The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: glokta on March 12, 2014, 06:11:36 AM

Title: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 12, 2014, 06:11:36 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 12, 2014, 06:20:18 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Have you ever seen a level with a small bubble in a green liquid. There is no air pressure in the sealed unit. Gravity will always keep the bubble up.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 12, 2014, 06:33:23 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Have you ever seen a level with a small bubble in a green liquid. There is no air pressure in the sealed unit. Gravity will always keep the bubble up.
LIES!!!!!  The liquid is yellow!!!!! ;D

Anyways, there is air pressure inside the unit.  Otherwise there wouldn't be a bubble now would there?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 06:33:45 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 12, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
Doesn't look spherical to me.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUZ_hX1-M4y_GQibrWXV_yOoCVpQVEgCRQvDfcdKg4zOM0bOkv)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 12, 2014, 06:41:00 AM
Doesn't look spherical to me.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUZ_hX1-M4y_GQibrWXV_yOoCVpQVEgCRQvDfcdKg4zOM0bOkv)
And why do you think that is?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 12, 2014, 06:43:17 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 06:44:08 AM
You see, an air bubble can only be classes as perfectly spherical IF it can be suspended with no motion and not attached to anything. Can anyone name a situation where this could happen? I can't.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 06:45:00 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Yes fair enough but in all fairness, you know what I think about space, don't you?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 12, 2014, 06:46:14 AM
Knowing what you think, and caring what you think are quite separate.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 12, 2014, 07:04:03 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Yes fair enough but in all fairness, you know what I think about space, don't you?
Yes and you will never understand anything about space. It is sad to how many things you miss about the 21th century.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 07:12:00 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Yes fair enough but in all fairness, you know what I think about space, don't you?
Yes and you will never understand anything about space. It is sad to how many things you miss about the 21th century.
I gree with you. I will never understand something that I do not believe to exist in the way we have been told and that's my prerogative, just as it is yours to believe that it does.
Either way we are both only going off thoughts and not any actual PHYSICAL evidence. I know you can cite rocket launches and telescopes and radar,laser and video, plus picture evidence whilst also hinging a lot of physicists, which appears to have all the evidence stacked in your court for you to believe all that and fair enough. It just doesn't wash with me with what they show and tell me. I have my own thoughts on what this Earth is and what's beyond it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 12, 2014, 07:23:28 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Yes fair enough but in all fairness, you know what I think about space, don't you?
Yes and you will never understand anything about space. It is sad to how many things you miss about the 21th century.
I gree with you. I will never understand something that I do not believe to exist in the way we have been told and that's my prerogative, just as it is yours to believe that it does.
Either way we are both only going off thoughts and not any actual PHYSICAL evidence. I know you can cite rocket launches and telescopes and radar,laser and video, plus picture evidence whilst also hinging a lot of physicists, which appears to have all the evidence stacked in your court for you to believe all that and fair enough. It just doesn't wash with me with what they show and tell me. I have my own thoughts on what this Earth is and what's beyond it.
Nothing wrong with what you said.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 12, 2014, 07:32:45 AM
You see, an air bubble can only be classes as perfectly spherical IF it can be suspended with no motion and not attached to anything. Can anyone name a situation where this could happen? I can't.
(http://www.flyingarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/bubbles_toy.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 12, 2014, 07:35:57 AM
Why can't it be in motion?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 07:36:27 AM
You see, an air bubble can only be classes as perfectly spherical IF it can be suspended with no motion and not attached to anything. Can anyone name a situation where this could happen? I can't.
(http://www.flyingarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/bubbles_toy.jpg)
The problem still exists.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: QuQu on March 12, 2014, 11:28:19 AM
I'm afraid sceptimatic is below the age kids start playing with bubbles in the air, so he can't understand this.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Fe_denier on March 12, 2014, 04:52:07 PM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Yes fair enough but in all fairness, you know what I think about space, don't you?
Yes and you will never understand anything about space. It is sad to how many things you miss about the 21th century.
I gree with you. I will never understand something that I do not believe to exist in the way we have been told and that's my prerogative, just as it is yours to believe that it does.
Either way we are both only going off thoughts and not any actual PHYSICAL evidence. I know you can cite rocket launches and telescopes and radar,laser and video, plus picture evidence whilst also hinging a lot of physicists, which appears to have all the evidence stacked in your court for you to believe all that and fair enough. It just doesn't wash with me with what they show and tell me. I have my own thoughts on what this Earth is and what's beyond it.

Fair enough, "the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Your just missing out on a universe stranger and more interesting than whatever you could possibly have in your head. You should by a telescope and see the universe yourself, consider all evidence with an open mind and not only debate what you don't believe in but what you do. If you truly opened your mind to our world I suspect you might change your mind.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 12, 2014, 04:58:57 PM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Yes fair enough but in all fairness, you know what I think about space, don't you?
Yes and you will never understand anything about space. It is sad to how many things you miss about the 21th century.

Successfully derailed. Can I repeat the question:

So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 12, 2014, 05:01:18 PM
Doesn't look spherical to me.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUZ_hX1-M4y_GQibrWXV_yOoCVpQVEgCRQvDfcdKg4zOM0bOkv)

Lol. jroa, please think before you post.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 05:04:20 PM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
True but in space it is perfectly spherical. (http://)
Yes fair enough but in all fairness, you know what I think about space, don't you?
Yes and you will never understand anything about space. It is sad to how many things you miss about the 21th century.

Successfully derailed. Can I repeat the question:

So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Who is this directed to?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 12, 2014, 05:07:37 PM
I would say: you, scepticmatic. But I would like an answer, so anyone who is willing to actually answer the question, without an implicit evasion.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 12, 2014, 05:08:08 PM
Doesn't look spherical to me.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUZ_hX1-M4y_GQibrWXV_yOoCVpQVEgCRQvDfcdKg4zOM0bOkv)

Lol. jroa, please think before you post.
If you had this level in 0 gravity it would look different. The bubble would look like a sphere.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 12, 2014, 05:12:16 PM
Doesn't look spherical to me.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUZ_hX1-M4y_GQibrWXV_yOoCVpQVEgCRQvDfcdKg4zOM0bOkv)

Lol. jroa, please think before you post.
If you had this level in 0 gravity it would look different. The bubble would look like a sphere.

Are you responding to me or jroa, both?

It is an irrelevant example anyway.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 05:23:47 PM
I would say: you, scepticmatic. But I would like an answer, so anyone who is willing to actually answer the question, without an implicit evasion.
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it. I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 12, 2014, 05:30:10 PM
I would say: you, scepticmatic. But I would like an answer, so anyone who is willing to actually answer the question, without an implicit evasion.
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it. I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.
If you replace the air bubble with wood it will always flat on top. There is no air pressure in the level. If you had this level in 0 gravity it would be all over the place.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 12, 2014, 05:30:50 PM
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it.

Thanks.

I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.

You seemed to do a pretty good job. Well done  ;D

Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 12:57:32 AM
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it.

Thanks.

I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.

You seemed to do a pretty good job. Well done  ;D
So to conclude, air pressure acts equally from all directions.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 01:14:44 AM
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it.

Thanks.

I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.

You seemed to do a pretty good job. Well done  ;D
So to conclude, air pressure acts equally from all directions.
Yes, in perfect conditions.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 01:30:47 AM
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it.

Thanks.

I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.

You seemed to do a pretty good job. Well done  ;D
So to conclude, air pressure acts equally from all directions.
Yes, in perfect conditions.
So in your theory air pressure pushes down on things in place of gravity - except for the times it can be proved it doesn't?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 01:34:09 AM
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it.

Thanks.

I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.

You seemed to do a pretty good job. Well done  ;D
So to conclude, air pressure acts equally from all directions.
Yes, in perfect conditions.
So in your theory air pressure pushes down on things in place of gravity - except for the times it can be proved it doesn't?
Yes, it always pushes down on any mass by squeezing for want of a better word. The thing is, it cannot be proved it doesn't unless you use space as an argument and I discard space as none existent.

Edit to add: As long as the mass is heavier than the air it's in.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 13, 2014, 06:12:35 AM
Air acts evenly all around the bubble after the bubble has been formed by air entering a liquid and envelopes it.

Thanks.

I don't really know how exactly you want me to answer this question any other way.
So, why aren't we all floating around like bubbles?

You seemed to do a pretty good job. Well done  ;D
So to conclude, air pressure acts equally from all directions.
Yes, in perfect conditions.
So, why aren't we all floating around like bubbles?

Quote
the mass is heavier
What causes mass to be heavy?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 06:49:30 AM

So, why aren't we all floating around like bubbles?
Because our mass easily overcomes the atmosphere we are in. Our place is on the crust. The best we can do is to try and over come the pressure using force, as in jumping...but as you soon realise, the atmospheric pressure that you've just compressed by jumping up and it stops you quickly, then your own mass easily falls through the resistance of the air under you aided by the atmosphere filling the void you leave behind as you fall back down.

What causes mass to be heavy?
A build up of matter/molecules that become heavier than the atmosphere it is in. If it's lighter, it floats up, or inreality it's squeezed upwards, just the same as denser mass is squeezed downwards , not just by atmospheric pressure but by it's own make up acting on itself and against the crust of the Earth.
No special gravity needed that cannot be explained.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 07:16:06 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 09:15:32 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 13, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
What's it a measurement of if not gravity? Air pressure is measured in different units and different ways before you say that.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 09:37:45 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
What's it a measurement of if not gravity? Air pressure is measured in different units and different ways before you say that.
Weight is a measurement of a mass of matter. No gravity involved. The gravity is just what they put into peoples heads to describe what atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 09:56:11 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
What's it a measurement of if not gravity? Air pressure is measured in different units and different ways before you say that.
Weight is a measurement of a mass of matter. No gravity involved. The gravity is just what they put into peoples heads to describe what atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.
What about the fact that objects in a vacuum still have a weight? I think they weigh slightly more in fact.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 10:19:40 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
What's it a measurement of if not gravity? Air pressure is measured in different units and different ways before you say that.
Weight is a measurement of a mass of matter. No gravity involved. The gravity is just what they put into peoples heads to describe what atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.
What about the fact that objects in a vacuum still have a weight? I think they weigh slightly more in fact.
A vacuum cannot exist inside Earth. The best that can be hoped for is extreme low pressure, which will naturally create much less resistance on a falling object, allowing it to fall faster. It's the reason why a feather and a coin can drop pretty close to each other, because the feather is encountering very little resistance.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 13, 2014, 10:21:06 AM

So, why aren't we all floating around like bubbles?
Because our mass easily overcomes the atmosphere we are in. Our place is on the crust. The best we can do is to try and over come the pressure using force, as in jumping...but as you soon realise, the atmospheric pressure that you've just compressed by jumping up and it stops you quickly, then your own mass easily falls through the resistance of the air under you aided by the atmosphere filling the void you leave behind as you fall back down.
You fall back in to a void?  How come long jumpers come back down then?  Shouldn't they just float off?

What causes mass to be heavy?
A build up of matter/molecules that become heavier than the atmosphere it is in.
You've really just said that mass becomes heavy becuase it becomes heavy.

What actually causes this "build up of matter" to be heavy?  If the only thing that keeps us on the floor is air pressure, then how come I don't float around like a bubble?  Or conversely, why do air bubbles float instead of dropping back down "into the void"?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 10:24:20 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
What's it a measurement of if not gravity? Air pressure is measured in different units and different ways before you say that.
Weight is a measurement of a mass of matter. No gravity involved. The gravity is just what they put into peoples heads to describe what atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.
What about the fact that objects in a vacuum still have a weight? I think they weigh slightly more in fact.
A vacuum cannot exist inside Earth. The best that can be hoped for is extreme low pressure, which will naturally create much less resistance on a falling object, allowing it to fall faster. It's the reason why a feather and a coin can drop pretty close to each other, because the feather is encountering very little resistance.
OK well assuming a vacuum chamber is really just creating extremely low pressure, how does that explain that a resting objects weight is not negatively affected in said chamber?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 10:32:04 AM
You fall back in to a void?  How come long jumpers come back down then?  Shouldn't they just float off?

I didn't say they fall INTO a void, I said their fall leaves a void to be filled all the way to the deck.

What actually causes this "build up of matter" to be heavy? 
The ejection out of the Earth by natural or man made means. What goes up that's heavier than air, must come down and that includes dense matter under Earths crust. Just like water soaks back into the Earth's upper crust.
If the only thing that keeps us on the floor is air pressure, then how come I don't float around like a bubble?  Or conversely, why do air bubbles float instead of dropping back down "into the void"?
Air bubbles don't float, they fall. They fall because of the skin round them which is more dense than the air it's in. The only time a bubble will float is when force is applied, whether that's wind, or you blowing on it, etc. In a calm environment, it slowly falls because the resistance of air is harder to overcome by the spread out bubble skin.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 10:37:48 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
What's it a measurement of if not gravity? Air pressure is measured in different units and different ways before you say that.
Weight is a measurement of a mass of matter. No gravity involved. The gravity is just what they put into peoples heads to describe what atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.
What about the fact that objects in a vacuum still have a weight? I think they weigh slightly more in fact.
A vacuum cannot exist inside Earth. The best that can be hoped for is extreme low pressure, which will naturally create much less resistance on a falling object, allowing it to fall faster. It's the reason why a feather and a coin can drop pretty close to each other, because the feather is encountering very little resistance.
OK well assuming a vacuum chamber is really just creating extremely low pressure, how does that explain that a resting objects weight is not negatively affected in said chamber?
It comes back to the scales. You would need to calibrate scales for both scenarios of in the chamber and out. You would have to put scales inside the chamber, as well.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Salviati on March 13, 2014, 10:45:13 AM
A vacuum cannot exist inside Earth. The best that can be hoped for is extreme low pressure, which will naturally create much less resistance on a falling object, allowing it to fall faster. It's the reason why a feather and a coin can drop pretty close to each other, because the feather is encountering very little resistance.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I can't believe it!! Scepti said something right!!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 10:46:29 AM
What's the difference between mass and weight?
Weight is just a measurement, That's all it is. Mass placed on a scale will give you the weight of that mass.
What's it a measurement of if not gravity? Air pressure is measured in different units and different ways before you say that.
Weight is a measurement of a mass of matter. No gravity involved. The gravity is just what they put into peoples heads to describe what atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.
What about the fact that objects in a vacuum still have a weight? I think they weigh slightly more in fact.
A vacuum cannot exist inside Earth. The best that can be hoped for is extreme low pressure, which will naturally create much less resistance on a falling object, allowing it to fall faster. It's the reason why a feather and a coin can drop pretty close to each other, because the feather is encountering very little resistance.
OK well assuming a vacuum chamber is really just creating extremely low pressure, how does that explain that a resting objects weight is not negatively affected in said chamber?
It comes back to the scales. You would need to calibrate scales for both scenarios of in the chamber and out. You would have to put scales inside the chamber, as well.
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 10:59:01 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 11:10:15 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 11:14:12 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
It would appear to weigh slightly less if the scales weren't calibrated for that environment.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 11:23:56 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
It would appear to weigh slightly less if the scales weren't calibrated for that environment.
But the whole point of your air pressure in place of gravity theory is that the weight of something is caused by air pressure, now you are saying in a vacuum or what you call "extremely low air pressure" something only appears to weigh less.
Quote
Weight is a measurement of a mass of
matter. No gravity involved. The
gravity is just what they put into
peoples heads to describe what
atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.


So which is it? 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 11:31:27 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
It would appear to weigh slightly less if the scales weren't calibrated for that environment.
But the whole point of your air pressure in place of gravity theory is that the weight of something is caused by air pressure, now you are saying in a vacuum or what you call "extremely low air pressure" something only appears to weigh less.
Quote
Weight is a measurement of a mass of
matter. No gravity involved. The
gravity is just what they put into
peoples heads to describe what
atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.


So which is it?
No, I didn't. I said weight is a measure of the mass of an object including atmospheric pressure acting upon it.
High pressure or extreme low pressure is still atmospheric pressure.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 11:37:10 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
It would appear to weigh slightly less if the scales weren't calibrated for that environment.
But the whole point of your air pressure in place of gravity theory is that the weight of something is caused by air pressure, now you are saying in a vacuum or what you call "extremely low air pressure" something only appears to weigh less.
Quote
Weight is a measurement of a mass of
matter. No gravity involved. The
gravity is just what they put into
peoples heads to describe what
atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.


So which is it?
No, I didn't. I said weight is a measure of the mass of an object including atmospheric pressure acting upon it.
High pressure or extreme low pressure is still atmospheric pressure.
Yes and the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 11:44:08 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
It would appear to weigh slightly less if the scales weren't calibrated for that environment.
But the whole point of your air pressure in place of gravity theory is that the weight of something is caused by air pressure, now you are saying in a vacuum or what you call "extremely low air pressure" something only appears to weigh less.
Quote
Weight is a measurement of a mass of
matter. No gravity involved. The
gravity is just what they put into
peoples heads to describe what
atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.


So which is it?
No, I didn't. I said weight is a measure of the mass of an object including atmospheric pressure acting upon it.
High pressure or extreme low pressure is still atmospheric pressure.
Yes and the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
Of course it does. I've just explained why it does. Low and high pressure. Nothing exists without it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
It would appear to weigh slightly less if the scales weren't calibrated for that environment.
But the whole point of your air pressure in place of gravity theory is that the weight of something is caused by air pressure, now you are saying in a vacuum or what you call "extremely low air pressure" something only appears to weigh less.
Quote
Weight is a measurement of a mass of
matter. No gravity involved. The
gravity is just what they put into
peoples heads to describe what
atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.


So which is it?
No, I didn't. I said weight is a measure of the mass of an object including atmospheric pressure acting upon it.
High pressure or extreme low pressure is still atmospheric pressure.
Yes and the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
Of course it does. I've just explained why it does. Low and high pressure. Nothing exists without it.
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 12:08:31 PM
 
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 13, 2014, 12:15:06 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 12:21:01 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 12:23:00 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
So it is harder to lift an object under water than the same object out of water?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 12:25:47 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
So it is harder to lift an object under water than the same object out of water?
It depends on the density, which is why I used gold and the water just to highlight what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 13, 2014, 12:31:05 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Wood is full of wood. It will not sink so your water pressure does not apply Actually if you had gold it is denser than water and will sink but the gold will displace water and dave displacement. It will weight less than water.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 13, 2014, 12:32:28 PM
Metal is heavier than water, yet, we still make ships out of it. 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 12:34:41 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Wood is full of wood. It will not sink so your water pressure does not apply Actually if you had gold it is denser than water and will sink but the gold will displace water and dave displacement. It will weight less than water.
Wood is full of air. Don't concentrate on the water, I was using it as a highlight due to the fact that testing stuff in extremely low to high pressures at sea level cannot be done as a sufficient test.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 12:46:54 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
So it is harder to lift an object under water than the same object out of water?
It depends on the density, which is why I used gold and the water just to highlight what I'm saying.
Objects weigh less underwater due to water displacement. The objects weight is its atmospheric weight minus the weight of the water displaced - so in salt water it would weigh even less.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 12:48:38 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
So it is harder to lift an object under water than the same object out of water?
It depends on the density, which is why I used gold and the water just to highlight what I'm saying.
Objects weigh less underwater due to water displacement. The objects weight is its atmospheric weight minus the weight of the water displaced - so in salt water it would weigh even less.
You're missing the point totally. It's not about what they weigh, it's all about pressure and resistance to it. It's important that you grasp this because otherwise you'll go right off track.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 13, 2014, 12:49:08 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Wood is full of wood. It will not sink so your water pressure does not apply Actually if you had gold it is denser than water and will sink but the gold will displace water and dave displacement. It will weight less than water.
Wood is full of air. Don't concentrate on the water, I was using it as a highlight due to the fact that testing stuff in extremely low to high pressures at sea level cannot be done as a sufficient test.
The problem is your example falls apart. 
If you try lifting a 200+lb person on the beach, it is very difficult.  You go in the water, and that person is easier to lift.  Therefore, the water is making things easier to lift.  Not harder.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 12:53:02 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Wood is full of wood. It will not sink so your water pressure does not apply Actually if you had gold it is denser than water and will sink but the gold will displace water and dave displacement. It will weight less than water.
Wood is full of air. Don't concentrate on the water, I was using it as a highlight due to the fact that testing stuff in extremely low to high pressures at sea level cannot be done as a sufficient test.
The problem is your example falls apart. 
If you try lifting a 200+lb person on the beach, it is very difficult.  You go in the water, and that person is easier to lift.  Therefore, the water is making things easier to lift.  Not harder.
I'm not talking about buoyancy, I'm talking about resistance to force. I used two gold bars with water as merely a highlight. The string should have given that away.
I simply used it to show the difference of pulling against resistance.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 13, 2014, 12:54:19 PM
Metal is heavier than water, yet, we still make ships out of it.

