-line and places it next to the Himalayan mountains there is no tilting of any kind... This fact proves gravity holds no relation to matter in the first place...
A Eye-Opening Fact...
If the universe was a vacuum, no air would remain on the entire earth... It is important to note that the pulling force of a complete vacuum always defeats gravity...
1.This applies to airplane wing shape where a partial vacuum is created behind the top portion of the wings creating lift...You don't need to call it a partial vacuum, it's just low pressure.
2.Also, look at vacuum pressure of your mouth through a straw or your vacuum cleaner... Gravity cannot defeat vacuums even slightly...Gravity is considered a weak force. One can simply jump off the ground to "defeat" it.
The universal theory of formation and stability cannot be applied in reality... Many more holes than adhesive... Present physics is 700 trillion buckets behind of information hydration...It's the best theory we have and makes the most sense when you look at the evidence.
you denied how vacuums have a greater pulling power than gravity... Your statement that gravity is a weak force constitutes a total divergence from the observable facts...Once again, vacuums don't have any pulling power. They can seem to overpower gravity but it's actually atmospheric pressure that is over powering gravity. Gravitation is weak, like I said, just jump in the air to overcome it.
Gravity cannot fight against a universal vacuum and does not have the strength to create a vacuum by itself...Gravity can fight against the vacuum of space and does. For evidence see planets and stars.
And that name of the experiment carries a certain meaning on the inside of it.... It most certainly is very suspiciously showing some agenda of a double intent...If you are going to complain about the experiment, at least claim it is old or something. The name? It's the mountain in Scotland.
She'll Lion?
Shield Lion? Looks like an agenda...
A supposed vacuum in space cannot be denied and it cannot be denied that I was touching on air pressure already...Yes, space is low pressure. But at the edge of the atmosphere, it is also low pressure.
Any topic started by someone who seriously believes in supernatural entities (gods, angels, devils) or paranormal phenomena (reincarnation, ghosts, invisibility) in all probability should be ignored.
People with such bizarre beliefs are often ill-equipped to deal with the concepts of 21st-century science, but instead prefer the myths expounded in a book cobbled together more than 2,000 years ago, by a disparate group of poorly-educated desert nomads, over a period of 400 years.
The fact of a person actually believing that it's air pressure which holds a motor vehicle to the road, and that gravity is affected by air pressure proves the point more than clearly.
I have to disagree about how air pressure validates the existence of gravity... Even science reveals how gases possess no gravitational pull of themselves...
I remember an experiment that sandokhan presented to the members of the forum... Matter supposedly creates gravitational forces according to some "predictable formula." However...
When one takes a plumb-line and places it next to the Himalayan mountains there is no tilting of any kind... This fact proves gravity holds no relation to matter in the first place...
A Eye-Opening Fact...
If the universe was a vacuum, no air would remain on the entire earth... It is important to note that the pulling force of a complete vacuum always defeats gravity...
1.This applies to airplane wing shape where a partial vacuum is created behind the top portion of the wings creating lift...
2.Also, look at vacuum pressure of your mouth through a straw or your vacuum cleaner... Gravity cannot defeat vacuums even slightly...
The universal theory of formation and stability cannot be applied in reality... Many more holes than adhesive... Present physics is 700 trillion buckets behind of information hydration...
Just like the weight of all the water in the ocean can crush you, the weight of all the air above you forces your denser body to "fall to the earth". Same reason a Helium balloon rises up until the air pressure gets to low and it bursts.Exactly. We have to rely on bullshit, yet the water is the perfect evidence of what's truly happening. The shills like to try and cover this stuff up because in plain and basic terms, it destroys the science they try to keep alive.
Just like the weight of all the water in the ocean can crush you, the weight of all the air above you forces your denser body to "fall to the earth". Same reason a Helium balloon rises up until the air pressure gets to low and it bursts.
To understand why atmospheric pressure answers all of the questions that gravity supposedly offers, you have to be prepared to go right back to the very basics of what forms atmospheric pressure.
When I say the basics, I mean the absolute simplistic basics that require no formulas, equations or scientific mumbo jumbo to get the picture.
Air (Less Dense)
___
YOU (Denser)
___
Water (Densest)
It is something beyond gravity... Gravity by itself cannot explain how all the air still remains on the planet... It is an intelligent force is what I am saying... A conscious living force that allows air to stay on the planet... It is beyond just explanations of air pressure...You have evidence of this? formulas? scientific data? when people put into question established theories like gravity or a round earth they need to be able to bak it up with credible evidence, something that has yet to be seen on this forum when trying to explain a flat earth or the absence of gravity.
It is something beyond gravity... Gravity by itself cannot explain how all the air still remains on the planet... It is an intelligent force is what I am saying... A conscious living force that allows air to stay on the planet... It is beyond just explanations of air pressure...
It is something beyond gravity... Gravity by itself cannot explain how all the air still remains on the planet... It is an intelligent force is what I am saying... A conscious living force that allows air to stay on the planet... It is beyond just explanations of air pressure...You have evidence of this? formulas? scientific data? when people put into question established theories like gravity or a round earth they need to be able to bak it up with credible evidence, something that has yet to be seen on this forum when trying to explain a flat earth or the absence of gravity.
A rocket moving out of a gravity well does not actually need to attain escape velocity to do so, but could achieve the same result at any speed with a suitable mode of propulsion and sufficient fuel.
Surely you mean 1.01kg/dm3 ??? ??? Or 1.01t/m3 ???Air (Less Dense)
___
YOU (Denser)
___
Water (Densest)
Fun fact: the average density of a human being is 1.01kg/m3 which is denser than water! Seawater is denser than humans, but not fresh water.
Next!
Surely you mean 1.01kg/dm3 ??? ??? Or 1.01t/m3 ???Air (Less Dense)
___
YOU (Denser)
___
Water (Densest)
Fun fact: the average density of a human being is 1.01kg/m3 which is denser than water! Seawater is denser than humans, but not fresh water.
Next!
I'm not quite willing to accept that an average person weighs just a tad over one kilogram per cubic meter ;)
The Schiellion experiment and the divergence of the plumb line being only 8 arc seconds (8/3600 of a degree) indicates the influence of a slight breeze or sunlight on one side of the wire... The wire would certainly bend in either direction depending of the time of day... We know this from metals ability to expand in heat and contract in cold...Breeze yes, sunlight, no. I'm sure they shielded the plumb line.
Also, magnetic attraction of ore inside of the mountain could also be an explanation... Trace amounts of iron create this effect...Possible. The link I provided showed some other experiments that found the same results, mass causes gravitation, with different techniques.
Remember the so-called landing of that recent probe on a comet? A gravitational pull was actually necessary for the project to be successful... So, the mountain being about the same size as a comet should create a divergence of at least three degrees... From what I understand, those figures were the original estimation...Why three degrees? Do you realize opposite of the mountains there is land where as opposite of the comet there is space?
Quote:It's a reference to sandokhans looney idea of the structure of an atom and also his looney ideas of electromagnetic radiation.
"I make a living doing what sandokhan says is impossible."
It is my considered opinion that a lot of us make a living doing what sandokhan says is impossible, using things that do not exist, which are based on studies by scientists and developed by engineers who are liars.....Also according to sceptimatic as well as sandokhan.
It is something beyond gravity... Gravity by itself cannot explain how all the air still remains on the planet.Yes it can. Air has mass. The earth—like all other bodies—exerts an attractive force upon other bodies. Therefore the atmosphere, just like snails and cars and humans "stick" to the earth's surface.
It is an intelligent force is what I am saying... A conscious living force that allows air to stay on the planet... It is beyond just explanations of air pressure...Only one of your assertions is true. It is beyond the "explanation" of air pressure; it has nothing at all to do with air pressure—which operates equally in all directions on the human body.
It is something beyond gravity... Gravity by itself cannot explain how all the air still remains on the planet.Yes it can. Air has mass. The earth—like all other bodies—exerts an attractive force upon other bodies. Therefore the atmosphere, just like snails and cars and humans "stick" to the earth's surface.QuoteIt is an intelligent force is what I am saying... A conscious living force that allows air to stay on the planet... It is beyond just explanations of air pressure...Only one of your assertions is true. It is beyond the "explanation" of air pressure; it has nothing at all to do with air pressure—which operates equally in all directions on the human body.
There is no "intelligent" force in operation. Forces do not possess intelligence—that's the realm of living creatures (at the very least).
If you insist on crediting the effects of what science calls gravity on some "intelligent life force" can you please cite references that support this claim? Or, even better, define how you think that life force came into existence, what caused it, and why it operates as you claim it does?
It is something beyond gravity... Gravity by itself cannot explain how all the air still remains on the planet.Yes it can. Air has mass. The earth—like all other bodies—exerts an attractive force upon other bodies. Therefore the atmosphere, just like snails and cars and humans "stick" to the earth's surface.QuoteIt is an intelligent force is what I am saying... A conscious living force that allows air to stay on the planet... It is beyond just explanations of air pressure...Only one of your assertions is true. It is beyond the "explanation" of air pressure; it has nothing at all to do with air pressure—which operates equally in all directions on the human body.
There is no "intelligent" force in operation. Forces do not possess intelligence—that's the realm of living creatures (at the very least).
If you insist on crediting the effects of what science calls gravity on some "intelligent life force" can you please cite references that support this claim? Or, even better, define how you think that life force came into existence, what caused it, and why it operates as you claim it does?
Maybe it's time to go back to school
Professor Eric Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.
“For me, gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde told the Times. Of course, the apple will fall to the ground, but the physical laws governing that action may not be the way science has viewed it for the past 300 years.
Interesting. I'm pleased you found this.It is something beyond gravity... Gravity by itself cannot explain how all the air still remains on the planet.Yes it can. Air has mass. The earth—like all other bodies—exerts an attractive force upon other bodies. Therefore the atmosphere, just like snails and cars and humans "stick" to the earth's surface.QuoteIt is an intelligent force is what I am saying... A conscious living force that allows air to stay on the planet... It is beyond just explanations of air pressure...Only one of your assertions is true. It is beyond the "explanation" of air pressure; it has nothing at all to do with air pressure—which operates equally in all directions on the human body.
There is no "intelligent" force in operation. Forces do not possess intelligence—that's the realm of living creatures (at the very least).
If you insist on crediting the effects of what science calls gravity on some "intelligent life force" can you please cite references that support this claim? Or, even better, define how you think that life force came into existence, what caused it, and why it operates as you claim it does?
Maybe it's time to go back to school
Professor Eric Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.
“For me, gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde told the Times. Of course, the apple will fall to the ground, but the physical laws governing that action may not be the way science has viewed it for the past 300 years.
Siphoning disproves gravity.
Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
Try again.
Try again septic.Reading that would hurt. I saw the word 'gravity' and immediately knew that you studied the word and so it came to pass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon)
Try thinking a bit, unless it hurts.
Maybe it's time to go back to school
Professor Eric Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.
“For me, gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde told the Times. Of course, the apple will fall to the ground, but the physical laws governing that action may not be the way science has viewed it for the past 300 years.
It's coming from a man who is a professor in a university, scientist, quantum theorist no less, how can you even consider anything he says to have any value? Oh yes it superficially rhymes with what you want to believe. Quite a cloak turn from you.Maybe it's time to go back to schoolInteresting. I'm pleased you found this.
Professor Eric Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.
“For me, gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde told the Times. Of course, the apple will fall to the ground, but the physical laws governing that action may not be the way science has viewed it for the past 300 years.
Siphoning disproves gravity.How does it do that?
A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small. Try again.I think sceptimatic should be the one to "try again".
Any ridged closed container disproves denpressure.No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
Try again.
Wow, he didn't say it doesn't have pressure in it. He said it disproves your fantasy.
No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
Try again.
*Sigh* Forget about room sized vacuum chambers. The simplest vacuum chamber is in a mercury barometer.Good example. The space above the mercury is probably the simplest way to easily create a near-perfect vacuum. I guess there'd be one or two stray diatomic molecules of N2 and O2 floating around, plus a few molecules of CO2 and H2O, but nothing to upset the basic vacuum principle. I guess we'll now await sceptimatic's demolition of this setup LOL.
septic a hot air balloon has the same pressure inside and out. Are they some sort of RE magic?.No remember, objects move to higher pressure from lower pressure. When strong wind blows in your face it makes you fly forward into it.
No remember, objects move to higher pressure from lower pressure. When strong wind blows in your face it makes you fly forward into it.
*Sigh* Forget about room sized vacuum chambers. The simplest vacuum chamber is in a mercury barometer.It's not a vacuum. It's a low pressure area with the use of mercury as a dense liquid metal that can keep that low pressure constant that allows the change in air pressure to raise it against that low pressure without much resistance, meaning the mercury can squash the more expanded molecules inside that area quite easily...enough to give us readings.
(http://www.chem.arizona.edu/tpp/chemt/CAn/Graphics/Gas%20Law/baromdiagram2.jpe)
septic a hot air balloon has the same pressure inside and out. Are they some sort of RE magic?.Care to expand (pardon the pun) on this?
It would pay you to actually pay attention to what's been said, then you won't come out with this crap.septic a hot air balloon has the same pressure inside and out. Are they some sort of RE magic?.No remember, objects move to higher pressure from lower pressure. When strong wind blows in your face it makes you fly forward into it.
Well, just like a rocket in space, you could try blowing your own sail and see how far you get. Try it. ;DNo remember, objects move to higher pressure from lower pressure. When strong wind blows in your face it makes you fly forward into it.
AW! Now I realise why I don't do very well in sailing races. My sails are inside out, or upside down, or something!
It's not a vacuum.Yes it is. I'm sure Dumbo posts this sort of rubbish just to stir the pot LOL. Nobody could be this scientifically unaware of basic principles surely. Or could they?
It's a low pressure area with the use of mercury as a dense liquid metal that can keep that low pressure constant that allows the change in air pressure to raise it against that low pressure without much resistance, meaning the mercury can squash the more expanded molecules inside that area quite easily...enough to give us readingsAgain, this is nothing more than nonsensical gibberish. It doesn't even qualify as "pseudoscience"—and even the most ardent flat earthers will agree with this.
That's all it is.LOL... this sort of comment is typical of how simply Dumbo (allegedly) invalidates centuries-worth of complicated scientific research and theories by producing some bizarre alternative from his dream-factory.
No true vacuum is possible on Earth and anyone who thinks that the void left in that barometer is simply just free molecules/matter just bobbing about, will never understand the reality of it all.It's also hard to believe that Dumbo is incapable of comprehending even the simple principles of the mercury barometer—invented 400 years ago—and used to this day.
I'm tempted to draw a diagram but it'll take too long and will be discarded as usual...This of course is Dumbo's standard "reasoning" for never drawing any diagrams; he 's too busy (despite posting dozens of comments every day LOL) or his diagram will be laughed out of the debate. The latter indicates that he lacks the courage of his convictions, which is a more than frequent occurrence whenever he's backed into a corner on these forums. Earlier this year, he provided a rough sketch of his proposal for a working flat earth map, and which he promised to post in its fully developed form later on. Did that ever happen? Of course not—and it never will. The guy is so full of hot air he could go into the sightseeing balloons tourist industry.
...so it's about using your mind to think.Which is an odd thing to say, coming as it does from somebody who never follows their own advice. ;D
Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance. This all points to gravity NOT being caused by air pressure. I think a better way to explain this, Mr. Sceptimatic, is by showing us some actual math. Why is it that no matter the air pressure in a 'not'-vacuum, objects fall at the same rate? And if your hypothesis claims that they wouldn't fall at the same rate, explain why not?No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
Try again.
I'm not here to prove you all wrong. It's not your fault that you bought into it all. I'm here to help you think for yourself whilst also destroying the indoctrinated view, as best I can.Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance. This all points to gravity NOT being caused by air pressure. I think a better way to explain this, Mr. Sceptimatic, is by showing us some actual math. Why is it that no matter the air pressure in a 'not'-vacuum, objects fall at the same rate? And if your hypothesis claims that they wouldn't fall at the same rate, explain why not?No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
Try again.
I would love if you conducted a simple experiment to support your claim. If you conduct this experiment, and it concludes that your hypothesis is correct, you will earn millions upon millions in research money, and a nobel prize, for completely changing our entire understanding of reality.
Here's what you do:
1. Design a low pressure chamber which can, from the inside, drop an object and measure its velocity, and send the information wirelessly to a receiver. Make sure it can make multiple drops for scientific redundancy.
2. Engage the drop from sea level, record your findings.
3. Attach this chamber to a large weather balloon. Engage the drop from 50,000 or so feet. Record your findings.
edit: I should add that you should also record the air pressures in the chamber at every drop. It's not necessary, but it would be good information nonetheless.
Go on, scepti! Prove us all wrong!
...This goes against what you believe.
Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.
Start to picture this scene.
Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.
Ok, we accept this, right?
Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.
No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.
You need to understand what I'm saying if you are to have any chance of grasping the entirety of it all, which starts at the very bottom where mass/density is concerned.
Let's see if you grasp it.
Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.
Start to picture this scene.
Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.
Ok, we accept this, right?
Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.
No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.
This is why you must pay attention to everything I've said in the past. Grabbing snippets and doing your own jigsaw will just confuse you....This goes against what you believe.
Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.
Start to picture this scene.
Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.
Ok, we accept this, right?
Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.
No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.
First imagine dropping the board in atmosphere after you picked it up. As you claim, the air stacked above it pushes it down, not gravity.(we drilled wholes in it to stop it from compressing air underneath.)
Now imaging dropping the board in a low pressure environment, the air stacked above it pushes it down, but since there is much less air stacked above it, it pushes faster? No, it would push slower.
So, try again.
It is not harder to drop to the floor. Just let go. And it falls at the same speed as a coin.No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
Please provide some measured proof. This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.It is not harder to drop to the floor. Just let go. And it falls at the same speed as a coin.No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.
This is why you must pay attention to everything I've said in the past. Grabbing snippets and doing your own jigsaw will just confuse you.Not only did I "snippet" i didn't even read the crap above it. Not worth my time.
Think about the board itself and forget about holes as they aren't needed, nor do you have a drill.Yes, a board will displace it's volume in air mass. It cannot displace enough air equal to it's mass. Ships can float because they displace enough water mass to equal the ships mass.
Anyway.
When you pick an object up, what are you doing?
The answer is, you are taking that object from the deck where it is displacing it's own mass against the air pressure.
Once you remove it to whatever height, you are forcing that air pressure to replace the gap left by the board and now the mass of that board is now displacing that air at whatever height. See what I'm saying?
The board is creating it's own pressure against it whether it's on the deck or at a height, by displacement.The displacement you talk about is equal on all sides, like air pressure. You wouldn't get a reading with everything being equal as it cancels out.
The only way to find out the weight is to use that displacement of pressure upon it by man made measurement (scales) that measure the pressure that the board displaces.
If you can't grasp it then fair enough, just go with what you believe you know.Not only am I going to go with what I believe in, I destroy what you believe in.
I'm not here to prove you all wrong. It's not your fault that you bought into it all. I'm here to help you think for yourself whilst also destroying the indoctrinated view, as best I can.
It matters not whether you think I'm doing a piss poor job of it, because what anyone thinks about me or my theories, is irrelevant.
I'm also not of the holding my breath type to think that one day I'll actually prove what you leared is wrong and have it accepted. It simply won't happen for obvious reasons.
Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance.
As for the above, bold. You need to understand what I'm saying if you are to have any chance of grasping the enirety of it all, which starts at the very bottom where mass/density is concerned.
Let's see if you grasp it.
Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.
Start to picture this scene.
Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.
Ok, we accept this, right?
Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.
No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.
I don't need to provide anything to you. Either grasp it or don't. Either way is fine by me.Please provide some measured proof. This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.It is not harder to drop to the floor. Just let go. And it falls at the same speed as a coin.No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.
You carry on, I'm done explaining to you.This is why you must pay attention to everything I've said in the past. Grabbing snippets and doing your own jigsaw will just confuse you.Not only did I "snippet" i didn't even read the crap above it. Not worth my time.QuoteThink about the board itself and forget about holes as they aren't needed, nor do you have a drill.Yes, a board will displace it's volume in air mass. It cannot displace enough air equal to it's mass. Ships can float because they displace enough water mass to equal the ships mass.
Anyway.
When you pick an object up, what are you doing?
The answer is, you are taking that object from the deck where it is displacing it's own mass against the air pressure.
Once you remove it to whatever height, you are forcing that air pressure to replace the gap left by the board and now the mass of that board is now displacing that air at whatever height. See what I'm saying?QuoteThe board is creating it's own pressure against it whether it's on the deck or at a height, by displacement.The displacement you talk about is equal on all sides, like air pressure. You wouldn't get a reading with everything being equal as it cancels out.
The only way to find out the weight is to use that displacement of pressure upon it by man made measurement (scales) that measure the pressure that the board displaces.QuoteIf you can't grasp it then fair enough, just go with what you believe you know.Not only am I going to go with what I believe in, I destroy what you believe in.
The proof is in the pudding. Prove it.I don't need to provide anything to you. Either grasp it or don't. Either way is fine by me.Please provide some measured proof. This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.It is not harder to drop to the floor. Just let go. And it falls at the same speed as a coin.No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.
Not only is this completely irrelevant, it doesn't even answer my questions. You literally described air resistance and pressure. What does that have to do with anything? I think everyone here agrees that high air pressure causes things to slow down. This doesn't help your case at all.This is my case.
Now answer the question, straight. Don't argue semantics. Why do things fall at mostly the same rate, (within an altitude of around 0-100,000ft) within a chamber with equal regulated pressure, regardless of altitude- sea level to the edge of the atmosphere? If you think they don't, then conduct my proposed experiment. If you think they do, then your entire hypothesis is incorrect.Only objects that are identical will fall at the same rate.
If you're having trouble figuring out why my experiment is relevant, think about this:No, I claim atmospheric pressure is the real reason things work on Earth and gravity is a made up lie.
1. You claim air pressure causes gravity.
2. This means, the higher in altitude you go, there should be a change in the rate of gravity, because of decreased air pressure.Gravity is a lie.
3. At 100,000 feet, gravity is 9.71 m/sAs above.
4. At sea level, gravity is 9.8 m/sAs above.
5. At sea level, atmospheric pressure is 1 atmosphere.Fine.
6. At 100,000 feet, atmospheric pressure is 11 millibars. That's 0.011 atmospheres, one hundred times less than sea level.Show me how you got this figure and by what means did you get the info for it by what craft that measured it?
7. If your hypothesis is correct, why is it that gravity only changes by .1 m/s while air pressure decreases one hundred times over?Gravity is bunkum and air pressure changes due to expanded molecules the higher you go due to less compression of the stack to the dome.
By conducting my experiment, you can prove that the effect of gravity is directly correlated to air pressure.Gravity will never be proved as it is made up. Air pressure is prived, you just won't accept it because your mind is fixated on gravity.
Obvious to anybody else, gravity isn't due to air pressure, or else objects in vacuums would float.Objects in a true vacuum will theoretically float. Infact they will be in suspended animation, as the Earth is.
septic, get a lump of lead and a block of pine the same size and shape. How come denpressure works better on the lead?.Because the lead is much less porous and cannot absorb the pressure so it's dense body repels that pressure. Pine absorbs a certain amount meaning it's full mass is not repelling all of that pressure.
You can say that.The proof is in the pudding. Prove it.I don't need to provide anything to you. Either grasp it or don't. Either way is fine by me.Please provide some measured proof. This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.It is not harder to drop to the floor. Just let go. And it falls at the same speed as a coin.No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.
Is the rate of fall of an object dependant on the atmospheric pressure that day?
And now we are back to this thread that destroys everything you say.You carry on. I can't help you.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62324.msg1640096#msg1640096 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62324.msg1640096#msg1640096)
Sceptimatic-I can't answer something I don't believe in.
Thanks for not answering my question, as I expected.
1. When I say gravity, I thought it was obvious I was labeling the observable phenomena of things being pushed down. So, it's kind of annoying that you completely disregarded everything I said to once again argue semantics. Nice job, you're pretty predictable.Then don't mention gravity and expect me to do anything with it. If it doesn't exist then it doesn't exist. Why don't you tell me aboout unicorns?
2. As for my measurements, I used a very consistent method called math.A consistent method for what? what aid did you use to come to your answers?
3. If you aren't a complete charlatan, then you can observe my figures yourself by conducting your own experiments. After all, you're the one making the claim. If you expect us do conduct experiments, we expect you to aswell. Is that reasonable?I can't conduct experiments on something that does not exist. The same way I cannot shoe a unicorn.
4. "Only objects that are identical will fall at the same rate." No. No no no, no. No. Jesus Christ. How about this Mr. Scepti: Jump of tall building at the same time an aerodynamically (probably won't be very aerodynamic) similar but lighter model of you is dropped from the same height. Hopefully there will be someone who can record who hit the ground first.Brainiac - Do heavy objects fall faster than light objects ? Aristotle vs Galileo (http://#)
5. Oh but of course, you can't notice what hit the ground first, because the difference is so small. So Mr. Scepti, design your own experiment which allows us to accurately measure what falls first. Oh wait, you cannot make an accurate experiment, because the only way to do so would be in a vacuum, and you don't believe that we can create a good enough vacuum.The one above is enough to prove my point.
6. "...molecules expand..." What evidence do you have that molecules expand? Or hey, let me be you bungos for a day. What evidence do you have for the existence of molecules? Get it?All I can use is what I see, plus logic and common sense by observations in evacuation chambers on elements. Disregard it if you wish.
So what do we end up with? A completely unfalsifiable hypothesis, and a lot of unanswered questions. Thanks. So much for your so called Occam's Razor.You take it however you want. I believe in what i say, what you do, is your affair.
Ok septic, get some spongy lead from a car battery and a bit of smooth plastic the same size and shape. The lead is still heavier and it is the most porous.Spongy lead? ;D
SMDDD
Earlier this year, along with another couple of scientists, sceptimatic carried out his own research which used a specially developed and expensive laser system, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in order to prove unequivocally that the earth was flat. He also sent his completed research results to another four world-renowned scientists for their perusal.
3. If you aren't a complete charlatan, then you can observe my figures yourself by conducting your own experiments. After all, you're the one making the claim. If you expect us do conduct experiments, we expect you to as well. Is that reasonable?
6. "...molecules expand..." What evidence do you have that molecules expand?
All I can use is what I see, plus logic and common sense...
Ok septic, get some spongy lead from a car battery and a bit of smooth plastic the same size and shape. The lead is still heavier and it is the most porous.Spongy lead? ;D
SMDDD
Brainiac - Do heavy objects fall faster than light objects ? Aristotle vs Galileo (http://#)
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.
The apparatus constructed by Cavendish was a torsion balance made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system.[8] The experiment measured the faint gravitational attraction between the small balls and the larger ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
After you play with your balls tell us what think of this.
Think was a joke sorry.
Put up a topic and explain it all to me. ;DOk septic, get some spongy lead from a car battery and a bit of smooth plastic the same size and shape. The lead is still heavier and it is the most porous.Spongy lead? ;D
SMDDD
You don't know how lead acid car batteries work septic?. Lift your game boy, that makes you look real dumb.
Is your argumentative strategy to purposefully distract your opponent into a completely irrelevant argument?I'm not distracting you into anything. You appear to be getting into a frenzy over someone you clearly think is a nutcase who knows nothing. So my questions is - why? why, if you're so smart and know it all, do you need any answers from me that you are simply just going to disregard, anyway?
Answer the question Sceptimatic, the question which I have proposed twice now. Why do things fall at mostly the same rate, (within an altitude of around 0-100,000ft) within a chamber with equal regulated pressure, regardless of altitude- sea level to the edge of the atmosphere? If you think they don't then conduct my experiment.It's not an easy question to answer as it depends on the objects and their make up as to how they fare against atmospheric friction. There's no clear answer unless you perform all the experiments at all heights but it should be clear that the proof is there in what I said.
"A consistent method for what? what aid did you use to come to your answers?" Fine Scepti, whatever, I'm just blindly following the experiments conducted by thousands of individuals around the world with completely different agendas and cultural priorities. Honestly, it's really irrelevant.Well come on then, name me the experiments you have done to prove what you believe is happening. Don't just mention people all around the worlds circle - show me.
It would be nice, instead of you accusing us of not conducting experiments, for YOU to conduct an experiment. Now, you claimed to have conducted an experiment on a 2 kilometer ice shelf with other scientists and have finished and sent your findings. How's that going?It went fantastic and is ongoing. You can accept this or not, I'm not arsed which as you're nothing to me.
It's so obvious you're avoiding the experiment. I laid it out to you, the experiment I proposed in my first post, and was only referring to that experiment. But you dodged the question. That experiment does not require a belief in gravity. Jesus.What experiment?
Your video: (http://) Did you even watch the end?! That's hilarious! You disproved yourself! Air resistance my friend, the only way to conduct that experiment correctly is with minimal air resistance.Did you even watch the two balls. I get told, time and time again that two objects that are similar, as in the two balls will fall at the same rate because they are the same shape, so air resistance does not count. Even John so called brainiac Tickle said the same and all the other scientists....but now, air resistance plays a part....how weird, eh? It's what I've been telling you all along, so don't mention me watching the end bit, because the same thing would apply.
What experiments and/or observations have you conducted to prove molecules expand at higher altitudes?Using a chamber with the evacuation of pressure to expand a balloon, freeze water, etc, etc, etc. It mimicks higher altitude expansion of matter/molecules or whatever you now want to call them.
So. We can't prove molecules expand. You haven't answered my original question, and you don't want to conduct my experiment. We're back to where we started: An unproven hypothesis.Yes I have proved they expand.
Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance. This all points to gravity NOT being caused by air pressure. I think a better way to explain this, Mr. Sceptimatic, is by showing us some actual math. Why is it that no matter the air pressure in a 'not'-vacuum, objects fall at the same rate? And if your hypothesis claims that they wouldn't fall at the same rate, explain why not?No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
Try again.
I would love if you conducted a simple experiment to support your claim. If you conduct this experiment, and it concludes that your hypothesis is correct, you will earn millions upon millions in research money, and a nobel prize, for completely changing our entire understanding of reality.