Ships aren't heavier (per cubic meter) than water.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 13, 2014, 12:57:55 PM
Metal is heavier than water, yet, we still make ships out of it.
Eh? What does this even mean?  Which ship is heavier than which water?  Are ships heavier than the atlantic?

Perhaps you mean metal is denser than water.  Have you been taking science lessons from scepti?   :P
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 12:59:35 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Wood is full of wood. It will not sink so your water pressure does not apply Actually if you had gold it is denser than water and will sink but the gold will displace water and dave displacement. It will weight less than water.
Wood is full of air. Don't concentrate on the water, I was using it as a highlight due to the fact that testing stuff in extremely low to high pressures at sea level cannot be done as a sufficient test.
The problem is your example falls apart. 
If you try lifting a 200+lb person on the beach, it is very difficult.  You go in the water, and that person is easier to lift.  Therefore, the water is making things easier to lift.  Not harder.
I'm not talking about buoyancy, I'm talking about resistance to force. I used two gold bars with water as merely a highlight. The string should have given that away.
I simply used it to show the difference of pulling against resistance.
buoyancy is resistance to force. It is the resistance of an object to the weight of water above. Imagine a swimming float and how it gets progressively harder to pull deeper underwater.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 13, 2014, 01:04:37 PM
Metal is heavier than water, yet, we still make ships out of it.
Eh? What does this even mean?  Which ship is heavier than which water?  Are ships heavier than the atlantic?

Perhaps you mean metal is denser than water.  Have you been taking science lessons from scepti?   :P

What do you mean by "denser"? Because you can make anything have the same density, just by changing the volume or the mass, or both.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 01:05:07 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Wood is full of wood. It will not sink so your water pressure does not apply Actually if you had gold it is denser than water and will sink but the gold will displace water and dave displacement. It will weight less than water.
Wood is full of air. Don't concentrate on the water, I was using it as a highlight due to the fact that testing stuff in extremely low to high pressures at sea level cannot be done as a sufficient test.
The problem is your example falls apart. 
If you try lifting a 200+lb person on the beach, it is very difficult.  You go in the water, and that person is easier to lift.  Therefore, the water is making things easier to lift.  Not harder.
I'm not talking about buoyancy, I'm talking about resistance to force. I used two gold bars with water as merely a highlight. The string should have given that away.
I simply used it to show the difference of pulling against resistance.
buoyancy is resistance to force. It is the resistance of the weight of water above an object. Imagine a swimming float and how it gets progressively harder to pull deeper underwater.
Yes, on water. Like I said; it will go right off track if we talk about that. I used one simple example with the gold to highlight force against resistance which is what we are discussing, by HUMAN intervention, as in lifting the gold bars to feel the difference in resistance, that's all.
We can discuss water later on as it all marries in all the way through the Earth. It's just that we are discussing atmospheric pressure being gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 01:07:23 PM
Metal is heavier than water, yet, we still make ships out of it.

Ships aren't heavier (per cubic meter) than water.
The weight of the ship and air contained within is less than the weight of the volume of water displaced. Fill that ship with water and it sinks as it weighs more. Pretty basic stuff.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 13, 2014, 01:12:07 PM
Fill that ship with water and it sinks as it weighs more. Pretty basic stuff.

Can you explain why this is relevant? More precisely why does it seem you are assuming that I don't know this?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 13, 2014, 01:16:06 PM
And how would you "calibrate" them? Given that a 1kg weight still weighs 1kg inside a vacuum chamber? What do you think it should weigh given the vacuum or "extremely low air pressure"?
That's just the point. There would be no change. The only way to verify it is to have  an electronic scale with a plate that registers minus as it's pulled upwards and well as registering plus as it's pushed. That way you can calibrate it exactly from outside or inside a chamber.
But given you say air pressure is responsible for weight, why is their not a change of weight in the vacuum? The best way to test this would be to monitor the weight of the object during creation of the vacuum. In your model the object should way less and less as the air pressure is decreased.
It would appear to weigh slightly less if the scales weren't calibrated for that environment.
But the whole point of your air pressure in place of gravity theory is that the weight of something is caused by air pressure, now you are saying in a vacuum or what you call "extremely low air pressure" something only appears to weigh less.
Quote
Weight is a measurement of a mass of
matter. No gravity involved. The
gravity is just what they put into
peoples heads to describe what
atmospheric pressure and mass do for weight measurement.


So which is it?
No, I didn't. I said weight is a measure of the mass of an object including atmospheric pressure acting upon it.
High pressure or extreme low pressure is still atmospheric pressure.
Please provide a formula to determine the weight of an object.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 01:21:43 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
Hehehehe. This one you can try in the bathtub. Try it will a piece of wood.
You are totally missing the point. What is wood full of?
Wood is full of wood. It will not sink so your water pressure does not apply Actually if you had gold it is denser than water and will sink but the gold will displace water and dave displacement. It will weight less than water.
Wood is full of air. Don't concentrate on the water, I was using it as a highlight due to the fact that testing stuff in extremely low to high pressures at sea level cannot be done as a sufficient test.
The problem is your example falls apart. 
If you try lifting a 200+lb person on the beach, it is very difficult.  You go in the water, and that person is easier to lift.  Therefore, the water is making things easier to lift.  Not harder.
I'm not talking about buoyancy, I'm talking about resistance to force. I used two gold bars with water as merely a highlight. The string should have given that away.
I simply used it to show the difference of pulling against resistance.
buoyancy is resistance to force. It is the resistance of the weight of water above an object. Imagine a swimming float and how it gets progressively harder to pull deeper underwater.
Yes, on water. Like I said; it will go right off track if we talk about that. I used one simple example with the gold to highlight force against resistance which is what we are discussing, by HUMAN intervention, as in lifting the gold bars to feel the difference in resistance, that's all.
We can discuss water later on as it all marries in all the way through the Earth. It's just that we are discussing atmospheric pressure being gravity.
Well it works just as well with a balloon filled with helium weighing less than the air it displaces and rising. You still haven't found anyway of replacing the fact that weight = mass x gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 01:24:02 PM
Fill that ship with water and it sinks as it weighs more. Pretty basic stuff.

Can you explain why this is relevant? More precisely why does it seem you are assuming that I don't know this?
It was in response to jroa's metal boat post.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: burt on March 13, 2014, 01:27:39 PM
Fill that ship with water and it sinks as it weighs more. Pretty basic stuff.

Can you explain why this is relevant? More precisely why does it seem you are assuming that I don't know this?
It was in response to jroa's metal boat post.

Well, glotka, my man/woman, seems we are on the same page.

[eidt: because of male chauvanism]
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 01:32:39 PM
Fill that ship with water and it sinks as it weighs more. Pretty basic stuff.

Can you explain why this is relevant? More precisely why does it seem you are assuming that I don't know this?
It was in response to jroa's metal boat post.

Well, glotka, my man/woman, seems we are on the same page.

[eidt: because of male chauvanism]
A pertinent point very well made.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2014, 01:34:08 PM
Well it works just as well with a balloon filled with helium weighing less than the air it displaces and rising. You still haven't found anyway of replacing the fact that weight = mass x gravity.
Which is why, earlier in the thread; said, that as long as the mass is HEAVIER than the air it's in.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 13, 2014, 02:17:05 PM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.
If you just weigh a bar of gold out of the water will it weight the same bar in the water will it weight the same? You said the water pressure will make weight it more. Is that you are saying. Yes if the water was butter the viscosity will make it harder to pull but will weight more? 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 13, 2014, 02:25:37 PM
Scepti - please provide a formula to determine the weight of an object.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 13, 2014, 02:30:29 PM
Well it works just as well with a balloon filled with helium weighing less than the air it displaces and rising. You still haven't found anyway of replacing the fact that weight = mass x gravity.
Which is why, earlier in the thread; said, that as long as the mass is HEAVIER than the air it's in.
But you still haven't defined what weight is and how air pressure affects it?? You can't say gravity is a myth and it's all air pressure if you can't explain why air pressure has no effect on weight....
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 03:43:43 AM
Well it works just as well with a balloon filled with helium weighing less than the air it displaces and rising. You still haven't found anyway of replacing the fact that weight = mass x gravity.
Which is why, earlier in the thread; said, that as long as the mass is HEAVIER than the air it's in.
But you still haven't defined what weight is and how air pressure affects it?? You can't say gravity is a myth and it's all air pressure if you can't explain why air pressure has no effect on weight....
Weight is a measure of the density/mass of anything. You can only measure the weight of something by placing that something on a scale of whatever description.
If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed down by atmospheric pressure, also.

The paving stones' make up... the matter that it's made up of, came from under the ground in various dense elements compacted into one slab, so basically it was PUSHED up (or pulled by man) from it's natural place in the Earth's crust and is up against a less severe compression from above, as in air pressure than it was when under the crust.
The reason why I'm going into this detail, is to simply show that pressure comes in all forms from molten rock, metals, to hardened rock/metals, then liquids/gases of varying elements all in a state of a pressure crush, all the way to the top of the atmosphere.
Everything is under compression and under friction by force of pressure of one dense particle above a less dense particle down wards and upwards.
For instance: Anything that is under pressure from above is pushed down and anything pushed down will release the lighter elements by pushing them up into the atmosphere, so basically we have a high and low pressure game, all caused by compression/friction... causing pressure changes due to agitation and heat which gets super dense and under super friction in the centre of Earth (the sun).

I've babbled on with that, I've done it so you get the idea of what's happening and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with gravity as we are living in a sealed unit that proves all our life support and the life support of every living thing in this Earth. No gravity needed nor required.
Gravity is simply a made up word that describes a pretence and keeps the illusion of space and planets alive...not to mention the so called exploits of man and machine in that space. It's all hokus pokus and I do not buy into it for one second. That's my honest opinion and everyone is entitled to one.

Read this if you want to or not, which goes for everyone. If you read it and don't like it then just be civil about it and I will afford you the same.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 03:48:13 AM
Well it works just as well with a balloon filled with helium weighing less than the air it displaces and rising. You still haven't found anyway of replacing the fact that weight = mass x gravity.
Which is why, earlier in the thread; said, that as long as the mass is HEAVIER than the air it's in.
But you still haven't defined what weight is and how air pressure affects it?? You can't say gravity is a myth and it's all air pressure if you can't explain why air pressure has no effect on weight....
Weight is a measure of the density/mass of anything. You can only measure the weight of something by placing that something on a scale of whatever description.
If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed down by atmospheric pressure, also.

The paving stones' make up... the matter that it's made up of, came from under the ground in various dense elements compacted into one slab, so basically it was PUSHED up (or pulled by man) from it's natural place in the Earth's crust and is up against a less severe compression from above, as in air pressure than it was when under the crust.
The reason why I'm going into this detail, is to simply show that pressure comes in all forms from molten rock, metals, to hardened rock/metals, then liquids/gases of varying elements all in a state of a pressure crush, all the way to the top of the atmosphere.
Everything is under compression and under friction by force of pressure of one dense particle above a less dense particle down wards and upwards.
For instance: Anything that is under pressure from above is pushed down and anything pushed down will release the lighter elements by pushing them up into the atmosphere, so basically we have a high and low pressure game, all caused by compression/friction... causing pressure changes due to agitation and heat which gets super dense and under super friction in the centre of Earth (the sun).

I've babbled on with that, I've done it so you get the idea of what's happening and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with gravity as we are living in a sealed unit that proves all our life support and the life support of every living thing in this Earth. No gravity needed nor required.
Gravity is simply a made up word that describes a pretence and keeps the illusion of space and planets alive...not to mention the so called exploits of man and machine in that space. It's all hokus pokus and I do not buy into it for one second. That's my honest opinion and everyone is entitled to one.

Read this if you want to or not, which goes for everyone. If you read it and don't like it then just be civil about it and I will afford you the same.
Back you your earlier statement...If you just weigh a bar of gold out of the water will it weight the same in the water? You said the water pressure will make weight it more. Is that what you said?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 04:26:06 AM

Back you your earlier statement...If you just weigh a bar of gold out of the water will it weight the same in the water? You said the water pressure will make weight it more. Is that what you said?
Nope! I said that it would be harder to pull up the bar from the water than it would from the floor because of resistance'
Let's put it another way. You can open a car door much easier at the road side than you could if it was under water, right?
Well equate that to the gold bars, it's the same thing.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 04:26:33 AM
Once again - the weight remains the same in high or low pressure therefore air pressure has no effect on weight.
The WEIGHT remains the same for the measuring scales if calibrated. The mass of the actual object would be the same to your view.
The reality would be that for you to pick up the object in both environments, the low pressure one would be easier to pick up, so would feel lighter, IF you could do it in that environment, which you can't.

The best way to give you an idea is to use the ground and a deep swimming pool. Get a piece of string and tie it around both bars. Pick one bar up off of the ground  and feel the force it exerts against your pull.
Now drop one into the pool, then lift that out and you will find that the force to lift is, is greater, because it's under more pressure..
The thing is...when you place them aide by side, they weigh the same.

Back you your earlier statement...If you just weigh a bar of gold out of the water will it weight the same in the water? You said the water pressure will make weight it more. Is that what you said?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 04:27:39 AM

Back you your earlier statement...If you just weigh a bar of gold out of the water will it weight the same in the water? You said the water pressure will make weight it more. Is that what you said?
Nope! I said that it would be harder to pull up the bar from the water than it would from the floor because of resistance'
Let's put it another way. You can open a car door much easier at the road side than you could if it was under water, right?
Well equate that to the gold bars, it's the same thing.
Ok Now you are talking about viscosity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 04:33:53 AM

Back you your earlier statement...If you just weigh a bar of gold out of the water will it weight the same in the water? You said the water pressure will make weight it more. Is that what you said?
Nope! I said that it would be harder to pull up the bar from the water than it would from the floor because of resistance'
Let's put it another way. You can open a car door much easier at the road side than you could if it was under water, right?
Well equate that to the gold bars, it's the same thing.
Ok Now you are talking about viscosity.
It doesn't matter what people want to call it. I'm simply saying that resistance is the force that will make you feel that one bar is heavier, until you reach the surface to find that they are in fact, the same.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 05:03:07 AM
Here's a better way with your globe.
Get a piece of plastic box wrap, you know the type, the ones they use to package your washing machine and you have to snip them.
Put it around your equator and once you do that, cut a match stick in half and place it over the plastic as though it was wings. You will now notice that to follow your curve anywhere other than the equator line, you have to tip the match left or right to follow that path, meaning you will be turning. Do you get what I'm saying?
i have no idea what you are describing. Draw me a picture of it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Jer9999 on March 14, 2014, 05:08:08 AM
Here's a better way with your globe.
Get a piece of plastic box wrap, you know the type, the ones they use to package your washing machine and you have to snip them.
Put it around your equator and once you do that, cut a match stick in half and place it over the plastic as though it was wings. You will now notice that to follow your curve anywhere other than the equator line, you have to tip the match left or right to follow that path, meaning you will be turning. Do you get what I'm saying?

HOLY CRAP! This can't be happening. Nobody can be this dense. Haha funny joke. I get it. You are trolling. It is impossible for anyone over 7 years old to not understand a line around a sphere goes straight without turning . Sorry, this is impossible!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 14, 2014, 06:09:14 AM
Here's a better way with your globe.
Get a piece of plastic box wrap, you know the type, the ones they use to package your washing machine and you have to snip them.
Put it around your equator and once you do that, cut a match stick in half and place it over the plastic as though it was wings. You will now notice that to follow your curve anywhere other than the equator line, you have to tip the match left or right to follow that path, meaning you will be turning. Do you get what I'm saying?
What does this even have to do with your water/air pressure "theory"?  The circumnavigation around a globe isn't even being discussed here?  Are you trying to derail a thread about your "theory"
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Salviati on March 14, 2014, 06:35:08 AM
If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed down by atmospheric pressure, also.
If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed UP  by atmospheric pressure, also.

It's exactly so, trust me.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 14, 2014, 06:36:02 AM
Here's a better way with your globe.
Get a piece of plastic box wrap, you know the type, the ones they use to package your washing machine and you have to snip them.
Put it around your equator and once you do that, cut a match stick in half and place it over the plastic as though it was wings. You will now notice that to follow your curve anywhere other than the equator line, you have to tip the match left or right to follow that path, meaning you will be turning. Do you get what I'm saying?
Use the box wrap to represent the flight path. You can move the box wrap to circle the earth in every configuration and the match could slide around without lateral deviation.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Antonio on March 14, 2014, 06:40:20 AM
Please, Sceptimatic, give the relationship between air pressure and weight. I'm asking it for a long time, and still no answer. Why is it so difficult ?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 14, 2014, 07:49:57 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
That's right.  I'm guessing they appear spherical if they are spinning (causing equal pressure from all sides).
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 07:52:33 AM
To keep the questions from cluttering up other threads I have some questions regarding sceptimatic's claim that gravity is a myth, air pressure is in fact responsible for everything we attribute to gravity. So first off, please respond to the fact that bubbles are spherical as a result of air pressure acting equally from all directions at once.
Air bubbles aren't completely perfectly spherical.
That's right.  I'm guessing they appear spherical if they are spinning (causing equal pressure from all sides).
They are in 0 gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 14, 2014, 09:26:39 AM
Well it works just as well with a balloon filled with helium weighing less than the air it displaces and rising. You still haven't found anyway of replacing the fact that weight = mass x gravity.
Which is why, earlier in the thread; said, that as long as the mass is HEAVIER than the air it's in.
Heavy: of great weight; difficult to lift or move
You're suggesting there's no such thing as weight (which is used as a measure of gravity) only air pressure. Mass cannot be heavy because heavy is a measure of weight so what do you mean by this?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: 29silhouette on March 14, 2014, 09:57:58 AM
It comes back to the scales. You would need to calibrate scales for both scenarios of in the chamber and out. You would have to put scales inside the chamber, as well.
So, do think there would be a change in measured weight or not?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 10:14:48 AM
Here's a better way with your globe.
Get a piece of plastic box wrap, you know the type, the ones they use to package your washing machine and you have to snip them.
Put it around your equator and once you do that, cut a match stick in half and place it over the plastic as though it was wings. You will now notice that to follow your curve anywhere other than the equator line, you have to tip the match left or right to follow that path, meaning you will be turning. Do you get what I'm saying?
What does this even have to do with your water/air pressure "theory"?  The circumnavigation around a globe isn't even being discussed here?  Are you trying to derail a thread about your "theory"
Absolutely nothing and I apologise for that. I was moving between topics and I've obviously posted in this by accident. I've deleted the two posts, now. If the two posts above me are deleted , it's back on topic.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 10:17:07 AM
Please, Sceptimatic, give the relationship between air pressure and weight. I'm asking it for a long time, and still no answer. Why is it so difficult ?
Weight is a measure, so what would you like me to say?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 10:27:48 AM
Well it works just as well with a balloon filled with helium weighing less than the air it displaces and rising. You still haven't found anyway of replacing the fact that weight = mass x gravity.
Which is why, earlier in the thread; said, that as long as the mass is HEAVIER than the air it's in.
Heavy: of great weight; difficult to lift or move
You're suggesting there's no such thing as weight (which is used as a measure of gravity) only air pressure. Mass cannot be heavy because heavy is a measure of weight so what do you mean by this?
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 10:29:17 AM
It comes back to the scales. You would need to calibrate scales for both scenarios of in the chamber and out. You would have to put scales inside the chamber, as well.
So, do think there would be a change in measured weight or not?
On electronic scales, yes I do, if they weren't calibrated for both environments.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 10:31:55 AM
If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed down by atmospheric pressure, also.
If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed UP  by atmospheric pressure, also.

It's exactly so, trust me.
It's being resisted (weakly) by atmospheric pressure. It's a push on push effect, always.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 14, 2014, 11:01:56 AM
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
No. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force on an object. This measurement is proportional to the object's mass that is all. An object can't be heavy in mass, I know you don't believe in space but imagine you are there holding this brick it wouldn't be heavy but it would still have the same mass. I'll ask again what do you mean by 'heavy'?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Salviati on March 14, 2014, 11:14:11 AM
It's being resisted (weakly) by atmospheric pressure. It's a push on push effect, always.
This sentence is meaningless, as usual from you. No word in it refers to something clear, well defined, measurable.

Anyway, i repeat: atmospheric pressure, and water pressure as well, exert a push from bottom to up on every material body immersed in it (water or air). No brainwashing, no shoehorned science, no conspiracy, no hard mathematics, only the old Archimedes principle:

https://tinyurl.com/nznuf78

and in air:

https://tinyurl.com/nhv99nc

it's the same principle! Understand? A push bottom-up, not the other way around! No way to argue this, sorry for you. The only way to negate this is to stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA! Do you want stop saying bullshit at last and open your eyes? Saying air pressure is responsible to push down objects is outrageous! Okay, i repeat, no brainwashing, no shoehorned science, no conspiracy, no hard mathematics, this is a first grade level experience that everyone on earth can prove beyond all doubt, it was discovered more than 2.000 years ago, and nobody ever did refute it. Oh my god, this guy is driving me mad.

In a post of few minutes ago you say:
Quote
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
Speaking about mass and weight is speaking about gravity! The weight is the force that pushes a body towards the centre of the earth. The air pushes it bottom-up!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 14, 2014, 11:17:34 AM
It comes back to the scales. You would need to calibrate scales for both scenarios of in the chamber and out. You would have to put scales inside the chamber, as well.
So, do think there would be a change in measured weight or not?
On electronic scales, yes I do, if they weren't calibrated for both environments.
You do realise that your "calibrating the scales" is just masking the fact that weight changes, not disproving it? It is the equivalent of me saying that a 12 stone man is heavier when holding a 1 pound weight and you saying "ah but if you calibrate the scales to read zero at 1lb he would still weigh 12 stone."
 Assume 1 pound is the extra pull of gravity at sea level compared to 1000 feet and your zeroing of the sales at both altitudes is having the same effect. As gravity or in your case air pressure acts on mass to determine weight, and as gravity or in your case air pressure varies with altitude, you would need to use scales calibrated at a base level to compare the effects.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 11:44:46 AM
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
No. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force on an object. This measurement is proportional to the object's mass that is all. An object can't be heavy in mass, I know you don't believe in space but imagine you are there holding this brick it wouldn't be heavy but it would still have the same mass. I'll ask again what do you mean by 'heavy'?
I didn't mention heavy, you did. Also, I'm arguing against gravity and here's you telling me that weight is the measure of gravitational force. Why can't you just say atmospheric pressure like it really is. Why do you hang onto something that cannot be explained.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 14, 2014, 11:49:13 AM
@scepti, if I jump in the air, why do I come back down again?  You agree that air pressure acts equally from all directions, so I should just float, shouldn't I?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 14, 2014, 11:49:49 AM
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
No. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force on an object. This measurement is proportional to the object's mass that is all. An object can't be heavy in mass, I know you don't believe in space but imagine you are there holding this brick it wouldn't be heavy but it would still have the same mass. I'll ask again what do you mean by 'heavy'?
I didn't mention heavy, you did. Also, I'm arguing against gravity and here's you telling me that weight is the measure of gravitational force. Why can't you just say atmospheric pressure like it really is. Why do you hang onto something that cannot be explained.
What are typical pressure measurements above and below an object, eg. a book, 1m above the ground?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 12:02:10 PM
Anyway, i repeat: atmospheric pressure, and water pressure as well, exert a push from bottom to up on every material body immersed in it (water or air). No brainwashing, no shoehorned science, no conspiracy, no hard mathematics, only the old Archimedes principle:
Not quite!

it's the same principle! Understand? A push bottom-up, not the other way around! No way to argue this, sorry for you.
Not quite!
The only way to negate this is to stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA! Do you want stop saying bullshit at last and open your eyes?
My eyes are open and my ears are fine.
Saying air pressure is responsible to push down objects is outrageous!
Outrageously true.
Okay, i repeat, no brainwashing, no shoehorned science, no conspiracy, no hard mathematics, this is a first grade level experience that everyone on earth can prove beyond all doubt, it was discovered more than 2.000 years ago, and nobody ever did refute it. Oh my god, this guy is driving me mad.
Why are you people so reliant on someone from 2000 years ago. Isn't technology advanced enough to mention experiments of today?

Speaking about mass and weight is speaking about gravity! The weight is the force that pushes a body towards the centre of the earth. The air pushes it bottom-up!
Atmospheric pressure and friction/vibration is what pushes denser matter through less dense matter into the Earth. The opposite is true from inside to out. It's a marriage made in heaven.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 12:12:17 PM
You do realise that your "calibrating the scales" is just masking the fact that weight changes, not disproving it?
Calibrating the scales ensures that the weight of the mass measures accurately showing that they weigh the same.
It is the equivalent of me saying that a 12 stone man is heavier when holding a 1 pound weight and you saying "ah but if you calibrate the scales to read zero at 1lb he would still weigh 12 stone."
No it's not!

 Assume 1 pound is the extra pull of gravity at sea level compared to 1000 feet and your zeroing of the scales at both altitudes is having the same effect. As gravity or in your case air pressure acts on mass to determine weight, and as gravity or in your case air pressure varies with altitude, you would need to use scales calibrated at a base level to compare the effects.
No you wouldn't.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
@scepti, if I jump in the air, why do I come back down again?  You agree that air pressure acts equally from all directions, so I should just float, shouldn't I?
Nope! As you jump up, you are jumping up into 15 psi of pressure from a solid ground that was supporting you under that 15psi of pressure. What you have done is compressed the air above you with your own energy which has pushed that air up and around you, so it drags your mass back down and, because what you're doing is always leaving a low pressure void behind you as you jump up and compress that air above which immediately goes to fill the void you created and so pushes you back down.
the problem with people is, they SERIOUSLY and I mean, SERIOUSLY underestimate the strength of the human body and the strength of atmospheric sea level pressure.

The only thing stopping the atmosphere from burying you, is the solid ground. No solid ground and the atmosphere will bury you.
I don't expect you to get what I'm saying because you're set of gravity so no amount of me telling you will make any difference.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 12:26:59 PM
@scepti, if I jump in the air, why do I come back down again?  You agree that air pressure acts equally from all directions, so I should just float, shouldn't I?
Nope! As you jump up, you are jumping up into 15 psi of pressure from a solid ground that was supporting you under that 15psi of pressure. What you have done is compressed the air above you with your own energy which has pushed that air up and around you, so it drags your mass back down and, because what you're doing is always leaving a low pressure void behind you as you jump up and compress that air above which immediately goes to fill the void you created and so pushes you back down.
the problem with people is, they SERIOUSLY and I mean, SERIOUSLY underestimate the strength of the human body and the strength of atmospheric sea level pressure.

The only thing stopping the atmosphere from burying you, is the solid ground. No solid ground and the atmosphere will bury you.
I don't expect you to get what I'm saying because you're set of gravity so no amount of me telling you will make any difference.
Am I to believe that the 15 psi is keeping you on the ground?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 14, 2014, 12:27:45 PM
Yes, it always pushes down on any mass by squeezing for want of a better word. The thing is, it cannot be proved it doesn't unless you use space as an argument and I discard space as none existent.

Edit to add: As long as the mass is heavier than the air it's in.
There you go "heavier". Your theory of air pressure relies on weight, yes I can see you've written mass but the only way mass is expressed is through gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 14, 2014, 12:30:03 PM
@scepti, if I jump in the air, why do I come back down again?  You agree that air pressure acts equally from all directions, so I should just float, shouldn't I?
Nope! As you jump up, you are jumping up into 15 psi of pressure from a solid ground that was supporting you under that 15psi of pressure. What you have done is compressed the air above you with your own energy which has pushed that air up and around you, so it drags your mass back down and, because what you're doing is always leaving a low pressure void behind you as you jump up and compress that air above which immediately goes to fill the void you created and so pushes you back down.
the problem with people is, they SERIOUSLY and I mean, SERIOUSLY underestimate the strength of the human body and the strength of atmospheric sea level pressure.
So why do you not fall backwards, the same low pressure is created.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 12:30:39 PM
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
No. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force on an object. This measurement is proportional to the object's mass that is all. An object can't be heavy in mass, I know you don't believe in space but imagine you are there holding this brick it wouldn't be heavy but it would still have the same mass. I'll ask again what do you mean by 'heavy'?
I didn't mention heavy, you did. Also, I'm arguing against gravity and here's you telling me that weight is the measure of gravitational force. Why can't you just say atmospheric pressure like it really is. Why do you hang onto something that cannot be explained.
What are typical pressure measurements above and below an object, eg. a book, 1m above the ground?
Everything is even. It's always aaction/reaction is equal terms. As long as you hold that book, your energy allows that book to have even atmosphere around it, apart from your hand on it that is.
The nano second you drop that book, the atmosphere works on top of it and pushes it down whilst the atmosphere under it tries to resist..but there's just one problem...,as the air is compressed by the book and air above, it always fills the low pressure void that the falling book leaves behind, because it has added a little more PSI of pressure which is immedfiately equalised all the way to the solid floor which stops the process.
I'm sure this will go right past you. If so, create a better scenario and we might get there.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 12:33:16 PM
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
No. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force on an object. This measurement is proportional to the object's mass that is all. An object can't be heavy in mass, I know you don't believe in space but imagine you are there holding this brick it wouldn't be heavy but it would still have the same mass. I'll ask again what do you mean by 'heavy'?
I didn't mention heavy, you did. Also, I'm arguing against gravity and here's you telling me that weight is the measure of gravitational force. Why can't you just say atmospheric pressure like it really is. Why do you hang onto something that cannot be explained.
What are typical pressure measurements above and below an object, eg. a book, 1m above the ground?
Everything is even. It's always aaction/reaction is equal terms. As long as you hold that book, your energy allows that book to have even atmosphere around it, apart from your hand on it that is.
The nano second you drop that book, the atmosphere works on top of it and pushes it down whilst the atmosphere under it tries to resist..but there's just one problem...,as the air is compressed by the book and air above, it always fills the low pressure void that the falling book leaves behind, because it has added a little more PSI of pressure which is immedfiately equalised all the way to the solid floor which stops the process.
I'm sure this will go right past you. If so, create a better scenario and we might get there.
It is true what you are saying but the air pressure is not pushing the book down it is gravity that starts the process.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 12:37:45 PM
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
No. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force on an object. This measurement is proportional to the object's mass that is all. An object can't be heavy in mass, I know you don't believe in space but imagine you are there holding this brick it wouldn't be heavy but it would still have the same mass. I'll ask again what do you mean by 'heavy'?
I didn't mention heavy, you did. Also, I'm arguing against gravity and here's you telling me that weight is the measure of gravitational force. Why can't you just say atmospheric pressure like it really is. Why do you hang onto something that cannot be explained.
What are typical pressure measurements above and below an object, eg. a book, 1m above the ground?
Everything is even. It's always aaction/reaction is equal terms. As long as you hold that book, your energy allows that book to have even atmosphere around it, apart from your hand on it that is.
The nano second you drop that book, the atmosphere works on top of it and pushes it down whilst the atmosphere under it tries to resist..but there's just one problem...,as the air is compressed by the book and air above, it always fills the low pressure void that the falling book leaves behind, because it has added a little more PSI of pressure which is immedfiately equalised all the way to the solid floor which stops the process.
I'm sure this will go right past you. If so, create a better scenario and we might get there.
It is true what you are saying but the air pressure is not pushing the book down it is gravity that starts the process.
This is where we are going to have to differ. I know in my own mind that atmospheric pressure amply deals with everything that happens on earth and you believe gravity, fair enough.
Just ask yourself one question! Why do you accept something that's basically unexplainable as to what it is, when there is something fully explainable that we know is there?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 14, 2014, 12:48:58 PM
Maybe because air pressure doesn't explain it at all ::)

Also, if I jump forward, why do I still continue forward as I start my decent towards earth.  Doesn't my body moving forward create a negative air pressure void behind me as well as under me?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 12:49:47 PM
Let me tell you something!  Science loves to play the confuse game with people with this mass/weight issue.
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
No. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force on an object. This measurement is proportional to the object's mass that is all. An object can't be heavy in mass, I know you don't believe in space but imagine you are there holding this brick it wouldn't be heavy but it would still have the same mass. I'll ask again what do you mean by 'heavy'?
I didn't mention heavy, you did. Also, I'm arguing against gravity and here's you telling me that weight is the measure of gravitational force. Why can't you just say atmospheric pressure like it really is. Why do you hang onto something that cannot be explained.
What are typical pressure measurements above and below an object, eg. a book, 1m above the ground?
Everything is even. It's always aaction/reaction is equal terms. As long as you hold that book, your energy allows that book to have even atmosphere around it, apart from your hand on it that is.
The nano second you drop that book, the atmosphere works on top of it and pushes it down whilst the atmosphere under it tries to resist..but there's just one problem...,as the air is compressed by the book and air above, it always fills the low pressure void that the falling book leaves behind, because it has added a little more PSI of pressure which is immedfiately equalised all the way to the solid floor which stops the process.
I'm sure this will go right past you. If so, create a better scenario and we might get there.
It is true what you are saying but the air pressure is not pushing the book down it is gravity that starts the process.
This is where we are going to have to differ. I know in my own mind that atmospheric pressure amply deals with everything that happens on earth and you believe gravity, fair enough.
Just ask yourself one question! Why do you accept something that's basically unexplainable as to what it is, when there is something fully explainable that we know is there?
Gravity is not fully understood. It is like electron flowing in wires. You can't see it but you can see and feel the effect of it. The other thing is that million of smart people (engineers, scientist, teachers) collectively accept what it is. I do have the sense to think it all make sense. I don't just jump in a mindset of disbelief. I also don't look at another theory and jump in. Science is a collection of many things that work together not just one at a time.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 12:53:06 PM
Maybe because air pressure doesn't explain it at all ::)

Also, if I jump forward, why do I still continue forward as I start my decent towards earth.  Doesn't my body moving forward create a negative air pressure void behind me as well as under me?
It sure does, which is the very reason you ARC as you fall.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 12:55:39 PM

Gravity is not fully understood. It is like electron flowing in wires. You can't see it but you can see and feel the effect of it. The other thing is that million of smart people (engineers, scientist, teachers) collectively accept what it is. I do have the sense to think it all make sense. I don't just jump in a mindset of disbelief. I al so don't look at another theory and jump in. Science is a collection of many things that work together not just one at a time.
Fair enough, accept it; after all it's your prerogative. All I'm saying is, gravity is not understood and no one actually know what it is but what it does and yet atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it all...UNLESS space gets mentioned.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 01:02:12 PM

Gravity is not fully understood. It is like electron flowing in wires. You can't see it but you can see and feel the effect of it. The other thing is that million of smart people (engineers, scientist, teachers) collectively accept what it is. I do have the sense to think it all make sense. I don't just jump in a mindset of disbelief. I al so don't look at another theory and jump in. Science is a collection of many things that work together not just one at a time.
Fair enough, accept it; after all it's your prerogative. All I'm saying is, gravity is not understood and no one actually know what it is but what it does and yet atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it all...UNLESS space gets mentioned.
I understand atmosphere pressure but I a not sure what it you want to explain about it. We are buoyant in air like a rock is buoyant is in water. Are you implying air pressure effects our weight on the ground because it does.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 14, 2014, 01:03:24 PM
Maybe because air pressure doesn't explain it at all ::)

Also, if I jump forward, why do I still continue forward as I start my decent towards earth.  Doesn't my body moving forward create a negative air pressure void behind me as well as under me?
It sure does, which is the very reason you ARC as you fall.
Why don't I get pulled backwards into the void of lower air pressure behind me?  Surely as I have more surface area on my front than I do on the top of my head, I compress more air going forward than going up.  Yet I get sucked back down but I don't get sucked backwards.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 14, 2014, 01:09:53 PM
Maybe because air pressure doesn't explain it at all ::)

Also, if I jump forward, why do I still continue forward as I start my decent towards earth.  Doesn't my body moving forward create a negative air pressure void behind me as well as under me?
It sure does, which is the very reason you ARC as you fall.
If air pressure is the only force acting here you would alnd in the same place you took off.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 01:13:19 PM

Gravity is not fully understood. It is like electron flowing in wires. You can't see it but you can see and feel the effect of it. The other thing is that million of smart people (engineers, scientist, teachers) collectively accept what it is. I do have the sense to think it all make sense. I don't just jump in a mindset of disbelief. I al so don't look at another theory and jump in. Science is a collection of many things that work together not just one at a time.
Fair enough, accept it; after all it's your prerogative. All I'm saying is, gravity is not understood and no one actually know what it is but what it does and yet atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it all...UNLESS space gets mentioned.
I understand atmosphere pressure but I a not sure what it you want to explain about it. We are buoyant in air like a rock is buoyant is in water. Are you implying air pressure effects our weight on the ground because it does.
Atmospheric pressure is pushing you into teh ground, or trying. Your feet see that it doesn't do that, plus your strong skull aids in channeling the air pressure around your body.
Your whole being is built to withstand it and work as part of it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 01:27:06 PM
Maybe because air pressure doesn't explain it at all ::)

Also, if I jump forward, why do I still continue forward as I start my decent towards earth.  Doesn't my body moving forward create a negative air pressure void behind me as well as under me?
It sure does, which is the very reason you ARC as you fall.
Why don't I get pulled backwards into the void of lower air pressure behind me?  Surely as I have more surface area on my front than I do on the top of my head, I compress more air going forward than going up.  Yet I get sucked back down but I don't get sucked backwards.
You never get sucked. It's a misconcepton. Its' always a PUSH. As you run and jump; what you have done first is, you propelled yourself forward with your own energy and in doing so, there's lots of things happening.
Firstly, your large frame is compressing the air in front of  you and your head is skimming the air above you, whilst your thighs are kneeing the air upwards with each motion whlst the air under you is being compressed with each drpped foot as you run.