Here's what you do:
1. Design a low pressure chamber which can, from the inside, drop an object and measure its velocity, and send the information wirelessly to a receiver. Make sure it can make multiple drops for scientific redundancy.
2. Engage the drop from sea level, record your findings.
3. Attach this chamber to a large weather balloon. Engage the drop from 50,000 or so feet. Record your findings.
edit: I should add that you should also record the air pressures in the chamber at every drop. It's not necessary, but it would be good information nonetheless.
Go on, scepti! Prove us all wrong!
The objects probably did fall noticeably faster which is why they probably slowed the video down. LOLIt seems to be a tell tale with all this stuff, doesn't it.
The objects probably did fall noticeably faster which is why they probably slowed the video down. LOLWell, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance. This all points to gravity NOT being caused by air pressure. I think a better way to explain this, Mr. Sceptimatic, is by showing us some actual math. Why is it that no matter the air pressure in a 'not'-vacuum, objects fall at the same rate? And if your hypothesis claims that they wouldn't fall at the same rate, explain why not?No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.Siphoning disproves gravity.Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.
Try again.
I would love if you conducted a simple experiment to support your claim. If you conduct this experiment, and it concludes that your hypothesis is correct, you will earn millions upon millions in research money, and a nobel prize, for completely changing our entire understanding of reality.
Here's what you do:
1. Design a low pressure chamber which can, from the inside, drop an object and measure its velocity, and send the information wirelessly to a receiver. Make sure it can make multiple drops for scientific redundancy.
2. Engage the drop from sea level, record your findings.
3. Attach this chamber to a large weather balloon. Engage the drop from 50,000 or so feet. Record your findings.
edit: I should add that you should also record the air pressures in the chamber at every drop. It's not necessary, but it would be good information nonetheless.
Go on, scepti! Prove us all wrong!
"depends on the objects and their make up as to how they fare against atmospheric friction..."The chamber is of equal low regulated pressure, atmospheric friction is not a dependent variable. As for the objects composition, how about a golf ball? Now, answer the question.
"...name the experiments you have done..."When I was younger, I was gifted a handheld barometer (I loved science, don't judge). I lived in Venezuela at the time, and if you know anything about its geography, you'll know that the region is (especially in northern Caracas) very mountainous. The highest peak, which I hiked, is about 2,700 meters above sea level. I remember getting a reading of 710 millibars. It was a hot day, as it usually is there, so it was 18 millibars lower in pressure than the average. That's the thing, my findings were consistent with the findings of other scientists who conducted the same research, and also used weather balloons to calculate the pressure at much higher altitudes. Also, I've been on trips via Cessna and Piper around the Yucatan peninsula, and usually sat in the co-pilots seat. There was always a plain altimeter, plus a barometer which displayed in atmospheric units. I remember very clearly (this was around a year ago in a Cessna Grand Caravan) we were cruising at around 6000 meters, and the atmospheric pressure read 440 millibars. Once again consistent with the data presented by scientists.
"It went fantastic and is ongoing. You can accept this or not, I'm not arsed which as you're nothing to me."If you're not going to present any proof or plain data, and if you don't think you should have to show us anything, then what in the hell is the point in any of this. This argument. This forum. Why are you even trying to argue with us? You've got, I'm guessing, some or most of your results, you're arguing with us about the validity of your hypothesis and experiments, and you refuse to present any data/documentation or plain proof you even did the experiments.
"What experiment?"Oh my god... I'm going to quote myself, and repeat myself for the third time now, "the experiment I laid out to you in my first post." -Jet Fission
"Did you watch the two balls..."Did you watch the car and the tire? For the second time, air resistance. You cannot perform this experiment reliably with high air resistance. I'm sure dozens of people have told you this but you don't listen. Your video, even if at the end it proved you wrong, is completely unscientific T.V bologna. I sure hope that you, Mr. Sceptimatic, have a higher standard for scientific experiments, like removing all of the unnecessary variables (this is literally high school science right here), considering you claim to have done some of your own. Now, air resistance is a very major factor in the velocity of things on the planet, hopefully you've realized. In ideal conditions, without air resistance, all objects will fall at the same time. Heavier objects require more energy to move, light objects require less. This effect cancels itself out, both objects gain the same velocity. It's not even physics, it's common sense. Now you factor in air resistance. What happens? The heavier object, like I said, requires more energy to move, so the air is going to do a horrible job at slowing it down. Lighter objects require much less energy to move, so air is going to be able to slow it down greatly. Get it? Now, try the experiment in a vacuum chamber, like I have, and you'll realize how ridiculous this is. Profit.
"Using a chamber with the evacuation of pressure to expand a balloon, freeze water, etc, etc, etc. It mimicks higher altitude expansion of matter/molecules or whatever you now want to call them."Alright then, let's see your results. Your data. Give me some documentation. Back to your previous point about my experiments, which I know you're going to bring up here as well, get a weather balloon and attach a barometer and altimeter on to it. Give me your data. Because as of right now, all of the atmospheric data, as I have demonstrated a few replies ago, has demonstrated your hypothesis to be false. You claim that the data is actually something else. Prove it. Get a high altitude weather balloon. They're only around $200-$300, it's a pretty good investment. In fact, I promise, that if you prove that all the alleged conspiratory atmospheric and gravitational data is false, by using that weather balloon, I will personally pay back your investment. I bet though, that you're going to pull the "I don't need to prove anything to you" card. If that's the case, then once again:
"Yes I have proved they expand."See above.
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.
The apparatus constructed by Cavendish was a torsion balance made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system.[8] The experiment measured the faint gravitational attraction between the small balls and the larger ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
After you play with your balls tell us what think of this.
Think was a joke sorry.
A battery cell consists of two lead plates a positive plate covered with a paste of lead dioxide and a negative made of sponge lead,
http://www.progressivedyn.com/battery_basics.html (http://www.progressivedyn.com/battery_basics.html)
They start cars septic.
I don't think you're a nutcase. I don't know you, so I can't make that assessment. Who knows, maybe all of your experimentation and all of those credentials and scientific reports are true. Too bad you can't prove it.Too bad you can't prove anything you're saying.
The chamber is of equal low regulated pressure, atmospheric friction is not a dependent variable. As for the objects composition, how about a golf ball? Now, answer the question.What about a golf ball?
When I was younger, I was gifted a handheld barometer (I loved science, don't judge). I lived in Venezuela at the time, and if you know anything about its geography, you'll know that the region is (especially in northern Caracas) very mountainous. The highest peak, which I hiked, is about 2,700 meters above sea level. I remember getting a reading of 710 millibars. It was a hot day, as it usually is there, so it was 18 millibars lower in pressure than the average. That's the thing, my findings were consistent with the findings of other scientists who conducted the same research, and also used weather balloons to calculate the pressure at much higher altitudes. Also, I've been on trips via Cessna and Piper around the Yucatan peninsula, and usually sat in the co-pilots seat. There was always a plain altimeter, plus a barometer which displayed in atmospheric units. I remember very clearly (this was around a year ago in a Cessna Grand Caravan) we were cruising at around 6000 meters, and the atmospheric pressure read 440 millibars. Once again consistent with the data presented by scientists.I'm not sure what you're trying to prove to me, here.
As for my data on the speed of gravity (the label for the phenomena we see of things seeming to want to go downwards, don't pull that "gravity doesn't exist" thing on me, you know exactly what I mean), I've been to a few physics/rocket learning programs as a kid, and one the experiments we always do is getting a vacuum chamber, and dropping coins and paper clips from the inside. Two lasers are put at the top and bottom of the chamber, and velocity always was always the same no matter what was dropped, and consistent with the research and formula for g. As for where I got 9.7 m/s? Math, but it's really irrelevant, since there is only a .1 m/s change in velocity, it doesn't even need to be accounted for at the height I proposed anyway. My point still stands, it's just a consistent velocity.There's always pressure. Earth cannot survive without it. It doesn't matter how low it goes, there's still resistance and as long as there's resistance, then things will never fall at the same rate, unless they are identical in every way.
If you're not going to present any proof or plain data, and if you don't think you should have to show us anything, then what in the hell is the point in any of this. This argument. This forum. Why are you even trying to argue with us? You've got, I'm guessing, some or most of your results, you're arguing with us about the validity of your hypothesis and experiments, and you refuse to present any data/documentation or plain proof you even did the experiments.The point is to make people use their brains. To think. To question what you've believed to be true all your life, without actually having any physical evidence and not being able to verify anything.You make no f*ing sense.
Did you watch the car and the tire? For the second time, air resistance. You cannot perform this experiment reliably with high air resistance. I'm sure dozens of people have told you this but you don't listen. Your video, even if at the end it proved you wrong, is completely unscientific T.V bologna. I sure hope that you, Mr. Sceptimatic, have a higher standard for scientific experiments, like removing all of the unnecessary variables (this is literally high school science right here), considering you claim to have done some of your own. Now, air resistance is a very major factor in the velocity of things on the planet, hopefully you've realized.Yep the car and the tyre. A classic con. The real truth was right tehre with the two balls.
In ideal conditions, without air resistance, all objects will fall at the same time.This will never happen and cannot happen.
Heavier objects require more energy to move, light objects require less. This effect cancels itself out, both objects gain the same velocity. It's not even physics, it's common sense.Saying it does not make it so.
Now you factor in air resistance. What happens? The heavier object, like I said, requires more energy to move, so the air is going to do a horrible job at slowing it down. Lighter objects require much less energy to move, so air is going to be able to slow it down greatly. Get it?Of course I get it and you're just explaining why heavier objects fall faster. You're basically killing off your gravity all by yourself.
Now, try the experiment in a vacuum chamber, like I have, and you'll realize how ridiculous this is. Profit.In fantasy world of no air resistance at all, all objects would appear to fall exactly the same. The problem is, this cannot happen in real life for us humans, as we live under friction.
Alright then, let's see your results. Your data. Give me some documentation. Back to your previous point about my experiments, which I know you're going to bring up here as well, get a weather balloon and attach a barometer and altimeter on to it. Give me your data. Because as of right now, all of the atmospheric data, as I have demonstrated a few replies ago, has demonstrated your hypothesis to be false.You've demonstarted nothing of what I've said, to be false. I've demonstarted by logic that you are buying into something that does not exist, (gravity).
You claim that the data is actually something else. Prove it. Get a high altitude weather balloon. They're only around $200-$300, it's a pretty good investment. In fact, I promise, that if you prove that all the alleged conspiratory atmospheric and gravitational data is false, by using that weather balloon, I will personally pay back your investment.I don't actually know what a weather balloon is supposed to prove.
I bet though, that you're going to pull the "I don't need to prove anything to you" card. If that's the case, then once again:The same point as to why you're arguing by using nothing more than words to tell me that you are right and I'm wrong. I'm counteracting it. It's called debate or conversation.What. Is. The. Point. In. Arguing. About. Any. Of. This.
You know, it would be awesome if you could come to my VoIP Teamspeak 3 server so we can discuss this easily. I promise no shouting, ad hominem, jokes/personal attacks. You can leave if that happens.What is this all about?
What are you trying to prove? Have you actually read up on what I've been saying, or just jumping in and typing?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.
The apparatus constructed by Cavendish was a torsion balance made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system.[8] The experiment measured the faint gravitational attraction between the small balls and the larger ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
After you play with your balls tell us what think of this.
Think was a joke sorry.A battery cell consists of two lead plates a positive plate covered with a paste of lead dioxide and a negative made of sponge lead,
http://www.progressivedyn.com/battery_basics.html (http://www.progressivedyn.com/battery_basics.html)
They start cars septic.
No answer septic. You seem to shut up when the going gets hard, just all your flatwit mates.
The mere fact that many people are questioning things should be enough thought to understand that something's are not what they appear to be.
"What experiment?"I had to clarify this 3 times before he understood what experiment I was referring to.
"What about the golf ball?"Read Scepti, read.
"I don't actually know what a weather balloon is supposed to prove."The experiment Scepti. Remember? Remember your ideas on air pressure which don't make any sense? Read between the lines, for god's sake.
"The mere fact that you are using a small evacuation chamber to think you have a point, is not the true picture.We were using a 30 foot tall clear PVC pipe. It took an hour and a half for most of the pressure to be evacuated. What makes it even better? We tried dropping the light and heavy objects a few times before most of the pressure was removed. They fell at completely different times every trial, and they fell at the same time when air was removed every trial. Don't believe me? Try it yourself, it isn't that expensive, I'm sure you can afford it with the 250 k's you have laying around.
Things from that height that seemingly fall at the same rate, is not the whole truth."
"The point is to make people use their brains. To think. To question what you've believed to be true all your life, without actually having any physical evidence and not being able to verify anything."
"The point is to make people use their brains. To think. To question what you've believed to be true all your life, without actually having any physical evidence and not being able to verify anything."
"without actually having any physical evidence and not being able to verify anything."This speaks for itself. So much for being a skeptic. All you need is blind faith your claims are true. Nice argument about your credibility Sceptic, I think this comment is going to make the history books on this forum. Forget physical evidence guys, just trust that FET is true!
"We are told, time and time again about two balls will fall at the same rate regardless of what they have in mass."No one says that.. I mean, no one, except you. A simple Google search will open your eyes to what we are actually being told.
"Saying it does not make it so."So apparently Sceptimatic thinks that it doesn't take more energy to move heavy objects! I want to see him try and use an RC electric motor in place of a gasoline engine on for his car. Hilarious!
"You've demonstarted nothing of what I've said, to be false. I've demonstarted by logic that you are buying into something that does not exist, (gravity)."Oh I have demonstrated it. With the vacuum chamber experiment, and with my math on air pressure altitude and and fall rates. It was my second or third post I think, I laid it out with numbers. You however, haven't demonstrated anything. You haven't even asserted a truth claim relevant to "gravity=air pressure" while talking to me.
"The same point as to why you're arguing by using nothing more than words to tell me that you are right and I'm wrong. I'm counteracting it. It's called debate or conversation.This doesn't even make any sense. Just because we're in a debate/conversation doesn't mean we can't support our arguments with evidence. You're just making up excuses for your lies. And they will continue to be lies, along with your entire hypothesis, until you provide evidence.
If things could be proved 100% with everything then we wouldn't be here and this place wouldn't be here.
The mere fact that many people are questioning things should be enough thought to understand that something's are not what they appear to be."
"What is this all about?"It might be kind of fun to actually be able to talk. This form of conversation is boring and slow. Get TeamSpeak 3, or maybe Skype. I prefer teamspeak (lighter program, also better sound quality). If you're interested, I'll pm you the address and password.
Come back to me when you can stop rantingI don't see any ranting, just your "theory" being picked to pieces.
Come back to me when you can stop rantingI don't see any ranting, just your "theory" being picked to pieces.
If I had to think about your family, yeah that's it.The mere fact that many people are questioning things should be enough thought to understand that something's are not what they appear to be.
Poor old sceptimatic seems to equate "questioning things" with making up fanciful stories and bizarre pseudo-scientific parables.
I haven't laughed so much since grandpa tried to ride a greased pig at the local fair. ;D
So, what have we learned from this debate?
Sceptimatic has either short term memory, or a reading disability, because I've had to clarify multiple times very direct points. Examples:Quote"What experiment?"I had to clarify this 3 times before he understood what experiment I was referring to.Quote"What about the golf ball?"Read Scepti, read.Quote"I don't actually know what a weather balloon is supposed to prove."The experiment Scepti. Remember? Remember your ideas on air pressure which don't make any sense? Read between the lines, for god's sake.
I can't keep clarifying, it's clear you just want to distract from the argument when I have to keep repeating myself. It's pretty amazing how much we've gotten off track from my original comment. We're arguing about the fall velocity of objects, when it was completely irrelevant to my original point. Anyway, here's a response to the rest:Quote"The mere fact that you are using a small evacuation chamber to think you have a point, is not the true picture.We were using a 30 foot tall clear PVC pipe. It took an hour and a half for most of the pressure to be evacuated. What makes it even better? We tried dropping the light and heavy objects a few times before most of the pressure was removed. They fell at completely different times every trial, and they fell at the same time when air was removed every trial. Don't believe me? Try it yourself, it isn't that expensive, I'm sure you can afford it with the 250 k's you have laying around.
Things from that height that seemingly fall at the same rate, is not the whole truth."Quote"The point is to make people use their brains. To think. To question what you've believed to be true all your life, without actually having any physical evidence and not being able to verify anything."Quote"The point is to make people use their brains. To think. To question what you've believed to be true all your life, without actually having any physical evidence and not being able to verify anything."Quote"without actually having any physical evidence and not being able to verify anything."
No, you haven't, and you never will.So. We can't prove molecules expand.Yes I have proved they expand.
Why are soap bubbles spherical?
Do you know what steam is?No, you haven't, and you never will.So. We can't prove molecules expand.Yes I have proved they expand.
Why are soap bubbles spherical?They aren't. Not true spherical.
Molecules and particles do not expand, they vibrate as a result of an increase in heat.Do you know what steam is?No, you haven't, and you never will.So. We can't prove molecules expand.Yes I have proved they expand.
Do you have a picture of a soap bubble in still air that isn't spherical?Why are soap bubbles spherical?They aren't. Not true spherical.
They vibrate due to expansion and contraction.Molecules and particles do not expand, they vibrate as a result of an increase in heat.Do you know what steam is?No, you haven't, and you never will.So. We can't prove molecules expand.Yes I have proved they expand.
It would be hard to tell as the slight off spherical shape would be hard to notice.Do you have a picture of a soap bubble in still air that isn't spherical?Why are soap bubbles spherical?They aren't. Not true spherical.
It would be hard to tell as the slight off spherical shape would be hard to notice.
Let me give you an example.
A bubble falling , wobbles, right? It wobbles because it's in uneven pressure. Only a bubble in perfectly even pressure can be spherical.
The problem is, there is never an even pressure at any time, so there is never a true spherical shape.
(http://s3.freefoto.com/images/808/30/808_30_3949_web.jpg)Do you have a picture of a soap bubble in still air that isn't spherical?Why are soap bubbles spherical?They aren't. Not true spherical.
(http://s3.freefoto.com/images/808/30/808_30_3949_web.jpg)Do you have a picture of a soap bubble in still air that isn't spherical?Why are soap bubbles spherical?They aren't. Not true spherical.
Do you know what steam is?Yes
(http://s3.freefoto.com/images/808/30/808_30_3949_web.jpg)Do you have a picture of a soap bubble in still air that isn't spherical?Why are soap bubbles spherical?They aren't. Not true spherical.
Earth wasn't as spherical at one time as it is now either. Given time it got more spherical, just like these bubbles probably became shortly after this snapshot.
Infrared spectroscopy disagrees with what you say. You are going to need to disprove it.They vibrate due to expansion and contraction.Molecules and particles do not expand, they vibrate as a result of an increase in heat.Do you know what steam is?No, you haven't, and you never will.So. We can't prove molecules expand.Yes I have proved they expand.
Steam is H2O molecules in vapor form. The H2O molecule in steam is no bigger in any way.
Steam is H2O molecules in vapor form. The H2O molecule in steam is no bigger in any way.
It's obvious from his previous comments that sceptimatic has absolutely no idea of atomic structure. Even a grade school kid can tell you what steam is LOL.
And surely sceptimatic must've at least passed grade school? Or maybe not. ;D
I really wonder what his qualifications are. Actually, I wonder about the studies of all flat earthers. Has any of them gone to university at least?Of the original society members (most of whom have gone) they were pretty well educated, most graduates - definitely above average. On the other hand, they are only pretending the earth is flat so....meh
Being indoctrinated at a university in astrophysics and such, does not give a person any expertise on what's in that sky. It does give them expertise on their ability or absorb and regurgitate. That's it.Steam is H2O molecules in vapor form. The H2O molecule in steam is no bigger in any way.
It's obvious from his previous comments that sceptimatic has absolutely no idea of atomic structure. Even a grade school kid can tell you what steam is LOL.
And surely sceptimatic must've at least passed grade school? Or maybe not. ;D
I really wonder what his qualifications are. Actually, I wonder about the studies of all flat earthers. Has any of them gone to university at least?
Being indoctrinated at a university in astrophysics and such, does not give a person any expertise on what's in that sky. It does give them expertise on their ability or absorb and regurgitate. That's it.Steam is H2O molecules in vapor form. The H2O molecule in steam is no bigger in any way.
It's obvious from his previous comments that sceptimatic has absolutely no idea of atomic structure. Even a grade school kid can tell you what steam is LOL.
And surely sceptimatic must've at least passed grade school? Or maybe not. ;D
I really wonder what his qualifications are. Actually, I wonder about the studies of all flat earthers. Has any of them gone to university at least?
Predicting outcomes is not expertise if you cannot see those predictions turned to fact.
I can petend I'm an expert of predicting football matches based on the form of a team - the weather - condition of the pitch - where the match is played - the loudness and passion of the fans - the speed and fitness of the players, etc, etc.
I can still lose my bet, because I cannot physically prove the outcome until the game is over.
Space science is much worse than that, because predictions are made that can never be physically verified, yet a panel of so called experts can decide it to be real without that evidence and this is known as peer review.
Like the football. A pools panel can give a team a home win or an away win based on what they predict would have happened if the match had gone ahead. This doesn't make them experts or even correct in any way, shape or form, except that people accept them to be so and the game stands in terms of someone standing to win the football pools based on that prediction or football peer review.
Most of the people on here that argue against a flat Earth, do so because this place has taught them to study the wealth of ready made bullshit that's literally at the touch of a few buttons. It's on a plate.
First, going to university proves I can learn, I have the ability to solve problems maybe you or other people can't. I get a lot of information, MOST OF WHICH IS DEMONSTRATED AND OBTAINED FROM SIMPLE PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. In what I've studied of aeronautic engineering, they haven't put me a single formula without telling me where it comes from. And really, it is not that difficult once you understand it. Scepti you obviously don't have any qualifications, given that your inability to understand basic physics (and I mean Newton's laws, basic fluid mechanics like pressure or buoyancy, etc.).You're so clever that you can't describe what gravity is and I've destroyed it all with denpressure.
None of your theories have and scientific basis, they are just especulations without any logical thinking behind. You think you are smarter than us for refusing to believe anything they tell you. You think you are thinking by yourself, when what you are actually doing is discarding any new information you get without thinking about it. That's not intelligence. That's stupidity. When you start to at least think and consider what we tell you, I'll take you seriously. Until that moment, you are just a troll and I'll just argue with you for fun :P
Sigh... Well,First, going to university proves I can learn, I have the ability to solve problems maybe you or other people can't. I get a lot of information, MOST OF WHICH IS DEMONSTRATED AND OBTAINED FROM SIMPLE PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. In what I've studied of aeronautic engineering, they haven't put me a single formula without telling me where it comes from. And really, it is not that difficult once you understand it. Scepti you obviously don't have any qualifications, given that your inability to understand basic physics (and I mean Newton's laws, basic fluid mechanics like pressure or buoyancy, etc.).You're so clever that you can't describe what gravity is and I've destroyed it all with denpressure.
None of your theories have and scientific basis, they are just especulations without any logical thinking behind. You think you are smarter than us for refusing to believe anything they tell you. You think you are thinking by yourself, when what you are actually doing is discarding any new information you get without thinking about it. That's not intelligence. That's stupidity. When you start to at least think and consider what we tell you, I'll take you seriously. Until that moment, you are just a troll and I'll just argue with you for fun :P
The fact that you refuse to accept it when it's there in front of you, explained in basic language, tells me that you are naive and unable to actually think for yourself. It has to be a reliance on being spoon fed by the suited that allows you to understand what's being said.
You may be intelligent but you are not smart. Big difference.
you can't describe what gravity is and I've destroyed it all with denpressure.and
The fact that you refuse to accept it when it's there in front of you, explained in basic language.
Well. Your denpressure makes no sense.It makes peerfect sense.
This is what I meant by "you don't understand basic fluid mechanics". Pressure is exerted all over the surface of a body. Easy to prove. We don't weigh more in water, do we? Because according to you at 10 meters below the water we should weigh twice as much as we do at sea level.Stop making crap up. ;D I've never said any of this about weighing more 10 metres below water. Making out I've said stuff doesn't help you.
I understand the physical definition of pressure is kinda difficult to understand, but its effects are easy to see and measure.It's easy to understand the concept of it, if you discard nonsense gravity.
Gravity. We can't actually tell its origin.You can't tell anything because it doesn't exist. I'm not 99% sure, I'm 100% sure it doesn't.
But a gravimeter can be used to detect certain minerals underground.How about briefly and basically explaining how a gravimeter works.
High precision gravimeters can even sense there is less gravity inside a building because of the roof having a considerable gravitational field. Not everyone has access to a gravimeter, but for example in universities they have these things, and they can use them and obtain results. Any explanation for this?There's marginally less atmospheric pressure in a building because the roof tiles thickness take away some downward pressure.
Absolute pressure 10 meters below the water's surface is twice the standard atmospheric pressure. So that doesn't mean we weigh twice as much? I'm not making anything up. It is called Pascal's principle. It allows hydraulic jacks, hydraulic presses and so to work. Easy to understand for normal people.What's the matter with you? can't you process the fact that I've never mentioned weighing heavier 10 meteres underwater, so what are you making this crap up for?
By definition of pressure I meant its demonstration from the forces exerted on a differential fluid element. Too difficult for you, forget it.Can't you type normal and just say what you mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter) This is how a gravimeter works. Still doesn't explain why we can detect certain minerals with it. You can use a barometer to measure the atmospheric pressure on the building, leave all the windows open if you want to. It will show the same results.Agitation of matter changes atmospheric pressure. It can be a minute change or a easily viewable change. A barometer may not pick up certain tiny hanges but a more delicate mechanism would. Hmmm, maybe a gravymeater. ;D They're all pressure gauges with different ways of measuring it. That's all.
If only you believed what you were saying... Anyway, you are probably the best troll I've ever seen in the internet, I give you that. Coming to this webpage to play the same character for years, that's dedication!I'm dedicated because I'm a genius of the basics. I can see what you can't. Why?...because I use logic to determine things. I use common sense to decipher what those in labcoats try to baffle the average Joe with bullshit, probably unknown to them that they are actually doing it, as most are simply just the same as the people they teach. Parrots.
Stop making crap up. ;D I've never said any of this about weighing more 10 metres below water. Making out I've said stuff doesn't help you.You have made this claim. Things have weight due to pressure, and weight changes as pressure changes, and it works the same in all fluids.
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.
Feeling the pressure yet septic, its called foot in mouth disease.Only atmospheric pressure. None of you can debunk what I'm saying because I can answer all the claims for your gravity.
What's being pushed into the ground? Your use of language is so vague, it's impossible to know what it is you're saying.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,
the atmospheric pressure will still push that mass to the goundWhy? The pressure above you is greater than the pressure above - you should just float off towards lower pressure. There is much more stuff "stacked" below you.
To think that you people cannot understand this and yet rely on gravity,When you say "you people", do you mean "everyone in the world"? As absolutely nobody has bought into your bullshit - doesn't that fact in itself tell you something?
I just want you to answer this. If weight is an effect of pressure, and I weigh 80 kg at sea level, I should weigh 160kg 10 meters below the water's surface, 240kg at 20 meters... In mount everest top, at 8848 meters of altitude, there is an atmospheric pressure of 31kpa, so we should weigh around 24,5 kg.I have a few questions to your questions.
Commercial aircraft flying at 11000 meters should weigh like a fourth part of their sea level weight. But of course, you won't believe the formulas for lift, drag and flight mechanics which are calculated for a plane with constant weight depending on altitude (weigh only varies with time for fuel consumption).
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?
Are you seriously telling me that you can't understand the simple meaning of energy applied?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?
"energy applied" [sic] is a term made up by you and people cannot read your mind, so I do not think this is a mental capacity issue, but more of a limitation of human physiology in general.
Are you seriously telling me that you can't understand the simple meaning of energy applied?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?
"energy applied" [sic] is a term made up by you and people cannot read your mind, so I do not think this is a mental capacity issue, but more of a limitation of human physiology in general.
What would you like?
Learn to deal with a person who doesn't hang onto sciientific bullshit to explain simple things.
I did define it clearly but I will do it again.Are you seriously telling me that you can't understand the simple meaning of energy applied?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?
"energy applied" [sic] is a term made up by you and people cannot read your mind, so I do not think this is a mental capacity issue, but more of a limitation of human physiology in general.
What would you like?
Learn to deal with a person who doesn't hang onto sciientific bullshit to explain simple things.
I understand what it means to apply energy to something. Are we talking about the same thing? If that is the case, do not judge me, because you made up a compound noun and never have given a clear definition. You play enough word games that I do not take anything you say for granted.
Would you like to properly define it now so it can be crystal clear?
I did define it clearly but I will do it again.Are you seriously telling me that you can't understand the simple meaning of energy applied?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?
"energy applied" [sic] is a term made up by you and people cannot read your mind, so I do not think this is a mental capacity issue, but more of a limitation of human physiology in general.
What would you like?
Learn to deal with a person who doesn't hang onto sciientific bullshit to explain simple things.
I understand what it means to apply energy to something. Are we talking about the same thing? If that is the case, do not judge me, because you made up a compound noun and never have given a clear definition. You play enough word games that I do not take anything you say for granted.
Would you like to properly define it now so it can be crystal clear?
Yes it is to apply energy to an object. For instance. If I pick up a brick, I am applying my energy to pushing that brick up into the atmosphere.
Because I've done that, it means that brick pushes back onto me by the atmosphere it has compressed above me, or to put it plainly, the atmosphere it has displaced.
That brick now has potential energy through this happening, because it has to have a reaction to my action, which it will as soon as I release my energy from it. From that point on, it gets pushed down and overcomes the push back (resistance).
if I pick up a brick, I am applying my energy to pushing that brick up into the atmosphere. Because I've done that, it means that brick pushes back onto me by the atmosphere it has compressed above me, or to put it plainly, the atmosphere it has displaced.So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential? Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?
That brick now has potential energy through this happening, because it has to have a reaction to my action, which it will as soon as I release my energy from it.