All this is creating an action/reaction in equal amounts but not quite in sync in reality, although to your perception it would be.
As you run forward, you compress the air and make that force slightly greater than behind you until that compressed air fills the lower pressure void you leave behind and it does this for as long as you move.  So what you think is going against you in terms of running into friction, is actually equalised quickly behind you creating a force to stop you being pushed back or halting your run.
Now when you jump whilst your running, this is still happening...except, you have now compressed the air above as you jumped, so now you have the effect of that air channeleing down your body to equalise the void you made on the jump which carries you forward and down in an ARC.
If you don't get this, then think of another scenario and I'll try and make it clearer.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 01:27:47 PM
Maybe because air pressure doesn't explain it at all ::)

Also, if I jump forward, why do I still continue forward as I start my decent towards earth.  Doesn't my body moving forward create a negative air pressure void behind me as well as under me?
It sure does, which is the very reason you ARC as you fall.
If air pressure is the only force acting here you would alnd in the same place you took off.
As I explained above.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

Gravity is not fully understood. It is like electron flowing in wires. You can't see it but you can see and feel the effect of it. The other thing is that million of smart people (engineers, scientist, teachers) collectively accept what it is. I do have the sense to think it all make sense. I don't just jump in a mindset of disbelief. I al so don't look at another theory and jump in. Science is a collection of many things that work together not just one at a time.
Fair enough, accept it; after all it's your prerogative. All I'm saying is, gravity is not understood and no one actually know what it is but what it does and yet atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it all...UNLESS space gets mentioned.
I understand atmosphere pressure but I a not sure what it you want to explain about it. We are buoyant in air like a rock is buoyant is in water. Are you implying air pressure effects our weight on the ground because it does.
Atmospheric pressure is pushing you into teh ground, or trying. Your feet see that it doesn't do that, plus your strong skull aids in channeling the air pressure around your body.
Your whole being is built to withstand it and work as part of it.
In part you are right. Think of a fish in very deep water. The high water pressure is not pushing the fish down. The water pressure is balanced from the inside of the fish to the outside so because the fish feels like there is no water pressure and can swim freely.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 14, 2014, 01:46:35 PM

Gravity is not fully understood. It is like electron flowing in wires. You can't see it but you can see and feel the effect of it. The other thing is that million of smart people (engineers, scientist, teachers) collectively accept what it is. I do have the sense to think it all make sense. I don't just jump in a mindset of disbelief. I al so don't look at another theory and jump in. Science is a collection of many things that work together not just one at a time.
Fair enough, accept it; after all it's your prerogative. All I'm saying is, gravity is not understood and no one actually know what it is but what it does and yet atmospheric pressure perfectly explains it all...UNLESS space gets mentioned.
I understand atmosphere pressure but I a not sure what it you want to explain about it. We are buoyant in air like a rock is buoyant is in water. Are you implying air pressure effects our weight on the ground because it does.
Atmospheric pressure is pushing you into teh ground, or trying. Your feet see that it doesn't do that, plus your strong skull aids in channeling the air pressure around your body.
Your whole being is built to withstand it and work as part of it.
In part you are right. Think of a fish in very deep water. The high water pressure is not pushing the fish down. The water pressure is balanced from the inside of the fish to the outside so because the fish feels like there is no water pressure and can swim freely.
Absolutely right and a good analogy.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 14, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
Well that doesn't explain anything scepti.  It doesn't explain why the air rushing down to equilize under you has a greater effect than the air rushing behind you to fill the void behind.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 02:07:12 PM
Well that doesn't explain anything scepti.  It doesn't explain why the air rushing down to equilize under you has a greater effect than the air rushing behind you to fill the void behind.
You are talking about viscosity of air. Think about the fish in the water. The viscosity of water is much higher than air.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 14, 2014, 02:09:20 PM
Well that doesn't explain anything scepti.  It doesn't explain why the air rushing down to equilize under you has a greater effect than the air rushing behind you to fill the void behind.
You are talking about viscosity of air. Think about the fish in the water. The viscosity of water is much higher than air.
just trying to get scepti to realize his explination of air pressure isn't working.  Because if it did, some one who jumped forward would land the same place that they took off.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 02:11:07 PM
Well that doesn't explain anything scepti.  It doesn't explain why the air rushing down to equilize under you has a greater effect than the air rushing behind you to fill the void behind.
You are talking about viscosity of air. Think about the fish in the water. The viscosity of water is much higher than air.
just trying to get scepti to realize his explination of air pressure isn't working.  Because if it did, some one who jumped forward would land the same place that they took off.
Scepti is right but the way he was describing it was not easy to understand.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 14, 2014, 02:14:33 PM
Well that doesn't explain anything scepti.  It doesn't explain why the air rushing down to equilize under you has a greater effect than the air rushing behind you to fill the void behind.
You are talking about viscosity of air. Think about the fish in the water. The viscosity of water is much higher than air.
just trying to get scepti to realize his explination of air pressure isn't working.  Because if it did, some one who jumped forward would land the same place that they took off.
Scepti is right but the way he was describing it was not easy to understand.
The thing is, he is saying that this difference in pressure is what pushes up back to the ground.  Why does the push downwards have a larger effect than the push backwards?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 02:18:40 PM
Well that doesn't explain anything scepti.  It doesn't explain why the air rushing down to equilize under you has a greater effect than the air rushing behind you to fill the void behind.
You are talking about viscosity of air. Think about the fish in the water. The viscosity of water is much higher than air.
just trying to get scepti to realize his explination of air pressure isn't working.  Because if it did, some one who jumped forward would land the same place that they took off.
Scepti is right but the way he was describing it was not easy to understand.
The thing is, he is saying that this difference in pressure is what pushes up back to the ground.  Why does the push downwards have a larger effect than the push backwards?
He is having a hard time describing how things are buoyant in the air. I am not on his side but if anybody has a theory about something I like to help to clarify it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 14, 2014, 02:19:41 PM
Well that doesn't explain anything scepti.  It doesn't explain why the air rushing down to equilize under you has a greater effect than the air rushing behind you to fill the void behind.
You are talking about viscosity of air. Think about the fish in the water. The viscosity of water is much higher than air.
just trying to get scepti to realize his explination of air pressure isn't working.  Because if it did, some one who jumped forward would land the same place that they took off.
Scepti is right but the way he was describing it was not easy to understand.
The thing is, he is saying that this difference in pressure is what pushes up back to the ground.  Why does the push downwards have a larger effect than the push backwards?
He is having a hard time describing how things are buoyant in the air. I am not on his side but if anybody has a theory about something I like to help to clarify it.
It seem that he was implying that air pressure is keeping us on the ground. Of course it is not true.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: glokta on March 14, 2014, 07:04:29 PM
You do realise that your "calibrating the scales" is just masking the fact that weight changes, not disproving it?
Calibrating the scales ensures that the weight of the mass measures accurately showing that they weigh the same.
It is the equivalent of me saying that a 12 stone man is heavier when holding a 1 pound weight and you saying "ah but if you calibrate the scales to read zero at 1lb he would still weigh 12 stone."
No it's not!

 Assume 1 pound is the extra pull of gravity at sea level compared to 1000 feet and your zeroing of the scales at both altitudes is having the same effect. As gravity or in your case air pressure acts on mass to determine weight, and as gravity or in your case air pressure varies with altitude, you would need to use scales calibrated at a base level to compare the effects.
No you wouldn't.
ok you just confirmed the first quote and dismissed the second and third with no explanation. Can you elaborate on why you think what I said is untrue.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Antonio on March 15, 2014, 12:11:02 AM
Please, Sceptimatic, give the relationship between air pressure and weight. I'm asking it for a long time, and still no answer. Why is it so difficult ?
Weight is a measure, so what would you like me to say?
No, weight is a force, you can feel it, it causes physical effects, unlike measures.
You are claiming everywhere that weight is a consequence of air pressure. The natural question is : how ?
This is the most basic question you should answer: what is the relationship between mass and weight involving air pressure ?
You can argue for pages, the only real question is there.
A real life example: I have a mass of 10 kg over my head, How much force is applied on it ?
how much would it be if air pressure was 0 ? how much would it be if air pressure was 29.4 psi ?

Mainstream science found a relationship between weight and mass that works for every day purposes.  It does not involve air pressure.
You have a better explanation ? fine, give an everyday workable relationship.

By the way, you can measure weigth - as any other force- with a simple spring. No calibrated pressure plates here, just a single and simple spring. This is because there is a direct relationship between the spring extension and the force exerted on it.
Find the one  between air pressure and weight.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 15, 2014, 03:07:42 AM
@scepti, if I jump in the air, why do I come back down again?  You agree that air pressure acts equally from all directions, so I should just float, shouldn't I?
Nope! As you jump up, you are jumping up into 15 psi of pressure from a solid ground that was supporting you under that 15psi of pressure. What you have done is compressed the air above you with your own energy which has pushed that air up and around you, so it drags your mass back down and, because what you're doing is always leaving a low pressure void behind you as you jump up and compress that air above which immediately goes to fill the void you created and so pushes you back down.
the problem with people is, they SERIOUSLY and I mean, SERIOUSLY underestimate the strength of the human body and the strength of atmospheric sea level pressure.

The only thing stopping the atmosphere from burying you, is the solid ground. No solid ground and the atmosphere will bury you.
I don't expect you to get what I'm saying because you're set of gravity so no amount of me telling you will make any difference.
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

Quote
What you have done is compressed the air above you with your own energy which has pushed that air up and around you, so it drags your mass back down
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 04:50:45 AM
No, weight is a force, you can feel it, it causes physical effects, unlike measures.
I know how science likes to confuse the issue and pass it off as is. Nothing in science is ever made to be plain and simple as it could be. Of course, I know what you're going to say, as in, " yes it is, if you understand it"....DON'T...because when science has to account for gravity, it also has to account for having is as part of the atmosphere we live under and this is where the weight comes in, as if that proves gravity.
Anyone out there; take note...Weight is simple a  human measurement of the force of atmospheric pressure on any objects' mass.
You are claiming everywhere that weight is a consequence of air pressure. The natural question is : how ?
Understand that to have weight you must have a measurement. No measurement= no weight. You can say, " oh this is heavy", or someone can say " how much does that weigh?" Or "that's looks to be some weight you're carrying."....You can also say, " I bet that weights about a ton." The point is, none of it means anything unless you have a system ot measure it, which is man made scales. No measurement= no weight, it simple would not exist as anything.
No atmospheric pressure, no measurement, no nothing.
This is the most basic question you should answer: what is the relationship between mass and weight involving air pressure ?
Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight.
An real life example: I have a mass of 10 kg over my head, How much force is applied on it ?
how much would it be if air pressure was 0 ? how much would it be if air pressure was 29.4 psi ?
At zero pressure you would not exist to know nor would your 10kg as a measurement. At 29.4 psi on scales it would weigh 10kg.
Mainstream science found a relationship between weight and mass that works for every day purposes.  It does not involve air pressure.
You have a better explanation ? fine, give an everyday workable relationship.
Of course mainstream science FOUND a way. They had to. Remember, gravity has to be kept alive so obviously it has to be factored in, even though you or anyone else has no actual clue what the hell it is.
By the way, you can measure weigth - as any other force- with a simple spring. No calibrated pressure plates here, just a single and simple spring. This is because there is a direct relationship between the spring extension and the force exerted on it.
Find the one  between air pressure and weight.
Of course you can measure it. I've never said anything other. I was talking about electronic scales earlier. If you want to go into all the rest, feel free and I'll put you right.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 04:53:29 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 04:54:23 AM
No, weight is a force, you can feel it, it causes physical effects, unlike measures.
I know how science likes to confuse the issue and pass it off as is. Nothing in science is ever made to be plain and simple as it could be. Of course, I know what you're going to say, as in, " yes it is, if you understand it"....DON'T...because when science has to account for gravity, it also has to account for having is as part of the atmosphere we live under and this is where the weight comes in, as if that proves gravity.
Anyone out there; take note...Weight is simple a  human measurement of the force of atmospheric pressure on any objects' mass.
You are claiming everywhere that weight is a consequence of air pressure. The natural question is : how ?
Understand that to have weight you must have a measurement. No measurement= no weight. You can say, " oh this is heavy", or someone can say " how much does that weigh?" Or "that's looks to be some weight you're carrying."....You can also say, " I bet that weights about a ton." The point is, none of it means anything unless you have a system ot measure it, which is man made scales. No measurement= no weight, it simple would not exist as anything.
No atmospheric pressure, no measurement, no nothing.
This is the most basic question you should answer: what is the relationship between mass and weight involving air pressure ?
Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight.
An real life example: I have a mass of 10 kg over my head, How much force is applied on it ?
how much would it be if air pressure was 0 ? how much would it be if air pressure was 29.4 psi ?
At zero pressure you would not exist to know nor would your 10kg as a measurement. At 29.4 psi on scales it would weigh 10kg.
Mainstream science found a relationship between weight and mass that works for every day purposes.  It does not involve air pressure.
You have a better explanation ? fine, give an everyday workable relationship.
Of course mainstream science FOUND a way. They had to. Remember, gravity has to be kept alive so obviously it has to be factored in, even though you or anyone else has no actual clue what the hell it is.
By the way, you can measure weigth - as any other force- with a simple spring. No calibrated pressure plates here, just a single and simple spring. This is because there is a direct relationship between the spring extension and the force exerted on it.
Find the one  between air pressure and weight.
Of course you can measure it. I've never said anything other. I was talking about electronic scales earlier. If you want to go into all the rest, feel free and I'll put you right.
you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 05:05:20 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:14:14 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 05:16:08 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:18:35 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
you mentioned the air pressure will make the weight. Will it weight more or less.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 05:21:55 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
you mentioned the air pressure will make the weight. Will it weight more or less.
I said you cannot measure the weight of mass without atmospheric pressure.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:28:38 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
you mentioned the air pressure will make the weight. Will it weight more or less.
I said you cannot measure the weight of mass without atmospheric pressure.
Here is your statement: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 05:29:45 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
you mentioned the air pressure will make the weight. Will it weight more or less.
I said you cannot measure the weight of mass without atmospheric pressure.
Here is your statement: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
So what's wrong with what I've said?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:33:20 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
you mentioned the air pressure will make the weight. Will it weight more or less.
I said you cannot measure the weight of mass without atmospheric pressure.
Here is your statement: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
So what's wrong with what I've said?
It implies that the air pressure in causing the weight on the scale.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 05:36:34 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
you mentioned the air pressure will make the weight. Will it weight more or less.
I said you cannot measure the weight of mass without atmospheric pressure.
Here is your statement: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
So what's wrong with what I've said?
It implies that the air pressure in causing the weight on the scale.
It is the ultimate cause of it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:40:11 AM

you just said: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
are you saying it is the air pressure that make your weight on the scale?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. No atmospheric pressure and you get no measurement of any mass that can determine what our human perceivement of weight is.
If i put a object in a vacuum chamber it should float?
Nope! It should drop faster than it would at sea level pressure.
you mentioned the air pressure will make the weight. Will it weight more or less.
I said you cannot measure the weight of mass without atmospheric pressure.
Here is your statement: "Atmospheric pressure acting on mass is measured on scales showing weight."
So what's wrong with what I've said?
It implies that the air pressure in causing the weight on the scale.
It is the ultimate cause of it.
Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 05:49:48 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:51:27 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 05:54:12 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:55:48 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Tell me if this is true. If i put an object in a vacuum chamber will it float. No air pressure= no weight.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 06:00:22 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
How does air pressure cause falling objects to accelerate and what is the pressure difference either side of a 10mm object.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 06:01:06 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Tell me if this is true. If i put an object in a vacuum chamber will it float. No air pressure= no weight.
Are we talking about a hypothetical perfect vacuum here? Because you do realise that we cannot make one on Earth don't you?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:03:38 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Tell me if this is true. If i put an object in a vacuum chamber will it float. No air pressure= no weight.
Are we talking about a hypothetical perfect vacuum here? Because you do realise that we cannot make one on Earth don't you?
Partly true but would .99 % be good. Now even you had it to 50% less you would have 50% less pressure and you should weight less.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 06:14:48 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
How does air pressure cause falling objects to accelerate and what is the pressure difference either side of a 10mm object.
Any object not in it's own environment that is more dense than the atmosphere it is in, will overcome the friction of that atmosphere until it hits a place where it cannot go any further.
Having said that, if you drop an gold bar from a plane, the dense gold bar will overcome the air resistance under it quite easily, creating high FRICTION which creates a low pressure void around it and to the back of it that has to be filled, so what you get is a SQUEEZE. Think of it like you sitting in the bath and trying to grip the wet soap. What happens?
It jumps right out of your hand, right?
Well, Imagine doing this really fast but doing it like a one potato, two potato thing around the soap but never catching it as it always slipping and moving up...< this is how a rocket works...except the falling object as in, the gold bar is falling but the air pressure is doing the exact same thing to it. So on each squeeze, it goes faster and faster, until the air resistance against it's falling mass compresses to the point that it equalises and the gold bar cannot push through any faster against the extra friction created. This is known as terminal velocity and it's specific to individual objects.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 06:17:03 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Tell me if this is true. If i put an object in a vacuum chamber will it float. No air pressure= no weight.
Are we talking about a hypothetical perfect vacuum here? Because you do realise that we cannot make one on Earth don't you?
Partly true but would .99 % be good. Now even you had it to 50% less you would have 50% less pressure and you should weight less.
Only by illusion, meaning, if the scales were not calibrated.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:20:12 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Tell me if this is true. If i put an object in a vacuum chamber will it float. No air pressure= no weight.
Are we talking about a hypothetical perfect vacuum here? Because you do realise that we cannot make one on Earth don't you?
Partly true but would .99 % be good. Now even you had it to 50% less you would have 50% less pressure and you should weight less.
Only by illusion, meaning, if the scales were not calibrated.
Now you know that is not true. A scale will not measure its own pressure. It is made of metal and the air is all around it. Like a fish in very deep water. A scale in vacuum will not change it's calibration.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 06:28:57 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Tell me if this is true. If i put an object in a vacuum chamber will it float. No air pressure= no weight.
Are we talking about a hypothetical perfect vacuum here? Because you do realise that we cannot make one on Earth don't you?
Partly true but would .99 % be good. Now even you had it to 50% less you would have 50% less pressure and you should weight less.
Only by illusion, meaning, if the scales were not calibrated.
Now you know that is not true. A scale will not measure its own pressure. It is made of metal and the air is all around it. Like a fish in very deep water. A scale in vacuum will not change it's calibration.
Well let me put this to you.