From that point on, it gets pushed down and overcomes the push back (resistance).
Wait, compression is not the at all the same thing as displacement. What are you trying to sneak in here?I'm not sneaking anything in. The brick is sat on the ground. That brick has displaced the air it now sits in, through it's mass/density. If I pick that brick up, I now displace the air above me with that same brick and where the brick was sat, was filled with the same pressure I took from it.
AKA Gravity.AKA denpressure.
Scepti stated in the balloon rocket thread that when we 'apply energy' to an object it gets warm, and compresses. In such small way that it can't be detected, but it does 100%, and that somehow explains everything.Any movement on anything will cause friction. Friction is heat, no matter how trivial it seems. it all works as part of moving nature. Nothing can move without it.
If you are stuck, just let me know.
So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential? Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere. the only thing that's changing is the atmosphere filling the vid your brick was in, constantly as you move as you are pushing that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick. You are also creating friction on that brick as long as it moves with your energy. It's so small that you aren't capable of noticing this.
And if I go on a 10 mile walk and come to the edge of a cliff I won't have any "atmospheric potential" and, again presumably, I can just step off and float away.Same thing applies as the brick. You have to walk into that environment, as in, you have to go UP, using your energy. You now become potential energy as in, you are forced back down when you step off that cliff because it's action and equal and opposite reaction. Your action in expending your energy to whatever height will not be transferred back to where you were until you allow it by giving up your energy, as in, you walk off the cliff.
Hopefully I just have, to crabby.
If you are stuck, just let me know.
Yeah, like Jimmy, I do not understand what mechanism causes the atmospheric compression above the brick to maintain it's vector potential on the brick as you move perpendicularly to the vector.
Can you explain that?
Please show how the pressure has been measured to prove it.So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential? Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere. the only thing that's changing is the atmosphere filling the vid your brick was in, constantly as you move as you are pushing that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick. You are also creating friction on that brick as long as it moves with your energy. It's so small that you aren't capable of noticing this.
So...wherever you stop - that brick still displaces the air with it's own mass/density and it is potential energy.And if I go on a 10 mile walk and come to the edge of a cliff I won't have any "atmospheric potential" and, again presumably, I can just step off and float away.Same thing applies as the brick. You have to walk into that environment, as in, you have to go UP, using your energy. You now become potential energy as in, you are forced back down when you step off that cliff because it's action and equal and opposite reaction. Your action in expending your energy to whatever height will not be transferred back to where you were until you allow it by giving up your energy, as in, you walk off the cliff.
See what I mean?
Get a set of scales and weigh yourself. If the scales say one at a time please, consider going on a diet.Please show how the pressure has been measured to prove it.So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential? Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere. the only thing that's changing is the atmosphere filling the vid your brick was in, constantly as you move as you are pushing that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick. You are also creating friction on that brick as long as it moves with your energy. It's so small that you aren't capable of noticing this.
So...wherever you stop - that brick still displaces the air with it's own mass/density and it is potential energy.And if I go on a 10 mile walk and come to the edge of a cliff I won't have any "atmospheric potential" and, again presumably, I can just step off and float away.Same thing applies as the brick. You have to walk into that environment, as in, you have to go UP, using your energy. You now become potential energy as in, you are forced back down when you step off that cliff because it's action and equal and opposite reaction. Your action in expending your energy to whatever height will not be transferred back to where you were until you allow it by giving up your energy, as in, you walk off the cliff.
See what I mean?
No. You just keep making stuff up every time someone says something that destroys denpressure.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.
This has been explained so how can't you get it?
You keep forgetting about the energy, I think.
To think that you people cannot understand this and yet rely on gravity, is astonishing. I could understand your reliace on gravity if there wasn't someone to explain how bogus it is, yet here I am - and you're hiding from the truth.
Nobody has or ever will destroy denpressure because it's the truth. Gravity has been destroyed and you don't like it, that's all.No. You just keep making stuff up every time someone says something that destroys denpressure.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.
This has been explained so how can't you get it?
You keep forgetting about the energy, I think.
To think that you people cannot understand this and yet rely on gravity, is astonishing. I could understand your reliace on gravity if there wasn't someone to explain how bogus it is, yet here I am - and you're hiding from the truth.
Nobody has or ever will destroy denpressure because it's the truth. Gravity has been destroyed and you don't like it, that's all.No. You just keep making stuff up every time someone says something that destroys denpressure.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.
This has been explained so how can't you get it?
You keep forgetting about the energy, I think.
To think that you people cannot understand this and yet rely on gravity, is astonishing. I could understand your reliace on gravity if there wasn't someone to explain how bogus it is, yet here I am - and you're hiding from the truth.
It is neither a stretch nor derogatory to say denpressure is true in your mind only.I agree but I keep my arrogance on it as much as the gravity arrogance is kept by MSS world. If I firmly believe it by my own theoretical thinking, then I'm guarding it until someone destroys it. Nobody has yet.
You can explain it as many times as you like but that does not make it true to anyone else anymore than me explaining the plot of the Lord of the Rings and calling it history.Agreed. All I can hope for is that it can be grasped. If not, then we keep on and on, or accept that nobody will give. I certainly won't and I don't think you will, either. That doesn't mean to say that everyone will follow the same path. You never know, you might surprise me in the future, who knows.
All that counts is that you present some physical evidence that distinguishes your theory from gravity.I believe I am but it's all about arguing the points just like gravity is not understood but firmly adhered to, yet is backed by mass opinion so it's assumed it does not require any counter argument.
Is there an event you can predict that should occur if denpressure is true, but should not occur if gravity is true? Do that and provide evidence of it occuring and I will be 100% convinced.I'm trying to use as much as I can to show it but getting something concrete to get it through, is not easy when people's reliance on gravity is so strong. I have to leave it down to people to decide as time goes on.
It is neither a stretch nor derogatory to say denpressure is true in your mind only.I agree but I keep my arrogance on it as much as the gravity arrogance is kept by MSS world. If I firmly believe it by my own theoretical thinking, then I'm guarding it until someone destroys it. Nobody has yet.
My belief is that I have destroyed gravity. Your belief is that I haven't. Fair enough I say.You can explain it as many times as you like but that does not make it true to anyone else anymore than me explaining the plot of the Lord of the Rings and calling it history.Agreed. All I can hope for is that it can be grasped. If not, then we keep on and on, or accept that nobody will give. I certainly won't and I don't think you will, either. That doesn't mean to say that everyone will follow the same path. You never know, you might surprise me in the future, who knows.All that counts is that you present some physical evidence that distinguishes your theory from gravity.I believe I am but it's all about arguing the points just like gravity is not understood but firmly adhered to, yet is backed by mass opinion so it's assumed it does not require any counter argument.Is there an event you can predict that should occur if denpressure is true, but should not occur if gravity is true? Do that and provide evidence of it occuring and I will be 100% convinced.I'm trying to use as much as I can to show it but getting something concrete to get it through, is not easy when people's reliance on gravity is so strong. I have to leave it down to people to decide as time goes on.
I'm always thinking of concrete ways. It won;t go away.
Well, sokarul is going to do one, so let's see what happens and we can go on from there.It is neither a stretch nor derogatory to say denpressure is true in your mind only.I agree but I keep my arrogance on it as much as the gravity arrogance is kept by MSS world. If I firmly believe it by my own theoretical thinking, then I'm guarding it until someone destroys it. Nobody has yet.
My belief is that I have destroyed gravity. Your belief is that I haven't. Fair enough I say.You can explain it as many times as you like but that does not make it true to anyone else anymore than me explaining the plot of the Lord of the Rings and calling it history.Agreed. All I can hope for is that it can be grasped. If not, then we keep on and on, or accept that nobody will give. I certainly won't and I don't think you will, either. That doesn't mean to say that everyone will follow the same path. You never know, you might surprise me in the future, who knows.All that counts is that you present some physical evidence that distinguishes your theory from gravity.I believe I am but it's all about arguing the points just like gravity is not understood but firmly adhered to, yet is backed by mass opinion so it's assumed it does not require any counter argument.Is there an event you can predict that should occur if denpressure is true, but should not occur if gravity is true? Do that and provide evidence of it occuring and I will be 100% convinced.I'm trying to use as much as I can to show it but getting something concrete to get it through, is not easy when people's reliance on gravity is so strong. I have to leave it down to people to decide as time goes on.
I'm always thinking of concrete ways. It won;t go away.
You have presented hundreds of thought experiments. I mean something that we can do and measure in the physical world.
I don't need to weigh myself. When I am submerged in water, I will slowly sink. This is because the CONSTANT force of gravity is partially countered by a buoyancy that equals (ρ · g · V), ρ being the density of water, g the acceleration of gravity and V my volume. This is easily proven with an easy experiment (I guess you believe in this equation, right?) But according to you, I shoud sink faster the deeper I go.I just want you to answer this. If weight is an effect of pressure, and I weigh 80 kg at sea level, I should weigh 160kg 10 meters below the water's surface, 240kg at 20 meters... In mount everest top, at 8848 meters of altitude, there is an atmospheric pressure of 31kpa, so we should weigh around 24,5 kg.I have a few questions to your questions.
Commercial aircraft flying at 11000 meters should weigh like a fourth part of their sea level weight. But of course, you won't believe the formulas for lift, drag and flight mechanics which are calculated for a plane with constant weight depending on altitude (weigh only varies with time for fuel consumption).
How do you weigh yourself when submerged?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?
Should I elaborate for you?
How does a plane get into the sky?
How does a human being manage to swin down to 10 metres.
Answer these and you might start getting to grips.
But why do I need to use any energy? Why can't I let go an watch it float off? What is making that brick want to head towards the earth (ie down) rather than any other direction? As air pressure gets lower as you move away from the planet, surely stuff should "fall" upwards if anything?So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential? Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere.
Again, same point, so what? Why then does it head down when I let go of it?
that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick.
The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.I don't need to weigh myself. When I am submerged in water, I will slowly sink. This is because the CONSTANT force of gravity is partially countered by a buoyancy that equals (ρ · g · V), ρ being the density of water, g the acceleration of gravity and V my volume. This is easily proven with an easy experiment (I guess you believe in this equation, right?) But according to you, I shoud sink faster the deeper I go.I just want you to answer this. If weight is an effect of pressure, and I weigh 80 kg at sea level, I should weigh 160kg 10 meters below the water's surface, 240kg at 20 meters... In mount everest top, at 8848 meters of altitude, there is an atmospheric pressure of 31kpa, so we should weigh around 24,5 kg.I have a few questions to your questions.
Commercial aircraft flying at 11000 meters should weigh like a fourth part of their sea level weight. But of course, you won't believe the formulas for lift, drag and flight mechanics which are calculated for a plane with constant weight depending on altitude (weigh only varies with time for fuel consumption).
How do you weigh yourself when submerged?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?
Should I elaborate for you?
How does a plane get into the sky?
How does a human being manage to swin down to 10 metres.
Answer these and you might start getting to grips.
A submarine at 200 meters depth would weigh 21 times as much as it does in the surface, and well, it should just sink, no buoyancy force can counter that.
A plane gets into the sky because of lift. The wing has a shape so the velocity of air in the upper part of the wing (I don't know its technical name in English) is higher than in the lower part of it. The higher velocity a fluid has, the less pressure it has. Then the "slow" air below will have a higher pressure and "push" the wing upwards. And Coandă effect makes the air stream stay "sticked" to the wing profile. Easy to see in a wind tunnel, I have seen it in my university. Please don't tell me you don't believe in lift either.
I would like to know what you understand by "energy applied".
And you answered none of my questions. I answered your questions with answers, and I'd like you to do the same.
Your trolling abilities are worse every time ;)
The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.Typical scepti ignoring things he can't explain. Can you please tell me where I'm making up things? If I can't understand your hypothesis, you can help me understand it at least
The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.
But why do I need to use any energy? Why can't I let go an watch it float off?How can you let it go if you've not applied any energy? it means you can never pick the brick up in the first place if you do not apply energy to lift it's mass.
What is making that brick want to head towards the earth (ie down) rather than any other direction? As air pressure gets lower as you move away from the planet, surely stuff should "fall" upwards if anything?The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.
In your theory, what is so special about the down direction?
Ask me anything and carefully watch my replies. Keep asking and probing all you want and putting obstacles in the way and I'll reply.The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.Typical scepti ignoring things he can't explain. Can you please tell me where I'm making up things? If I can't understand your hypothesis, you can help me understand it at least
The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.
The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.
LOL..... sceptimatic still hasn't grasped the simple concept that on earth, there is no "up" and no "down".
He probably thinks if we drop a coin in Australia, it'll—somehow—fall in the same direction as a coin dropped in Canada.
::)
I asked how much more water a steel object displaces, than an aluminium object of same dimensions. And got blocked, now that's the way to debate, very fair play ;DAsk me anything and carefully watch my replies. Keep asking and probing all you want and putting obstacles in the way and I'll reply.The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.Typical scepti ignoring things he can't explain. Can you please tell me where I'm making up things? If I can't understand your hypothesis, you can help me understand it at least
Tell me that I don't know this and that as if I've actually said it and your answers won't be met other than to tell you to stop making out I've said stuff that I haven't. I'm trying to play fair. You do the same.
The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.Is this 'upward pushing energy' a constant force emanating from the ground, or is it the just the act of lifting something?
The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.Is this 'upward pushing energy' a constant force emanating from the ground, or is it the just the act of lifting something?
The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.Is this 'upward pushing energy' a constant force emanating from the ground, or is it the just the act of lifting something?
sceptimatic doesn't even know the differences between "force" and "pressure" let alone what energy is LOL. He seems to seriously think that "energy" can, in and of itself, "push" against something.
He's also incapable of understanding a simple principle of mechanics that when you lift a ball into the air from the ground, you're changing its energy state from potential to kinetic—and when the ball drops back to earth and is stationary, it loses its kinetic energy.
One joule of energy = the energy transferred when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or one 3,600th of a watt-hour).
I'm guessing that sceptimatic is confusing energy (joule) with force (newton). Sad really. ::) But typical.
To enable that brick to go into the atmosphere, it requires some kind of energy to do that. You supply that by applyng your energy to lift that brick against that atmospheric force pushing down on it.But why is is pushing down, why not up, or left?
The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.Eh? I honestly can't make this out at all.
Think of it like putting coins in a tube from the bottom. The first coins you put in are easy with your energy. As that tube fills up, the pressure upon your finger becomes stronger, meaning you have to use more energy each time you push up.Yes, that's because gravity is acted on the coins, and as you add more mass they get heavier. Remember we are trying to do this without gravity.
Now imagine that with atmosphere, then you in it. You push it out of the way with your body and that atmosphere pushes down on youAgain, why down, why not up?
This is when the atmosphere is pushing down against your resistance (hand).Again, why down?
Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistance
Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistanceObjects will fall at the same rate to the eye in vacuum chamber, The truth is you need a lot of height to to see that they don't actually do that. A chamber is just too small. That's why a football and a iron ball will fall at the same rate from your chest height. There's no time to build enough momentum to see they would differ.
The proof is there when you put a deflated balloon into a chamber. Evacuate the chamber and the balloon blows up. If that's not proof, I dont know what is. It's there in your face.Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistance
He believes the scant few air molecules that are not evacuated, expand to fill the chamber creating a resisting medium. Yes, I wrote that: he thinks molecules expand.
Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistanceObjects will fall at the same rate to the eye in vacuum chamber, The truth is you need a lot of height to to see that they don't actually do that. A chamber is just too small. That's why a football and a iron ball will fall at the same rate from your chest height. There's no time to build enough momentum to see they would differ.
I am 100% confident that gravity is a con. 100%. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind. I absolutely know for a fact that denpressure is the reason for everything that happens on Earth.
It kills off all the space bullshit we are fed in its entirety. Naturally I don't expect people to believe me. All I ask is for people to study what I'm saying and it will become evident if they have the patience.
If you evacuate all the air from a chamber it ceases to exist as a chamber. It would be crushed. It can't be done.Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistanceObjects will fall at the same rate to the eye in vacuum chamber, The truth is you need a lot of height to to see that they don't actually do that. A chamber is just too small. That's why a football and a iron ball will fall at the same rate from your chest height. There's no time to build enough momentum to see they would differ.
I am 100% confident that gravity is a con. 100%. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind. I absolutely know for a fact that denpressure is the reason for everything that happens on Earth.
It kills off all the space bullshit we are fed in its entirety. Naturally I don't expect people to believe me. All I ask is for people to study what I'm saying and it will become evident if they have the patience.
I don't know about gravity being a con, But I can see your point on all this. I still think if you remove all the air from any size chamber objects would pretty much fall at the same rate. Why wouldn't they? there is NOTHING to keep that from happening. I don't think gravity has anything to do with this.
no, the glove expands until forces are equal. Elemental and molecular bond length are known.The proof is there when you put a deflated balloon into a chamber. Evacuate the chamber and the balloon blows up. If that's not proof, I dont know what is. It's there in your face.Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistance
He believes the scant few air molecules that are not evacuated, expand to fill the chamber creating a resisting medium. Yes, I wrote that: he thinks molecules expand.
The proof is there when you put a deflated balloon into a chamber. Evacuate the chamber and the balloon blows up. If that's not proof, I dont know what is. It's there in your face.Reduction in pressure outside the balloon, allowing pressure inside balloon to push outward, thus expanding it. You have never proven molecules and atoms grow to fill all voids.
People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?They don't float because of gravity. They are falling. They 'float' because of their lateral velocity.
The con is gravity.
If you evacuate all the air from a chamber it ceases to exist as a chamber. It would be crushed. It can't be done.Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistanceObjects will fall at the same rate to the eye in vacuum chamber, The truth is you need a lot of height to to see that they don't actually do that. A chamber is just too small. That's why a football and a iron ball will fall at the same rate from your chest height. There's no time to build enough momentum to see they would differ.
I am 100% confident that gravity is a con. 100%. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind. I absolutely know for a fact that denpressure is the reason for everything that happens on Earth.
It kills off all the space bullshit we are fed in its entirety. Naturally I don't expect people to believe me. All I ask is for people to study what I'm saying and it will become evident if they have the patience.
I don't know about gravity being a con, But I can see your point on all this. I still think if you remove all the air from any size chamber objects would pretty much fall at the same rate. Why wouldn't they? there is NOTHING to keep that from happening. I don't think gravity has anything to do with this.
You can evacuate a lot of air from it and drop things and they will appear to drop at the same time to even slow motion equipment, but they are only dropping from a small height.
The resistance on the objects would be very small.
What you have to remember though, you have to exert energy to gain energy in equal amounts.
Any object out into a vacuum chamber has to be hoisted by energy for them to become potential energy before they are dropped. It's not gravity pulling them down it's atmospheric pressure upon the mass/density. Action and reaction at all times.
People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?
The con is gravity.
The proof is there when you put a deflated balloon into a chamber. Evacuate the chamber and the balloon blows up. If that's not proof, I dont know what is. It's there in your face.Reduction in pressure outside the balloon, allowing pressure inside balloon to push outward, thus expanding it. You have never proven molecules and atoms grow to fill all voids.
If they keep expanding when evacuating air from a vacuum chamber, at what point will they become big enough to see?People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?They don't float because of gravity. They are falling. They 'float' because of their lateral velocity.
The con is gravity.
From the rocket that pushed the object into space...The proof is there when you put a deflated balloon into a chamber. Evacuate the chamber and the balloon blows up. If that's not proof, I dont know what is. It's there in your face.Reduction in pressure outside the balloon, allowing pressure inside balloon to push outward, thus expanding it. You have never proven molecules and atoms grow to fill all voids.
If they keep expanding when evacuating air from a vacuum chamber, at what point will they become big enough to see?People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?They don't float because of gravity. They are falling. They 'float' because of their lateral velocity.
The con is gravity.
Where does the lateral velocity come from?
I will help you with that: if you take all of the air out of a chamber (at sea level), there will just be a force of 1kg/cm2 crushing it. Internal force: 0 External force: 1 (kg/cm2)If you evacuate all the air from a chamber it ceases to exist as a chamber. It would be crushed. It can't be done.Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistanceObjects will fall at the same rate to the eye in vacuum chamber, The truth is you need a lot of height to to see that they don't actually do that. A chamber is just too small. That's why a football and a iron ball will fall at the same rate from your chest height. There's no time to build enough momentum to see they would differ.
I am 100% confident that gravity is a con. 100%. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind. I absolutely know for a fact that denpressure is the reason for everything that happens on Earth.
It kills off all the space bullshit we are fed in its entirety. Naturally I don't expect people to believe me. All I ask is for people to study what I'm saying and it will become evident if they have the patience.
I don't know about gravity being a con, But I can see your point on all this. I still think if you remove all the air from any size chamber objects would pretty much fall at the same rate. Why wouldn't they? there is NOTHING to keep that from happening. I don't think gravity has anything to do with this.
You can evacuate a lot of air from it and drop things and they will appear to drop at the same time to even slow motion equipment, but they are only dropping from a small height.
The resistance on the objects would be very small.
What you have to remember though, you have to exert energy to gain energy in equal amounts.
Any object out into a vacuum chamber has to be hoisted by energy for them to become potential energy before they are dropped. It's not gravity pulling them down it's atmospheric pressure upon the mass/density. Action and reaction at all times.
People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?
The con is gravity.
Well it may be possible that air is just much heavier then us and that because air is so much heavier then us and space is even heavier then air that if you are in inner-space you will pretty much stick to any object because space is much heavier then the solid objects cause space is made out of an extremely heavy substance that we slip through with great ease but the viscosity is so great that we shrink down in size up to millions of times in inner-space.Actually, no.
People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?Why is it that you don't know anything about gravity, as shown in this statement, yet you deny it?
The con is gravity.
Where does the lateral velocity come from?If you've ever watched a rocket launch, never do the rockets go straight up. They slowly swing off to the north, west, east, south, or anything in between, depending on what their trajectory calls for. Eventually, rockets end up thrusting parallel to the Earth, pointing around towards the horizon. This all increases their lateral velocity to establish orbit, or else they would fall right back down to Earth, no matter what altitude they are in. The lateral velocity comes from the boosting of the rocket, simply, laterally.
If you evacuate all the air from a chamber it ceases to exist as a chamber. It would be crushed. It can't be done.
You can evacuate a lot of air from it and drop things and they will appear to drop at the same time to even slow motion equipment, but they are only dropping from a small height.
The resistance on the objects would be very small.
What you have to remember though, you have to exert energy to gain energy in equal amounts.
Any object out into a vacuum chamber has to be hoisted by energy for them to become potential energy before they are dropped. It's not gravity pulling them down it's atmospheric pressure upon the mass/density. Action and reaction at all times.
People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?
The con is gravity.
I'm talking about a balloon sitting iside a chamber not a glove outside of the chamber. Two different things. Understand this and you may get to grips, maybe.no, the glove expands until forces are equal. Elemental and molecular bond length are known.The proof is there when you put a deflated balloon into a chamber. Evacuate the chamber and the balloon blows up. If that's not proof, I dont know what is. It's there in your face.Scepti, If you do remove the air from a chamber, why do you not believe objects will fall at the same rate. If there is no air resistance what other force would be present to change their rate of fall? no air=no resistance
He believes the scant few air molecules that are not evacuated, expand to fill the chamber creating a resisting medium. Yes, I wrote that: he thinks molecules expand.
Reduction in pressure outside the balloon, allowing pressure inside balloon to push outward, thus expanding it. You have never proven molecules and atoms grow to fill all voids.The bigger they are the less you see. the more condensed they are, the more you sort of see what it is.
If they keep expanding when evacuating air from a vacuum chamber, at what point will they become big enough to see?
They don't float because of gravity. They are falling. They 'float' because of their lateral velocity.Well this is space isn't it and you know what I think of that. This will never help you grasp what I'm saying, it will just hinder you.
I must say, I think you are correct. I never did believe in gravity, I just accepted what I was taught. Your explanation makes a lot more sense to me.I promise you this. If you study what I'm saying and discard gravity in your thoughts, even if it's just to grasp what I'm saying, you will have an excellnt chance to see why gravity is crap and why what we've been told is crap about space and exploits, plus a spinning globe.
Wait, you actually believed something sceptic said?That's no answer is it?
Gravity is real. Pick an object, let it fall and will hit the ground because of that. The theory of gravity is another thing. As far as science knows, appears to be related to objects' mass.
I must say, I think you are correct. I never did believe in gravity, I just accepted what I was taught. Your explanation makes a lot more sense to me.I promise you this. If you study what I'm saying and discard gravity in your thoughts, even if it's just to grasp what I'm saying, you will have an excellnt chance to see why gravity is crap and why what we've been told is crap about space and exploits, plus a spinning globe.
It takes a really deep thinker to get past this gravity.
Just remember; scientists do not know what gravity is. They pretend they know what it does but can't figure it out as any kind of force. It's just magic.
Imagine if I was on here telling these people that gravity is just a magic force that simply does this and that with the same expanations. I'd still be called a raving lunatic. ;D
I am so sure of what I'm saying, I've never been as sure of anything in my whle life. It's 100% correct. Denpressure is gravity and most people can't equate it because gravity has been so ingrained into the psyche it's as comman as bread and butter.
I will help you with that: if you take all of the air out of a chamber (at sea level), there will just be a force of 1kg/cm2 crushing it. Internal force: 0 External force: 1 (kg/cm2)That chamber before evacuation has around 15 psi of pressure acting upon the top of it. It also has that pressure from the top of it pushed inside of it toequalise the pressure between the thin glass jar (vacuum chamber).
If we take a tire with a manometric pressure of 1 bar, the force will be THE SAME, 2 internal - 1 internal, but it will tend to expand it, not compress it. The total force experienced by the chamber is just the difference between the internal and external
The bigger they are the less you see. the more condensed they are, the more you sort of see what it is.
Not the exact same thing but imagine this.
If you have a white balloon that would never pop and it's deflated, you see it as white, right?
Now imagine blowing up the balloon and what happens?
You start to see it become a lighter shade of white and so on and so on until it becomes see through.
Try and think like that for expansion and contraction.
Why is it that you don't know anything about gravity, as shown in this statement, yet you deny it?I'm not misleading anyone. You people are being misled and you won't look iinto it. All you ant to do is aid in it by trying to stop people thinking for themselves and to follow protocol, kind of thing.
Why are you misleading Yendor, and a lot of other people?
No scientist, no NASA scientist, no modern scientist has ever claimed that in space there is no gravity. That is what you are claiming by "float in space" right? If not, disregard this. But you have just treaded onto the path of a Kerbal Space Program fanatic, and you will not get away with it.I don't go by any space programs, why would I?
In movies, they often depict space travel from Earth with a gravity cutoff, where all of a sudden, after they reach a certain altitude, all gravity goes away. This is not true, and it's clear Sceptimatic hasn't done any research on the subject.So why do they depict it? In movies the actors go to pians in telling us how much research they do to play the part in a film. Are you telling me that where space is cocnerned, they don't do the research to find out how to show us what the so called experts have shown them?
The gravity of Earth actually extends much further than the even the moon. The gravity of Earth on the International Space Station is virtually the same that it is on the ground.Yes because you've been told all this stuff. You don't actually know, do you?
So, how can this be? Why do people float in space? Well, as someone else has pointed out, the moon, and the ISS are in orbit. All spacecraft in space are. Their lateral velocity is actually just high enough to essentially "miss" the Earth as they fall.Look. When someone goes around on a swing and the swing chain smaps, they fly off and land in some bushes no matter how fast they go.
Think about throwing a ball on the moon (no air resistance in this scenario, makes things a bit easier). You throw the ball with not much force, and it falls a few hundred feet away. Every time you throw the ball, you add more force and it goes further. Now, you throw the ball with so much force, that its velocity is high enough to circle the entire moon, and it will continue doing so, until something stops it (a human does not actually have the strength to propel a ball to the velocity required to achieve orbit on the moon at just 2 meters in altitude, this is just an example).Think about being a human in an extreme low pressure environment. Now think about the balloon in the vacuum chamber. That's all you need to know about it all. It's not happening by any stretch of the imagination, except by sci-fi fantasy imagination.
The only reason astronauts "float" in space, is, humorously, because they are falling with their spacecraft. They both have the same velocity, so it just looks like they are floating. In reality, both the ISS and the astronauts inside are moving a nice smooth 7.66 kilometers per second around the world.Yeah, it's all good for leisurely sci-fi but we are trying to gain reality here.
The whole line of thinking about scientists "not even knowing what gravity is" is such a red herring. We don't know what electro-magnetism in this way either. We say it is a force that is mediated by the exchange of virtual photons, but we don't really know what it is. For some reason, fragile human psyches latch on to gravity as something more mysterious and it does not make sense.It's all atmospheric pressure, the lot, including electrmagnetism and simple magnets. Everything is atmospheric pressure, just not in how you look at the basics of it.
Why do you doubt gravity but not electro-magnetism?
Denpressure is the key to it all for those who've took notice.
Scepti please. Pressure doesn't work like that. We are not talking about something we can't prove like gravity, this is simple. If yu take all of the air out of a chamber, it doesn't necessarily have to implode. It is not difficult to make a chamber which can resist a pressure difference of 1 kg/cm2I will help you with that: if you take all of the air out of a chamber (at sea level), there will just be a force of 1kg/cm2 crushing it. Internal force: 0 External force: 1 (kg/cm2)That chamber before evacuation has around 15 psi of pressure acting upon the top of it. It also has that pressure from the top of it pushed inside of it toequalise the pressure between the thin glass jar (vacuum chamber).
If we take a tire with a manometric pressure of 1 bar, the force will be THE SAME, 2 internal - 1 internal, but it will tend to expand it, not compress it. The total force experienced by the chamber is just the difference between the internal and external
When you evacuate the air from it, you are now adding to the pressure upon the chamber by pushing the air inside it back into the atmosphere above it which the glass itself has to try and stop. If only a certain amount of evacuated, the bell jar will hold but will be under extreme pressure. Try and take too much out and that jar will implode, no doubt about it.
It's all about stable equalisation at the start as a push on push of air. Once you change that push, you create an uneven air pressure.
This has to happen in life or we die. Action/reaction at all times.
You can't put a tyre in your space, inflated to any pressure. It will simply expand and blow apart. It would do this well before that, anyway.Scepti please. Pressure doesn't work like that. We are not talking about something we can't prove like gravity, this is simple. If yu take all of the air out of a chamber, it doesn't necessarily have to implode. It is not difficult to make a chamber which can resist a pressure difference of 1 kg/cm2I will help you with that: if you take all of the air out of a chamber (at sea level), there will just be a force of 1kg/cm2 crushing it. Internal force: 0 External force: 1 (kg/cm2)That chamber before evacuation has around 15 psi of pressure acting upon the top of it. It also has that pressure from the top of it pushed inside of it toequalise the pressure between the thin glass jar (vacuum chamber).
If we take a tire with a manometric pressure of 1 bar, the force will be THE SAME, 2 internal - 1 internal, but it will tend to expand it, not compress it. The total force experienced by the chamber is just the difference between the internal and external
When you evacuate the air from it, you are now adding to the pressure upon the chamber by pushing the air inside it back into the atmosphere above it which the glass itself has to try and stop. If only a certain amount of evacuated, the bell jar will hold but will be under extreme pressure. Try and take too much out and that jar will implode, no doubt about it.
It's all about stable equalisation at the start as a push on push of air. Once you change that push, you create an uneven air pressure.
This has to happen in life or we die. Action/reaction at all times.
And as I told you, if we put a tire with an absolute pressure of 2 bar (bar=kg/cm2) in space, it would have the same pressure it would down on earth, and if atmospheric pressure was 3 bar, for example we could put a 5 bar pressure in and it would have again the same relative pressure.
People believe a vacuum will make things fall faster on Earth but then they go and tell you that they float in space. Can you see the con?Why is it that you don't know anything about gravity, as shown in this statement, yet you deny it?
The con is gravity.
Why are you misleading Yendor, and a lot of other people?
No scientist, no NASA scientist, no modern scientist has ever claimed that in space there is no gravity. That is what you are claiming by "float in space" right? If not, disregard this. But you have just treaded onto the path of a Kerbal Space Program fanatic, and you will not get away with it.
In movies, they often depict space travel from Earth with a gravity cutoff, where all of a sudden, after they reach a certain altitude, all gravity goes away. This is not true, and it's clear Sceptimatic hasn't done any research on the subject. The gravity of Earth actually extends much further than the even the moon. The gravity of Earth on the International Space Station is virtually the same that it is on the ground. So, how can this be? Why do people float in space? Well, as someone else has pointed out, the moon, and the ISS are in orbit. All spacecraft in space are. Their lateral velocity is actually just high enough to essentially "miss" the Earth as they fall. Think about throwing a ball on the moon (no air resistance in this scenario, makes things a bit easier). You throw the ball with not much force, and it falls a few hundred feet away. Every time you throw the ball, you add more force and it goes further. Now, you throw the ball with so much force, that its velocity is high enough to circle the entire moon, and it will continue doing so, until something stops it (a human does not actually have the strength to propel a ball to the velocity required to achieve orbit on the moon at just 2 meters in altitude, this is just an example).
The only reason astronauts "float" in space, is, humorously, because they are falling with their spacecraft. They both have the same velocity, so it just looks like they are floating. In reality, both the ISS and the astronauts inside are moving a nice smooth 7.66 kilometers per second around the world.Where does the lateral velocity come from?If you've ever watched a rocket launch, never do the rockets go straight up. They slowly swing off to the north, west, east, south, or anything in between, depending on what their trajectory calls for. Eventually, rockets end up thrusting parallel to the Earth, pointing around towards the horizon. This all increases their lateral velocity to establish orbit, or else they would fall right back down to Earth, no matter what altitude they are in. The lateral velocity comes from the boosting of the rocket, simply, laterally.
The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
The evidence that is available shows otherwise.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
I understand what you are saying. While the astronauts are in the craft I can see where they are traveling along at the same speed as the craft. However, during space walks, all the videos I see show where they simply open the hatch and float out makes no sense to me. I would think all of a sudden their force and the crafts would not be the sameWhy do you think that?
and I would expect to see some kind of reaction. I don't, they just float out as if nothing happened.Nothing has happened.
Also, when a rocket enters space to undock a satellite, what keeps the rocket from simply orbiting the Earth like the satellite. What slows it down so gravity can pull it back to Earth. I would think the same momentum that keeps the satellite in space would keep the rocket in space too. I have many more questions like this.I think a basic grasp of Newton's laws of motion would answer these questions and many more. Seriously.
The Lord says in 2 Esdras 6:1-6
"I made this decision before I created the world: before the gates of the world were standing; before the winds were brought together to blow, or the lightning flashed, or the thunder rolled; before the foundations of Paradise were laid, or the beautiful flowers appeared; before the powers that move the stars were established, or the armies of angels assembled; before the air was piled up high, or the divisions of the heavens given their names; before I chose Mount Zion as my footstool; before the present age was planned, or the scheming of its sinners was rejected, or my seal was placed on those who obeyed the Law and laid up a treasure of faithfulness. Even then, I decided that since I, and I alone, had created the world, I, and I alone, would bring it to an end."
I understand what you are saying. While the astronauts are in the craft I can see where they are traveling along at the same speed as the craft. However, during space walks, all the videos I see show where they simply open the hatch and float out makes no sense to me. I would think all of a sudden their force and the crafts would not be the sameWhy do you think that?Quoteand I would expect to see some kind of reaction. I don't, they just float out as if nothing happened.Nothing has happened.QuoteAlso, when a rocket enters space to undock a satellite, what keeps the rocket from simply orbiting the Earth like the satellite. What slows it down so gravity can pull it back to Earth. I would think the same momentum that keeps the satellite in space would keep the rocket in space too. I have many more questions like this.I think a basic grasp of Newton's laws of motion would answer these questions and many more. Seriously.
It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
Don't listen up sceptimatic in this respect. He still thinks we claim there is a gravity cutoff and still uses it as an argument. A strawman argument.
I think this video might help you a bit. It's the ISS conducting a small burn of a few m/s with astronauts inside.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station: (http://)
The iss itself is boosting forward, while the astronauts inside are not holding on to anything, so they are going to be left behind, regardless of whether they are in an enclosed space or not.
As for how rockets get out of orbit, they simply turn around and boost 'retrograde' or in the opposite direction of their forward velocity vector. This slows then down, minute by minute, until their trajectory no longer competes a full orbit.
I kinda understand your scepticism, but I have seen the ISS myself using a friend's telescope, you can do it with almost any telescope, doesn't have to be and expensive one. You can clearly see its shape, not with great detail, but it is clearly the ISS.It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
Don't listen up sceptimatic in this respect. He still thinks we claim there is a gravity cutoff and still uses it as an argument. A strawman argument.
I think this video might help you a bit. It's the ISS conducting a small burn of a few m/s with astronauts inside.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station: (http://)
The iss itself is boosting forward, while the astronauts inside are not holding on to anything, so they are going to be left behind, regardless of whether they are in an enclosed space or not.
As for how rockets get out of orbit, they simply turn around and boost 'retrograde' or in the opposite direction of their forward velocity vector. This slows then down, minute by minute, until their trajectory no longer competes a full orbit.
okay, I've seen all the iss videos and I get your point. I'm just not convinced there really is an iss. I've seen too many videos that are blatantly fake.
okay, I've seen all the iss videos and I get your point. I'm just not convinced there really is an iss. I've seen too many videos that are blatantly fake.Do you ever think it's strange that none of the world's video, CGI and special effect experts never call these fake, yet you can spot em every time?
As ocha said, anybody can see the ISS and its general shape with a cheap telescope setup. I had a Celestron Newtonian telescope and a Canon T3 DSLR which was around $600, I got images a lot like these:It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
Don't listen up sceptimatic in this respect. He still thinks we claim there is a gravity cutoff and still uses it as an argument. A strawman argument.
I think this video might help you a bit. It's the ISS conducting a small burn of a few m/s with astronauts inside.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station: (http://)
The iss itself is boosting forward, while the astronauts inside are not holding on to anything, so they are going to be left behind, regardless of whether they are in an enclosed space or not.
As for how rockets get out of orbit, they simply turn around and boost 'retrograde' or in the opposite direction of their forward velocity vector. This slows then down, minute by minute, until their trajectory no longer competes a full orbit.
okay, I've seen all the iss videos and I get your point. I'm just not convinced there really is an iss. I've seen too many videos that are blatantly fake.
As ocha said, anybody can see the ISS and its general shape with a cheap telescope setup. I had a Celestron Newtonian telescope and a Canon T3 DSLR which was around $600, I got images a lot like these:It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
Don't listen up sceptimatic in this respect. He still thinks we claim there is a gravity cutoff and still uses it as an argument. A strawman argument.
I think this video might help you a bit. It's the ISS conducting a small burn of a few m/s with astronauts inside.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station: (http://)
The iss itself is boosting forward, while the astronauts inside are not holding on to anything, so they are going to be left behind, regardless of whether they are in an enclosed space or not.
As for how rockets get out of orbit, they simply turn around and boost 'retrograde' or in the opposite direction of their forward velocity vector. This slows then down, minute by minute, until their trajectory no longer competes a full orbit.
okay, I've seen all the iss videos and I get your point. I'm just not convinced there really is an iss. I've seen too many videos that are blatantly fake.
(http://) (1:06 is where the images are)
And anybody can do this, as long as you have a clear night. You can even track the Soyuz or the Shuttle(not anymore as the shuttle was decommissioned unfortunately) docking with the ISS, and even, with obviously a much more powerful telescope, see astronauts during spacewalks. Anybody can do this. You cannot outright deny it. Sceptimatic can't deny it, you can't deny it, no one can, because anybody can buy a decent telescope and see it for themselves, as I have. The ISS/Space Shuttle/Soyuz is real, and you cannot deny it.
My friend and I took this one around a year ago with a Meade 2080B 8" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope, and a DSLR.As ocha said, anybody can see the ISS and its general shape with a cheap telescope setup. I had a Celestron Newtonian telescope and a Canon T3 DSLR which was around $600, I got images a lot like these:It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
Don't listen up sceptimatic in this respect. He still thinks we claim there is a gravity cutoff and still uses it as an argument. A strawman argument.
I think this video might help you a bit. It's the ISS conducting a small burn of a few m/s with astronauts inside.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station: (http://)
The iss itself is boosting forward, while the astronauts inside are not holding on to anything, so they are going to be left behind, regardless of whether they are in an enclosed space or not.
As for how rockets get out of orbit, they simply turn around and boost 'retrograde' or in the opposite direction of their forward velocity vector. This slows then down, minute by minute, until their trajectory no longer competes a full orbit.
okay, I've seen all the iss videos and I get your point. I'm just not convinced there really is an iss. I've seen too many videos that are blatantly fake.
(http://) (1:06 is where the images are)
And anybody can do this, as long as you have a clear night. You can even track the Soyuz or the Shuttle(not anymore as the shuttle was decommissioned unfortunately) docking with the ISS, and even, with obviously a much more powerful telescope, see astronauts during spacewalks. Anybody can do this. You cannot outright deny it. Sceptimatic can't deny it, you can't deny it, no one can, because anybody can buy a decent telescope and see it for themselves, as I have. The ISS/Space Shuttle/Soyuz is real, and you cannot deny it.
Will you kindly share the pictures you took with me? I'd love to see the ones you took. Look, I want to believe the things are as they say they are, but I have my doubts. I'm old enough to have witnessed the entire space program and I have worked in technology my whole life. The things I've read and seen have convinced me it may not be as we are told.
My friend and I took this one around a year ago with a Meade 2080B 8" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope, and a DSLR.As ocha said, anybody can see the ISS and its general shape with a cheap telescope setup. I had a Celestron Newtonian telescope and a Canon T3 DSLR which was around $600, I got images a lot like these:It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
Don't listen up sceptimatic in this respect. He still thinks we claim there is a gravity cutoff and still uses it as an argument. A strawman argument.
I think this video might help you a bit. It's the ISS conducting a small burn of a few m/s with astronauts inside.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station: (http://)
The iss itself is boosting forward, while the astronauts inside are not holding on to anything, so they are going to be left behind, regardless of whether they are in an enclosed space or not.
As for how rockets get out of orbit, they simply turn around and boost 'retrograde' or in the opposite direction of their forward velocity vector. This slows then down, minute by minute, until their trajectory no longer competes a full orbit.
okay, I've seen all the iss videos and I get your point. I'm just not convinced there really is an iss. I've seen too many videos that are blatantly fake.
(http://) (1:06 is where the images are)
And anybody can do this, as long as you have a clear night. You can even track the Soyuz or the Shuttle(not anymore as the shuttle was decommissioned unfortunately) docking with the ISS, and even, with obviously a much more powerful telescope, see astronauts during spacewalks. Anybody can do this. You cannot outright deny it. Sceptimatic can't deny it, you can't deny it, no one can, because anybody can buy a decent telescope and see it for themselves, as I have. The ISS/Space Shuttle/Soyuz is real, and you cannot deny it.
Will you kindly share the pictures you took with me? I'd love to see the ones you took. Look, I want to believe the things are as they say they are, but I have my doubts. I'm old enough to have witnessed the entire space program and I have worked in technology my whole life. The things I've read and seen have convinced me it may not be as we are told.
http://i.imgur.com/hF0e9b2.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/hF0e9b2.jpg)
Pictures like these are made by amateurs all over the internet if you want to see yourself. I'm stressing though that you must try it yourself before outright denying it. If you think pictures are fabricated, and we are all part of the conspiracy, you still cannot deny the ISS until you see it yourself, or else you're being dishonest and unreasonable.
Well considering that the plain existence of a space station demonstrably traveling 7.66 km/s already disproves most of FET, and considering the fact that I witnessed a Shuttle launch, and that the docking of the shuttle or Soyuz to the ISS can be and has been photographed from the ground by an amateur, and the fact that there are dozens of videos of people floating in the ISS for hours; Yes.My friend and I took this one around a year ago with a Meade 2080B 8" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope, and a DSLR.As ocha said, anybody can see the ISS and its general shape with a cheap telescope setup. I had a Celestron Newtonian telescope and a Canon T3 DSLR which was around $600, I got images a lot like these:It is true that there is some air resistance in the altitude of the ISS, but it's definitely not enough to feel it. If that were the case then the iss would have to constantly boost itself into orbit, which it only has to do every few months.The astronauts are going at the same speed as the spacecraft. Because there is very little, if any, air resistance in orbit, they stay going at the same speed as the spacecraft when they are exiting. Therefore, they appear to float out of the hatch. The spacecraft is stationary relative to the astronaut.
A simple experiment you can do is to drop a ball in a moving vehicle. The ball does not fly backwards at 50 mph when you release it. It just drops straight down.
However, there is some air resistance in space and traveling at 18,000 mph I think you would feel the effect.
Don't listen up sceptimatic in this respect. He still thinks we claim there is a gravity cutoff and still uses it as an argument. A strawman argument.
I think this video might help you a bit. It's the ISS conducting a small burn of a few m/s with astronauts inside.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station: (http://)
The iss itself is boosting forward, while the astronauts inside are not holding on to anything, so they are going to be left behind, regardless of whether they are in an enclosed space or not.
As for how rockets get out of orbit, they simply turn around and boost 'retrograde' or in the opposite direction of their forward velocity vector. This slows then down, minute by minute, until their trajectory no longer competes a full orbit.
okay, I've seen all the iss videos and I get your point. I'm just not convinced there really is an iss. I've seen too many videos that are blatantly fake.
(http://) (1:06 is where the images are)
And anybody can do this, as long as you have a clear night. You can even track the Soyuz or the Shuttle(not anymore as the shuttle was decommissioned unfortunately) docking with the ISS, and even, with obviously a much more powerful telescope, see astronauts during spacewalks. Anybody can do this. You cannot outright deny it. Sceptimatic can't deny it, you can't deny it, no one can, because anybody can buy a decent telescope and see it for themselves, as I have. The ISS/Space Shuttle/Soyuz is real, and you cannot deny it.
Will you kindly share the pictures you took with me? I'd love to see the ones you took. Look, I want to believe the things are as they say they are, but I have my doubts. I'm old enough to have witnessed the entire space program and I have worked in technology my whole life. The things I've read and seen have convinced me it may not be as we are told.
http://i.imgur.com/hF0e9b2.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/hF0e9b2.jpg)
Pictures like these are made by amateurs all over the internet if you want to see yourself. I'm stressing though that you must try it yourself before outright denying it. If you think pictures are fabricated, and we are all part of the conspiracy, you still cannot deny the ISS until you see it yourself, or else you're being dishonest and unreasonable.
Thank you, your picture looks very nice. You did to good to capture such a fine picture like that in a short amount of time. And by this picture, you are convinced there are people on board?
The ISS is supposed to be travelling at 17,000 mph and can do something like 16 orbits a day and these clever amateurs manage to capture it clearly as a shape of light.I have no reason to lie to you. You think I'm in the conspiracy or something? I know you can't lock on the ISS manually, that's why most telescopes have tracking device
Does anyone seriously believe something like this, illuminated by the so called sun, travlling at 17,000 mph would show up in a telescope like this from a distance of 230 supposed miles.
For all those scpetics looking in, please don't fall for this clap trap.
The ISS is supposed to be travelling at 17,000 mph and can do something like 16 orbits a day and these clever amateurs manage to capture it clearly as a shape of light.Seriously? Have you ever operated a camera? Have you ever TRIED seeing the ISS at night? Ugh. This makes me sick. This isn't even an argument. You're just rewording certain details to make them sound laughable, only making yourself sound laughable, because you clearly haven't tried imaging the ISS, because of your faith that it doesn't exist. But it does. And if you point a $200 telescope at it one clear night, you will see it. Until then, you are just spouting nonsense.
Does anyone seriously believe something like this, illuminated by the so called sun, travlling at 17,000 mph would show up in a telescope like this from a distance of 230 supposed miles.
For all those scpetics looking in, please don't fall for this clap trap.
The ISS is supposed to be travelling at 17,000 mph and can do something like 16 orbits a day and these clever amateurs manage to capture it clearly as a shape of light.
Does anyone seriously believe something like this, illuminated by the so called sun, travlling at 17,000 mph would show up in a telescope like this from a distance of 230 supposed miles.
For all those scpetics looking in, please don't fall for this clap trap.
Gosh Scepti...they have all this evidence against us, they must be right.Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;D
I'm not after convincing anyone. You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.The ISS is supposed to be travelling at 17,000 mph and can do something like 16 orbits a day and these clever amateurs manage to capture it clearly as a shape of light.Seriously? Have you ever operated a camera? Have you ever TRIED seeing the ISS at night? Ugh. This makes me sick. This isn't even an argument. You're just rewording certain details to make them sound laughable, only making yourself sound laughable, because you clearly haven't tried imaging the ISS, because of your faith that it doesn't exist. But it does. And if you point a $200 telescope at it one clear night, you will see it. Until then, you are just spouting nonsense.
Does anyone seriously believe something like this, illuminated by the so called sun, travlling at 17,000 mph would show up in a telescope like this from a distance of 230 supposed miles.
For all those scpetics looking in, please don't fall for this clap trap.
I hope you realize, sceptimatic, that shutter speeds upwards of 1/4000 of a second were used. And I hope you realize, that over 500 images were taken, and this was the only one that wasn't completely blurry. I also hope you realize, that there is something called a Star Tracker Mount. You're not convincing anyone but yourself.
Gosh Scepti...they have all this evidence against us, they must be right.Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;D
I'm not after convincing anyone. You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.This is what he does when he gets cornered. He fails to refute any of our points, and he resorts to giggling and not confirming anything himself like he so often pleas us to do.
And with this failure at comprehending the English language, he attempts to derail the entire argument.A look where?
Obviously, the last thing that any member of this "Zetetic" society would do is go have a look themselves.
Making up cr@p is the easy option.
A look where?The ISS is supposed to be travelling at 17,000 mph and can do something like 16 orbits a day and these clever amateurs manage to capture it clearly as a shape of light.
Does anyone seriously believe something like this, illuminated by the so called sun, travlling at 17,000 mph would show up in a telescope like this from a distance of 230 supposed miles.
For all those scpetics looking in, please don't fall for this clap trap.
Obviously, the last thing that any member of this "Zetetic" society would do is go have a look themselves.
Making up cr@p is the easy option.
Cornered? I'm encircled and still standing upright, because none of you can refute what I'm saying, except to try desperately to hang on.Gosh Scepti...they have all this evidence against us, they must be right.Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;DI'm not after convincing anyone. You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.This is what he does when he gets cornered. He fails to refute any of our points, and he resorts to giggling and not confirming anything himself like he so often pleas us to do.
Let me do what you do to me: saying it's bullshit does not make it so.
You have failed to disprove the evidence of the ISS, you have failed to disprove the credibility of our evidence that it exists, and you resort to... giggling. I would call that being cornered.Cornered? I'm encircled and still standing upright, because none of you can refute what I'm saying, except to try desperately to hang on.Gosh Scepti...they have all this evidence against us, they must be right.Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;DI'm not after convincing anyone. You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.This is what he does when he gets cornered. He fails to refute any of our points, and he resorts to giggling and not confirming anything himself like he so often pleas us to do.
Let me do what you do to me: saying it's bullshit does not make it so.
So a few amateur debaters on a forum tell me they've seen the ISS through all kinds of telescopes from cheap to even binoculars and that's evidence? don't kid yourself.You have failed to disprove the evidence of the ISS, you have failed to disprove the credibility of our evidence that it exists, and you resort to... giggling. I would call that being cornered.Cornered? I'm encircled and still standing upright, because none of you can refute what I'm saying, except to try desperately to hang on.Gosh Scepti...they have all this evidence against us, they must be right.Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;DI'm not after convincing anyone. You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.This is what he does when he gets cornered. He fails to refute any of our points, and he resorts to giggling and not confirming anything himself like he so often pleas us to do.
Let me do what you do to me: saying it's bullshit does not make it so.
Oh yeah, that bite sure hurts. Seriously though, you haven't presented anY refute, and you think you won. That's hilarious. All you're doing right now is repeating things over and over. Looks like someone is losing their cool.So a few amateur debaters on a forum tell me they've seen the ISS through all kinds of telescopes from cheap to even binoculars and that's evidence? don't kid yourself.You have failed to disprove the evidence of the ISS, you have failed to disprove the credibility of our evidence that it exists, and you resort to... giggling. I would call that being cornered.Cornered? I'm encircled and still standing upright, because none of you can refute what I'm saying, except to try desperately to hang on.Gosh Scepti...they have all this evidence against us, they must be right.Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;DI'm not after convincing anyone. You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.This is what he does when he gets cornered. He fails to refute any of our points, and he resorts to giggling and not confirming anything himself like he so often pleas us to do.
Let me do what you do to me: saying it's bullshit does not make it so.
The only evidence you have is tying bullshit and thinking people will just accept it. Only your little friends on here will do that. Not good enough, oh and get your neck seen to, I've just bitten it.
Never try to corner a RAT (Rational avid truthteller). :P
Cornered? I'm encircled and still standing upright, because none of you can refute what I'm saying, except to try desperately to hang on.Gosh Scepti...they have all this evidence against us, they must be right.Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;DI'm not after convincing anyone. You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.This is what he does when he gets cornered. He fails to refute any of our points, and he resorts to giggling and not confirming anything himself like he so often pleas us to do.
Let me do what you do to me: saying it's bullshit does not make it so.
The ISS is supposed to be travelling at 17,000 mph and can do something like 16 orbits a day and these clever amateurs manage to capture it clearly as a shape of light.
Does anyone seriously believe something like this, illuminated by the so called sun, travlling at 17,000 mph would show up in a telescope like this from a distance of 230 supposed miles.
For all those scpetics looking in, please don't fall for this clap trap.
Try stuff out and see.or
also do the experiments. You never know, they just might alter things.
Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.We've already proved the ISS, and obviously you can't disprove that. So now we're laughing at your attempts to make yourself feel victorious. If you've decided to buy yourself a telescope setup let us know. If you've decided to buy yourself a vacuum chamber let us know.
I don't need to let you know anything. I'm telling people who want to find out the truth. It's not about being victorious against the likes of you. I don't care what you think.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.We've already proved the ISS, and obviously you can't disprove that. So now we're laughing at your attempts to make yourself feel victorious. If you've decided to buy yourself a telescope setup let us know. If you've decided to buy yourself a vacuum chamber let us know.
I don't need to let you know anything. I'm telling people who want to find out the truth. It's not about being victorious against the likes of you. I don't care what you think."Cornered? I'm encircled and still standing upright, because none of you can refute what I'm saying, except to try desperately to hang on."
The one's I care about are those that can actually think for themselves.
Don't start pretending you know what I have and what I haven't, or what I've done. It's pointless. It's internet chit chat, just like you being this and that. You could be anything and anyone and claim to be anything or anyone other than what you really are. So could I.
Having said that. If you want to find the truth, then pay attention. If you don't want to pay attention, then keep acting the way you are and you will get frustrated in time. I'm simply too good and too genius of mind on the ability to understand basic science that has been turned into a spaghetti maze of absolute bullshit that you buy into and beg for more.
So a few amateur debaters on a forum tell me they've seen the ISS through all kinds of telescopes from cheap to even binoculars and that's evidence? don't kid yourself.
The only evidence you have is tying bullshit and thinking people will just accept it.
Yep, they are all accomplished astronomers now and can actually see astronauts repairing the space station and everything. It's so ludicrous it makes me giggle like a kid. ;D
You're trying to convince me of your bullshit and I'm just sat here amused at your desperate attempts to sell what should be clear to anyone with a brain, is clear and utter bullshit.
Keep it going Jet, the frustration is setting in with you. This is why you'll never understand anything. Next time come with a better gameplan, you people are easy meat.
I'm simply too good and too genius of mind on the ability to understand basic science that has been turned into a spaghetti maze of absolute bullshit that you buy into and beg for more.
Keep it going Jet, the frustration is setting in with you. This is why you'll never understand anything. Next time come with a better gameplan, you people are easy meat.
See you in your next name, fission man. ;DKeep it going Jet, the frustration is setting in with you. This is why you'll never understand anything. Next time come with a better gameplan, you people are easy meat.
Nope, no need for me to keep going. You've already exposed your true self to everyone. Nice.
Have fun, guys!
Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
I will repeat it, sceptimatic. It is not that I am brainwashed. I can think for myself. If I discarded gravity, denpressure would be the last option I'd consider. Universal Acceleration? Occam's razor: well, its main con is that it requires a global conspiracy to be valid. And still doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that might be that I'm used to know about gravity. Then there is denpessure. For it to be true, there are several problems: global conspiracy, basic physics have to be wrong (really, this is pretty stupid, most things you deny can be easily proven and understood), etc. So anyway, I'll stick with gravity. And for a theory to make less sense than UA, it has to be pretty stupid.Nothing else will ever make sense to a programmed robot, if that robot has been fed different information, so I fully understand why you take the stance you do.
Well, you can start by burning your science fiction space books. That's a good start. From then, you just have to realise that the so called genius scientists that gave out the gibberish, are nothing but puppets for the higher ranks and try and learn the truth from the people who can think. I'm trying to help and so are a few others. I suggest you take notice; but the choice has to be made from yourself.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
What truth are these "higher ranks" trying to hide? Gravity, density and pressure have all been studied for many years before any spaceWell, you can start by burning your science fiction space books. That's a good start. From then, you just have to realise that the so called genius scientists that gave out the gibberish, are nothing but puppets for the higher ranks and try and learn the truth from the people who can think. I'm trying to help and so are a few others. I suggest you take notice; but the choice has to be made from yourself.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
Maybe you can't manage it; or won't.
Never mind.
I don't care what you think.
That's right. Let's not forget Newton and his wig sat under an apple tree when the apple smacked his head. Eureka. ::)What truth are these "higher ranks" trying to hide? Gravity, density and pressure have all been studied for many years before any spaceWell, you can start by burning your science fiction space books. That's a good start. From then, you just have to realise that the so called genius scientists that gave out the gibberish, are nothing but puppets for the higher ranks and try and learn the truth from the people who can think. I'm trying to help and so are a few others. I suggest you take notice; but the choice has to be made from yourself.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
Maybe you can't manage it; or won't.
Never mind.conspiracyagency was even thought of.
No, eureka was Archimedes not Newton ::)That's right. Let's not forget Newton and his wig sat under an apple tree when the apple smacked his head. Eureka. ::)What truth are these "higher ranks" trying to hide? Gravity, density and pressure have all been studied for many years before any spaceWell, you can start by burning your science fiction space books. That's a good start. From then, you just have to realise that the so called genius scientists that gave out the gibberish, are nothing but puppets for the higher ranks and try and learn the truth from the people who can think. I'm trying to help and so are a few others. I suggest you take notice; but the choice has to be made from yourself.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
Maybe you can't manage it; or won't.
Never mind.conspiracyagency was even thought of.
Did he tell you that himself?No, eureka was Archimedes not Newton ::)That's right. Let's not forget Newton and his wig sat under an apple tree when the apple smacked his head. Eureka. ::)What truth are these "higher ranks" trying to hide? Gravity, density and pressure have all been studied for many years before any spaceWell, you can start by burning your science fiction space books. That's a good start. From then, you just have to realise that the so called genius scientists that gave out the gibberish, are nothing but puppets for the higher ranks and try and learn the truth from the people who can think. I'm trying to help and so are a few others. I suggest you take notice; but the choice has to be made from yourself.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
Maybe you can't manage it; or won't.
Never mind.conspiracyagency was even thought of.
The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
So does your face in a mirror but you aren't inside that mirror.In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
Just look at it. It's a sphere in every sense. The way light hits it, it's appearance has a sense of depth.
So does your face in a mirror but you aren't inside that mirror.In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
Just look at it. It's a sphere in every sense. The way light hits it, it's appearance has a sense of depth.
How do you come to this conclusion?So does your face in a mirror but you aren't inside that mirror.In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
Just look at it. It's a sphere in every sense. The way light hits it, it's appearance has a sense of depth.