You have a set of scales at sea level and you set those scales to zero. Any mass (gold bar for instance) that you put onto those scales will have a reading weight directly from the scale clock. The reason is, the sea level atmospheric pressure that was exerted onto the plate is calibrated to zero, so the pressure is already taken into account.

However, if you were to take those same scales, up mount everest (for instance) with that same gold bar and did not touch the scales at all as in calibrating them, (assume electronic for instance) then the air pressure that was originally on that scale plate has decreased quite a bit, meaning the scale plate has raised. So if you put that gold onto that scale plate, it will read the weight of the gold in that environment, giving you a reading that the gold is lighter than it was at sea level. Can you understand what I mean?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:33:33 AM

Now i thought on the FE model the earth is accelerating at 1 g creating artificial gravity. How does air pressure and this come together?
I don't subscribe to that model.
ok now that clears it up a bit. So air pressure causes one to weigh what they weigh on a scale.
Basically, yes.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.
Tell me if this is true. If i put an object in a vacuum chamber will it float. No air pressure= no weight.
Are we talking about a hypothetical perfect vacuum here? Because you do realise that we cannot make one on Earth don't you?
Partly true but would .99 % be good. Now even you had it to 50% less you would have 50% less pressure and you should weight less.
Only by illusion, meaning, if the scales were not calibrated.
Now you know that is not true. A scale will not measure its own pressure. It is made of metal and the air is all around it. Like a fish in very deep water. A scale in vacuum will not change it's calibration.
Well let me put this to you.

You have a set of scales at sea level and you set those scales to zero. Any mass (gold bar for instance) that you put onto those scales will have a reading weight directly from the scale clock. The reason is, the sea level atmospheric pressure that was exerted onto the plate is calibrated to zero, so the pressure is already taken into account.

However, if you were to take those same scales, up mount everest (for instance) with that same gold bar and did not touch the scales at all as in calibrating them, (assume electronic for instance) then the air pressure that was originally on that scale plate has decreased quite a bit, meaning the scale plate has raised. So if you put that gold onto that scale plate, it will read the weight of the gold in that environment, giving you a reading that the gold is lighter than it was at sea level. Can you understand what I mean?
I know exactly what you mean. The bar will weigh less as the air pressure get less. If you bring that bar high enough(if you could) is there a point where there would be almost no air (air pressure) would the bar weight very little?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 06:41:59 AM
I know exactly what you mean. The bar will weigh less as the air pressure get less. If you bring that bar high enough(if you could) is there a point where there would be almost no air (air pressure) would the bar weight very little?
The only way for the bar to weigh very little is for it to lose mass, so basically the answer is no, in terms of keeping an exact gold bar.

Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:47:03 AM
I know exactly what you mean. The bar will weigh less as the air pressure get less. If you bring that bar high enough(if you could) is there a point where there would be almost no air (air pressure) would the bar weight very little?
The only way for the bar to weigh very little is for it to lose mass, so basically the answer is no, in terms of keeping an exact gold bar.
Let me put it another way. If you are at sea level the gold bar in you hand will feel heavy. Then you climb to of Mt. Everest the bar in your hand will feel lighter because the air pressure is less. Now all the gold atoms are still in the same place no change. The mass has not changed but it feel lighter. At what point where you have to bring it higher where there will be no air that the gold bar will not weight much at all?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 15, 2014, 06:48:57 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 06:52:39 AM
I know exactly what you mean. The bar will weigh less as the air pressure get less. If you bring that bar high enough(if you could) is there a point where there would be almost no air (air pressure) would the bar weight very little?
The only way for the bar to weigh very little is for it to lose mass, so basically the answer is no, in terms of keeping an exact gold bar.
Let me put it another way. If you are at sea level the gold bar in you hand will feel heavy. Then you climb to of Mt. Everest the bar in your hand will feel lighter because the air pressure is less. Now all the gold atoms are still in the same place no change. The mass has not changed but it feel lighter. At what point where you have to bring it higher where there will be no air that the gold bar will not weight much at all?
It wouldn't feel lighter, because for every step you take, the air pressure is also receding on your body as it is with the gold you are holding, so it's all relative.

If anything it would feel heavier due you to getting weaker, but that's irrelevant to be fair as we aren't dealing with that.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 06:53:34 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:56:18 AM
I know exactly what you mean. The bar will weigh less as the air pressure get less. If you bring that bar high enough(if you could) is there a point where there would be almost no air (air pressure) would the bar weight very little?
The only way for the bar to weigh very little is for it to lose mass, so basically the answer is no, in terms of keeping an exact gold bar.
Let me put it another way. If you are at sea level the gold bar in you hand will feel heavy. Then you climb to of Mt. Everest the bar in your hand will feel lighter because the air pressure is less. Now all the gold atoms are still in the same place no change. The mass has not changed but it feel lighter. At what point where you have to bring it higher where there will be no air that the gold bar will not weight much at all?
It wouldn't feel lighter, because for every step you take, the air pressure is also receding on your body as it is with the gold you are holding, so it's all relative.

If anything it would feel heavier due you to getting weaker, but that's irrelevant to be fair as we aren't dealing with that.
you just said that if you weight it on a scale it would be lighter but in your hand it would not. Which one is it?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 07:01:18 AM
I know exactly what you mean. The bar will weigh less as the air pressure get less. If you bring that bar high enough(if you could) is there a point where there would be almost no air (air pressure) would the bar weight very little?
The only way for the bar to weigh very little is for it to lose mass, so basically the answer is no, in terms of keeping an exact gold bar.
Let me put it another way. If you are at sea level the gold bar in you hand will feel heavy. Then you climb to of Mt. Everest the bar in your hand will feel lighter because the air pressure is less. Now all the gold atoms are still in the same place no change. The mass has not changed but it feel lighter. At what point where you have to bring it higher where there will be no air that the gold bar will not weight much at all?
It wouldn't feel lighter, because for every step you take, the air pressure is also receding on your body as it is with the gold you are holding, so it's all relative.

If anything it would feel heavier due you to getting weaker, but that's irrelevant to be fair as we aren't dealing with that.
you just said that if you weight it on a scale it would be lighter but in your hand it would not. Which one is it?
I didn't say it would be lighter at all. Go and look back. I said it gives the ILLUSION of being lighter due to UNCALIBRATED scales.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 07:27:44 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 07:33:45 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 07:41:58 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.

Not posted before but had to ask - so air pressure is greater on higher density compounds? Why?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 15, 2014, 07:47:57 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.
Please don't refer to mass and weight when you mean air pressure, mass is only expressed through the force of gravity and has no effect on air pressure. Suggesting mass makes you fall is basically implying gravity. Weight is a measure of gravity and without gravity there is no weight so don't talk about it like it fits with your theory.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 07:49:00 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.

Not posted before but had to ask - so air pressure is greater on higher density compounds? Why?
You'll have to elaborate on it a little bit further just for me to clarify it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 07:51:11 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.
Please don't refer to mass and weight when you mean air pressure, mass is only expressed through the force of gravity and has no effect on air pressure. Suggesting mass makes you fall is basically implying gravity. Weight is a measure of gravity and without gravity there is no weight so don't talk about it like it fits with your theory.
Don't talk about weight being a measure of gravity when you don't know what weight is and you certainly do not know what gravity is.
If you think you do, then explain weight and gravity in nice simple terms as to what they are; not what they do.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 15, 2014, 07:53:07 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
My body is not that massive, but we'll let that pass.

I still don't understand - you say air pressure causes things to fall to earth, yet you readily agree that air pressure acts in all directions.  When I step off that cliff, why do I always head down towards earth, and never upwards or just stay where I am?  What causes me to head in that direction every single time?

Quote
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.
Just to be clear: does "density/mass" mean density divided by mass?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 07:55:17 AM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.
Experimental proof please.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 07:56:25 AM
A million holes in this garbage and scepti thinks gravity makes no sense. The concept of gravity is tried and true and it applies to every situation it has been faced with.

We ask how denpressure works when one jumps and there is an explanation about air being compressed by the action of the jump above the subject. A hole is provided when mentioning someone jumping off a cliff. A tangent explanation is provided. A hole is provided when discussing a patron treading up a hill. Another tangent explanation is provided. There is no cohesiveness to any of this. It's a shitty mess.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 08:11:16 AM
If you wish. 

Take two cubes of the same diameter, one of aluminium and one of iron.  Approximately, we know iron weighs three times more than aluminium.  We also know that this is due to the different ways that the two elements atoms are arranged - iron fits in more atoms in the same volume.  All good so far?

So, using the gravitational theory, which is around the gravitational force applied to the mass (mass being volume x density), there are three times as many atoms occupying the same dimensions in iron, than in aluminium - hence more atoms for gravity to exert its force, in fact three times the force as three times the atoms, hence it measures three times more weight.

How do you explain using the air pressure theory, why the same two solid cubes of same size of two different elements - and in this case, solid metals with no air spaces, just different atomic bonds - register different weights?   On the same scales, at the same altitude, no calibration needed, etc, etc?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 08:39:57 AM
If you wish. 

Take two cubes of the same diameter, one of aluminium and one of iron.  Approximately, we know iron weighs three times more than aluminium.  We also know that this is due to the different ways that the two elements atoms are arranged - iron fits in more atoms in the same volume.  All good so far?

So, using the gravitational theory, which is around the gravitational force applied to the mass (mass being volume x density), there are three times as many atoms occupying the same dimensions in iron, than in aluminium - hence more atoms for gravity to exert its force, in fact three times the force as three times the atoms, hence it measures three times more weight.

How do you explain using the air pressure theory, why the same two solid cubes of same size of two different elements - and in this case, solid metals with no air spaces, just different atomic bonds - register different weights?   On the same scales, at the same altitude, no calibration needed, etc, etc?
He uses the word "mass" to describe his theory but he does not understand what it is. He need to be explain what mass is. Your description is a good one.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 08:50:26 AM
I wonder if scepti can explain why we use one of these to measure mass but not weight:

(http://www.artec-kk.co.jp/en/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/8222a.jpg)

And why we use this to measure weight but why it does not measure mass:

(http://www.tallahasseegrapevine.com/file/sns_uploads/6630/images/bathroom-scale-scales-only.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 09:05:34 AM
If you wish. 

Take two cubes of the same diameter, one of aluminium and one of iron.  Approximately, we know iron weighs three times more than aluminium.  We also know that this is due to the different ways that the two elements atoms are arranged - iron fits in more atoms in the same volume.  All good so far?

So, using the gravitational theory, which is around the gravitational force applied to the mass (mass being volume x density), there are three times as many atoms occupying the same dimensions in iron, than in aluminium - hence more atoms for gravity to exert its force, in fact three times the force as three times the atoms, hence it measures three times more weight.

How do you explain using the air pressure theory, why the same two solid cubes of same size of two different elements - and in this case, solid metals with no air spaces, just different atomic bonds - register different weights?   On the same scales, at the same altitude, no calibration needed, etc, etc?
Here is a small video that may help scepti.
(http://)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: 29silhouette on March 15, 2014, 09:12:52 AM
if you drop an gold bar from a plane, the dense gold bar will overcome the air resistance under it quite easily, creating high FRICTION which creates a low pressure void around it and to the back of it that has to be filled, so what you get is a SQUEEZE. Think of it like you sitting in the bath and trying to grip the wet soap. What happens?
So is it surrounded by low pressure or high pressure?

Quote
Well, Imagine doing this really fast but doing it like a one potato, two potato thing around the soap but never catching it as it always slipping and moving up...< this is how a rocket works
I thought your rockets worked by shooting hot air out the bottom where cold air rushes up to push against it.  Are you changing your theory of rocket operation to 'air squeezing it upward'?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:04:46 AM
If you wish. 

Take two cubes of the same diameter, one of aluminium and one of iron.  Approximately, we know iron weighs three times more than aluminium.  We also know that this is due to the different ways that the two elements atoms are arranged - iron fits in more atoms in the same volume.  All good so far?

So, using the gravitational theory, which is around the gravitational force applied to the mass (mass being volume x density), there are three times as many atoms occupying the same dimensions in iron, than in aluminium - hence more atoms for gravity to exert its force, in fact three times the force as three times the atoms, hence it measures three times more weight.

How do you explain using the air pressure theory, why the same two solid cubes of same size of two different elements - and in this case, solid metals with no air spaces, just different atomic bonds - register different weights?   On the same scales, at the same altitude, no calibration needed, etc, etc?
He uses the word "mass" to describe his theory but he does not understand what it is. He need to be explain what mass is. Your description is a good one.

Why thank you!  Nice to have an excuse to brush off my A-Level chemistry..... :)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
I wonder if scepti can explain why we use one of these to measure mass but not weight:

(http://www.artec-kk.co.jp/en/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/8222a.jpg)

And why we use this to measure weight but why it does not measure mass:

(http://www.tallahasseegrapevine.com/file/sns_uploads/6630/images/bathroom-scale-scales-only.jpg)

And in case there are any more suggestions that air pressure also affects the weighing plate, we can also weigh things using these types of scales....  :)

(http://s4.thisnext.com/media/largest_dimension/A6E98561.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:22:26 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 10:25:40 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Define normal. There isn't anything normal about being a grown man who can't tell the difference between mass and weight.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:30:23 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:33:10 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Define normal. There isn't anything normal about being a grown man who can't tell the difference between mass and weight.
There isn't anything normal about grow men believing in something that is clearly made up and can not be understood as to what it is as in gravity.
We can spend all day doing this.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:34:37 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Define normal. There isn't anything normal about being a grown man who can't tell the difference between mass and weight.
There isn't anything normal about grow men believing in something that is clearly made up and can not be understood as to what it is as in gravity.
We can spend all day doing this.

Excuse me. I'm a lady...  ;D
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:35:34 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:36:24 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Define normal. There isn't anything normal about being a grown man who can't tell the difference between mass and weight.
There isn't anything normal about grow men believing in something that is clearly made up and can not be understood as to what it is as in gravity.
We can spend all day doing this.

Excuse me. I'm a lady...  ;D
That's ok then, it wasn't directed at you.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 10:37:20 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Define normal. There isn't anything normal about being a grown man who can't tell the difference between mass and weight.
There isn't anything normal about grow men believing in something that is clearly made up and can not be understood as to what it is as in gravity.
We can spend all day doing this.

Except your statement is ridiculous. It isn't clearly made up. You've been on this forum for who knows how long and have been asked countless times to provide some reasonable refutation to gravity and you've never mentioned anything resembling anything close to worthwhile. Furthermore, gravity does have an explanation and it has been explained to you but you just cover your ears like a fool and shout denpressure despite the fact that it doesn't even match observations in simple daily experience. Gravity on the other hand, works as expected and has an explanation.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:37:50 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:42:04 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Define normal. There isn't anything normal about being a grown man who can't tell the difference between mass and weight.
There isn't anything normal about grow men believing in something that is clearly made up and can not be understood as to what it is as in gravity.
We can spend all day doing this.

Except your statement is ridiculous. It isn't clearly made up. You've been on this forum for who knows how long and have been asked countless times to provide some reasonable refutation to gravity and you've never mentioned anything resembling anything close to worthwhile. Furthermore, gravity does have an explanation and it has been explained to you but you just cover your ears like a fool and shout denpressure despite the fact that it doesn't even match observations in simple daily experience. Gravity on the other hand, works as expected and has an explanation.
Then you stick to it like glue. As for me, I know it does not exist. I know what the real cause of it is and I'm happy with that. You can carry on attempting to push the agenda. When you come back with something to say without silly digs, let me know. Until then, your posts to me will be bypassed. Your choice.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:42:36 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

It was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.

And further to that, perhaps you won't patronise me now you know I'm not a college teenager, and accept that I did pose a query about your theory, and don't yet have an answer?

PS. The "thank you" was an acknowledgement of appreciation. I'm a polite kinda girl.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:44:16 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.
That's ok, I'm sure you'll learn what you need to know from those that are experts on gravity. You know, the stuff that can't be explained but can be told what it does. Good luck!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 10:46:32 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Define normal. There isn't anything normal about being a grown man who can't tell the difference between mass and weight.
There isn't anything normal about grow men believing in something that is clearly made up and can not be understood as to what it is as in gravity.
We can spend all day doing this.

Except your statement is ridiculous. It isn't clearly made up. You've been on this forum for who knows how long and have been asked countless times to provide some reasonable refutation to gravity and you've never mentioned anything resembling anything close to worthwhile. Furthermore, gravity does have an explanation and it has been explained to you but you just cover your ears like a fool and shout denpressure despite the fact that it doesn't even match observations in simple daily experience. Gravity on the other hand, works as expected and has an explanation.
Then you stick to it like glue. As for me, I know it does not exist. I know what the real cause of it is and I'm happy with that. You can carry on attempting to push the agenda. When you come back with something to say without silly digs, let me know. Until then, your posts to me will be bypassed. Your choice.

You will never get anything but digs from me. You're a moron and I'll treat you as such.  Bypass my posts if you wish. I don't care.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:47:57 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.

And further to that, perhaps you won't patronise me now you know I'm not a college teenager, and accept that I did pose a query about your theory, and don't yet have an answer?

PS. The "thank you" was an acknowledgement of appreciation. I'm a polite kinda girl.
Fantastic! I hope you get a lot of information you require to aid you in furthering your career. Unfortunately I'm not the right person to aid you in that, sorry to say, because I reject a lot of the stuff, like gravity and space and such; so It's best that you deal with those who are better suited to what society requires from you.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 10:48:37 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.
That's ok, I'm sure you'll learn what you need to know from those that are experts on gravity. You know, the stuff that can't be explained but can be told what it does. Good luck!

Oh but it can, and we've discussed it before. Ignomatic.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:50:13 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.
That's ok, I'm sure you'll learn what you need to know from those that are experts on gravity. You know, the stuff that can't be explained but can be told what it does. Good luck!

Goodness me, does everything go round in circles here?!

I asked a question about YOUR theory, asking how you account for two pure elements with a very rigid atomic bond structure and no air pockets , with the same volume and different mass (more atoms packed in), weighing different weights.  Because as far as I can see, your theory would have them weighing the same. 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 10:51:55 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.
That's ok, I'm sure you'll learn what you need to know from those that are experts on gravity. You know, the stuff that can't be explained but can be told what it does. Good luck!

Goodness me, does everything go round in circles here?!

I asked a question about YOUR theory, asking how you account for two pure elements with a very rigid atomic bond structure and no air pockets , with the same volume and different mass (more atoms packed in), weighing different weights.  Because as far as I can see, your theory would have them weighing the same.
I suggest you read the topic from start to finsih, see if you can see anything that could explain what you're asking.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 10:53:02 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.
That's ok, I'm sure you'll learn what you need to know from those that are experts on gravity. You know, the stuff that can't be explained but can be told what it does. Good luck!

Goodness me, does everything go round in circles here?!

I asked a question about YOUR theory, asking how you account for two pure elements with a very rigid atomic bond structure and no air pockets , with the same volume and different mass (more atoms packed in), weighing different weights.  Because as far as I can see, your theory would have them weighing the same.
I suggest you read the topic from start to finsih, see if you can see anything that could explain what you're asking.

Oh I've read it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 10:53:46 AM
I'll let everyone get over the back slapping and the boasting about degrees and such and maybe we can get back to normal.

Is this in response to my query? I'm sorry, I'm new to the forum - this thread was marked as questions regarding your theory.  I asked a question.
The others are giving you the answers you want. You thanked them, as you are doing your A levels. You don't need me.
Your A levels (if it's to do with this) are reliant on you giving the answers that your university require, which is what the others on here are telling you. You are better sticking to protocol.

I said I was brushing off my chemistry, not that I was doing it now.

If was in fact 20 years ago. Shortly before I did a medical degree.
That's ok, I'm sure you'll learn what you need to know from those that are experts on gravity. You know, the stuff that can't be explained but can be told what it does. Good luck!

Goodness me, does everything go round in circles here?!

I asked a question about YOUR theory, asking how you account for two pure elements with a very rigid atomic bond structure and no air pockets , with the same volume and different mass (more atoms packed in), weighing different weights.  Because as far as I can see, your theory would have them weighing the same.
I suggest you read the topic from start to finsih, see if you can see anything that could explain what you're asking.

I'll save her time... there isn't.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 11:12:30 AM
I drop a book and a brick from same height, which will reach the ground first?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 11:28:19 AM
I drop a book and a brick from same height, which will reach the ground first?
It depends on the height and the size of the book, plus mass of the book compared to the brick. It's important to know this. Also at what height?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 11:30:10 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 11:37:21 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 11:38:41 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.

Could there be a more simple experiment for you to go and do yourself. Please, enlighten yourself.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 11:39:26 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.
If I cover the brick with thin paper will it still win?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 11:40:13 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.

Could there be a more simple experiment for you to go and do yourself. Please, enlighten yourself.
I don't need to; I know the answer. It might be wise if you try it and you'll see who's correct.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.
If I cover the brick with thin paper will it still win?
You can cover it in paper and paint a face on it and it'll still win.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 11:43:27 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.

Could there be a more simple experiment for you to go and do yourself. Please, enlighten yourself.
I don't need to; I know the answer. It might be wise if you try it and you'll see who's correct.

Oh I have. Thanks.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 11:44:53 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.

Could there be a more simple experiment for you to go and do yourself. Please, enlighten yourself.
I don't need to; I know the answer. It might be wise if you try it and you'll see who's correct.

Oh I have. Thanks.
Chest height does not do it justice, you need to really try it, because if you did, you would have no argument and realise that I am correct.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 11:47:32 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.

Could there be a more simple experiment for you to go and do yourself. Please, enlighten yourself.
I don't need to; I know the answer. It might be wise if you try it and you'll see who's correct.

Oh I have. Thanks.
Chest height does not do it justice, you need to really try it, because if you did, you would have no argument and realise that I am correct.

Says the guy who has never done it in an attempt to derail one of the most repeated scientific experiments of all time.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 11:52:58 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.
How do I calculate the time to fall, what's the formula?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 11:56:48 AM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.
How do I calculate the time to fall, what's the formula?
The formula is extremely simple. It's called videoing it and seeing it with your own eyes. That's all you need to know that your gravity is a complete load of baloney.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 15, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
So, if I step off a cliff I should just float off then?  Because this won't have happened:

I don't even know why you are even thinking this after what I've just explained.
I honestly do not understand your hypothesis.

You say that air pressure acts equally in all directions.   Right?

So if I step off a cliff, air pressure will be equal all round me.  Therefore, why do I fall towards earth?
Because you are forgetting one massive thing. Your body mass.
So the rate of fall depends on the amount of mass?
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.
Please don't refer to mass and weight when you mean air pressure, mass is only expressed through the force of gravity and has no effect on air pressure. Suggesting mass makes you fall is basically implying gravity. Weight is a measure of gravity and without gravity there is no weight so don't talk about it like it fits with your theory.
Don't talk about weight being a measure of gravity when you don't know what weight is and you certainly do not know what gravity is.
If you think you do, then explain weight and gravity in nice simple terms as to what they are; not what they do.
Weight is a measure of downwards force on an object.
Gravity is a force that pulls all mass together.
I'm sure there's more to it but it will do unless you have anything better to show me I don't understand. Both of these don't exist according to you so how can they affect rate of fall? Please don't just avoid the question.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 12:18:06 PM
Weight is a measure of downwards force on an object.
Gravity is a force that pulls all mass together.
I'm sure there's more to it but it will do unless you have anything better to show me I don't understand. Both of these don't exist according to you so how can they affect rate of fall? Please don't just avoid the question.
Gravity doesn't pull anything together. Nothing on this Earth is under a PULL, it's all push on push no matter what it is.  Your gravity is dead, it is made up and can't be explained as to what is actually IS, yet you rely on it for proof of what is there in front of you that you can prove. That's what mainstream education has done to people.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 15, 2014, 12:25:15 PM
Weight is a measure of downwards force on an object.
Gravity is a force that pulls all mass together.
I'm sure there's more to it but it will do unless you have anything better to show me I don't understand. Both of these don't exist according to you so how can they affect rate of fall? Please don't just avoid the question.
Gravity doesn't pull anything together. Nothing on this Earth is under a PULL, it's all push on push no matter what it is.  Your gravity is dead, it is made up and can't be explained as to what is actually IS, yet you rely on it for proof of what is there in front of you that you can prove. That's what mainstream education has done to people.
OK so it's made up and can't exist so how does it affect the rate of fall as you, yes you stated?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 12:27:51 PM

OK so it's made up and can't exist so how does it affect the rate of fall as you, yes you stated?
I've already explained it, go and look through the topic.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 12:29:10 PM
Weight is a measure of downwards force on an object.
Gravity is a force that pulls all mass together.
I'm sure there's more to it but it will do unless you have anything better to show me I don't understand. Both of these don't exist according to you so how can they affect rate of fall? Please don't just avoid the question.
Gravity doesn't pull anything together. Nothing on this Earth is under a PULL, it's all push on push no matter what it is.  Your gravity is dead, it is made up and can't be explained as to what is actually IS, yet you rely on it for proof of what is there in front of you that you can prove. That's what mainstream education has done to people.
OK so it's made up and can't exist so how does it affect the rate of fall as you, yes you stated?
To sum it up he is saying that air pressure in creating his fake gravity. I am also curious to know how acceleration is calculated in his model.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 12:31:24 PM
Weight is a measure of downwards force on an object.
Gravity is a force that pulls all mass together.
I'm sure there's more to it but it will do unless you have anything better to show me I don't understand. Both of these don't exist according to you so how can they affect rate of fall? Please don't just avoid the question.
Gravity doesn't pull anything together. Nothing on this Earth is under a PULL, it's all push on push no matter what it is.  Your gravity is dead, it is made up and can't be explained as to what is actually IS, yet you rely on it for proof of what is there in front of you that you can prove. That's what mainstream education has done to people.
OK so it's made up and can't exist so how does it affect the rate of fall as you, yes you stated?
To sum it up he is saying that air pressure in creating his fake gravity. I am also curious to know how acceleration is calculated in his model.
I don't think you did. If you drop a brick from a high cliff the brick will go faster and faster. Do you have a formula to know the accelerating rate?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 15, 2014, 12:34:41 PM
The rate of fall is dependent on the density/ mass.
Please explain how this could affect it an equation would be nice or even a hypothesis, something you could test.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 12:36:27 PM
I'd give the book and brick the exact same dimensions. 2 stories high.
Both items are 100 x 100 x 300mm, height is 10m.  Mass of brick is 5 times that of the book.  That should help the calculations.
It's a bit of a short height but the brick wins, which would be proved at a higher altitude more easily.
How do I calculate the time to fall, what's the formula?
The formula is extremely simple. It's called videoing it and seeing it with your own eyes. That's all you need to know that your gravity is a complete load of baloney.
What is the formula to calculate the fall time given the height and mass of the object?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Vauxhall on March 15, 2014, 12:37:35 PM
What is the formula to calculate the fall time given the height and mass of the object?

Google is your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 12:45:45 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
What is the formula to calculate the fall time given the height and mass of the object?

Google is your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body)
Where is a formula involving mass?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 12:51:02 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 12:53:38 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
True to a certain point. If you drop a heavy piece of lead that look like and arrow the air resistance will not have any effect for quite a while. For the first 5 seconds it will accelerate to a faster and faster. What to you base you accelerate calculations?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 12:55:58 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
If you don't it is ok to say so. In the gravity world it is well defined and tested.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 12:56:29 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
True to a certain point. If you drop a heavy piece of lead that look like and arrow the air resistance will not have any effect for quite a while. For the first 5 seconds it will accelerate to a faster and faster. What to you base you accelerate calculations?
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 12:57:49 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
So what tests have done?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 12:58:43 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
If you don't it is ok to say so. In the gravity world it is well defined and tested.
There was a 90 ft bridge where I tried to drop a big rock. It took 4 seconds to hit the bottom. It acceleration formula i used from high school was right on the time.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
If you don't it is ok to say so. In the gravity world it is well defined and tested.
I'm well aware the gravity world is well defined and lied about, just as the Earth is. Where will this get us?

They have all this crap covered, I'm well aware of that. It's hard for anyone to test out and be taken serious unless it was done in an evacuated chamber of immense height to prove it, which none exists, so they use little chambers and pretend that they're proving a point.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 01:01:40 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
So what tests have done?
I dropped a cannon ball and a equal sized bowling ball from a helicopter from 500 feet and the cannon ball hit the ground first.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 01:02:06 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
If you don't it is ok to say so. In the gravity world it is well defined and tested.
I'm well aware the gravity world is well defined and lied about, just as the Earth is. Where will this get us?

They have all this crap covered, I'm well aware of that. It's hard for anyone to test out and be taken serious unless it was done in an evacuated chamber of immense height to prove it, which none exists, so they use little chambers and pretend that they're proving a point.
But you say this applies in normal air conditions, so why not prove it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 01:03:02 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
If you don't it is ok to say so. In the gravity world it is well defined and tested.
There was a 90 ft bridge where I tried to drop a big rock. It took 4 seconds to hit the bottom. It acceleration formula i used from high school was right on the time.
Try it again by dropping a similar sized lump of wood and see which one  hits the ground first.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 15, 2014, 01:17:38 PM
You see; it conveniently tells you to ignore air resistance when testing this gravity crap out. That means the only proper test is to do it in a vacuum chamber. The problem is, there isn't a vacuum chamber high enough to prove a point and they know this.
That's why the bull crap feather and coin is used in a few feet high evacuated chamber and this is supposed to show gravity.
It's all a complete load of clap trap.
Who is 'they'?  Surely you have a formula to prove this?
You don't seriously think you are getting anywhere by repeating formula formula formula, do you?
If you don't it is ok to say so. In the gravity world it is well defined and tested.
There was a 90 ft bridge where I tried to drop a big rock. It took 4 seconds to hit the bottom. It acceleration formula i used from high school was right on the time.
Try it again by dropping a similar sized lump of wood and see which one  hits the ground first.
Have you tried this?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 15, 2014, 01:35:01 PM
Take two cubes of the same diameter, one of aluminium and one of iron.  Approximately, we know iron weighs three times more than aluminium.  We also know that this is due to the different ways that the two elements atoms are arranged - iron fits in more atoms in the same volume.  All good so far?

So, using the gravitational theory, which is around the gravitational force applied to the mass (mass being volume x density), there are three times as many atoms occupying the same dimensions in iron, than in aluminium - hence more atoms for gravity to exert its force, in fact three times the force as three times the atoms, hence it measures three times more weight.

How do you explain using the air pressure theory, why the same two solid cubes of same size of two different elements - and in this case, solid metals with no air spaces, just different atomic bonds - register different weights?   On the same scales, at the same altitude, no calibration needed, etc, etc?


Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.

As per your request, I have reread the entire thread again, and while I have found your statement above, I have still not found your hypothesis of how atmospheric pressure causes one dense, rigid structured element such as a metal to register a higher weight than the same volume of another metal element with a lower density. 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)

Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube.
(http://)

Here is another one. Again the spinning top does not float in vacuum.
Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube. (http://Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube.)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2014, 03:38:39 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)

Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube.
(http://)

Here is another one. Again the spinning top does not float in vacuum.
Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube. (http://Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube.)
Who mentioned anything about floating?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sokarul on March 15, 2014, 04:30:47 PM
Way to dodge another argument.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 15, 2014, 05:00:29 PM
Way to dodge another argument.

sceptimatic's response is very typical of many flat earthers on this forum.

They either totally ignore the question, or simply ask another question as some sort of implied "answer".  It's quite laughable actually, but they—the flat earthers—seem not to understand that we round earthers figure this out within days of joining the forum.

sceptimatic's comment:  "Who mentioned anything about floating?" is a classic example of this.

Notice how he completely ignores responding to the actual scientific concepts in the videos (because he doesn't know how to—in all likelihood because he can't figure out the high-school science involved LOL) but instead relies simply on attempting to derail the thrust of Starman's comment.  His response is what skeptic's call "weasel words".

I was waiting for him to introduce his hypothesis about "denpressure" to explain all of this stuff, but he seems to have forgotten all about denpressure, and also never got around to explaining exactly how two totally dissimilar entities could combine spontaneously into a single entity; one entity being mass per unit volume, and the other being  force per unit area.

What units are used to measure denpressure sceptimatic?  And is denpressure a scalar or a vector quantity?

Answers please.  We need to know, if for no other reason that you deny the existence of gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 15, 2014, 05:05:46 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)
The movement of that feather at 4:18 looks very odd.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 05:23:25 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)
The movement of that feather at 4:18 looks very odd.
That is grainy from the moon but you get the point of the video.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 15, 2014, 05:26:03 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)
The movement of that feather at 4:18 looks very odd.
That is grainy from the moon but you get the point of the video.
Grainy or not, getting the point of the video or not, the fact remains that the movement of that feather is NOT normal!  It looks like it's attached to fishing line and someone tugged on it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 15, 2014, 05:35:58 PM
Grainy or not, getting the point of the video or not, the fact remains that the movement of that feather is NOT normal!  It looks like it's attached to fishing line and someone tugged on it.


You could be on to something here EarthIsASpaceship?  Maybe that's also how the flat earth sun and moon are shifted around above the flat earth?

Except they'd be using something like (say) an 8-inch diameter high tensile steel cable?

 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 15, 2014, 05:54:47 PM
Grainy or not, getting the point of the video or not, the fact remains that the movement of that feather is NOT normal!

Of course it isn't normal.

No air-resistance + 1/6th of Earth's Gravity = Strange feather falling behavior.   

(Damn. Broke my vow to remain a lurker...)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: FETlolcakes on March 15, 2014, 05:59:14 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)
The movement of that feather at 4:18 looks very odd.

Yea, must be a conspiracy. Feathers aren't real  ::)  ::)

Seriously though Scepti, this thread, like all your others, has descended into a pathetic pile of steaming crap. The questions keep piling up at the same rate as your contradictions... and this is your own goddamed theory.

Leading on from starman, once more you cannot explain how the feather and steel ball fall at the same rate in an evacuated chamber where the gaseous pressure is approaching zero ie. its very, very low. How is that possible according to denpressure where things fall purely because of air pressure? I've asked you this before.

Nothing you've said in attempted response to these kinds of questions makes one iota of sense. Please rectify that right now.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:00:58 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)

Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube.
(http://)

Here is another one. Again the spinning top does not float in vacuum.
Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube. (http://Here is another one. Again the items does not float in the tube.)
Who mentioned anything about floating?
Well your theory was that air pressure is what causes us to stay on the ground but you described it as weight. Your statement is "no air pressure= no weight" That was your words. Now in the video there was no atmospheric pressure. There may be a few atoms in there but that is it. If there would be no weight then the object would not fall. Everybody understands what I am saying. Even the FE'ers would agree. I am not saying anything about gravity. Your theory about air pressure is keeping us on the ground is false.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 15, 2014, 06:05:19 PM

How is that possible according to denpressure where things fall purely because of air pressure? I've asked you this before.


Notice how he completely ignores responding to the actual scientific concepts in the videos (because he doesn't know how to—in all likelihood because he can't figure out the high-school science involved LOL) but instead relies simply on attempting to derail the thrust of Starman's comment.  His response is what skeptic's call "weasel words".

I'm still waiting for him to introduce his hypothesis about "denpressure" to explain all of this stuff, but he seems to have forgotten all about denpressure, and also never got around to explaining exactly how two totally dissimilar entities could combine spontaneously into a single entity; one entity being mass per unit volume, and the other being  force per unit area.

What units are used to measure denpressure sceptimatic?  And is denpressure a scalar or a vector quantity?

Answers please.  We need to know, if for no other reason that your denial of the existence of gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: FETlolcakes on March 15, 2014, 06:56:02 PM

How is that possible according to denpressure where things fall purely because of air pressure? I've asked you this before.


Notice how he completely ignores responding to the actual scientific concepts in the videos (because he doesn't know how to—in all likelihood because he can't figure out the high-school science involved LOL) but instead relies simply on attempting to derail the thrust of Starman's comment.  His response is what skeptic's call "weasel words".

I'm still waiting for him to introduce his hypothesis about "denpressure" to explain all of this stuff, but he seems to have forgotten all about denpressure, and also never got around to explaining exactly how two totally dissimilar entities could combine spontaneously into a single entity; one entity being mass per unit volume, and the other being  force per unit area.

What units are used to measure denpressure sceptimatic?  And is denpressure a scalar or a vector quantity?

Answers please.  We need to know, if for no other reason that your denial of the existence of gravity.

LOL exactly.

If you are feeling particularly masochistic, perhaps have a peruse through scepti's 96 page topic that went precisely nowhere. I think scepti even deleted half his (contradictory) posts before the end.

This thread, as with any thread related to any of scepti's half-baked, bullshit hypotheses, will go around and around with scepti actively avoiding hypothesis-destroying questions and resorting to pathetic, nonsensical responses.

Have fun, Geoff ! > http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.0)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 15, 2014, 07:45:59 PM
Grainy or not, getting the point of the video or not, the fact remains that the movement of that feather is NOT normal!
Of course it isn't normal.
No air-resistance + 1/6th of Earth's Gravity = Strange feather falling behavior.   
(Damn. Broke my vow to remain a lurker...)
I am not questioning the way it FELL.  It was IN HIS HAND.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 15, 2014, 07:58:35 PM

LOL exactly.

If you are feeling particularly masochistic, perhaps have a peruse through scepti's 96 page topic that went precisely nowhere. I think scepti even deleted half his (contradictory) posts before the end.

This thread, as with any thread related to any of scepti's half-baked, bullshit hypotheses, will go around and around with scepti actively avoiding hypothesis-destroying questions and resorting to pathetic, nonsensical responses.


LOL.  Thanks for the link, but I'm afraid I'm not 96 page's worth of masochistic.

I lost interest at this point when sceptimatic, in his very first response said:

"The centre of earth as light through vibrating crystals" in response to REphoenix's question "Where do the stars on the ice dome come from?"