Sure, and you'll also notice that the you can look at a whole different side of a face in a mirror if the mirror is close enough. The moon would need to be very far away. Something like 239,000 miles.
How do you come to this conclusion?So does your face in a mirror but you aren't inside that mirror.In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
Just look at it. It's a sphere in every sense. The way light hits it, it's appearance has a sense of depth.
Sure, and you'll also notice that the you can look at a whole different side of a face in a mirror if the mirror is close enough. The moon would need to be very far away. Something like 239,000 miles.
In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.
So does your face in a mirror but you aren't inside that mirror.
You will never see a different side to that reflection.How do you come to this conclusion?So does your face in a mirror but you aren't inside that mirror.In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
Just look at it. It's a sphere in every sense. The way light hits it, it's appearance has a sense of depth.
Sure, and you'll also notice that the you can look at a whole different side of a face in a mirror if the mirror is close enough. The moon would need to be very far away. Something like 239,000 miles.
A reflection in the mirror has depth right. One only needs to change the angle (or move about the earth) to see a different side of that reflection. This of course works just as well for things that are not reflections. So in both cases, the only way we could see the same side no matter where you are on earth is if it is astronomically far away. Meaning either the dome is nearly a quarter of million miles tall, or the moon is that far away. I'm just using that specific number because that is the known distance to the moon. You just need to understand that it needs to be very far away.
You will never see a different side to that reflection.How do you come to this conclusion?So does your face in a mirror but you aren't inside that mirror.In reality it shouldn't make sense to anyone that tehre is a rock in the sky, but mainstream supposed science has forced that silly belief and people trust authority, so here we are.The story is supposedly that newton had an epiphany when he noticed that the apples in the orchard fell off the trees while the moon sat in the sky, not falling. This led him to suppose that the moon was also under the same influence of gravity but some velocity was also influencing the moon.Oh right. Even more stupid then.
It's just a legend anyway. There is no way to confirm what actually gave him this epiphany but it seems logical to conclude that if everything falls except the heavens then there must be some reason why. If course this makes no sense to you because you've already supposed that the moon isn't an object.
Just look at it. It's a sphere in every sense. The way light hits it, it's appearance has a sense of depth.
Sure, and you'll also notice that the you can look at a whole different side of a face in a mirror if the mirror is close enough. The moon would need to be very far away. Something like 239,000 miles.
A reflection in the mirror has depth right. One only needs to change the angle (or move about the earth) to see a different side of that reflection. This of course works just as well for things that are not reflections. So in both cases, the only way we could see the same side no matter where you are on earth is if it is astronomically far away. Meaning either the dome is nearly a quarter of million miles tall, or the moon is that far away. I'm just using that specific number because that is the known distance to the moon. You just need to understand that it needs to be very far away.
It's like looking at a painting of a face. It's eyes will follow you everwhere you go. It's it's eyes, it's your eyes simply seeing the same picture on the move, just like you will see in a mirror, or why you only see the moons face.
I'm sorry but that doesn't answer my question. Who are these "higher ranks" and what truths are they trying to hide?That's right. Let's not forget Newton and his wig sat under an apple tree when the apple smacked his head. Eureka. ::)What truth are these "higher ranks" trying to hide? Gravity, density and pressure have all been studied for many years before any spaceWell, you can start by burning your science fiction space books. That's a good start. From then, you just have to realise that the so called genius scientists that gave out the gibberish, are nothing but puppets for the higher ranks and try and learn the truth from the people who can think. I'm trying to help and so are a few others. I suggest you take notice; but the choice has to be made from yourself.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
Maybe you can't manage it; or won't.
Never mind.conspiracyagency was even thought of.
Those who control us. Those at the very top who control our very existence. Who are they?I'm sorry but that doesn't answer my question. Who are these "higher ranks" and what truths are they trying to hide?That's right. Let's not forget Newton and his wig sat under an apple tree when the apple smacked his head. Eureka. ::)What truth are these "higher ranks" trying to hide? Gravity, density and pressure have all been studied for many years before any spaceWell, you can start by burning your science fiction space books. That's a good start. From then, you just have to realise that the so called genius scientists that gave out the gibberish, are nothing but puppets for the higher ranks and try and learn the truth from the people who can think. I'm trying to help and so are a few others. I suggest you take notice; but the choice has to be made from yourself.Some nice yapping there people. None of it disproves what I've been saying.How does one go about disproving an incoherent stream of gibberish? ???
Maybe you can't manage it; or won't.
Never mind.conspiracyagency was even thought of.
Name names scepti. Who is running the great "gravity conspiracy"?I don't know who's at the very top of the tree that keeps this up. It's total indoctrination by now. Intelligent people simply buy into it as per normal. After all, there's nothing to separate gravity from Atmospheric pressure in Earth, so it's not like they have to hide anything. The explanations are in plain sight.
Name names scepti. Who is running the great "gravity conspiracy"?I don't know who's at the very top of the tree that keeps this up.
Not a single name then?Name names scepti. Who is running the great "gravity conspiracy"?I don't know who's at the very top of the tree that keeps this up.
It's total indoctrination by now....usual blah, blah...............
Did you ever watch Charlies Angels? did you ever notice how Bosley was in charge and sent the girls on missions?Not a single name then?Name names scepti. Who is running the great "gravity conspiracy"?I don't know who's at the very top of the tree that keeps this up.QuoteIt's total indoctrination by now....usual blah, blah...............
Have you been drinking? This shit is sounding seriously deranged.Did you ever watch Charlies Angels? did you ever notice how Bosley was in charge and sent the girls on missions?Not a single name then?Name names scepti. Who is running the great "gravity conspiracy"?I don't know who's at the very top of the tree that keeps this up.QuoteIt's total indoctrination by now....usual blah, blah...............
Now, apart from having your pants down your ankles and your hand inside your Y fronts, can you remember what Charlie looked like, or was he just Charlie who was the major player behind the whole set up?
You can't decipher the logic behind what I said, can you? ;DHave you been drinking? This shit is sounding seriously deranged.Did you ever watch Charlies Angels? did you ever notice how Bosley was in charge and sent the girls on missions?Not a single name then?Name names scepti. Who is running the great "gravity conspiracy"?I don't know who's at the very top of the tree that keeps this up.QuoteIt's total indoctrination by now....usual blah, blah...............
Now, apart from having your pants down your ankles and your hand inside your Y fronts, can you remember what Charlie looked like, or was he just Charlie who was the major player behind the whole set up?
I asked you who was running the Great Gravity conspiracy and you started rambling on about 70s TV shows and Y-fronts.You start learning to be a good boy and not a bad tempered little brat and you may get answers to your questions, as long as you don't come back with more bad tempered bratty stuff.
Now you want me to "decipher the logic" behind that?
If you actually answered questions without the use of tortuous metaphors we might get somewhere. Though I suspect not.
No offense sceptimatic, but your explanations are a bit difficult to understand. Not because we wouldn't understand the concept of denpressure, but because your analogies and metaphors are confusing and ambiguous. Your writing style can sometimes be a bit difficult to understand, no offense once again.Don't worry about it. You need to use basic logic to grasp it. Thinking like you people do is not going to work unless you decide to think like that.
I suggest maybe finding someone else who also believes in it, who could explain?
I think if you just lay it out for us a bit more mathematically, it would make a lot more sense.
I tried using logic, still not making any sense to me.No problem. You tried and that's all that can be asked.
No offense sceptimatic, but your explanations are a bit difficult to understand.
No offense sceptimatic, but your explanations are a bit difficult to understand. Not because we wouldn't understand the concept of denpressure, but because your analogies and metaphors are confusing and ambiguous. Your writing style can sometimes be a bit difficult to understand, no offense once again.Don't worry about it. You need to use basic logic to grasp it. Thinking like you people do is not going to work unless you decide to think like that.
I suggest maybe finding someone else who also believes in it, who could explain?
I think if you just lay it out for us a bit more mathematically, it would make a lot more sense.
No problem though. My explanations aren't for you to grasp as a main rule. It's for those that possess the though process to look past the bullshit they were fed and to see how simple and basic the reality is.
Spending your life saturated in equations to understand basics is naturally going to kill off your thoughts on just about everything, so no wonder everything the science world tells you, makes sense to you.
No offence meant, it's just that we have different minds.
Never mind, you gave it a try.
Air molecules stack on air molecules but you won't tell us why, just that it does. Sound familiar?Name names scepti. Who is running the great "gravity conspiracy"?I don't know who's at the very top of the tree that keeps this up. It's total indoctrination by now. Intelligent people simply buy into it as per normal. After all, there's nothing to separate gravity from Atmospheric pressure in Earth, so it's not like they have to hide anything. The explanations are in plain sight.
Mass pulls on mass, they tell you. They don't tell you why, just that it does. So they can use this gravity clap trap to sell us a space jaunt and everything they say is in it.
This is the tactic you always turn to whenever you are stuck: pretend the other person has lost their temper and refuse to talk to them until they've "calmed down" or become "more respectful". You always finish it with one of your hilarious ;D emoticons.I asked you who was running the Great Gravity conspiracy and you started rambling on about 70s TV shows and Y-fronts.You start learning to be a good boy and not a bad tempered little brat and you may get answers to your questions, as long as you don't come back with more bad tempered bratty stuff.
Now you want me to "decipher the logic" behind that?
If you actually answered questions without the use of tortuous metaphors we might get somewhere. Though I suspect not.
You need to learn to be internet respectful and you will gain it back. ;D
Sceptimatic, I don't mean I don't understand your explanations, I mean I don't understand your sentence structure and English. It's almost like sometimes you run a random sentence generator and paste it in the forum. Maybe you think in ambiguous and derpy metaphors and strange adjectives, but we don't. And neither would a "free thinker."
And which is why I now suggest that you ask him to put you on his IGNORE list (as I am, thankfully).
You start learning to be a good boy and not a bad tempered little brat and you may get answers to your questions, as long as you don't come back with more bad tempered bratty stuff.
You need to learn to be internet respectful and you will gain it back.
And which is why I now suggest that you ask him to put you on his IGNORE list (as I am, thankfully).
Not yet. I'm genuinely interested in understanding his hypothesis.
Airplanes ARE effected by gravity, but they can counteract that with their wings which work like this:Yeah, we have been trying to explain to scepti for years, but he won't believe it. Not like it makes perfect sense and can be explained through basic physics.
(http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/teachers/images/pic4.gif)
The air on top is lower pressure so it sucks the wing up, and that's how airplanes fly. Newtonian physics doesn't account for air pressure because it doesn't need to, there is gravity on the airless moon that orbits Earth and astronauts orbiting the Earth in pressurized ships float around weightlessly. Air has NOTHING to do with gravity.
Yes it can be explained through basic physics but the basic physics are a lie. They appear to look a truth but they are a lie to cover up for the fact that atmospheric pressure is the only reason why everything works as it does.Airplanes ARE effected by gravity, but they can counteract that with their wings which work like this:Yeah, we have been trying to explain to scepti for years, but he won't believe it. Not like it makes perfect sense and can be explained through basic physics.
(http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/teachers/images/pic4.gif)
The air on top is lower pressure so it sucks the wing up, and that's how airplanes fly. Newtonian physics doesn't account for air pressure because it doesn't need to, there is gravity on the airless moon that orbits Earth and astronauts orbiting the Earth in pressurized ships float around weightlessly. Air has NOTHING to do with gravity.
Yeah, we have been trying to explain to scepti for years, but he won't believe it. Not like it makes perfect sense and can be explained through basic physics.
You OK scepti? You seem to be having some kind of manic episode.Absolutely fine crabby, thanks for asking. ;D
So in space, if you keep giving a little throttle every minute, you simply go faster until theoretically you reach the speed of light over time, even if your space ship has a theoretical 10 mph speed restriction on Earth.What's wrong with this exactly? You just feel that it is? The truth is hard for some people, I guess.
You see, it gets weirder and weirder when they pull this crap on us with space exploits - as in - the space station.Astronauts can in fact "tell the difference" between different masses they carry, I don't know where you're getting your information. It takes more energy to move objects of larger mass. You can feel that. On the ISS, the only difference is, they don't fall down. By the way, there is a huge difference between "zero gravity" and "zero g." Zero gravity doesn't exist. Zero g is when you don't experience gravity, which you can emulate by falling.
Actornauts show us all kinds of stuff where they lift weights or an apple and they can't tell the difference, because they are in zero - or "micro" gravity as we get told.
Stay inside your box. I have no more time for the likes of you. If the masses said a dog was a cat, you'd go with that.So in space, if you keep giving a little throttle every minute, you simply go faster until theoretically you reach the speed of light over time, even if your space ship has a theoretical 10 mph speed restriction on Earth.What's wrong with this exactly? You just feel that it is? The truth is hard for some people, I guess.You see, it gets weirder and weirder when they pull this crap on us with space exploits - as in - the space station.Astronauts can in fact "tell the difference" between different masses they carry, I don't know where you're getting your information. It takes more energy to move objects of larger mass. You can feel that. On the ISS, the only difference is, they don't fall down. By the way, there is a huge difference between "zero gravity" and "zero g." Zero gravity doesn't exist. Zero g is when you don't experience gravity, which you can emulate by falling.
Actornauts show us all kinds of stuff where they lift weights or an apple and they can't tell the difference, because they are in zero - or "micro" gravity as we get told.
But in the end, what exactly was the point of this ramble? Maybe you were referring back to our discussion about Newton's studies? I really hope you realize that Principia Mathematica outlines much, much, much more than just the laws of motion. In reality though you didn't debunk anything, you just rambled on about what you feel them to be.
Crab is right. You haven't been acting normal. Are you in a manic episode?
Do you want to talk about it? My TeamSpeak/Skype offer is still up.Stay inside your box. I have no more time for the likes of you. If the masses said a dog was a cat, you'd go with that.So in space, if you keep giving a little throttle every minute, you simply go faster until theoretically you reach the speed of light over time, even if your space ship has a theoretical 10 mph speed restriction on Earth.What's wrong with this exactly? You just feel that it is? The truth is hard for some people, I guess.You see, it gets weirder and weirder when they pull this crap on us with space exploits - as in - the space station.Astronauts can in fact "tell the difference" between different masses they carry, I don't know where you're getting your information. It takes more energy to move objects of larger mass. You can feel that. On the ISS, the only difference is, they don't fall down. By the way, there is a huge difference between "zero gravity" and "zero g." Zero gravity doesn't exist. Zero g is when you don't experience gravity, which you can emulate by falling.
Actornauts show us all kinds of stuff where they lift weights or an apple and they can't tell the difference, because they are in zero - or "micro" gravity as we get told.
But in the end, what exactly was the point of this ramble? Maybe you were referring back to our discussion about Newton's studies? I really hope you realize that Principia Mathematica outlines much, much, much more than just the laws of motion. In reality though you didn't debunk anything, you just rambled on about what you feel them to be.
Crab is right. You haven't been acting normal. Are you in a manic episode?
Just get on with what you were doing and leave me out of it.
So let me get this straight here. According to this the reason that causes object to fall towards the ground is air pressure and also it was mentioned that zero air pressure means no measured weight. So lets then think about isolated pockets of air pressure like aircraft cabins. If you would go for an zero G flight you would experience no weight as you are floating around but you also experience air pressure as you are able to breathe and not suffocate.Yes, there are many screamingly obvious holes in his "denpressure" bollocks. Scepti knows this, and just likes the attention he gets from the argument.
So how can it be that being at accelerating motion towards ground (approx 9.8 m/s^2) causes the effect of no weight but you can not observe vacuum in this? What's the relation between accelerating motion and air pressure then?
So let me get this straight here. According to this the reason that causes object to fall towards the ground is air pressure and also it was mentioned that zero air pressure means no measured weight. So lets then think about isolated pockets of air pressure like aircraft cabins. If you would go for an zero G flight you would experience no weight as you are floating around but you also experience air pressure as you are able to breathe and not suffocate.There is no zero G. It's the plane diving marginally faster than you can fall. You're all falling.
So how can it be that being at accelerating motion towards ground (approx 9.8 m/s^2) causes the effect of no weight but you can not observe vacuum in this? What's the relation between accelerating motion and air pressure then?
If none of you globalists gave me any attention from this point on, it would be fine with me. Try it.So let me get this straight here. According to this the reason that causes object to fall towards the ground is air pressure and also it was mentioned that zero air pressure means no measured weight. So lets then think about isolated pockets of air pressure like aircraft cabins. If you would go for an zero G flight you would experience no weight as you are floating around but you also experience air pressure as you are able to breathe and not suffocate.Yes, there are many screamingly obvious holes in his "denpressure" bollocks. Scepti knows this, and just likes the attention he gets from the argument.
So how can it be that being at accelerating motion towards ground (approx 9.8 m/s^2) causes the effect of no weight but you can not observe vacuum in this? What's the relation between accelerating motion and air pressure then?
Your threads would just die without our "interruptions", nobody else posts on them. You should thank us.If none of you globalists gave me any attention from this point on, it would be fine with me. Try it.So let me get this straight here. According to this the reason that causes object to fall towards the ground is air pressure and also it was mentioned that zero air pressure means no measured weight. So lets then think about isolated pockets of air pressure like aircraft cabins. If you would go for an zero G flight you would experience no weight as you are floating around but you also experience air pressure as you are able to breathe and not suffocate.Yes, there are many screamingly obvious holes in his "denpressure" bollocks. Scepti knows this, and just likes the attention he gets from the argument.
So how can it be that being at accelerating motion towards ground (approx 9.8 m/s^2) causes the effect of no weight but you can not observe vacuum in this? What's the relation between accelerating motion and air pressure then?
Your problem is, you can't ignore me and neither can your like minded friends. Why?...because that means people get to see what I type as a whole, over time with no interruptions by people like you and you can't be having that, can you. ;)
I post my thoughts. If you or your brainwashed friends never posted anything towards my thoughts, I'd simply post as and when. If that meant one post a week, then that's fine.Your threads would just die without our "interruptions", nobody else posts on them. You should thank us.If none of you globalists gave me any attention from this point on, it would be fine with me. Try it.So let me get this straight here. According to this the reason that causes object to fall towards the ground is air pressure and also it was mentioned that zero air pressure means no measured weight. So lets then think about isolated pockets of air pressure like aircraft cabins. If you would go for an zero G flight you would experience no weight as you are floating around but you also experience air pressure as you are able to breathe and not suffocate.Yes, there are many screamingly obvious holes in his "denpressure" bollocks. Scepti knows this, and just likes the attention he gets from the argument.
So how can it be that being at accelerating motion towards ground (approx 9.8 m/s^2) causes the effect of no weight but you can not observe vacuum in this? What's the relation between accelerating motion and air pressure then?
Your problem is, you can't ignore me and neither can your like minded friends. Why?...because that means people get to see what I type as a whole, over time with no interruptions by people like you and you can't be having that, can you. ;)
As I say, you just like the attention. Until you have one of your little tantrums that is.
Personally I think laughter is the best medicine. Once someone's decided air pressure exists independently of gravity, we've reached the point of absurdity. Scepti has yet to satisfactorily explain where the net downwards force from air pressure comes from: unless the fact of the Earth's extreme mass/volume/whatever enters into it, in which case all he's done is basically appeal to gravity.Before you just dive in, how about understanding how it works.
The only attempt at an explanation I've seen holds that the Earth is actually pushing us upwards, which is the exact opposite of what we observe, and the same principle means matter as we know it couldn't exist. Just a pity Scepti can't apply his apparently immense genius or in-the-name scepticism to his own work.
You go on about me describing gravity by mentioning atmospheric pressure. Of course I'm describing gravity. It's because gravity has been battered into your head. So what everyone observes, is put down to gravity. I'm explaining it with atmospheric pressure, so immediately you revert back to your brainwashed gravity.
So let me get this straight here. According to this the reason that causes object to fall towards the ground is air pressure and also it was mentioned that zero air pressure means no measured weight. So lets then think about isolated pockets of air pressure like aircraft cabins. If you would go for an zero G flight you would experience no weight as you are floating around but you also experience air pressure as you are able to breathe and not suffocate.There is no zero G. It's the plane diving marginally faster than you can fall. You're all falling.
So how can it be that being at accelerating motion towards ground (approx 9.8 m/s^2) causes the effect of no weight but you can not observe vacuum in this? What's the relation between accelerating motion and air pressure then?
The same effect would be in a lift if it dropped a split second before you. You would appear to be floating, yet you are plummeting to the ground just a tad slower than the lift.
If a set of scales in that lift were also falling at your feet, then you weigh nothing, because it cannot measure your weight.
There is no downward force as such.You go on about me describing gravity by mentioning atmospheric pressure. Of course I'm describing gravity. It's because gravity has been battered into your head. So what everyone observes, is put down to gravity. I'm explaining it with atmospheric pressure, so immediately you revert back to your brainwashed gravity.
Except atmospheric pressure does not exist without gravity. Unless you're appealing so some other net downwards force, in which case please explain. This is exactly what you demand of those who accept gravity. If you're appealing to an abstract 'well, it's just this,' then how does it know which way is down? Gravity has this explained (due to large bodies of mass), which sets it apart from your guess there and then. Unless your explanation is the same, and 'down' means 'towards large masses' in which case what you've described is literally gravity. That's not me reverting, it's exactly what you'd be saying.
Sure, the theory of gravity is not 100% complete. That's how science works: there are gaps, they get filled. But it makes sense, and the gaps in the theory are just that: gaps, voids, not incoherencies such as your 'the atmosphere knows which way is down because I say so'.
This is without getting onto issues such as expertise and corroboration and peer-review.
There is no downward force as such.I am using gravity as a comparison. This is twice I have asked you in this thread for an explanation of how your atmospheric pressure draws things towards the Earth in lieu of gravity to pull it down. Are you going to answer it any time soon? I am perfectly able to see if your theory is so much as sound on its own terms, if you would begin answering the questions posed.
You'll never understand it whilst you hang onto your fictional gravity force or whatever it's supposed to be as whatever force it is.
Very correct. This is exactly what happens. Lift falling would be another good example but the thing here is that your denpressure theory explains that the force that causes the motion downwards at free fall comes from the air pressure does it not? Only force acting inside the lift has to be coming from the pressure conditions inside the lift.To understand it all you have to understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Gravity and universal acceleration was abandoned, so cannot be them then. Or are you suggesting that air pressure penetrates always any barrier preventing us to manipulate air pressure locally at all?
So how does observer inside the lift or aircraft cabin know about the pressure conditions outside? It's an isolated pressure pocket. Using denpressure's own terms and little deduction you would expect that object inside the lift will fall or ascend always relative to the container that it is in because its dependent pressure conditions inside. Floating inside the lift cannot ever occur in this theory without a vacuum. But this floating does happen in your very own example, so where does the extra force come from that prevents object inside the pressure pocket to not move relative to the lift walls? Not saying anything about gravity but you need something fix the theory here.
What's your question?There is no downward force as such.I am using gravity as a comparison. This is twice I have asked you in this thread for an explanation of how your atmospheric pressure draws things towards the Earth in lieu of gravity to pull it down. Are you going to answer it any time soon? I am perfectly able to see if your theory is so much as sound on its own terms, if you would begin answering the questions posed.
You'll never understand it whilst you hang onto your fictional gravity force or whatever it's supposed to be as whatever force it is.
How does your atmospheric pressure know which way is towards the Earth? 'Down', if you will.I am using gravity as a comparison. This is twice I have asked you in this thread for an explanation of how your atmospheric pressure draws things towards the Earth in lieu of gravity to pull it down. Are you going to answer it any time soon? I am perfectly able to see if your theory is so much as sound on its own terms, if you would begin answering the questions posed.What's your question?
Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?There is no downward force as such.You go on about me describing gravity by mentioning atmospheric pressure. Of course I'm describing gravity. It's because gravity has been battered into your head. So what everyone observes, is put down to gravity. I'm explaining it with atmospheric pressure, so immediately you revert back to your brainwashed gravity.
Except atmospheric pressure does not exist without gravity. Unless you're appealing so some other net downwards force, in which case please explain. This is exactly what you demand of those who accept gravity. If you're appealing to an abstract 'well, it's just this,' then how does it know which way is down? Gravity has this explained (due to large bodies of mass), which sets it apart from your guess there and then. Unless your explanation is the same, and 'down' means 'towards large masses' in which case what you've described is literally gravity. That's not me reverting, it's exactly what you'd be saying.
Sure, the theory of gravity is not 100% complete. That's how science works: there are gaps, they get filled. But it makes sense, and the gaps in the theory are just that: gaps, voids, not incoherencies such as your 'the atmosphere knows which way is down because I say so'.
This is without getting onto issues such as expertise and corroboration and peer-review.
How does your atmospheric pressure know which way is towards the Earth? 'Down', if you will.Because it's stacked from the ground up, meaning more mass at ground level and less mass above due to compression build up of the stack.
Also, your notion that forces cannot pull is either false, or meaningless, depending how you're justifying it.It's not trivial at all. Nothing pulls at all and the sooner you understand this the sooner you'll see gravity as a lie. I don't expect you to of course. I think you're already so set in your ways. I'm still going to explain it to anyone that wants to understand, regardless.
It's false because we can pull things happily: but, if you're saying that we don't actually pull those things, we squeeze or reach around/push, then your argument has become a purely semantic one. It's trivial to say that gravity 'pulls' in the same way we pull: by reaching out and drawing in.
Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
So in other words, you can't explain the simple action of throwing a ball with your denpressure. Gotcha.When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
If you can't grasp what stacked means, how are you ever going to grasp the rest of it all.
This makes me think that you learn nothing and anything you appear to learn is simply what you cherry pick from google or some science book, then pass it off as if you know what you're talking about.
Prove to me you're not a dummy and I'll play along with you.
Don't come back to me unless you grasp what stacked means, inside a dome.
Asking me why in the downward direction then telling me you know what stacked means. Nahhhh. Come back when you actually understand it. I have no issue in explaining things to people with a brain. Get one and come back to me.So in other words, you can't explain the simple action of throwing a ball with your denpressure. Gotcha.When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
If you can't grasp what stacked means, how are you ever going to grasp the rest of it all.
This makes me think that you learn nothing and anything you appear to learn is simply what you cherry pick from google or some science book, then pass it off as if you know what you're talking about.
Prove to me you're not a dummy and I'll play along with you.
Don't come back to me unless you grasp what stacked means, inside a dome.
And I do know what stacked means. What I want to know is why in the downward direction?
You do have an issue with explaining to people. Because when asked a question a 5 year old would think of, you sidestep it.Asking me why in the downward direction then telling me you know what stacked means. Nahhhh. Come back when you actually understand it. I have no issue in explaining things to people with a brain. Get one and come back to me.So in other words, you can't explain the simple action of throwing a ball with your denpressure. Gotcha.When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
If you can't grasp what stacked means, how are you ever going to grasp the rest of it all.
This makes me think that you learn nothing and anything you appear to learn is simply what you cherry pick from google or some science book, then pass it off as if you know what you're talking about.
Prove to me you're not a dummy and I'll play along with you.
Don't come back to me unless you grasp what stacked means, inside a dome.
And I do know what stacked means. What I want to know is why in the downward direction?
Before I answer you I need to know if you are even dimply liy, never mind switched fully on.You do have an issue with explaining to people. Because when asked a question a 5 year old would think of, you sidestep it.Asking me why in the downward direction then telling me you know what stacked means. Nahhhh. Come back when you actually understand it. I have no issue in explaining things to people with a brain. Get one and come back to me.So in other words, you can't explain the simple action of throwing a ball with your denpressure. Gotcha.When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
If you can't grasp what stacked means, how are you ever going to grasp the rest of it all.
This makes me think that you learn nothing and anything you appear to learn is simply what you cherry pick from google or some science book, then pass it off as if you know what you're talking about.
Prove to me you're not a dummy and I'll play along with you.
Don't come back to me unless you grasp what stacked means, inside a dome.
And I do know what stacked means. What I want to know is why in the downward direction?
So why the downward direction? Why to to the left or to the right or up? Why down?
Very correct. This is exactly what happens. Lift falling would be another good example but the thing here is that your denpressure theory explains that the force that causes the motion downwards at free fall comes from the air pressure does it not? Only force acting inside the lift has to be coming from the pressure conditions inside the lift.To understand it all you have to understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Gravity and universal acceleration was abandoned, so cannot be them then. Or are you suggesting that air pressure penetrates always any barrier preventing us to manipulate air pressure locally at all?
So how does observer inside the lift or aircraft cabin know about the pressure conditions outside? It's an isolated pressure pocket. Using denpressure's own terms and little deduction you would expect that object inside the lift will fall or ascend always relative to the container that it is in because its dependent pressure conditions inside. Floating inside the lift cannot ever occur in this theory without a vacuum. But this floating does happen in your very own example, so where does the extra force come from that prevents object inside the pressure pocket to not move relative to the lift walls? Not saying anything about gravity but you need something fix the theory here.
Let's start...
Sceptic, I think you are missing the point. According to yourself, everything is touching everything. So when I move something to the left, it compresses the air creating a region of lower pressure to the right; this should result in the object being pushed back to the right (and vice versa). Clearly this doesn't happen. There's something special about one specific direction (down) that your model doesn't explain.You are more compressed from the top due to stacking than you are left or right.
Is this with or without gravity?Before I answer you I need to know if you are even dimply liy, never mind switched fully on.You do have an issue with explaining to people. Because when asked a question a 5 year old would think of, you sidestep it.Asking me why in the downward direction then telling me you know what stacked means. Nahhhh. Come back when you actually understand it. I have no issue in explaining things to people with a brain. Get one and come back to me.So in other words, you can't explain the simple action of throwing a ball with your denpressure. Gotcha.When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
If you can't grasp what stacked means, how are you ever going to grasp the rest of it all.
This makes me think that you learn nothing and anything you appear to learn is simply what you cherry pick from google or some science book, then pass it off as if you know what you're talking about.
Prove to me you're not a dummy and I'll play along with you.
Don't come back to me unless you grasp what stacked means, inside a dome.