I could see exactly where all this was gonna head, even 95 pages before the end of the sorry saga.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: BJ1234 on March 15, 2014, 08:17:24 PM
Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
(http://)
The movement of that feather at 4:18 looks very odd.
That is grainy from the moon but you get the point of the video.
Grainy or not, getting the point of the video or not, the fact remains that the movement of that feather is NOT normal!  It looks like it's attached to fishing line and someone tugged on it.
Or maybe he waved it a bit with his fingers...
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 15, 2014, 09:11:24 PM
Grainy or not, getting the point of the video or not, the fact remains that the movement of that feather is NOT normal!
Of course it isn't normal.
No air-resistance + 1/6th of Earth's Gravity = Strange feather falling behavior.   
(Damn. Broke my vow to remain a lurker...)
I am not questioning the way it FELL.  It was IN HIS HAND.

Well, other than the "moon speed" of his movements (again, no air, lower gravity, big-ass suit), what was odd about it?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 01:33:31 AM
Ok, now that I'm back, I'll go right back and answer the questions. As good as I am and as fast as I am at replying, I'm not always at the screen, I do have other things to attend to in between, so stop getting all worked up.  ;)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: QuQu on March 16, 2014, 02:04:42 AM
I still can't answer the question is our beloved scpetimatic suffering from Dunning-Kruger, schizophrenia or idiocy?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 02:13:15 AM
Ok, I've looked through where I left off and there doesn't seem to be much except the you tube experiments that starman put out. All the rest are just little digs and not worth a reply, so I'll concentrate on those youtube videos of starman.

Firstly, I've never mentioned anything floating in any evacuated chamber. If you find that I have, I will accept that I'm wrong and you are right. If you cannot find anything then you are simply making stuff up to keep hold on to fake gravity for some strange reason. Ok back to the experiments.

In the first clip with the two balls and feather, they are in a EVACUATION chamber. It still has pressure but very little resistance to the feather due to the molecules being EXPANDED, meaning the mass of the feather can easily push through the friction under it because it is weak.
As I said before but people didn't listen. The feather or a ball or wood, all originates from being pushed UP from the ground and it's natural break down is back to where it came from, because the matter inside is greater than the atmosphere it is under. No gravity, just a cycle of dense materials being pushed up all the time and being pushed against what is above it, for example: the matter in the atmosphere. No gravity involved and no floating.

The moon experiment is laughable and should never ever be put out by science to try to prove anything, because it's just killed off what you were trying to prove in the first place by using that evacuated chamber.
You see, what you lot failed to grasp, is that the chamber on Earth is subject to FULL gravity  as you lot bang on about...yet your moon is subject to ONE SIXTH of Earth's gravity and guess what we see when both experiments are performed?
We see the same drop. It makes no odds though because gravity is 100% made up and cannot be explained as to what it is, yet it's gripped onto like a mouse caught in an Eagles claw.

I'm well aware that your gravity is hard to disprove. There's a simple reason for that. It's because it's like the invisible man;  you can't see him, you can't feel him... but you're told he's all around you and to accept it because it's true.
No gravity, just a element stack of dense to less dense molecules/matter/particles all pushing against each other from top to bottom and bottom to top. Action and reaction in equal measures.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 02:39:15 AM
So the natural place for everything is on the ground? Why?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 02:46:34 AM
So the natural place for everything is on the ground? Why?
The natural place for everything is in it's own layer of the sandwich, all started from the ground up and put into orderly fashion according to density.
Why don't you explain to me what gravity is. Just explain what it is. Not what it does; what it actually is as a force.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 02:47:20 AM
You see, what you lot failed to grasp, is that the chamber on Earth is subject to FULL gravity  as you lot bang on about...yet your moon is subject to ONE SIXTH of Earth's gravity and guess what we see when both experiments are performed?

Correct, the moon has ONE SIXTH the gravity.  Not ZERO gravity.  Hence you would expect them to fall as no air resistance, but slower. Guess what....

Ok, I've looked through where I left off and there doesn't seem to be much except the you tube experiments that starman put out. All the rest are just little digs and not worth a reply, so I'll concentrate on those youtube videos of starman.

I asked a brief question. You asked me to expand.  I did. You haven't answered it. I fail to see why my question was a ""dig".....

I said before but people didn't listen. The feather or a ball or wood, all originates from being pushed UP from the ground and it's natural break down is back to where it came from, because the matter inside is greater than the atmosphere it is under. No gravity, just a cycle of dense materials being pushed up all the time and being pushed against what is above it, for example: the matter in the atmosphere. No gravity involved and no floating.

....but now I see this.   Which completely contradicts your earlier statement of:


Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.

Now there is this additional force, making all elements in their purest form want to return to the earth where they came from, like spawning salmon returning to the river they were hatched...

So what makes those atoms want to do that then?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 02:50:44 AM
You see, what you lot failed to grasp, is that the chamber on Earth is subject to FULL gravity  as you lot bang on about...yet your moon is subject to ONE SIXTH of Earth's gravity and guess what we see when both experiments are performed?

Correct, the moon has ONE SIXTH the gravity.  Not ZERO gravity.  Hence you would expect them to fall as no air resistance, but slower. Guess what....

Ok, I've looked through where I left off and there doesn't seem to be much except the you tube experiments that starman put out. All the rest are just little digs and not worth a reply, so I'll concentrate on those youtube videos of starman.

I asked a brief question. You asked me to expand.  I did. You haven't answered it. I fail to see why my question was a ""dig".....

I said before but people didn't listen. The feather or a ball or wood, all originates from being pushed UP from the ground and it's natural break down is back to where it came from, because the matter inside is greater than the atmosphere it is under. No gravity, just a cycle of dense materials being pushed up all the time and being pushed against what is above it, for example: the matter in the atmosphere. No gravity involved and no floating.

....but now I see this.   Which completely contradicts your earlier statement of:


Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.

Now there is this additional force, making all elements in their purest form want to return to the earth where they came from, like spawning salmon returning to the river they were hatched...

So what makes those atoms want to do that then?
Keep trying, you'll get there in the end.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 02:55:39 AM
You see, what you lot failed to grasp, is that the chamber on Earth is subject to FULL gravity  as you lot bang on about...yet your moon is subject to ONE SIXTH of Earth's gravity and guess what we see when both experiments are performed?

Correct, the moon has ONE SIXTH the gravity.  Not ZERO gravity.  Hence you would expect them to fall as no air resistance, but slower. Guess what....

Ok, I've looked through where I left off and there doesn't seem to be much except the you tube experiments that starman put out. All the rest are just little digs and not worth a reply, so I'll concentrate on those youtube videos of starman.

I asked a brief question. You asked me to expand.  I did. You haven't answered it. I fail to see why my question was a ""dig".....

I said before but people didn't listen. The feather or a ball or wood, all originates from being pushed UP from the ground and it's natural break down is back to where it came from, because the matter inside is greater than the atmosphere it is under. No gravity, just a cycle of dense materials being pushed up all the time and being pushed against what is above it, for example: the matter in the atmosphere. No gravity involved and no floating.

....but now I see this.   Which completely contradicts your earlier statement of:


Atmospheric pressure is the sole cause mass becoming a measurement of weight on man made scales. No atmospheric pressure = no measurement.

Now there is this additional force, making all elements in their purest form want to return to the earth where they came from, like spawning salmon returning to the river they were hatched...

So what makes those atoms want to do that then?
Keep trying, you'll get there in the end.

So no answers to my questions or arguments against your hypothesis then.  Thanks for clearing that up - I love an intelligent debate.

 ??? ::)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 02:57:54 AM

So no answers to my questions or arguments against your hypothesis then.  Thanks for clearing that up - I love an intelligent debate.

 ??? ::)
I've told you before, I'm not the person you want for that. I'm a nutter, you need to converse with the ones who know it all. I'm not good for you.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 03:07:07 AM

So no answers to my questions or arguments against your hypothesis then.  Thanks for clearing that up - I love an intelligent debate.

 ??? ::)
I've told you before, I'm not the person you want for that. I'm a nutter, you need to converse with the ones who know it all. I'm not good for you.

The person I want for what exactly? I am not researching anything, it is simple human curiosity in how your hypothesis stands up to questioning - so far this is telling me you can't or won't answer my questions.   Who else is supposed to answer my comments on YOUR hypothesis?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 03:12:16 AM

So no answers to my questions or arguments against your hypothesis then.  Thanks for clearing that up - I love an intelligent debate.

 ??? ::)
I've told you before, I'm not the person you want for that. I'm a nutter, you need to converse with the ones who know it all. I'm not good for you.

The person I want for what exactly? I am not researching anything, it is simple human curiosity in how your hypothesis stands up to questioning - so far this is telling me you can't or won't answer my questions.   Who else is supposed to answer my comments on YOUR hypothesis?
Just have a look through, there's enough info given out for you to make a judgement. If gravity exists to you, then there's your answer and enjoy it and just go along with that. You are certainly not here to find an alternative.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 03:25:50 AM

So no answers to my questions or arguments against your hypothesis then.  Thanks for clearing that up - I love an intelligent debate.

 ??? ::)
I've told you before, I'm not the person you want for that. I'm a nutter, you need to converse with the ones who know it all. I'm not good for you.

The person I want for what exactly? I am not researching anything, it is simple human curiosity in how your hypothesis stands up to questioning - so far this is telling me you can't or won't answer my questions.   Who else is supposed to answer my comments on YOUR hypothesis?
Just have a look through, there's enough info given out for you to make a judgement. If gravity exists to you, then there's your answer and enjoy it and just go along with that. You are certainly not here to find an alternative.

So you also know what I am thinking and how my mind works.  You are a clever munchkin. 

Excuse me while I go off and "enjoy gravity".  I might go and drop some things.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 04:15:19 AM
Here are your words:

"Atmospheric pressure, that's all it is.
Naturally, you have to think of it with my theory. Thinking of it by using what you have been drilled into thinking, it will make no sense, because the unknown gravity force that keeps planets apart and the rotating earth in ship shape and the moon from falling onto it, is paramount to keep that alive and yet nobody questions this unknown force and why it does this amazing stuff through mass attracting mass.

Atmospheric pressure is your gravity. Everything on earth cannot work without it.

The atmospheric pressure was removed in the commercial chamber. In your world it means "no Atmospheric pressure = no gravity"
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:18:12 AM
Here are your words:

"Atmospheric pressure, that's all it is.
Naturally, you have to think of it with my theory. Thinking of it by using what you have been drilled into thinking, it will make no sense, because the unknown gravity force that keeps planets apart and the rotating earth in ship shape and the moon from falling onto it, is paramount to keep that alive and yet nobody questions this unknown force and why it does this amazing stuff through mass attracting mass.

Atmospheric pressure is your gravity. Everything on earth cannot work without it.

The atmospheric pressure was removed in the commercial chamber. In your world it means "no Atmospheric pressure = no gravity"
Correction!
Some pressure was removed from the chamber, "not all"...it cannot be done, which still leaves an atmosphere, except the friction against falling objects is much reduced.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 04:21:22 AM
Here are your words:

"Atmospheric pressure, that's all it is.
Naturally, you have to think of it with my theory. Thinking of it by using what you have been drilled into thinking, it will make no sense, because the unknown gravity force that keeps planets apart and the rotating earth in ship shape and the moon from falling onto it, is paramount to keep that alive and yet nobody questions this unknown force and why it does this amazing stuff through mass attracting mass.

Atmospheric pressure is your gravity. Everything on earth cannot work without it.

The atmospheric pressure was removed in the commercial chamber. In your world it means "no Atmospheric pressure = no gravity"
Correction!
Some pressure was removed from the chamber, "not all"...it cannot be done, which still leaves an atmosphere, except the friction against falling objects is much reduced.
What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:25:31 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.

Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 04:28:01 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:31:30 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 04:37:42 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:41:21 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
It doesn't matter what it reads, there is still atmosphere inside the chamber, can't you understand this?
For a perfect vacuum with absolute zero atmosphere would mean that the chamber ceases to exist as a chamber.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 04:41:42 AM
To clarify and please answer, your hypothesis is that atmospheric pressure (I agree with you about the 14.7psi at sea level) is pushing around and down on whatever object you can think off and that is what would register as weight on a scale - let us for the moment assume your elements somehow returning to their density layer is correct and also affects the measured weight. 

Have I understood that correctly?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2014, 04:41:57 AM
A vacuum gage usually reads 0 at sea level. 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:44:24 AM
To clarify and please answer, your hypothesis is that atmospheric pressure (I agree with you about the 14.7psi at sea level) is pushing around and down on whatever object you can think off and that is what would register as weight on a scale - let us for the moment assume your elements somehow returning to their density layer is correct and also affects the measured weight. 

Have I understood that correctly?
Ok, carry on and hit me with your best shot.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 04:49:19 AM
A vacuum gage usually reads 0 at sea level.
Actually the scale reads 31 inch. As soon as you apply a vacuum it will go to 0.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 04:52:25 AM
A vacuum gage usually reads 0 at sea level.
Actually the scale reads 31 inch. As soon as you apply a vacuum it will go to 0.
It is 2014, can we do metric units.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 04:53:32 AM
Does the speed of fall depend on the atmospheric pressure?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 04:54:20 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
It doesn't matter what it reads, there is still atmosphere inside the chamber, can't you understand this?
For a perfect vacuum with absolute zero atmosphere would mean that the chamber ceases to exist as a chamber.
Explain to me a absolute zero atmosphere pressure. Would 1/1000000 psi still be too much?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 04:55:55 AM
A vacuum gage usually reads 0 at sea level.
Actually the scale reads 31 inch. As soon as you apply a vacuum it will go to 0.
It is 2014, can we do metric units.
ok 1013mbr
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:07:17 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
It doesn't matter what it reads, there is still atmosphere inside the chamber, can't you understand this?
For a perfect vacuum with absolute zero atmosphere would mean that the chamber ceases to exist as a chamber.
Explain to me a absolute zero atmosphere pressure. Would 1/1000000 psi still be too much?
Take absolute zero as a perfect vacuum as we can perceive it. It's about a thought process and a hypothetical look at it. That's all we can do. The simple fact is, it can't be achieved on Earth, as far as our living being is concerned.

In earth, we are always under pressure. We couldn't live unless we are under pressure and nothing would work if we weren't under it. That's not down to a fictional gravity that somehow floats around in space as some kind of force given off by one mass against the other and somehow magnetically pulling or pushing other planets away and it's not keeping people walking around on top of a ball, either.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 05:11:48 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
It doesn't matter what it reads, there is still atmosphere inside the chamber, can't you understand this?
For a perfect vacuum with absolute zero atmosphere would mean that the chamber ceases to exist as a chamber.
Explain to me a absolute zero atmosphere pressure. Would 1/1000000 psi still be too much?
Take absolute zero as a perfect vacuum as we can perceive it. It's about a thought process and a hypothetical look at it. That's all we can do. The simple fact is, it can't be achieved on Earth, as far as our living being is concerned.

In earth, we are always under pressure. We couldn't live unless we are under pressure and nothing would work if we weren't under it. That's not down to a fictional gravity that somehow floats around in space as some kind of force given off by one mass against the other and somehow magnetically pulling or pushing other planets away and it's not keeping people walking around on top of a ball, either.
Did you explain the pressure above and below and object that makes it move?  Other than it likes to go down.  The air pressure difference is negligible.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:13:45 AM
Did you explain the pressure above and below and object that makes it move?  Other than it likes to go down.  The air pressure difference is negligible.
Give me any scenario and I'll draw you a diagram of what's happening.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 05:14:11 AM
To clarify and please answer, your hypothesis is that atmospheric pressure (I agree with you about the 14.7psi at sea level) is pushing around and down on whatever object you can think off and that is what would register as weight on a scale - let us for the moment assume your elements somehow returning to their density layer is correct and also affects the measured weight. 

Have I understood that correctly?
Ok, carry on and hit me with your best shot.

Okay.   Does that not mean that the surface area of an object will have a positive affect on the weight measured? 

Hypothesis - two blocks, same material, both with a volume of 8 square inches.  Only one is a perfect cube (2x2x2) and the other the long and thin (say 8x1x1).  Both weighed on the same scale (doesn't matter what measurement, just the result).

We know atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, or expanded, 14.7lbs per square inch of surface area. 

If atmospheric pressure is the key factor for weight measurement (we have taken density out of the equation as they are the same), and if atmospheric pressure acts on surface area of an object, then the cube shape would have 20 square inches for pressure to act on, and if we stood the other shape up on its small end, it would have 33 square inches to act on.  And if you want to take the underneath into account as well, the cube has a total surface area of 24 square inches, and the long shape a total surface area of 34 square inches.

Why do they weigh the same?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 05:23:14 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
It doesn't matter what it reads, there is still atmosphere inside the chamber, can't you understand this?
For a perfect vacuum with absolute zero atmosphere would mean that the chamber ceases to exist as a chamber.
Explain to me a absolute zero atmosphere pressure. Would 1/1000000 psi still be too much?
Take absolute zero as a perfect vacuum as we can perceive it. It's about a thought process and a hypothetical look at it. That's all we can do. The simple fact is, it can't be achieved on Earth, as far as our living being is concerned.

In earth, we are always under pressure. We couldn't live unless we are under pressure and nothing would work if we weren't under it. That's not down to a fictional gravity that somehow floats around in space as some kind of force given off by one mass against the other and somehow magnetically pulling or pushing other planets away and it's not keeping people walking around on top of a ball, either.
You did not answer directly my question. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause your artificial gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:23:14 AM
To clarify and please answer, your hypothesis is that atmospheric pressure (I agree with you about the 14.7psi at sea level) is pushing around and down on whatever object you can think off and that is what would register as weight on a scale - let us for the moment assume your elements somehow returning to their density layer is correct and also affects the measured weight. 

Have I understood that correctly?
Ok, carry on and hit me with your best shot.

Okay.   Does that not mean that the surface area of an object will have a positive affect on the weight measured? 

Hypothesis - two blocks, same material, both with a volume of 8 square inches.  Only one is a perfect cube (2x2x2) and the other the long and thin (say 8x1x1).  Both weighed on the same scale (doesn't matter what measurement, just the result).

We know atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, or expanded, 14.7lbs per square inch of surface area. 

If atmospheric pressure is the key factor for weight measurement (we have taken density out of the equation as they are the same), and if atmospheric pressure acts on surface area of an object, then the cube shape would have 20 square inches for pressure to act on, and if we stood the other shape up on its small end, it would have 33 square inches to act on.  And if you want to take the underneath into account as well, the cube has a total surface area of 24 square inches, and the long shape a total surface area of 34 square inches.

Why do they weigh the same?
Because the scales are already calibrated to take into account of the atmospheric pressure that the weigh plate is under, meaning it's set to zero.
Adding the cube is now adding pressure against the pressure spread out on the plate by the height of it against the above pressure.
The same for the other block.
It's a case of pushing up against pressure and pressure pushing back. Do you understand what I'm saying or do you want a diagram?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:25:06 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
It doesn't matter what it reads, there is still atmosphere inside the chamber, can't you understand this?
For a perfect vacuum with absolute zero atmosphere would mean that the chamber ceases to exist as a chamber.
Explain to me a absolute zero atmosphere pressure. Would 1/1000000 psi still be too much?
Take absolute zero as a perfect vacuum as we can perceive it. It's about a thought process and a hypothetical look at it. That's all we can do. The simple fact is, it can't be achieved on Earth, as far as our living being is concerned.