And I do know what stacked means. What I want to know is why in the downward direction?
So why the downward direction? Why to to the left or to the right or up? Why down?
Ok, I want you to tell me what stacked would mean under a dome.
Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
Also, once you've done that. I want you to tell me what would be easier. If you held an iron ball in your hand, (bearing in mind your body is strong enough under the rubber balls to go about your life) what would happen if you tried to throw that iron ball up against the mass of rubber balls against throwing that iron ball horizontally into the rubber balls. Which would be easier and what would happen to the iron ball in both cases.It wouldn't matter which direction I throw it. If there is no gravity, and only the resistance of the material I am in effects the ball, then I believe this would happen.
If you can't answer this, then I'll explain.What do you consider a load of tosh? Anything that goes against your views? In that case, please explain why my above description is wrong.
If I'm not giving you a depeiction of the atmosphere , then explain why not.
There's a few things to ponder over. If you come back to me with a load of tosh, consider this the last post to you. Fair enough?
Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.Assuming the rubber balls are all the same (same mass, made of the same material, same size), that the pressure would be solely due to the rubber balls and taking out every outside force, the pressure would be equal all around.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
Why are you more compressed from the top?Sceptic, I think you are missing the point. According to yourself, everything is touching everything. So when I move something to the left, it compresses the air creating a region of lower pressure to the right; this should result in the object being pushed back to the right (and vice versa). Clearly this doesn't happen. There's something special about one specific direction (down) that your model doesn't explain.You are more compressed from the top due to stacking than you are left or right.
To sum that up an object seeks equilibrium based on it's density. It goes up if its less dense than the air surrounding it and down if its more dense and can't pass through a solid ground. Atmosphere is stacked so that it's more dense on the bottom. Roger that and this is the only assumption I'am using to argue against denpressure along with principle of inertia and conservation of energy. I believe that in your explanation you accepted these as well.No. An object doesn't. Atmosphere does. The object interferes with equilibrium when in motion by energy applied to it.
In lift/aircraft example the key was isolation from it's surrounding air pressure. Air pressure outside the lift/aircraft is not equal to inside. There is an isolated mini atmosphere inside the aircraft. Door is closed and no windows. Can you measure or observe atmospheric conditions outside? Like train on constant motion. You cannot feel it unless the train is turning or accelerating/decelerating.Ok, hopefully you may get this.
When free fall starts, experiencing from the inside suddenly you start to float. You don't fall towards the floor. How can this be explained via denpressure?Denpressure is still evident from an outsiders point of view but is not evident from your point of view because the plane negated it by matching your fall rate.
What I can tell from your explanation this is possible in only if atmospheric pressure is zero or if density layers of cabin have disappeared and there is now a constant pressure.The cabin is pressurised. Once that plane dives, it causes uneven air pressure. Basically the roof of the plane is pushing or compressing the air downwards but the plane is diving faster than it can push on you, so you basically push back on that, overcoming it easily with the aid of the planes power.
Lets think about latter for a moment. When you hit the ground the atmospheric layering must re-appear or else there would be no weight. Then someone comes and turns the container you were in upside down. What happens inside?Ok, let's assume you're trapped in a glass ball under 15psi.
Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
We can all agree that Air pressure is a known and measurable force that allows Airplanes to Fly and keeps Cars on the ground when driving.
We are denser than air and less dense than water which is why we float on water and fall to the ground.
Just think, the air pressure is strong enough to hold a giant airplane in the air. Airplanes certainly aren't equipped with top-secret anti-gravity devices, so why do we believe in gravity?
Air pressure can exert an equal downward force on all objects which would explain why objects of different size and mass fall at the same speed.
Does the equation for gravity account for Air pressure?
I don't think so...
All balls aren't the same. They are all under different pressures depending on where they are under the dome.QuoteHere's a scenario I'd like you to think of.Assuming the rubber balls are all the same (same mass, made of the same material, same size), that the pressure would be solely due to the rubber balls and taking out every outside force, the pressure would be equal all around.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
edit: BJ1234 beat me to it
We can all agree that Air pressure is a known and measurable force that allows Airplanes to Fly and keeps Cars on the ground when driving.
We are denser than air and less dense than water which is why we float on water and fall to the ground.
Just think, the air pressure is strong enough to hold a giant airplane in the air. Airplanes certainly aren't equipped with top-secret anti-gravity devices, so why do we believe in gravity?
Air pressure can exert an equal downward force on all objects which would explain why objects of different size and mass fall at the same speed.
Does the equation for gravity account for Air pressure?
I don't think so...
Wow, you have a gift for conciseness and simplicity.
Very clearly expressed concept. Thanks, iWitness. Now it is clear to me once and for all.
Here's a related video:
There is no such force as gravity only topological insulator (http://#noexternalembed-ws)
Because it's stacked from the ground up, meaning more mass at ground level and less mass above due to compression build up of the stack.The bottom of the bath because there is already a force pulling/pushing it down. You can't use the existence of such a force to explain the force. Without the force already existing, you could just as easily say it's stacked from dome up, because we can ignore the mass of the Earth and we should all be flying.
Think of it like running a bath which just happens to be a dome covered bath. You fill that bath to the top. Which has more pressure? bottom of the bath or top of the bath dome?
It's not trivial at all. Nothing pulls at all and the sooner you understand this the sooner you'll see gravity as a lie.Evidence?
Please reread what I posted. I assumed that the pressure is only due to the balls. There's nothing else there. If you are saying that there's also air in this scenario, then your analogy fails because you still need to explain why there's more air pressure in the bottom. In the case of a dome filled only with rubber balls, the pressure due to these balls is the same everywhere (assuming also no gravity).All balls aren't the same. They are all under different pressures depending on where they are under the dome.QuoteHere's a scenario I'd like you to think of.Assuming the rubber balls are all the same (same mass, made of the same material, same size), that the pressure would be solely due to the rubber balls and taking out every outside force, the pressure would be equal all around.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
edit: BJ1234 beat me to it
If you squash ball into balls then the balls at the bottom are going to be under more compression than those at the top. If you don't accept this, leave it at that because there's no way I'm explaining any further. It would be pointless.
There have been a few threads about scepti's Air Pressure Does Everything Theory(tm), and the gist of it seems to be that it's intended to replace gravity and inertia with some sort of air pressure action. I've seen scepti's explanations for how air pressure would keep an object in motion, but I don't think it has been discussed how air pressure would maintain rotational momentum? As in, set a suspended smooth wheel spinning and if it has any considerable weight it'll keep going for a good while even if the speed is not high, hardly disturbing the air around it, so it seems unlikely that any air pressure action would be responsible for the continued rotation.It's hardly disturbing the air around it to you but that doesn't mean it's not disturbing it at all, which is the key.
I admit that I didn't read this thread through, so excuse me if it has come up already. Or should this be a new thread?
I did try. Keep your eyes and ears closed. I have no more explaining to do with you.Because it's stacked from the ground up, meaning more mass at ground level and less mass above due to compression build up of the stack.The bottom of the bath because there is already a force pulling/pushing it down. You can't use the existence of such a force to explain the force. Without the force already existing, you could just as easily say it's stacked from dome up, because we can ignore the mass of the Earth and we should all be flying.
Think of it like running a bath which just happens to be a dome covered bath. You fill that bath to the top. Which has more pressure? bottom of the bath or top of the bath dome?
There should be no pressure at the edges of the dome (Earth and upper surface) without some force attracting the air to the edges.QuoteIt's not trivial at all. Nothing pulls at all and the sooner you understand this the sooner you'll see gravity as a lie.Evidence?
And on this note i'm also done with you. I'm not expending another second trying to explain something to someone who cannot grasp the simplicity of what I've just explained.Please reread what I posted. I assumed that the pressure is only due to the balls. There's nothing else there. If you are saying that there's also air in this scenario, then your analogy fails because you still need to explain why there's more air pressure in the bottom. In the case of a dome filled only with rubber balls, the pressure due to these balls is the same everywhere (assuming also no gravity).All balls aren't the same. They are all under different pressures depending on where they are under the dome.QuoteHere's a scenario I'd like you to think of.Assuming the rubber balls are all the same (same mass, made of the same material, same size), that the pressure would be solely due to the rubber balls and taking out every outside force, the pressure would be equal all around.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
edit: BJ1234 beat me to it
If you squash ball into balls then the balls at the bottom are going to be under more compression than those at the top. If you don't accept this, leave it at that because there's no way I'm explaining any further. It would be pointless.
Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.
Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.
Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.
I did try. Keep your eyes and ears closed. I have no more explaining to do with you.Or you could try thinking. You require that air pushes down against the Earth, or any larger body. That is not me supposing gravity, that is what you need. Your entire understanding of air pressure stems from thinking about it in the context we see: a context with gravity (or UA, or some equivalent force, whatever). Remove that force. You cannot answer the question of what now makes air have pressure. It should be static: there is no stacking, because there is no way to stack in the absence of a force.
Once you get that gravity crap out of your head - come back to me. If not, just carry on with what you are doing. I'm done with you.
The mere fact that you typed all this, shows me you didn't understand a word I've said and as basic as I could be with you.I did try. Keep your eyes and ears closed. I have no more explaining to do with you.Or you could try thinking. You require that air pushes down against the Earth, or any larger body. That is not me supposing gravity, that is what you need. Your entire understanding of air pressure stems from thinking about it in the context we see: a context with gravity (or UA, or some equivalent force, whatever). Remove that force. You cannot answer the question of what now makes air have pressure. It should be static: there is no stacking, because there is no way to stack in the absence of a force.
Once you get that gravity crap out of your head - come back to me. If not, just carry on with what you are doing. I'm done with you.
As best I can tell, you're arguing that there would be more collisions at solid boundaries, and that that imparts pressure. Not only does this need perpetual motion and some cause for said motion to work (force, again) else air would be static and so there'd be no collisions, the pressure would be balanced as the downwards force is countered by the upwards force as air goes away from the Earth.
There's no stacking. Stacking can't happen without a force. Plus, if this were the case, pressure should be decreasing as time goes by, until it all hangs equally spaced and static in the air.
So, no, you have a hell of a lot more explaining to do.
Further, vacuum chambers exist: chambers with all the air removed. is it your contention that all such chambers are faked? After all, at the very least a lot of air is removed. Some force still seems to hold objects down.
The mere fact that you typed all this, shows me you didn't understand a word I've said and as basic as I could be with you.
Save your energy, you're a complete waste of time. Come back when you are ready to actually understand it instead of trying to play games.The mere fact that you typed all this, shows me you didn't understand a word I've said and as basic as I could be with you.
No one understands a word you've said because it is fundamentally incoherent. You cannot have pressure without force, whether it's a force to make air molecules move rather than hang static in a balanced formation, or one to draw them to the edges of your dome.
Don't act like the fact no one agrees with your contradictory notions is a fault with them rather than with you.
Come back when you are ready to actually understand it instead of trying to play games.I'm waiting to understand. I ask a question, you evade. I think everyone can conclude even you don't understand what you're proposing.
Come back when you actually understand it. I have no issue in explaining things to people with a brain. Get one and come back to me.
Come back when you are ready to actually understand it instead of trying to play games.I'm waiting to understand. I ask a question, you evade. I think everyone can conclude even you don't understand what you're proposing.
Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.
Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.
This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.
The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.
Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.
This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.
Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?
Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?
Balls wont end up in original places in sideways. Use different balls or add number sticker to observe that. Each shake you get different results. Only thing that holds between experimentations is that they are at the bottom. So therefore why no symmetry?The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.
Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.
This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.
Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?
Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?
Energy used to move mass/density has to have an equal reactive force.
Because each ball is in a different place so one ball is going to take precedence over another by the position they are stacked in. Energy applied is going to sort them into a relevant order pertaining to how they were seated.Balls wont end up in original places in sideways. Use different balls or add number sticker to observe that. Each shake you get different results. Only thing that holds between experimentations is that they are at the bottom. So therefore why no symmetry?The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.
Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.
This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.
Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?
Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?
Energy used to move mass/density has to have an equal reactive force.
Speaking of denpressure, have you finally come up with a denpressure equasion Scepti? If not then why not just use the gravoty equasion? What makes denpressure a better tgeory if it can't even make predictions? The ability to make predictions is the definition of a good theory you know.
Because each ball is in a different place so one ball is going to take precedence over another by the position they are stacked in. Energy applied is going to sort them into a relevant order pertaining to how they were seated.Balls wont end up in original places in sideways. Use different balls or add number sticker to observe that. Each shake you get different results. Only thing that holds between experimentations is that they are at the bottom. So therefore why no symmetry?The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.
Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.
This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.
Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?
Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?
Energy used to move mass/density has to have an equal reactive force.
The only symmetry you would ever have is having two identical containers and two identical energy applications with two identical balls.
Speaking of denpressure, have you finally come up with a denpressure equasion Scepti? If not then why not just use the gravoty equasion? What makes denpressure a better tgeory if it can't even make predictions? The ability to make predictions is the definition of a good theory you know.
Heck yeah he did! I didn't save it, but I know a couple people did save it. It was amazing.
Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.If there is no such thing as gravity, then why would the rubber balls prefer the ground over the wall of the dome as a place to start stacking onto? Why don't the balls stack from the top of the dome downwards? If there is no gravity, then why would the balls stack at all?
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
We can all agree that Air pressure is a known and measurable force that allows Airplanes to Fly and keeps Cars on the ground when driving.
We are denser than air and less dense than water which is why we float on water and fall to the ground.
Just think, the air pressure is strong enough to hold a giant airplane in the air. Airplanes certainly aren't equipped with top-secret anti-gravity devices, so why do we believe in gravity?
Air pressure can exert an equal downward force on all objects which would explain why objects of different size and mass fall at the same speed.
Does the equation for gravity account for Air pressure?
I don't think so...
Is this with or without gravity?Before I answer you I need to know if you are even dimply liy, never mind switched fully on.You do have an issue with explaining to people. Because when asked a question a 5 year old would think of, you sidestep it.Asking me why in the downward direction then telling me you know what stacked means. Nahhhh. Come back when you actually understand it. I have no issue in explaining things to people with a brain. Get one and come back to me.So in other words, you can't explain the simple action of throwing a ball with your denpressure. Gotcha.When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back? Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome? Why just down? What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air? How does it know down?Then why does everything fall back down? Why not fly to the left, the right, or up? Why down?Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground? Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.
If you can't grasp what stacked means, how are you ever going to grasp the rest of it all.
This makes me think that you learn nothing and anything you appear to learn is simply what you cherry pick from google or some science book, then pass it off as if you know what you're talking about.
Prove to me you're not a dummy and I'll play along with you.
Don't come back to me unless you grasp what stacked means, inside a dome.
And I do know what stacked means. What I want to know is why in the downward direction?
So why the downward direction? Why to to the left or to the right or up? Why down?
Ok, I want you to tell me what stacked would mean under a dome.
Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
With gravity, more pressure from the top pushing down.
Without gravity, equal pressure from all sides.QuoteAlso, once you've done that. I want you to tell me what would be easier. If you held an iron ball in your hand, (bearing in mind your body is strong enough under the rubber balls to go about your life) what would happen if you tried to throw that iron ball up against the mass of rubber balls against throwing that iron ball horizontally into the rubber balls. Which would be easier and what would happen to the iron ball in both cases.It wouldn't matter which direction I throw it. If there is no gravity, and only the resistance of the material I am in effects the ball, then I believe this would happen.
If there is resistance to the movement, and enough so that it would return the iron ball to my hand if I throw it up, then if I throw it to the right, it would return to my hand. Thrown to the left, it would return to my hand. Thrown downward, it would return to my hand.QuoteIf you can't answer this, then I'll explain.What do you consider a load of tosh? Anything that goes against your views? In that case, please explain why my above description is wrong.
If I'm not giving you a depeiction of the atmosphere , then explain why not.
There's a few things to ponder over. If you come back to me with a load of tosh, consider this the last post to you. Fair enough?
Also, I have just decided that if denpressure works as you say, it actually supports a round earth.
This very question should teach you something. Either read what's been wrote and absorb it or don't bother coming out with this stuff, because you are asking a question that has been fully explained before. You were in that topic so you should know the answer I gave.Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.If there is no such thing as gravity, then why would the rubber balls prefer the ground over the wall of the dome as a place to start stacking onto? Why don't the balls stack from the top of the dome downwards? If there is no gravity, then why would the balls stack at all?
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
I believe it was rottingroom who cornered specti to the point that he had to say that denpressureTM is the force that causes itself. Even if scepti didn't say this explicitly, it was the usual scepti rhetoric in that he stated something along the lines of 'it's just the way it is, accept it'.None of you can corner me. I'm right and you are wrong and so are the rest of your gravity theorists.
Utter brilliance from our resident genius. He accepts his own made-up drivel a priori and ignores the volumes of verifiable scientific tests that have been taking place long before he was even born.
Not only that, he also stated in the same thread that the equations used for Newtonian mechanics and gravity should be continued to be used because they work but are still based on lies. I found this hilarious because specti obviously didn't understand the implications of his general hand waving when he was being pushed about producing an equation for denpressureTM.
So gravity works in the real world and can be tested and verified mathematically, but it's still false... for some reason.
And now, a Q for scepti: What is the difference between any of Newton's equations and, say, the equation for finding the volume of a sphere? Both work in the real world, after all.. so how come one is true and the others are false?
Ok, hopefully you may get this.
Let's use a train as an example.
Inside that carriage at rest, you are equal in pressure to the outside. Fair enough?
Ok, once that carriage starts to move, you are now changing that pressure acting upon you. You are changing it into compressed air without freedom of escape, unlike the air outside that is compressing but can escape over the actual carriage itself.
Try and think hard on this because it's key to undertstanding.
You see, once you are in motion in that carriage, your body is under more pressure. It's minor but it's there. It becomes stronger depending on acceleration. As soon as the carriage becomes a constant speed, your body equalises insaide that carriage. You still don't notice any real pressure because of this equalisation.
Just for the sake of it, think of that carriage accelerating from that point, let's say you're doing 50 mph and in 5 seconds you have accelerated to 200 mph. You will feel this compression upon you because the air inssiode the carriage gets compressed to the back as the air outside seeps in to add to that pressure.
The result is, you get pushed back into your seat until that acceleration stops. Once that acceleration stops or becomes constant, you feel this as the compressed air what is being pushed to the back, evens up and equalises around you once again. You will feel this as a gentle push forward whilst equalisation takes place.
Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?Because the gases inside that balloon are more expanded, as in helium. The air pressure at sea level os compressed, meaning the molecules are very small and condensed. Anything more expanded will be PUSHED into the sky, which is why tehre is a dome.
Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?Because the gases inside that balloon are more expanded, as in helium. The air pressure at sea level os compressed, meaning the molecules are very small and condensed. Anything more expanded will be PUSHED into the sky, which is why tehre is a dome.
I've told you time and time again that air pressure isn't pushing down. It's mass pushing into it that compresses it to resist that and push back.
Air is simply stacked all the way to the top by push on push which is why helium ends up near the top due to it being more expanded.
This train example is interesting too. I'm trying to grasp the key concept here. So when the carriage is at rest then denser air is at the bottom and less denser is on top.Basically, yes.
Objects will fall from up to bottom according to pressure layers. Atmosphere is working against objects. Fine. When carriage starts to accelerate then back wall will compress air and locomotive facing wall will decompress it causing horizontal layers of air forming so that I feel weight towards the seat I'am sitting because is more dense there. Good so far?
Lets say that the locomotive accelerates 9.8 m/s^2 for the sake of simplicity so we experience the same weight towards the seat than we do towards ground. If we look how pressure layers are stacked they appear to be in 45 degree angle so if something is dropped from the center of the carriage it will eventually drop to back lower corner if we assume carriage to be square shaped. Correct?Only if the locomotive is accelerating. Not if it was at a constant speed.
So we can say hypothetically that if we could locally engineer a closed body of air that has more dense air on top and less dense at the bottom then objects inside it would fall towards sealing? Hypothetically speaking of course. I'am sure that engineering such conditions is much hard as creating a vacuum where that same object would float relative to the walls.Ok, let's clarify so we don't get our wires crossed.
But what can you say about the nature of this body of stacked air? What is the relation of acceleration to pressure or differences in pressure? In normal atmospheric conditions at sea level we observe lets' say one unit of pressure at sea level and gradual change to lets' say 0.5 units at some height. Now what determines the acceleration? Is it the 0.5 unit difference or absolute values of pressure or what?Let me make this easier for you. You seem to want to understand it.
You're using energy to expand the molecules. You're making those molecules bigger against the more denser and more compressed atmosphere. Because those molecules are expanding, they agitate as they do and as they do this, the denser molecules are squeezing around them, forcing them up.Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?Because the gases inside that balloon are more expanded, as in helium. The air pressure at sea level os compressed, meaning the molecules are very small and condensed. Anything more expanded will be PUSHED into the sky, which is why tehre is a dome.
I've told you time and time again that air pressure isn't pushing down. It's mass pushing into it that compresses it to resist that and push back.
Air is simply stacked all the way to the top by push on push which is why helium ends up near the top due to it being more expanded.
I take it a hot air balloon work the same way, despite the fact it is filled with plain old air, from ground level, just heated slightly?
And if no air seeps into the carridge the same effect is felt.If the carriage was sealed you still have the pressure inside the carriage.
So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
Then why illustrate the principle by relying on vessels in which external motion takes place? The only explanation I can see for your air pressure is the movement at a constant speed (which is, after all, allowed by Newton if there are no resistant forces). If the Earth hangs stationary, there's no external vibrations, no movement. Without any movement or force, air hangs stationary. It won't so much as touch the sides of the world.So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
It's a self preservation cell. It mixes it's own potions of life.
So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
It's a self preservation cell. It mixes it's own potions of life.
This train example is interesting too. I'm trying to grasp the key concept here. So when the carriage is at rest then denser air is at the bottom and less denser is on top.Basically, yes.
Objects will fall from up to bottom according to pressure layers. Atmosphere is working against objects. Fine. When carriage starts to accelerate then back wall will compress air and locomotive facing wall will decompress it causing horizontal layers of air forming so that I feel weight towards the seat I'am sitting because is more dense there. Good so far?Lets say that the locomotive accelerates 9.8 m/s^2 for the sake of simplicity so we experience the same weight towards the seat than we do towards ground. If we look how pressure layers are stacked they appear to be in 45 degree angle so if something is dropped from the center of the carriage it will eventually drop to back lower corner if we assume carriage to be square shaped. Correct?Only if the locomotive is accelerating. Not if it was at a constant speed.So we can say hypothetically that if we could locally engineer a closed body of air that has more dense air on top and less dense at the bottom then objects inside it would fall towards sealing? Hypothetically speaking of course. I'am sure that engineering such conditions is much hard as creating a vacuum where that same object would float relative to the walls.Ok, let's clarify so we don't get our wires crossed.
You're never going to get less dense at the bottom. Air pressure is dependent on stacking. It's like saying that we can turn a skyscraper upside down and balance it on its spire and all will be fine. It's not.But what can you say about the nature of this body of stacked air? What is the relation of acceleration to pressure or differences in pressure? In normal atmospheric conditions at sea level we observe lets' say one unit of pressure at sea level and gradual change to lets' say 0.5 units at some height. Now what determines the acceleration? Is it the 0.5 unit difference or absolute values of pressure or what?Let me make this easier for you. You seem to want to understand it.
Air does have motion. It's called expansion and compression due to energy.Then why illustrate the principle by relying on vessels in which external motion takes place? The only explanation I can see for your air pressure is the movement at a constant speed (which is, after all, allowed by Newton if there are no resistant forces). If the Earth hangs stationary, there's no external vibrations, no movement. Without any movement or force, air hangs stationary. It won't so much as touch the sides of the world.So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
It's a self preservation cell. It mixes it's own potions of life.
If it's purely down to compression (which I doubt it could be as we're dealing with a gas) why can we walk horizontally, and not keep going upwards?
One thing about your theory that keeps coming back to me. You say we all live under a dome. In that dome, air is stacked (I assume in columns, although why columns I don't know since pressure acts equally in all directions) from the ground to the dome and thus the "weight" of this air pushes down on us and thus we experience what we call gravity. Is this a good summary?Pressure doesn't act equally. It dimishes higher up and further out. The biggest pressure is in the centre. Just like a cake in the oven would sink or a plug in the sink taking the most pressure.
The thing that keeps coming into my mind is that under a dome, the "stacks" would gradually become less "stacked" the closer to the rim you got therefore, pressure will drop towards the rim. I would weight less in say Australia than I do in say Scotland. This should be measurable.Yes the pressure drops towards the outer rim. the further out you go the less pressure there is and the colder is becomes because of this.
Also, if pressure is what gives a mass its weight then why would a solid steel ball measuring 1 meter in diameter weigh more that a solid plastic ball measuring 1 meter in diameter?Because a solid iron ball has less trapped atmosphere inside of it. A plastic ball has a lot more of that atmosphere, so in essence the plastic ball is already equalised with much of its mass and so the rest of it's dense mass would be what's pushing against the atmosphere to compress it which compresses back. the iron ball is more compact and hold much less atmosphere so the ball itself doesn't absorb much, meaning the density of that ball throws a lot more of that against the atmosphere which pushes back against that balls push against it, creating a measurable difference in weight on a scale.
A confused, but entertained, ReT'er
I'll get back to you on this as I have to go for now. All I will say is, I have no means to measure this stuff because I don't have a jet or anything that can measure anything what you are asking.This train example is interesting too. I'm trying to grasp the key concept here. So when the carriage is at rest then denser air is at the bottom and less denser is on top.Basically, yes.
Objects will fall from up to bottom according to pressure layers. Atmosphere is working against objects. Fine. When carriage starts to accelerate then back wall will compress air and locomotive facing wall will decompress it causing horizontal layers of air forming so that I feel weight towards the seat I'am sitting because is more dense there. Good so far?Lets say that the locomotive accelerates 9.8 m/s^2 for the sake of simplicity so we experience the same weight towards the seat than we do towards ground. If we look how pressure layers are stacked they appear to be in 45 degree angle so if something is dropped from the center of the carriage it will eventually drop to back lower corner if we assume carriage to be square shaped. Correct?Only if the locomotive is accelerating. Not if it was at a constant speed.So we can say hypothetically that if we could locally engineer a closed body of air that has more dense air on top and less dense at the bottom then objects inside it would fall towards sealing? Hypothetically speaking of course. I'am sure that engineering such conditions is much hard as creating a vacuum where that same object would float relative to the walls.Ok, let's clarify so we don't get our wires crossed.
You're never going to get less dense at the bottom. Air pressure is dependent on stacking. It's like saying that we can turn a skyscraper upside down and balance it on its spire and all will be fine. It's not.But what can you say about the nature of this body of stacked air? What is the relation of acceleration to pressure or differences in pressure? In normal atmospheric conditions at sea level we observe lets' say one unit of pressure at sea level and gradual change to lets' say 0.5 units at some height. Now what determines the acceleration? Is it the 0.5 unit difference or absolute values of pressure or what?Let me make this easier for you. You seem to want to understand it.
OK so air pressure is consequence of stacking then? Then what is the nature of this stacking? We are able to manipulate the vector of this stacking relatively and for short time don't we? Steer jet directly towards ground with afterburners on you will have for a moment feeling that you are being pressed your seat so stacks must be upside down in your cockpit for those seconds before crashing.
What I want and need is to have equation between air pressure stacking and acceleration. This is what i'am asking. I want to calculate from observed air pressure stacking what the acceleration at free fall would be. Is this not possible in depressure? So if I experience acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 then what can be said about the pressure stacks? And if no unit of measurement is suitable for this calculation then use relative numbers. Double the acceleration to 19.6 m/s^2. Is the measured pressure difference per height unit now double?
OK so air pressure is consequence of stacking then? Then what is the nature of this stacking? We are able to manipulate the vector of this stacking relatively and for short time don't we? Steer jet directly towards ground with afterburners on you will have for a moment feeling that you are being pressed your seat so stacks must be upside down in your cockpit for those seconds before crashing.I'll get back to you on this as I have to go for now. All I will say is, I have no means to measure this stuff because I don't have a jet or anything that can measure anything what you are asking.
What I want and need is to have equation between air pressure stacking and acceleration. This is what i'am asking. I want to calculate from observed air pressure stacking what the acceleration at free fall would be. Is this not possible in depressure? So if I experience acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 then what can be said about the pressure stacks? And if no unit of measurement is suitable for this calculation then use relative numbers. Double the acceleration to 19.6 m/s^2. Is the measured pressure difference per height unit now double?
Air does have motion. It's called expansion and compression due to energy.This explains some motion: I wasn't certain how exactly you were getting some in, so thank you. Compression was my best guess: but the problem is, as you've said, there can't be a net downwards force. The vibration, friction, any of that should be just as relevant in a horizontal direction, rather than a vertical. Maybe the presence of the Earth allows collision/stacking, but then we should be able to climb up walls as air would stack there too.
I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.OK so air pressure is consequence of stacking then? Then what is the nature of this stacking? We are able to manipulate the vector of this stacking relatively and for short time don't we? Steer jet directly towards ground with afterburners on you will have for a moment feeling that you are being pressed your seat so stacks must be upside down in your cockpit for those seconds before crashing.I'll get back to you on this as I have to go for now. All I will say is, I have no means to measure this stuff because I don't have a jet or anything that can measure anything what you are asking.
What I want and need is to have equation between air pressure stacking and acceleration. This is what i'am asking. I want to calculate from observed air pressure stacking what the acceleration at free fall would be. Is this not possible in depressure? So if I experience acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 then what can be said about the pressure stacks? And if no unit of measurement is suitable for this calculation then use relative numbers. Double the acceleration to 19.6 m/s^2. Is the measured pressure difference per height unit now double?
I will get you a head start here. This is what we know or can measure ourselves easily.
At sea level or your everyday life.
acceleration towards ground = 9.8 m/s^2
measured value of pressure = 101325 Pa
pressure drops at rate when going upwards = 12 Pa/m
Then denpressure predicts that in theoretical vacuum or uniform body of pressure.
acceleration = 0
measured value of pressure = 0 or anything in case of uniform body of pressure
pressure drop at any given direction = 0
So what we can say is that that 12 Pa/m is a measurement of these stacks at sea level. So I'll deduct that 12 Pa/m is the condition where 1 g acceleration occurs and less than 1 g acceleration would be caused stacks that can be measured less than 12 Pa/m.
Function for denpressure in general gives then results:
9.8 = denpressure(12)
0 = denpressure(0)
and keep mind that vacuum chambers can reach pressures like 1 x 10^−7 Pa and no significant observation on varying acceleration has been made. Bear also in mind that when measured pressure is something like 0.0000001 Pa then having stacks where you can measure difference of 12 Pa/m would cause negative pressure which is impossible. So therefore the pressure difference in vacuum chamber top and bottom must be less than 0.0000001 Pa.
9.8 = denpressure(max(0.0000001))
Since you are the founding father of this idea please define the denpressure function where those values will fit approximately.
There is only a downwards force when matter is pushed into it by energy. It's a reactionary force to our action or the action of something pushing into it.Air does have motion. It's called expansion and compression due to energy.This explains some motion: I wasn't certain how exactly you were getting some in, so thank you. Compression was my best guess: but the problem is, as you've said, there can't be a net downwards force. The vibration, friction, any of that should be just as relevant in a horizontal direction, rather than a vertical. Maybe the presence of the Earth allows collision/stacking, but then we should be able to climb up walls as air would stack there too.
I'm not assuming gravity, I'm working strictly in terms of what you're saying, and it doesn't seem to match what we observe.
To try and make the pressure easier for you to understand, just think of someone stacking bricks all around and above you.If I tried to move horizontally, I'd run into the same resistance as if I moved upwards. Think of it mechanically: mathematically. As whether or not this pressure is present in the real world is the question, it seems hasty to use a real-world example as an illustration. Obviously I think gravity is the case, many FEers think UA is the case, so there is a downwards force by this reckoning. It seems more reasonable to work in theory.
You are stood up in the middle. The bricks above your head are crushing your head into your neck and also crushing your shoulders.
The rest are pushing you from the horizontal. It's more of a friction push or grip by this method down your body length.
You have unbalanced the force by pushing into it.
If I tried to move horizontally, I'd run into the same resistance as if I moved upwards. Think of it mechanically: mathematically. As whether or not this pressure is present in the real world is the question, it seems hasty to use a real-world example as an illustration. Obviously I think gravity is the case, many FEers think UA is the case, so there is a downwards force by this reckoning. It seems more reasonable to work in theory.I well understand that gravity and UA can be used. Let's face it, the forces are invisible to us if you look at it from that point on. What is known to us is wind. We know there is wind. We know there is a force.
If we work without any of that though, there is no down, and there is no up, or left, or right, or forwards, or anything. If someone stacks bricks around me, the only result is friction, which is the same at every angle. Moving 'up' would be exactly as hard as moving 'left', because there should be no difference between the two.
A reactionary force should not be unique to the Earth's surface. Why is there no such pressure against walls? There should be no concept of down, it should happen similarly on every surface, no matter the orientation.There is pressure against walls. Why do you think they stand up? It's a balancing act of atmospheric pressure acting on the top and gripping the sides, just like us.
A water fall cascading down and you are directly beneath it. You feel that pressure pushing you down. Try to jump up against it and you find it hard. Walk along it horizontally and you find it easier, why?Because the force of the waterfall is downwards. if someone points a firehose at you, you'll struggle to walk against its flow when the force is horizontal: yet it's still easier to duck.
Why do you think you get tired walking up a hill?...you have to understand your body's movements against atmospheric pressure to understand why climbing is more strenuous than walking a flat plain.Because I am resisting an upwards force. That's the obvious conclusion: your model does not account for this. Repeated analogies based on a world with a downwards force are not going to change that.
There is pressure against walls. Why do you think they stand up? It's a balancing act of atmospheric pressure acting on the top and gripping the sides, just like us.And yet we can't walk up walls, even though there should be no difference, according to your model, between them and the earth. They're just surfaces for air to stack against. The only thing that could set them apart is some notion of direction or orientation, which you need to define.
I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.OK so air pressure is consequence of stacking then? Then what is the nature of this stacking? We are able to manipulate the vector of this stacking relatively and for short time don't we? Steer jet directly towards ground with afterburners on you will have for a moment feeling that you are being pressed your seat so stacks must be upside down in your cockpit for those seconds before crashing.I'll get back to you on this as I have to go for now. All I will say is, I have no means to measure this stuff because I don't have a jet or anything that can measure anything what you are asking.
What I want and need is to have equation between air pressure stacking and acceleration. This is what i'am asking. I want to calculate from observed air pressure stacking what the acceleration at free fall would be. Is this not possible in depressure? So if I experience acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 then what can be said about the pressure stacks? And if no unit of measurement is suitable for this calculation then use relative numbers. Double the acceleration to 19.6 m/s^2. Is the measured pressure difference per height unit now double?
I will get you a head start here. This is what we know or can measure ourselves easily.
At sea level or your everyday life.
acceleration towards ground = 9.8 m/s^2
measured value of pressure = 101325 Pa
pressure drops at rate when going upwards = 12 Pa/m
Then denpressure predicts that in theoretical vacuum or uniform body of pressure.
acceleration = 0
measured value of pressure = 0 or anything in case of uniform body of pressure
pressure drop at any given direction = 0
So what we can say is that that 12 Pa/m is a measurement of these stacks at sea level. So I'll deduct that 12 Pa/m is the condition where 1 g acceleration occurs and less than 1 g acceleration would be caused stacks that can be measured less than 12 Pa/m.
Function for denpressure in general gives then results:
9.8 = denpressure(12)
0 = denpressure(0)
and keep mind that vacuum chambers can reach pressures like 1 x 10^−7 Pa and no significant observation on varying acceleration has been made. Bear also in mind that when measured pressure is something like 0.0000001 Pa then having stacks where you can measure difference of 12 Pa/m would cause negative pressure which is impossible. So therefore the pressure difference in vacuum chamber top and bottom must be less than 0.0000001 Pa.
9.8 = denpressure(max(0.0000001))
Since you are the founding father of this idea please define the denpressure function where those values will fit approximately.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Because the force of the waterfall is downwards. if someone points a firehose at you, you'll struggle to walk against its flow when the force is horizontal: yet it's still easier to duck.Yes the force of the waterfall is downwards. I was again appealing to your logical common sense as an analogy, so I'll change it a little.
Because I am resisting an upwards force. That's the obvious conclusion: your model does not account for this. Repeated analogies based on a world with a downwards force are not going to change that.A downwards force is only relevant to any object pushing in an upwards direction. It has to displace the atmosphere.
And at this point, I'm happy to say that there must be a downwards force, because without it your model simply does not work. There is no way to tell up from left from down, which clearly doesn't match the observations we can make of the world. You're appealing to some way that this pressure can tell the difference between the horizontal and the vertical, but you're not explaining it: you're just saying it's there.It's nothing to do with pressure telling the difference. It's about your own mass or the mass of anything that pushes into it. The amount of displacement is down to the density of the object placed up against it.
In which case, cut out the middle man. Talk about what that is, talk about what it is that lets your pressure model tell the difference between the directions.Directions of pressure are dependent on energy, either naturally or by ourselves by our own energy of machine or whatever.
And yet we can't walk up walls, even though there should be no difference, according to your model, between them and the earth. They're just surfaces for air to stack against. The only thing that could set them apart is some notion of direction or orientation, which you need to define.Walking up a wall requires energy and grip. Your body is already acted upon by the atmosphere which is clamping you down as you push up, so no walking up walls unless you use clamps or a rope.
Walking up a wall requires energy and grip. Your body is already acted upon by the atmosphere which is clamping you down as you push up, so no walking up walls unless you use clamps or a rope.
yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
No it doesn't. Observations and common sense are all that's required. I don;t need maths to explain a concept. I only need maths if I want to apply a concept ot a specific project.Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
No scepti, something like this absolutely needs to be proven using math, like every aspect of REF has been but zero aspects of FET.
Yes the force of the waterfall is downwards. I was again appealing to your logical common sense as an analogy, so I'll change it a little.It's not a very good analogy if you assume the existence of the very thing under question.
Let's freeze that waterfall. From that frozen water fall, which part of it if you were to cut it into strips horizontally and say a foot vertically all the way to the start of that descent of the fall. Which part of it would put most pressure on your head?I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If we're assuming behavior we see on Earth, likely the top: either because it has more time to accelerate, or because the stream's thicker there, rather than a loose spray, though the latter case is down more to the analogy.
I'll let you answer this and why before I let you know.
As for us. Imagine we simply grew out of the ground. We push up against that pressure and compress it by our own dense mass. We now occupy our own dense mass of that atmosphere. We bullied it out of the way but it bullies us right back by enveloping us and holding us in a grip. The only way to change that is to jump up against it or run horizontally through it, so we get the first bullying push in at all times but the atmosphere immediately reacts to us doing that by flling the place we were with atrmosphere again, as we rob the next body full and so on.But again, why does running horizontally through it work? Why doesn't the same behavior hold? We run horizontally, the air ahead of us compresses, pushes back. We jump, air fills in where we jumped from.
In which case, cut out the middle man. Talk about what that is, talk about what it is that lets your pressure model tell the difference between the directions.Directions of pressure are dependent on energy, either naturally or by ourselves by our own energy of machine or whatever.
Turn on a fan and you change the pattern. Drive into it and you change the pattern.
Set fire to a forest and you create a pattern of wind that rushes in to fill the low pressure created by that fire.
Look at a fountain. Push the water vertically and it hits a barrier due to compression of air above and now that air is pushed around it which you see as a fanning out fountain.
Walking up a wall requires energy and grip. Your body is already acted upon by the atmosphere which is clamping you down as you push up, so no walking up walls unless you use clamps or a rope.You're doing the same thing again: insisting something's the case when your model doesn't explain it. I'll accept your model would, conceivably, allow for our bodies to be clamped down to a surface, but as soon as we go near a wall, why aren't we clamped to that? Why doesn't the stack take effect then?
Scepti, why do you keep ignoring the points that I made?Because you act like a little prick. Once you stop acting like a little prick, I'll deal with you. Don't think you can converse with me one second then act the big man the next, because I'll just laugh at you and leave you like this.
Scepti, why do you keep ignoring the points that I made?Because you act like a little prick. Once you stop acting like a little prick, I'll deal with you. Don't think you can converse with me one second then act the big man the next, because I'll just laugh at you and leave you like this.
Either take part properly, or don't. I'm easy either way. The minute you place me in a tit for tat kiddified game, I will overlook that post and not respond. I'm just making it clear.
If I call gravity, bollocks, take it as that. Don't take it as a personal dig. Learn this and you won't go far wrong.
No it doesn't. Observations and common sense are all that's required. I don;t need maths to explain a concept. I only need maths if I want to apply a concept ot a specific project.Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
No scepti, something like this absolutely needs to be proven using math, like every aspect of REF has been but zero aspects of FET.
The reason why most people abandon logic is because they get bamboozled by the maths of something.
Now If I wanted to find out how I can jump out of a plane and land safely, I need to calculate the size of canopy I need against my mass. I accept the likes of this.
To understand what I'm trying to convey should take anyone with basic knowledge and common sense, not too long to start to grasp a little of it as it's explained. The minute people come in to scupper it by using maths is when the confusion starts because too many people are in awe of maths and decide to trust the numbers without actually bothering to look into how and why those numbers came about.
Now I'm going to give you a simple reason why maths does not explain anything like this.
The global Earth sun is 93 million miles away by calculation we are told.
The flat Earth sun from this site is judged to be 3000 miles away.
Both appear to be right. The problem is, both cannot be correct. It's very easy for you to appeal to authority to say your 93 million miles are correct but the calculations from the flat Earth side show 3000 miles to be correct. They can't appeal to authority but can show the maths.
Now the issue is is simple. One has to be wrong - but none has to be right, so where has maths got us?
Now let's look at gravity. 9.8m/s/s...how? Because it's been shown from a shallow height to be true on certain objects. Ok, so does this prove gravity?
Of course not. So what does?...mass attracting mass?...how?....the Cavendish experiment somehow does, except on a horizontal mass meets mass and somehow this is gravity at work....NO.
Calculations of Earth mass pulling other mass towards it? How?...easy. Earth weights blah blah blah and the moon weighs blah blah blah. Maths you see.
It's as pointless as saying that every time a cow farts, 62 blades of grass grow 1 mm in that field near the cows fart.
You see, the maths that are made up for this type of stuff are at best made up as a best guess and at worst are simply based on assumptions of sizes of things that cannot be measured in reality. Like Earth or the moon or the sun or the stars or whatever the hell scientist want to come out with.
Most of it is just pointless mumbo jumbo.
Yeah, so we measure using gravimeters and such like. What are we measuring? Gravity or atmospheric pressure?
You could argue for either. You could argue fro UA.
Now let's look at what can be observed against what can't. It's all about using your own mind and logic in its basic form to understand the simpler form of this Earth and how it works. Once you realise how simple it is, everything starts to click into place as to why it is something like what I've been saying all along.
It may not be exact but it's on the right lines, I believe.
People just fold arms and refuse or are too scared to dare to look into it in a basic way because they fear someone will jump in and ridicule them by using silly maths to account for it.
Maths is a good thing if used correctly. It's pointless if it isn't. It's abused to hell where space is concerned and also fictional gravity, etc.
So making logical rebuttals to your "theory" is acting like a little prick? You asked me what I thought would happen in a certain situation. I told you. Instead of saying why I was wrong, you ignored it, then called me a prick? So why don't you tell me why I am wrong?Scepti, why do you keep ignoring the points that I made?Because you act like a little prick. Once you stop acting like a little prick, I'll deal with you. Don't think you can converse with me one second then act the big man the next, because I'll just laugh at you and leave you like this.
Either take part properly, or don't. I'm easy either way. The minute you place me in a tit for tat kiddified game, I will overlook that post and not respond. I'm just making it clear.
If I call gravity, bollocks, take it as that. Don't take it as a personal dig. Learn this and you won't go far wrong.
Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
It's not a very good analogy if you assume the existence of the very thing under question.Basically you were asking if it had a downward force. This is why I mentioned a freezing waterfall.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If we're assuming behavior we see on Earth, likely the top: either because it has more time to accelerate, or because the stream's thicker there, rather than a loose spray, though the latter case is down more to the analogy.
But again, why does running horizontally through it work? Why doesn't the same behavior hold? We run horizontally, the air ahead of us compresses, pushes back. We jump, air fills in where we jumped from.Because your legs and feet use the ground to plough you through it usinhg more of your mass to displace it in front of you which goes around you to push back onto you. All you are doing with the air above on you is allowing that to fill the void you left.
Directions of pressure are dependent on energy, fine: but why is energy in the vertical different to energy in the horizontal? You're not explaining that.Hopefully I explained that above.
You're doing the same thing again: insisting something's the case when your model doesn't explain it. I'll accept your model would, conceivably, allow for our bodies to be clamped down to a surface, but as soon as we go near a wall, why aren't we clamped to that? Why doesn't the stack take effect then?Becasue the air around you is equalised horizontally. Above you your own body pushes against the ground whilst pushing against the atmosphere above you.
You're giving special treatment to the vertical because of what we observe, but nothing in your model explains it.It does if you use your basic mind.
Take an arbitrary hollow cube. If there is air inside it, how does the pressure work? Would you be pinned to any surface within that cube?No, because you are inside the same atmosphere only in a box.
If so, by walking up to the side of the cube, would you end up pinned to that other face, or would you remain on the face on which you stand? And either way, why? And, alternatively, if you'd only be pinned to one face (to cover all bases), why and how? What sets it apart?As I mentioned above.
Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
By being honest.Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Sokarul's experent was not flawed, he put an object on a scale and sucking the air out and the scale's value increased. How would you propose that we test this?
By being honest.
How was it flawed?Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
He didn't do the test how I asked him to do it. Why don't you do it, you seem to know it all and have all the equipment that mankind invented.By being honest.
Why do you think he was dishonest? Don't give me any circular reasoning stuff like "He was lying because the Earth is flat because he was lying".
Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.How was it flawed?Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Because it showed exactly the opposite as you predicted?
And once again, just calling "bullocks" on something doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
Never said I knew him. Just wanted to know why you think it is flawed. Other than because you said so.Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.How was it flawed?Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Because it showed exactly the opposite as you predicted?
And once again, just calling "bullocks" on something doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.
He didn't do the test how I asked him to do it. Why don't you do it, you seem to know it all and have all the equipment that mankind invented.
Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.How was it flawed?Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Because it showed exactly the opposite as you predicted?
And once again, just calling "bullocks" on something doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.
I'd like others to test it out as well, let's see what comes up.Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.How was it flawed?Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Because it showed exactly the opposite as you predicted?
And once again, just calling "bullocks" on something doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.
Then why dont you do the experiment with barometer and accelerating car? You do trust yourself and that would be your chance to shine and prove your theory some credibility. If you can measure difference in pressure two meters above the ground then surely you can measure difference in pressure two meters in front of you in accelerating car. No fancy setups needed here. Video it and let the shame fall on us.
Please post the results of your tests.I'd like others to test it out as well, let's see what comes up.Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.How was it flawed?Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Because it showed exactly the opposite as you predicted?
And once again, just calling "bullocks" on something doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.
Then why dont you do the experiment with barometer and accelerating car? You do trust yourself and that would be your chance to shine and prove your theory some credibility. If you can measure difference in pressure two meters above the ground then surely you can measure difference in pressure two meters in front of you in accelerating car. No fancy setups needed here. Video it and let the shame fall on us.
Because your legs and feet use the ground to plough you through it usinhg more of your mass to displace it in front of you which goes around you to push back onto you. All you are doing with the air above on you is allowing that to fill the void you left.Why make it a vertical pipe? Why not make it a horizontal pipe? You're under a friction grip above and below you when you move sideways, why does that go away?
Jumping into it vertically is a different thing because you are still under a friction grip horizontally all around you so your head and shoulders have to compress the air above you whilst being held by the friction grip around your body, meaning you expend much more energy to overcome it.
Think of being stood in a vertical pipe with the sides fitting your body perfectly. At the bottom you have enough room to bend your legs to jump up. As you do this, you realise that the sides of the pipe have slowed your progress because your skin was friction gripped against the walls and your head and shoulders are trying to compress that air out of that pipe.
See what I'm saying?
Becasue the air around you is equalised horizontally. Above you your own body pushes against the ground whilst pushing against the atmosphere above you.So, horizontally, air is balanced? Force one way and subsequent compression can be disregarded, because the other side pushes? Meanwhile, the ground is stronger than the air, and not going to give way, so the air can only push down to try and expand?
If you stand with your back to the wall then the wall acts as an equaliser to the pressure in front as a mere friction grip.
The grip is not strong enough to hold you up off the ground against your mass pushing up against the atmosphere. The ground is your foundation and your horizontal pressure is your balance in equal measures.
Take an arbitrary hollow cube. If there is air inside it, how does the pressure work? Would you be pinned to any surface within that cube?
If so, by walking up to the side of the cube, would you end up pinned to that other face, or would you remain on the face on which you stand? And either way, why? And, alternatively, if you'd only be pinned to one face (to cover all bases), why and how? What sets it apart?
Sceptic, Why? I tested a scale in a vacuum and you said it was invalid. Any experiment that goes against your belief will also be invalid.I said it was flawed. You didn't do what I asked you to do.
Sceptic, Why? I tested a scale in a vacuum and you said it was invalid. Any experiment that goes against your belief will also be invalid.I said it was flawed. You didn't do what I asked you to do.
It was obviously done on a day that ended in Y.Sceptic, Why? I tested a scale in a vacuum and you said it was invalid. Any experiment that goes against your belief will also be invalid.I said it was flawed. You didn't do what I asked you to do.
By your theory, when you take atmosphere out of a space things inside that space will be weightless.
He put a scale in a space and created a partial vacuum, video taping it and showing that there was not the predicted change in the scales displayed amount.
How is that flawed? Was it done on the wrong Tuesday? Or did it need to be on the harvest moon?
Why make it a vertical pipe? Why not make it a horizontal pipe? You're under a friction grip above and below you when you move sideways, why does that go away?Ok let's make this a bit more clear. You have to go on my theory of a dome, ok?
If you jumped horizontally, are you saying you could only go as far horizontally as you could vertically, due to the fact the only possible force comes from air?
So, horizontally, air is balanced? Force one way and subsequent compression can be disregarded, because the other side pushes? Meanwhile, the ground is stronger than the air, and not going to give way, so the air can only push down to try and expand?Think of it like this.
Trying to understand what you're saying, would that be in any way accurate?
I think I was unclear: I meant this in terms of a cube in pure vacuum, unaffected by the external force of our atmosphere. I'm just trying to get an image of how your force would work.If the cube was in a pure vacuum, assuming it could, which it can't but for the sake of it we will pretend it could.
Just to give you a helping hand.??? So now energy pushes matter up towards the dome? That means that there should be more air pressure the higher you go, not less. Are you sure that you've thought this through?
All matter is pushed UP out of the ground by energy. That's what builds the dome when gases are seperated by pressure differences due to friction caused by the energy of the central Earth energy giver. What you see as a reflective sun.
Ok let's make this a bit more clear. You have to go on my theory of a dome, ok?Well one thing to take issue with is 'all the way to the top', but I see what you mean.
Now the dome covers this Earth's circle. Assuming you go with this, tell me what you think would happen if you fill the dome with molecules all the way to the top.
1. Tell me where the biggest pressure would be.
2. Where the least pressure would be.
Now when you do this, do not think of a compressed air tank under our sea level conditions. This is where people get scuppered.
Now imagine above the soap there is an elastic covering over the top of your fist that the top of the soap is pushing against.Let me stop you here. Why is the top covering elastic, rather than the same as the horizontal covering?
If the cube was in a pure vacuum, assuming it could, which it can't but for the sake of it we will pretend it could...I wasn't looking for a technical explanation of your dome, though it's appreciated, just an illustration of the force. If the hollow cube exists in void, with no external forces, how would pressure act?
I'm pretty sure you never explained exactly how it was flawed. It had a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and the reading didn't change as you had predicted and that was the end of it. If you saw something in there going wrong you should have just said what it is.Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Absolutely I'm sure. It's you people that don't think things through and can't grasp a simple concept. That's because your brains are scattered with nonsense theories indoctrinated into them, such as gravity.Just to give you a helping hand.??? So now energy pushes matter up towards the dome? That means that there should be more air pressure the higher you go, not less. Are you sure that you've thought this through?
All matter is pushed UP out of the ground by energy. That's what builds the dome when gases are seperated by pressure differences due to friction caused by the energy of the central Earth energy giver. What you see as a reflective sun.
Well one thing to take issue with is 'all the way to the top', but I see what you mean.No there wouldn't. The immediate point of energy that starts this process comes from the centre.
If air was put into the dome evenly, with no force, there's be complete equilibrium throughout it: no area of excess pressure.
If it was overfilled, then the parts where the arc meets the flat edge would have the most pressure, followed by along the flat edge. The arc would maintain less pressure, so the area of least pressure would be between the centre and arc.You're thinking of a brick arch or whatever under atmospheric pressure. You're not thinking on the right lines.
I'm fine with the notion that particles collide more at a boundary, as it causes a direction change. However, with no motion, that too would quickly sort out to equilibrium: no area with more pressure, because the air molecules wouldn't be able to keep going forever. Soon the pressure throughout would need to be even: it's only the act of inflation (adding air) that increases pressure. Common sense, wouldn't you say?There's always motion. The sun sees to that. It's a constant feed and recycle. This is why we have worldwide winds and pressure changes. The matter in everything is always expanding and contracting, always.
The motion of humans would barely register on any dome large enough to contain the Earth.It's not just about us. We are mere bacteria in terms of energy given out and taken in.
Plus, this still doesn't explain why horizontal motion is easier than vertical: if anything, it's the opposite. Either vertical motion is easier because as you jump, there's less pressure (and you haven't got to go against the much denser horizontal air), or the difference is negligible and they should be exactly the same as one another.You are forgetting the friction grip on your body. I explained this. If you can't grasp it then fair enough.
I wasn't looking for a technical explanation of your dome, though it's appreciated, just an illustration of the force. If the hollow cube exists in void, with no external forces, how would pressure act?It wouldn't act. There would be none to act.
I think I understand from your earlier explanation, but I want to be sure. Would it be right to say air is thickest at each face (on the inside), so that is where things would be pinned to?Nope. If air is inside and you are too then your mass/density decides where the air goes by displacing it.
If so, the obvious question is what would happen when you near another face. Would the pressure against said face drag you against it, or would you remain on the same face? And if the latter, why?The only time you would be pushed against a wall is if wind pressure pushed you against it. Now if you are in a cube then the only thing that would keep you pinned to the wall of it is acceleration which would compress the air to the back and pin you with it if it's fast enough.
Don't do it for me. Do it for yourself. Surely you want to find the truth don't you?I'm pretty sure you never explained exactly how it was flawed. It had a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and the reading didn't change as you had predicted and that was the end of it. If you saw something in there going wrong you should have just said what it is.Why don't you try it and see what happens.Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.
Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.
I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.
Air pressure measurements in general are something I could do, I have access to such instruments. You have previously shown zero cooperation for proposed measurements of denpressure, what's with the change of heart? You know I could still measure how much more pressure there is by the the surface of different objects, to see how it changes by how much they weigh. Or how much more fluid a 10cc piece of steel displaces than a 10cc piece of aluminium. I'm extremely skeptical of if there's any point in doing these tests though, having seen how well you received the vacuum chamber test.
I'm thinking in terms of collisions: collisions being the cause of pressure, and the only way matter can interact with matter (barring forces like magnetism). It seems reasonable that there would be more collisions when arc meets line, as the two are closer. Similarly, there's much more along the arc for molecules to hit, meaning the pressure at any one point should be less than that along the lower line.If it was overfilled, then the parts where the arc meets the flat edge would have the most pressure, followed by along the flat edge. The arc would maintain less pressure, so the area of least pressure would be between the centre and arc.You're thinking of a brick arch or whatever under atmospheric pressure. You're not thinking on the right lines.
There's always motion. The sun sees to that. It's a constant feed and recycle. This is why we have worldwide winds and pressure changes. The matter in everything is always expanding and contracting, always.That I think I can agree with: it prevents equilibrium, keeps the air moving. There's the question of creation, but that's not worth going into here. Thanks for the answer.
You are forgetting the friction grip on your body. I explained this. If you can't grasp it then fair enough.The question is why this grip only acts in one direction. if I jump up, friction grips both my sides, and the air 'above' me pulls me down: fine. But then, if I move sideways, there's still air pressure to push against, and a friction grip of air above me, plus the ground below me with even more friction. Either way, at some point I'm completely surrounded by air and air alone: and that air has no concept of where up or down is, and yet it, without fail, pulls me down: and never pushes me back to where I started on the horizontal plane.
Seeing as I believe you are logically smart and intelligent, I'd like you to think on my lines. I'm not asking you to accept and I welcome criticism or questioning, just do me the favour of not thinking on the lines of gravity to do this.
I'm thinking in terms of collisions: collisions being the cause of pressure, and the only way matter can interact with matter (barring forces like magnetism). It seems reasonable that there would be more collisions when arc meets line, as the two are closer. Similarly, there's much more along the arc for molecules to hit, meaning the pressure at any one point should be less than that along the lower line.
date=1424949063]The question is why this grip only acts in one direction. if I jump up, friction grips both my sides, and the air 'above' me pulls me down:No it doesn't pull you down. That's why I implore you look deeply into what I'm telling you.
date=1424949063]fine. But then, if I move sideways, there's still air pressure to push against, and a friction grip of air above me, plus the ground below me with even more friction.Yep but as above, your horizontal movement is sorted so now we have the above as you walk horizontal.
date=1424949063] Either way, at some point I'm completely surrounded by air and air alone: and that air has no concept of where up or down is, and yet it, without fail, pulls me down: and never pushes me back to where I started on the horizontal plane.Like I said. There is never a PULL on Earth in any form whatsoever. It's always push no matter what you do. It's all about understanding it though.
date=1424949063]The only possibility I can see is how air has somewhere to go when you move horizontally, as the ground's not in the way: but the space occupied by the ground is minimal, and you just need to jump off a diving board to see it makes little difference. Jumping upwards doesn't make a vacuum below you: air moves in.A diving board is a solid base. When you push down on it and launch yourself, you are using your own mass/density to push the floor away from you like a spongy spring (action) which will equally push back onto your mass/density (reaction) to allow you to compress more air above you which will react accordingly in the same manner by compressing you back down.
This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.Of course. It just depends on how you choose to look at it.
This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.
I'm not asking you to accept this I'm asking you to see it from my point.At this point I'm not too concerned with the evidence for/against aspects of your view, I'm just trying to understand what it is you're proposing, and how it matches with the world. Thank you for the illustration of air as expanding bubbles. That does make more sense.
No it doesn't pull you down.Bad choice of words, sorry.
Think of it like this.
A big tub of sponge balls...
When you walk you do the same thing, your head moves forward and leaves that head space to be filled as you compress into that space you're in now. It just compresses back around you.And if you move vertically, air rushes in to where your feet were: or if you lie on your back and try to walk up a wall, the physics should be the exact same, and air rushes into the head space when you lift it.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.
A diving board is a solid base. When you push down on it and launch yourself, you are using your own mass/density to push the floor away from you like a spongy spring (action) which will equally push back onto your mass/density (reaction) to allow you to compress more air above you which will react accordingly in the same manner by compressing you back down.My main problem with the equal/opposite reaction explanation is that, if it applies, it should also apply in the horizontal. Why is it air's allowed to force you back when moving vertically, and yet gets balanced by a force going to the other side of your horizontally, when they should both keep happening in either case?
Atmospheric pressure keeps changing, why not the weight of a bag of sugar?This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.Of course.
Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not asking you to accept this I'm asking you to see it from my point.At this point I'm not too concerned with the evidence for/against aspects of your view, I'm just trying to understand what it is you're proposing, and how it matches with the world. Thank you for the illustration of air as expanding bubbles. That does make more sense.QuoteNo it doesn't pull you down.Bad choice of words, sorry.QuoteThink of it like this.
A big tub of sponge balls...
My main issue with these kinds of illustrations is that, clearly, I think there is a downwards force: so it feels a lot like you're appealing to one. My problem is, without that being there to alter matters, it you jumped up, while the balls above you would resist, those underneath you would also resist your descent, as they'd expand into the gap. With only upwards air pressure to push you down, in combination with horizontal friction and further air pressure from below you, there'd be nothing to make you move.
Further, there should be no difference (without a downwards force) between walking from the wall, in of the tub, and trying to ascend from the bottom. Think of it as a L shape: out of context, there's no way for you to tell which is the horizontal stroke, and which is the vertical. In your proposal, there's no difference between standing with your back to the wall, and lying on the floor with your feet on the wall: and yet you can only walk forwards in one of those cases.
After all, if you push a sponge ball up, out of the tub, what would make it fall back down in lieu of a downwards force? The only explanation would be to have more sponge balls there to expand to force it back, but that's identical to the horizontal behaviour.
You give a lot of examples, but none of them explain why air behaves differently in the vertical and horizontal: if a downwards force is removed, there's no explanation.
I think the main point is: lying on your back at the bottom of the ball pit, and standing with your back to the wall, what is the difference between those two behaviours? Air rushes in behind you in either cases: and, indeed, moving vertically the air pressure is less dramatic higher up, so there should actually be less difficulty in moving that way.
QuoteWhen you walk you do the same thing, your head moves forward and leaves that head space to be filled as you compress into that space you're in now. It just compresses back around you.And if you move vertically, air rushes in to where your feet were: or if you lie on your back and try to walk up a wall, the physics should be the exact same, and air rushes into the head space when you lift it.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.QuoteA diving board is a solid base. When you push down on it and launch yourself, you are using your own mass/density to push the floor away from you like a spongy spring (action) which will equally push back onto your mass/density (reaction) to allow you to compress more air above you which will react accordingly in the same manner by compressing you back down.My main problem with the equal/opposite reaction explanation is that, if it applies, it should also apply in the horizontal. Why is it air's allowed to force you back when moving vertically, and yet gets balanced by a force going to the other side of your horizontally, when they should both keep happening in either case?
I could see how that might be able to make sense (at first glance, haven't considered too much) on a totally flat plane with completely even horizontal pressure, but that's too ideal to be of any use. For starters, the world we're on is not completely flat: houses, mountains, trees... Air should resist against each one of those things. (see, the wall example again).
If the atmosphere is just bubbles all attached to each other why do we get wind? Or gaseous diffusion?I'm wasting my time explaining anything to you.
I'm also wasting my time explaining anything to you, also.Atmospheric pressure keeps changing, why not the weight of a bag of sugar?This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.Of course.
Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not going to accept something as possible when it contradicts what we can test and observe.
That's the beauty. You don't observe anything. You only observe what you're told in text books with pictures as back up.Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not going to accept something as possible when it contradicts what we can test and observe.
Hey, some theory about gravity in a flat earth came to my mind this days, mixing all with Scripture information, and imagination.I respect your thoughts on your god. I personally want to reason this without that aid.
The earth is like inside of a "bubble" (firmament).
The Creator is spirit, His throne is out and right in the top of this bubble... He is Light, He is the real Sun.
Spirit don't mix with matter, like water don't mix with oil.(That's why there's a battle with the flesh).
He is a radianting Spirit, so His energy repells and destroys matter all "around" Him.
Matter goes in the direction of darkness, the void or the abyss (the denser a object is, more quickly he goes to the abyss).
So He made His creation like this, He made a "bubble" structure (firmament) and manipulated the matter inside, creating enviroment and life (Life as we know, material bodys can not survive in His presence out of the firmament).
As His Spirit goes inside and across everything, He holds this "heavy bubble" close to him so it won't "fall" to the great abyss.
Inside of the "bubble" His reppeling forces continues to exist, and thats why the denser things goes to the bottom of the firmament and the less dense material things stay in the high altitudes. (The rocks, the water, the bodys and the gases)It's like a degradee of densitys.
So our bodys are not pulled into the ground as we thought, but we are being pushed from above. So the force we call gravity, is in reality a force that comes straight from Heaven. And that force indicates what is up or down.
The Creator is the One who says what is up or down to us.
"Up" is where His Throne is placed, and He is the source of a literal strong repelling force of material things.
Gravity is directly related to the Creator, and that's why material science has problems with it.
Explain. Pressure changes. Fact. Weight does not. Fact.I'm also wasting my time explaining anything to you, also.Atmospheric pressure keeps changing, why not the weight of a bag of sugar?This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.Of course.
That's the beauty. You don't observe anything. You only observe what you're told in text books with pictures as back up.Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not going to accept something as possible when it contradicts what we can test and observe.
I'll give you your due. You did attempt to try but the last post you gave me told me it was pointless carrying on explaining to you.
It's hard for a person who's had their heads rammed into science books to accept basic explanations. I accept that. Let's just leave it at that and you go your way and I'll go mine.
You probably just think it all faces south. I can't explain anything to you, seriously.Explain. Pressure changes. Fact. Weight does not. Fact.I'm also wasting my time explaining anything to you, also.Atmospheric pressure keeps changing, why not the weight of a bag of sugar?This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.Of course.
The only fair summary is you have not grasped what I've just spent a lot of time explaining. You can't seem to understand that I've explained all of what you're going on about. You simply cannot see it or deliberately choose not to.That's the beauty. You don't observe anything. You only observe what you're told in text books with pictures as back up.Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not going to accept something as possible when it contradicts what we can test and observe.
I'll give you your due. You did attempt to try but the last post you gave me told me it was pointless carrying on explaining to you.
It's hard for a person who's had their heads rammed into science books to accept basic explanations. I accept that. Let's just leave it at that and you go your way and I'll go mine.
I too have been trying to work out Denpressure and fair doo's to BiJane, she's continued to try and deep dive into Denpressure. I've enjoyed following the thread but, to sum it all up, the above comment means you don't have an explanation for why, air rushes it around you when moving in a horizontal plane, but doesn't in a vertical plane. What applies in one should apply in the other. So what force / mechanism of Denpressure means air will rush around you in the horizontal, but not in the vertical.
You say compression above pushes you back down and basically, because you're not taking another step, there's a lack on energy to continue the upward motion so you return to earth. So why does this not translate to the walk up the wall analogy? I'd be able to take another step and transfer more energy.
* I think that's a fair summary of where we are at.
The only fair summary is you have not grasped what I've just spent a lot of time explaining. You can't seem to understand that I've explained all of what you're going on about. You simply cannot see it or deliberately choose not to.That's the beauty. You don't observe anything. You only observe what you're told in text books with pictures as back up.Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not going to accept something as possible when it contradicts what we can test and observe.
I'll give you your due. You did attempt to try but the last post you gave me told me it was pointless carrying on explaining to you.
It's hard for a person who's had their heads rammed into science books to accept basic explanations. I accept that. Let's just leave it at that and you go your way and I'll go mine.
I too have been trying to work out Denpressure and fair doo's to BiJane, she's continued to try and deep dive into Denpressure. I've enjoyed following the thread but, to sum it all up, the above comment means you don't have an explanation for why, air rushes it around you when moving in a horizontal plane, but doesn't in a vertical plane. What applies in one should apply in the other. So what force / mechanism of Denpressure means air will rush around you in the horizontal, but not in the vertical.
You say compression above pushes you back down and basically, because you're not taking another step, there's a lack on energy to continue the upward motion so you return to earth. So why does this not translate to the walk up the wall analogy? I'd be able to take another step and transfer more energy.
* I think that's a fair summary of where we are at.
Your previous post shows me what you're all about.
I suggest you re-read and absorb what I've said. I'm not going to explain it to you again.The only fair summary is you have not grasped what I've just spent a lot of time explaining. You can't seem to understand that I've explained all of what you're going on about. You simply cannot see it or deliberately choose not to.That's the beauty. You don't observe anything. You only observe what you're told in text books with pictures as back up.Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not going to accept something as possible when it contradicts what we can test and observe.
I'll give you your due. You did attempt to try but the last post you gave me told me it was pointless carrying on explaining to you.
It's hard for a person who's had their heads rammed into science books to accept basic explanations. I accept that. Let's just leave it at that and you go your way and I'll go mine.
I too have been trying to work out Denpressure and fair doo's to BiJane, she's continued to try and deep dive into Denpressure. I've enjoyed following the thread but, to sum it all up, the above comment means you don't have an explanation for why, air rushes it around you when moving in a horizontal plane, but doesn't in a vertical plane. What applies in one should apply in the other. So what force / mechanism of Denpressure means air will rush around you in the horizontal, but not in the vertical.
You say compression above pushes you back down and basically, because you're not taking another step, there's a lack on energy to continue the upward motion so you return to earth. So why does this not translate to the walk up the wall analogy? I'd be able to take another step and transfer more energy.
* I think that's a fair summary of where we are at.
Your previous post shows me what you're all about.
And again, I ask, why can I not transfer energy in the vertical and therefore walk up walls? Why does Denpressure not allow this. What propertyof Denpressure mean that it will continue to allow me to transfer energy from ground to air in the horizontal, but not from wall to air in the vertical? This is the only thing I am missing from your theory. I'm on the cusp of enlightenment.
I suggest you re-read and absorb what I've said. I'm not going to explain it to you again.Here's the thing: you haven't explained it once. The fact more than one of us is asking the same question seems evidence of that. I read your posts slowly, genuinely tried to understand just what you were saying, and the only explanations you've given for how pressure can tell the difference between vertical and horizontal motion is either grounded in a downwards force, or presupposition.
I suggest you re-read and absorb what I've said. I'm not going to explain it to you again.The only fair summary is you have not grasped what I've just spent a lot of time explaining. You can't seem to understand that I've explained all of what you're going on about. You simply cannot see it or deliberately choose not to.That's the beauty. You don't observe anything. You only observe what you're told in text books with pictures as back up.Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.I'm not going to accept something as possible when it contradicts what we can test and observe.
I'll give you your due. You did attempt to try but the last post you gave me told me it was pointless carrying on explaining to you.
It's hard for a person who's had their heads rammed into science books to accept basic explanations. I accept that. Let's just leave it at that and you go your way and I'll go mine.
I too have been trying to work out Denpressure and fair doo's to BiJane, she's continued to try and deep dive into Denpressure. I've enjoyed following the thread but, to sum it all up, the above comment means you don't have an explanation for why, air rushes it around you when moving in a horizontal plane, but doesn't in a vertical plane. What applies in one should apply in the other. So what force / mechanism of Denpressure means air will rush around you in the horizontal, but not in the vertical.
You say compression above pushes you back down and basically, because you're not taking another step, there's a lack on energy to continue the upward motion so you return to earth. So why does this not translate to the walk up the wall analogy? I'd be able to take another step and transfer more energy.
* I think that's a fair summary of where we are at.
Your previous post shows me what you're all about.
And again, I ask, why can I not transfer energy in the vertical and therefore walk up walls? Why does Denpressure not allow this. What propertyof Denpressure mean that it will continue to allow me to transfer energy from ground to air in the horizontal, but not from wall to air in the vertical? This is the only thing I am missing from your theory. I'm on the cusp of enlightenment.
Just tell me what you don't get about a stacked atmosphere and a dense mass pushing into it.I suggest you re-read and absorb what I've said. I'm not going to explain it to you again.Here's the thing: you haven't explained it once. The fact more than one of us is asking the same question seems evidence of that. I read your posts slowly, genuinely tried to understand just what you were saying, and the only explanations you've given for how pressure can tell the difference between vertical and horizontal motion is either grounded in a downwards force, or presupposition.
True, you can't explain anything. Try again to explain why weight varies with pressure.You probably just think it all faces south. I can't explain anything to you, seriously.Explain. Pressure changes. Fact. Weight does not. Fact.I'm also wasting my time explaining anything to you, also.Atmospheric pressure keeps changing, why not the weight of a bag of sugar?This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.Of course.
What I don't understand is why I can't flip this on it's side and walk up a wall. I will walk, energy will transfer from wall to air around me and the air should rush around me a push me along or, in this case, up.You wall is vertical. Your wall s under pressure in exactly the same way you are, at rest. It's balanced by pushing into the atmosphere and forcing that atmosphere down each side of it to grip it in a balanced state. I'm sure you understand this given what you've just said.
Just tell me what you don't get about a stacked atmosphere and a dense mass pushing into it.Why does it only stack vertically? It's as simple as that. There is no difference between up and down and left and forwards under your proposal, air should stack just as much against vertical walls than up from the horizontal ground.
If I draw you a simplistic diagram in paint, will you look at it as an analogy of the basic and try to understand what I'm saying or will you immediately go into ignorant mode. I need to know this before I waste a bit of time.Just tell me what you don't get about a stacked atmosphere and a dense mass pushing into it.Why does it only stack vertically? It's as simple as that. There is no difference between up and down and left and forwards under your proposal, air should stack just as much against vertical walls than up from the horizontal ground.
Vertical and horizontal movement should have comparable levels of difficulty, with your proposed stack and compression. Whether this means we can walk up walls, or that we can't walk along the ground, doesn't matter: neither occurs.
If I draw you a simplistic diagram in paint, will you look at it as an analogy of the basic and try to understand what I'm saying or will you immediately go into ignorant mode. I need to know this before I waste a bit of time.Just tell me what you don't get about a stacked atmosphere and a dense mass pushing into it.Why does it only stack vertically? It's as simple as that. There is no difference between up and down and left and forwards under your proposal, air should stack just as much against vertical walls than up from the horizontal ground.
Vertical and horizontal movement should have comparable levels of difficulty, with your proposed stack and compression. Whether this means we can walk up walls, or that we can't walk along the ground, doesn't matter: neither occurs.
But if I am perpendicular to the wall, feet on the wall, would not then be pushing into the atmosphere horizontally? Why does this only work when I am pushing into the atmosphere vertically? How does the atmosphere know?What I don't understand is why I can't flip this on it's side and walk up a wall. I will walk, energy will transfer from wall to air around me and the air should rush around me a push me along or, in this case, up.You wall is vertical. Your wall s under pressure in exactly the same way you are, at rest. It's balanced by pushing into the atmosphere and forcing that atmosphere down each side of it to grip it in a balanced state. I'm sure you understand this given what you've just said.
Ok, you also understand that you as a person are stood upright. Your mass is pushing vertically and compressing the air above you, like the wall is.
The only way you can push into that atmosphere and keep resistant to it is by using your feet as a barrier to the ground and the ground as a stronger barrier to your whole dense mass.
If you try to walk up a wall, you change your whole balance against that atmosphere. You have to angle back and in doing so you change the whole balance of atmosphere acting on your body so it now pushes back onto your body in an angled motion, meaning you are going to be compressed down to the floor by having no floor leverage until you are flat on your back.
As I said before. It's not about the atmosphere knowing when to do anything. It's reliant on any mass and density of that mass pushing into it.
If I draw you a simplistic diagram in paint, will you look at it as an analogy of the basic and try to understand what I'm saying or will you immediately go into ignorant mode. I need to know this before I waste a bit of time.I'd be happy to. My only issues with the analogies you're using are that they rely on my perceptions of the real world: which either means you've presupposed your pressure is a valid explanation, or appealed to a downwards force. That's an entirely reasonable issue to have. I've been happy with every other illustration you've made.
I'm going to make this easier for you. I'll start asking you questions.If I draw you a simplistic diagram in paint, will you look at it as an analogy of the basic and try to understand what I'm saying or will you immediately go into ignorant mode. I need to know this before I waste a bit of time.I'd be happy to. My only issues with the analogies you're using are that they rely on my perceptions of the real world: which either means you've presupposed your pressure is a valid explanation, or appealed to a downwards force. That's an entirely reasonable issue to have. I've been happy with every other illustration you've made.
The other note would be that you can't just say "This is how things are," and draw a vertical stack, without giving a reason why the stack is only vertical, and not horizontal. That's the main thing I'm asking, after all.
A bell jar and pump. You lift off the jar no problem, right?Suction. My understanding is that as matter seeks to travel into a vacuum, so too is the base drawn up: while it obviously can't fit into the jar, it's drawn towards it, so they stay clamped together. It's been several years since I've done physics, however, so particulars are likely wrong.
Ok now you place it back down and evacuate air from it. Tell me why you can't pick that jar up. What clamps that jar to the base?
Ok, here's what I'm going to propose. You cast all of your learning aside from mainstream, just for now and think of what I say. This isn't a dig - it's just so you can see my side and allow yourself to understand everything I'm about to tell you in a no frills basic manner.A bell jar and pump. You lift off the jar no problem, right?Suction. My understanding is that as matter seeks to travel into a vacuum, so too is the base drawn up: while it obviously can't fit into the jar, it's drawn towards it, so they stay clamped together. It's been several years since I've done physics, however, so particulars are likely wrong.
Ok now you place it back down and evacuate air from it. Tell me why you can't pick that jar up. What clamps that jar to the base?
Ok, here's what I'm going to propose. You cast all of your learning aside from mainstream, just for now and think of what I say. This isn't a dig - it's just so you can see my side and allow yourself to understand everything I'm about to tell you in a no frills basic manner.I'm happy to: currently I'm only interested in understanding what you propose at how it matches what we see.
Now there is no such thing as suction. There is no pull and nothing sucks. Can you accept this for the minute before I explain what's happening with the scenario I put to you?
Ok, think deeply about what I'm about to tell you.Ok, here's what I'm going to propose. You cast all of your learning aside from mainstream, just for now and think of what I say. This isn't a dig - it's just so you can see my side and allow yourself to understand everything I'm about to tell you in a no frills basic manner.I'm happy to: currently I'm only interested in understanding what you propose at how it matches what we see.
Now there is no such thing as suction. There is no pull and nothing sucks. Can you accept this for the minute before I explain what's happening with the scenario I put to you?
I don't know who to believe.Isn't idiot baiting against the law?
Scepti, why is JRowe saying this? I mean what he is saying makes sense, can you please elaborate why you are right and he is wrong?
Now because we pick that bell jar up, we are only picking it up under equal pressure inside of it and outside, except we change that by pushing it into the atmosphere and compressing it from the deck, so instead of the base holding that pressure, it's transferred to your arm and hand and shoulder all the way to your feet.
It would be if he did it properly. The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.I don't know who to believe.Isn't idiot baiting against the law?
Scepti, why is JRowe saying this? I mean what he is saying makes sense, can you please elaborate why you are right and he is wrong?
It would be if he did it properly. The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.I don't know who to believe.Isn't idiot baiting against the law?
Scepti, why is JRowe saying this? I mean what he is saying makes sense, can you please elaborate why you are right and he is wrong?
The force that keeps everything on Earth as we see it and perceive it, is atmospheric pressure upon any dense object. That pressure is denpressure.
The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.Also, he said air doesn't exist. That's not thinking. Inflate a balloon, put it on scales, it's heavier than a deflated balloon. That's not opinion, that's willful ignorance.
Wait, wait. I am sure Jane will have a more clear response but you say this,Because fallacious corruption calms an effect by baring chasms which knock on wood and absord channels of programming which negates a mix of keline and casarene, rendering the top more middle than the nbottom piece.QuoteNow because we pick that bell jar up, we are only picking it up under equal pressure inside of it and outside, except we change that by pushing it into the atmosphere and compressing it from the deck, so instead of the base holding that pressure, it's transferred to your arm and hand and shoulder all the way to your feet.
why then if I were to rotate my torso, there fore swinging the arm with the jar, don't I feel the same pressure on the jar moving laterally?
The force that keeps everything on Earth as we see it and perceive it, is atmospheric pressure upon any dense object. That pressure is denpressure.
How does that even touch the question I asked, of why the resistance is primarily vertical and not horizontal?
Most of it you've said before, and I understand the principle. And I assume that, if the bell jar was placed sideways against something before the air was pushed out, you hold it would still remain stuck where it is?
You still haven't addressed my question, of why vertical and horizontal pressure differs the way it does.The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.Also, he said air doesn't exist. That's not thinking. Inflate a balloon, put it on scales, it's heavier than a deflated balloon. That's not opinion, that's willful ignorance.
Ok Jane, that'll do for now. Nice chatting with you. We will call it a day on this. I can see where it's going. Trust is a major issue on here, you lost mine.The force that keeps everything on Earth as we see it and perceive it, is atmospheric pressure upon any dense object. That pressure is denpressure.
How does that even touch the question I asked, of why the resistance is primarily vertical and not horizontal?
Most of it you've said before, and I understand the principle. And I assume that, if the bell jar was placed sideways against something before the air was pushed out, you hold it would still remain stuck where it is?
You still haven't addressed my question, of why vertical and horizontal pressure differs the way it does.The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.Also, he said air doesn't exist. That's not thinking. Inflate a balloon, put it on scales, it's heavier than a deflated balloon. That's not opinion, that's willful ignorance.
Ok Jane, that'll do for now. Nice chatting with you. We will call it a day on this. I can see where it's going. Trust is a major issue on here, you lost mine.Likewise. Have fun evading.
Wait, wait. I am sure Jane will have a more clear response but you say this,Because fallacious corruption calms an effect by baring chasms which knock on wood and absord channels of programming which negates a mix of keline and casarene, rendering the top more middle than the nbottom piece.QuoteNow because we pick that bell jar up, we are only picking it up under equal pressure inside of it and outside, except we change that by pushing it into the atmosphere and compressing it from the deck, so instead of the base holding that pressure, it's transferred to your arm and hand and shoulder all the way to your feet.
why then if I were to rotate my torso, there fore swinging the arm with the jar, don't I feel the same pressure on the jar moving laterally?
Spinning on a valve deflector can only enhance the weight of a gerbil trapped inside a one sided box of no walls.
Basically tap water with flouride would be more than less of no taps at all if taps were not part of the whole vacuum type nothingness of no space in atmosphere.
When added together and subtracting the times of dividing, we get the square root of tree.
Basically try harder with your bullshit you clown. ;D
No, not at all. I treat you like that because I think you're an internet prick. I basically have no time for people like you. You're a complete and total bell end and as thick as shit. ;)Wait, wait. I am sure Jane will have a more clear response but you say this,Because fallacious corruption calms an effect by baring chasms which knock on wood and absord channels of programming which negates a mix of keline and casarene, rendering the top more middle than the nbottom piece.QuoteNow because we pick that bell jar up, we are only picking it up under equal pressure inside of it and outside, except we change that by pushing it into the atmosphere and compressing it from the deck, so instead of the base holding that pressure, it's transferred to your arm and hand and shoulder all the way to your feet.
why then if I were to rotate my torso, there fore swinging the arm with the jar, don't I feel the same pressure on the jar moving laterally?
Spinning on a valve deflector can only enhance the weight of a gerbil trapped inside a one sided box of no walls.
Basically tap water with flouride would be more than less of no taps at all if taps were not part of the whole vacuum type nothingness of no space in atmosphere.
When added together and subtracting the times of dividing, we get the square root of tree.
Basically try harder with your bullshit you clown. ;D
But, that was a legitimate question, is it just that you can't answer it within your theory that you then treated me like that?
It would be if he did it properly. The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.I don't know who to believe.Isn't idiot baiting against the law?
Scepti, why is JRowe saying this? I mean what he is saying makes sense, can you please elaborate why you are right and he is wrong?
No, not at all. I treat you like that because I think you're an internet prick. I basically have no time for people like you. You're a complete and total bell end and as thick as shit. ;)Wait, wait. I am sure Jane will have a more clear response but you say this,Because fallacious corruption calms an effect by baring chasms which knock on wood and absord channels of programming which negates a mix of keline and casarene, rendering the top more middle than the nbottom piece.QuoteNow because we pick that bell jar up, we are only picking it up under equal pressure inside of it and outside, except we change that by pushing it into the atmosphere and compressing it from the deck, so instead of the base holding that pressure, it's transferred to your arm and hand and shoulder all the way to your feet.
why then if I were to rotate my torso, there fore swinging the arm with the jar, don't I feel the same pressure on the jar moving laterally?
Spinning on a valve deflector can only enhance the weight of a gerbil trapped inside a one sided box of no walls.
Basically tap water with flouride would be more than less of no taps at all if taps were not part of the whole vacuum type nothingness of no space in atmosphere.
When added together and subtracting the times of dividing, we get the square root of tree.
Basically try harder with your bullshit you clown. ;D
But, that was a legitimate question, is it just that you can't answer it within your theory that you then treated me like that?
You tell me what gravity is and I'll start listening.It would be if he did it properly. The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.I don't know who to believe.Isn't idiot baiting against the law?
Scepti, why is JRowe saying this? I mean what he is saying makes sense, can you please elaborate why you are right and he is wrong?
Just out of the curiosity, have you actually get to know or read any of those mainstream books you are so keen to abandon? Shouldn't you've been poking holes to theories that you think that sucks and are no good. Prove them wrong. Collapse the foundations of elementary physics and it's guaranteed that you will get to meet King of Sweden, receive a gold medal and million bucks.
I have handled these instruments so much over the years that I have no need to prove these things for my self, from my experience I already know what the results are and they are not in favor of denpressure. I would only have been doing the experiments for added entertainment on these 'debates'. Seeing that testing how your 'theory' matches with reality is of no interest to you, there's little point.I'm pretty sure you never explained exactly how it was flawed. It had a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and the reading didn't change as you had predicted and that was the end of it. If you saw something in there going wrong you should have just said what it is.Don't do it for me. Do it for yourself. Surely you want to find the truth don't you?
Air pressure measurements in general are something I could do, I have access to such instruments. You have previously shown zero cooperation for proposed measurements of denpressure, what's with the change of heart? You know I could still measure how much more pressure there is by the the surface of different objects, to see how it changes by how much they weigh. Or how much more fluid a 10cc piece of steel displaces than a 10cc piece of aluminium. I'm extremely skeptical of if there's any point in doing these tests though, having seen how well you received the vacuum chamber test.
You don't need me for that. I'm just aiding you in doing it. If like Sokarul you are dishonest then you are only being dishonest with yourself.
Do the experiments for you and see how many you can perform that nails it one way or the other for you.
You tell me what gravity is and I'll start listening.It would be if he did it properly. The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.I don't know who to believe.Isn't idiot baiting against the law?
Scepti, why is JRowe saying this? I mean what he is saying makes sense, can you please elaborate why you are right and he is wrong?
Just out of the curiosity, have you actually get to know or read any of those mainstream books you are so keen to abandon? Shouldn't you've been poking holes to theories that you think that sucks and are no good. Prove them wrong. Collapse the foundations of elementary physics and it's guaranteed that you will get to meet King of Sweden, receive a gold medal and million bucks.
Wait a minute. You asked me for my explanations. I gave them. They don't cut it with you people. Fair enough. So my turn to ask what gravity is.You tell me what gravity is and I'll start listening.It would be if he did it properly. The mere fact is, skeptic is entitled to his opinion just as everyone is. I might not agree with it but at least he's thinking and not working from mainstream text books.I don't know who to believe.Isn't idiot baiting against the law?
Scepti, why is JRowe saying this? I mean what he is saying makes sense, can you please elaborate why you are right and he is wrong?
Just out of the curiosity, have you actually get to know or read any of those mainstream books you are so keen to abandon? Shouldn't you've been poking holes to theories that you think that sucks and are no good. Prove them wrong. Collapse the foundations of elementary physics and it's guaranteed that you will get to meet King of Sweden, receive a gold medal and million bucks.
There is also no explenation for why we need to sleep and what magnetism is, are those things fake too?
"It's gravity it's gravity, it's gravity, we can measure it, we know planets work by it, we see mass attracting mass." we hear them shout. "So what is it?" I shout.
"We don't know what it is - it just is and that's all you need to know." Is their answer.
Well let me tell you something. If you people rely on something that cannot be explained, then who are the real losers. A clue, it's not those that question this shit.
Take, for example, your bell jar case. You say a pump pushes air out. How, exactly, can that be modeled as a push? Does the pump reach out to hug the air molecules, and push from the other side? Does it whisper to get more distant molecules to come closer, and push more that way? Even if we suppose your expanding bubble-air, how exactly can something be drawn closer without going to the other side and pushing?
True, but I gave another analogy: the main point of the pump case was to show how very semantics-based the pull/push argument is. The movement is towards a certain thing, because of said thing: which is very much like a pull, yet the motion can be treated as a push because...Take, for example, your bell jar case. You say a pump pushes air out. How, exactly, can that be modeled as a push? Does the pump reach out to hug the air molecules, and push from the other side? Does it whisper to get more distant molecules to come closer, and push more that way? Even if we suppose your expanding bubble-air, how exactly can something be drawn closer without going to the other side and pushing?
Well technically scepti is right about this. A pump just maintains a low pressure environment inside of it by constantly pumping air out and then because of how molecules bounce around like they do there are less molecules hitting from the low pressure side then from the high pressure side and so the molecules feel a net force in the direction of the lower pressure area.
True, but I gave another analogy: the main point of the pump case was to show how very semantics-based the pull/push argument is. The movement is towards a certain thing, because of said thing: which is very much like a pull, yet the motion can be treated as a push because...Take, for example, your bell jar case. You say a pump pushes air out. How, exactly, can that be modeled as a push? Does the pump reach out to hug the air molecules, and push from the other side? Does it whisper to get more distant molecules to come closer, and push more that way? Even if we suppose your expanding bubble-air, how exactly can something be drawn closer without going to the other side and pushing?
Well technically scepti is right about this. A pump just maintains a low pressure environment inside of it by constantly pumping air out and then because of how molecules bounce around like they do there are less molecules hitting from the low pressure side then from the high pressure side and so the molecules feel a net force in the direction of the lower pressure area.
You're a complete and total bell end and as thick as shit. ;)
i notice you haven't responded to my actual argument either. obvious desperation.
You tell me what gravity is and I'll start listening.
I treat you like that because I think you're an internet prick. I basically have no time for people like you. You're a complete and total bell end and as thick as shit.