In earth, we are always under pressure. We couldn't live unless we are under pressure and nothing would work if we weren't under it. That's not down to a fictional gravity that somehow floats around in space as some kind of force given off by one mass against the other and somehow magnetically pulling or pushing other planets away and it's not keeping people walking around on top of a ball, either.
You did not answer directly my question. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause your artificial gravity.
What artifical gravity? There is no artificial gravity. Everything works relative to the environment it's in. Change the environment and you change the workings of anything in it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 05:29:34 AM

What low pressure would you consider enough to be a valid test. Give me a number.
It doesn't matter what number. The fact is, there can be no vacuum made on Earth. It's still under atmospheric conditions, always. There is no legitimate test that anyone can do to verify gravity.
I'm well aware of the supposed tests that supposedly prove it exists but it's wrong; it proves absolutely nothing.
You are avoiding the question. You tell us the atmosphere pressure on earth at sea level is 14.7psi. Where did you get this number and how it is measured.
  It's measured by a mercury barometer. What's this got to do with anything?
If you had that barometer in the chamber it would read "0" would that be good enough?
It doesn't matter what it reads, there is still atmosphere inside the chamber, can't you understand this?
For a perfect vacuum with absolute zero atmosphere would mean that the chamber ceases to exist as a chamber.
Explain to me a absolute zero atmosphere pressure. Would 1/1000000 psi still be too much?
Take absolute zero as a perfect vacuum as we can perceive it. It's about a thought process and a hypothetical look at it. That's all we can do. The simple fact is, it can't be achieved on Earth, as far as our living being is concerned.

In earth, we are always under pressure. We couldn't live unless we are under pressure and nothing would work if we weren't under it. That's not down to a fictional gravity that somehow floats around in space as some kind of force given off by one mass against the other and somehow magnetically pulling or pushing other planets away and it's not keeping people walking around on top of a ball, either.
You did not answer directly my question. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause your artificial gravity.
What artifical gravity? There is no artificial gravity. Everything works relative to the environment it's in. Change the environment and you change the workings of anything in it.
Wrong choice of words. You say that air pressure (14.7) causes object to say on the ground. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause and object to stay on the ground.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 05:33:55 AM
Did you explain the pressure above and below and object that makes it move?  Other than it likes to go down.  The air pressure difference is negligible.
Give me any scenario and I'll draw you a diagram of what's happening.
Piece of wood 300mm x 300mm x 5mm held 1m above ground.  Please show pressure difference.

Is the speed of fall affected by the local atmospheric pressure?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 05:37:20 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:38:32 AM
Wrong choice of words. You say that air pressure (14.7) causes object to say on the ground. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause and object to stay on the ground.
No, it's not the wrong choice of my words, it's the wrong choice of your words, because ll youa re going to do is get yourself all mixed up if you don't at least follow the logic, whether you think I'm nuts or not.
Youa re under the impression that I'm saying it's the 14.7 psi keeping a person on the Earth and I'm saying no such thing. It can be any pressure as long as there is pressure, or push against push of matter which exists in everything.

It just so happens that we are built to survive at this pressure and slight variations of it. Any major changes and we change with it, over time.
Basically we all adapt (not just us) and die doing so as we acclimatise.
Just for the sake of it, we could be living under 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 % of what we are living under and the same thing applies, except that we would look nothing like we do now and neither would anything else.

It's not about keeping us STUCK to a ball like you people believe. It's about existence of matter, which is all we are. We are born to die. We are pushed up from the ground, then pushed down.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:40:42 AM
Did you explain the pressure above and below and object that makes it move?  Other than it likes to go down.  The air pressure difference is negligible.
Give me any scenario and I'll draw you a diagram of what's happening.
Piece of wood 300mm x 300mm x 5mm held 1m above ground.  Please show pressure difference.

Is the speed of fall affected by the local atmospheric pressure?
Let me just clarify one last time with you. I'm not giving you any silly figures without any need in any explanation, so either give a scenario without asking this or don't bother. This is your last chance. Do it again and your post will be simply overlooked.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 05:41:02 AM
To clarify and please answer, your hypothesis is that atmospheric pressure (I agree with you about the 14.7psi at sea level) is pushing around and down on whatever object you can think off and that is what would register as weight on a scale - let us for the moment assume your elements somehow returning to their density layer is correct and also affects the measured weight. 

Have I understood that correctly?
Ok, carry on and hit me with your best shot.

Okay.   Does that not mean that the surface area of an object will have a positive affect on the weight measured? 

Hypothesis - two blocks, same material, both with a volume of 8 square inches.  Only one is a perfect cube (2x2x2) and the other the long and thin (say 8x1x1).  Both weighed on the same scale (doesn't matter what measurement, just the result).

We know atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, or expanded, 14.7lbs per square inch of surface area. 

If atmospheric pressure is the key factor for weight measurement (we have taken density out of the equation as they are the same), and if atmospheric pressure acts on surface area of an object, then the cube shape would have 20 square inches for pressure to act on, and if we stood the other shape up on its small end, it would have 33 square inches to act on.  And if you want to take the underneath into account as well, the cube has a total surface area of 24 square inches, and the long shape a total surface area of 34 square inches.

Why do they weigh the same?
Because the scales are already calibrated to take into account of the atmospheric pressure that the weigh plate is under, meaning it's set to zero.
Adding the cube is now adding pressure against the pressure spread out on the plate by the height of it against the above pressure.
The same for the other block.
It's a case of pushing up against pressure and pressure pushing back. Do you understand what I'm saying or do you want a diagram?

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

(http://www.vinewoodalpacas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/hanging_scales.preview.jpg)

Why do they weigh the same?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:43:03 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 05:45:14 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
If you did this in the ISS where there is air (atmospheric pressure) but no gravity the ball will go in a straight line. The ball will slow down because of the air friction and the viscosity of air. The air pressures around the ball you described is correct but on earth there is gravity always pulling on the ball. scepti will try to say there is no gravity om earth and the air pressure will cause it to fall. He will try hard but don't get confused.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 05:49:45 AM
Wrong choice of words. You say that air pressure (14.7) causes object to say on the ground. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause and object to stay on the ground.
No, it's not the wrong choice of my words, it's the wrong choice of your words, because ll youa re going to do is get yourself all mixed up if you don't at least follow the logic, whether you think I'm nuts or not.
Youa re under the impression that I'm saying it's the 14.7 psi keeping a person on the Earth and I'm saying no such thing. It can be any pressure as long as there is pressure, or push against push of matter which exists in everything.

It just so happens that we are built to survive at this pressure and slight variations of it. Any major changes and we change with it, over time.
Basically we all adapt (not just us) and die doing so as we acclimatise.
Just for the sake of it, we could be living under 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 % of what we are living under and the same thing applies, except that we would look nothing like we do now and neither would anything else.

It's not about keeping us STUCK to a ball like you people believe. It's about existence of matter, which is all we are. We are born to die. We are pushed up from the ground, then pushed down.
We are talking about objects not people. Explain again if a few atoms in a chamber will cause and object in a vacunm to say on the ground.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 05:50:57 AM
Did you explain the pressure above and below and object that makes it move?  Other than it likes to go down.  The air pressure difference is negligible.
Give me any scenario and I'll draw you a diagram of what's happening.
Piece of wood 300mm x 300mm x 5mm held 1m above ground.  Please show pressure difference.

Is the speed of fall affected by the local atmospheric pressure?
Let me just clarify one last time with you. I'm not giving you any silly figures without any need in any explanation, so either give a scenario without asking this or don't bother. This is your last chance. Do it again and your post will be simply overlooked.
It is about proving your theory.  The pressure difference either side of an object is negligible.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 05:52:57 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:55:21 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

(http://www.vinewoodalpacas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/hanging_scales.preview.jpg)

Why do they weigh the same?
Frist of all you appreciate that the hanging scales are not on a sky hook, right? ( Just a bit of fun)

All you have is the hook and harness, etc, that already been calibrated to zero, correct?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?


Let's imagine those same scales were hanging over a bucket, thee quarters full of water and PRETEND that it's a bucket full of theoretical compressed air. (I have to say this because you get them all jumping in with buoyancey and water if this and that when I try and explain stuff like this, knowing full well that the water is merely an anology) water

Ok, so we have the bucket, three quarters full with the harness inside. Now we need to add the block into the harness.
Once you place the block inside the bucket, it displaces the water and you see tht the bucket fills up. Basically the water dispaced is now above the block and around the sides gripping it, ok so far?

Now what you have is the displaced water acting on the scales, giving the weight of the block that displaced it in the first place. Equal and opposite action/reaction.
Any questions?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 05:57:35 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
If all the pressure around the ball is equal then the ball would not fall except gravity is pulling on it. Scepi will not admit to it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 05:59:21 AM
Wrong choice of words. You say that air pressure (14.7) causes object to say on the ground. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause and object to stay on the ground.
No, it's not the wrong choice of my words, it's the wrong choice of your words, because ll youa re going to do is get yourself all mixed up if you don't at least follow the logic, whether you think I'm nuts or not.
Youa re under the impression that I'm saying it's the 14.7 psi keeping a person on the Earth and I'm saying no such thing. It can be any pressure as long as there is pressure, or push against push of matter which exists in everything.

It just so happens that we are built to survive at this pressure and slight variations of it. Any major changes and we change with it, over time.
Basically we all adapt (not just us) and die doing so as we acclimatise.
Just for the sake of it, we could be living under 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 % of what we are living under and the same thing applies, except that we would look nothing like we do now and neither would anything else.

It's not about keeping us STUCK to a ball like you people believe. It's about existence of matter, which is all we are. We are born to die. We are pushed up from the ground, then pushed down.
We are talking about objects not people. Explain again if a few atoms in a chamber will cause and object in a vacunm to say on the ground.
As long as there is pressure then everything will take it's place whether above or below ground. Only energy can change that, as in massive friction clashes and ejections. Volcanoes being one example.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:01:41 AM
Did you explain the pressure above and below and object that makes it move?  Other than it likes to go down.  The air pressure difference is negligible.
Give me any scenario and I'll draw you a diagram of what's happening.
Piece of wood 300mm x 300mm x 5mm held 1m above ground.  Please show pressure difference.

Is the speed of fall affected by the local atmospheric pressure?
Let me just clarify one last time with you. I'm not giving you any silly figures without any need in any explanation, so either give a scenario without asking this or don't bother. This is your last chance. Do it again and your post will be simply overlooked.
It is about proving your theory.  The pressure difference either side of an object is negligible.
The pressure each side of an object is a friction GRIP.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 06:02:15 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?

That is rubbish, the air just moves around.  'Invading space'???  'Pressure displaced'???
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:04:36 AM
Wrong choice of words. You say that air pressure (14.7) causes object to say on the ground. Is 1/1000000 psi low enough. What you are saying that a few atoms is enough to cause and object to stay on the ground.
No, it's not the wrong choice of my words, it's the wrong choice of your words, because ll youa re going to do is get yourself all mixed up if you don't at least follow the logic, whether you think I'm nuts or not.
Youa re under the impression that I'm saying it's the 14.7 psi keeping a person on the Earth and I'm saying no such thing. It can be any pressure as long as there is pressure, or push against push of matter which exists in everything.

It just so happens that we are built to survive at this pressure and slight variations of it. Any major changes and we change with it, over time.
Basically we all adapt (not just us) and die doing so as we acclimatise.
Just for the sake of it, we could be living under 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 % of what we are living under and the same thing applies, except that we would look nothing like we do now and neither would anything else.

It's not about keeping us STUCK to a ball like you people believe. It's about existence of matter, which is all we are. We are born to die. We are pushed up from the ground, then pushed down.
We are talking about objects not people. Explain again if a few atoms in a chamber will cause and object in a vacunm to say on the ground.
As long as there is pressure then everything will take it's place whether above or below ground. Only energy can change that, as in massive friction clashes and ejections. Volcanoes being one example.
So you are saying a few atoms in the chamber will cause it to fall to the bottom of the chamber?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:07:33 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
When that ball leaves your hand, upwards and forwards, you are compressing the air in an arc and the air above immediately goes to equalise the areas of air that the ball displaced as it goes through the air, bringing it down into an arc.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 06:10:12 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
When that ball leaves your hand, upwards and forwards, you are compressing the air in an arc and the air above immediately goes to equalise the areas of air that the ball displaced as it goes through the air, bringing it down into an arc.
Why is air compressed in an arc? The only forces are going in a straight line in front of and behind the ball, pushing air directly forwards.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 06:10:22 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic
I'm well aware that your gravity is hard to disprove. There's a simple reason for that. It's because it's like the invisible man;  you can't see him, you can't feel him... but you're told he's all around you and to accept it because it's true.
No gravity, just a element stack of dense to less dense molecules/matter/particles all pushing against each other from top to bottom and bottom to top. Action and reaction in equal measures.

You are covering your ears again.

Gravity can be felt and you know it. If it can't be felt then you wouldn't find it necessary to find some replacement for it. You'd just say it doesn't exist and leave it at that.

Quote from: inquisitive
So the natural place for everything is on the ground? Why?
Quote from: sceptimatic
The natural place for everything is in it's own layer of the sandwich, all started from the ground up and put into orderly fashion according to density.
Why don't you explain to me what gravity is. Just explain what it is. Not what it does; what it actually is as a force.

So the natural place for everything is on the ground because it all starts from the ground? ???

Are you high?

Gravity has an actual explanation for this. Why down? Denpressure fails here, sorry!

What is gravity? This has been explained to you before. The most widely accepted model for what gravity comes from Relativity in which gravity is not described as a force at all. It is an effect. It is the result of mass causing a curvature in spacetime. It's sort of like water displacement. If you have a tub of water and put a bowling ball in it, all the objects that might have also been in that water will become drawn toward the heavier bowling ball. It isn't as if the bowling ball has some magical properties that magnetically pull the other objects toward it, it is simply the effect of the bowling ball on it's surroundings.

Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:15:06 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?

That is rubbish, the air just moves around.  'Invading space'???  'Pressure displaced'???
Air doesn't just move around at all. All molecules are ATTACHED. All MOLECULES!

If you throw a stone into water, it rippled out. That's what the air does. Nothing if free from anything. It is either expanded from heat due to friction or it's compressed due to much less friction...but it's all attached.
It's why we have air WAVES. It's like shaking a blanket or lashing a skipping rope back to the person holding the otehr end. It;s all magnetically (to our perception) pushing each other. No pulling, just pushing.

It's like you and your best friend who's just stole your cell tower GPS navigation phone and you grab hold of him so you are both in a clamped push against each other and a line of people run right between you and your ex mate separating you but in doing so, have all attached themselves inbetween you  as they motor through, until you eventually clamp back to your ex mate.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:16:11 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
When that ball leaves your hand, upwards and forwards, you are compressing the air in an arc and the air above immediately goes to equalise the areas of air that the ball displaced as it goes through the air, bringing it down into an arc.
Why is air compressed in an arc? The only forces are going in a straight line in front of and behind the ball, pushing air directly forwards.
Have you ever seen a fireman pushed back by his hose? Why do you think this happens?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:19:14 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
When that ball leaves your hand, upwards and forwards, you are compressing the air in an arc and the air above immediately goes to equalise the areas of air that the ball displaced as it goes through the air, bringing it down into an arc.
Why is air compressed in an arc? The only forces are going in a straight line in front of and behind the ball, pushing air directly forwards.
Have you ever seen a fireman pushed back by his hose? Why do you think this happens?
It is the same principle as a rocket. Water has mass. Push water in one direction it pushed back in the other direction. It is like the recoil of a gun. Are you that scientific misinformed.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 06:22:23 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?

That is rubbish, the air just moves around.  'Invading space'???  'Pressure displaced'???
Air doesn't just move around at all. All molecules are ATTACHED. All MOLECULES!

If you throw a stone into water, it rippled out. That's what the air does. Nothing if free from anything. It is either expanded from heat due to friction or it's compressed due to much less friction...but it's all attached.
It's why we have air WAVES. It's like shaking a blanket or lashing a skipping rope back to the person holding the otehr end. It;s all magnetically (to our perception) pushing each other. No pulling, just pushing.

It's like you and your best friend who's just stole your cell tower GPS navigation phone and you grab hold of him so you are both in a clamped push against each other and a line of people run right between you and your ex mate separating you but in doing so, have all attached themselves inbetween you  as they motor through, until you eventually clamp back to your ex mate.

NO! Air is a gas. Water is a liquid.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:26:35 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?

That is rubbish, the air just moves around.  'Invading space'???  'Pressure displaced'???
Air doesn't just move around at all. All molecules are ATTACHED. All MOLECULES!

If you throw a stone into water, it rippled out. That's what the air does. Nothing if free from anything. It is either expanded from heat due to friction or it's compressed due to much less friction...but it's all attached.
It's why we have air WAVES. It's like shaking a blanket or lashing a skipping rope back to the person holding the otehr end. It;s all magnetically (to our perception) pushing each other. No pulling, just pushing.

It's like you and your best friend who's just stole your cell tower GPS navigation phone and you grab hold of him so you are both in a clamped push against each other and a line of people run right between you and your ex mate separating you but in doing so, have all attached themselves inbetween you  as they motor through, until you eventually clamp back to your ex mate.

NO! Air is a gas. Water is a liquid.
Both have atoms and they have mass.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:26:49 AM

You are covering your ears again.
Won't do much good looking at typing.
Gravity can be felt and you know it. If it can't be felt then you wouldn't find it necessary to find some replacement for it. You'd just say it doesn't exist and leave it at that.
Well explain how it can be felt. Tell what I'm supposed to feel?

So the natural place for everything is on the ground because it all starts from the ground? ???
Nope! I said the natural place for anything ejected from the ground is back to where it was ejected from.
Are you high?
Not as high as some people but higher than others. A bit like yourself, really.
Gravity has an actual explanation for this. Why down? Denpressure fails here, sorry!
So explain it then, don;t just tell me it has.
What is gravity? This has been explained to you before. The most widely accepted model for what gravity comes from Relativity in which gravity is not described as a force at all. It is an effect.
So explain it then. Explain it and relativity that we can all say, "oh yeah, that makes perfect sense."
It is the result of mass causing a curvature in spacetime.
Mass causing curvature in space time? I have no clue what that means. Would you like to briefly explain it so it makes perfect sense?
It's sort of like water displacement. If you have a tub of water and put a bowling ball in it, all the objects that might have also been in that water will become drawn toward the heavier bowling ball.
It's exactly like water displacement. That's how measurements can only work. Air displacement or water, etc, by whatever mass displaces it.
It isn't as if the bowling ball has some magical properties that magnetically pull the other objects toward it, it is simply the effect of the bowling ball on it's surroundings.
Push something out of the way and it will push back. Simple!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:28:55 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
When that ball leaves your hand, upwards and forwards, you are compressing the air in an arc and the air above immediately goes to equalise the areas of air that the ball displaced as it goes through the air, bringing it down into an arc.
Why is air compressed in an arc? The only forces are going in a straight line in front of and behind the ball, pushing air directly forwards.
Have you ever seen a fireman pushed back by his hose? Why do you think this happens?
It is the same principle as a rocket. Water has mass. Push water in one direction it pushed back in the other direction. It is like the recoil of a gun. Are you that scientific misinformed.
No but it appears you are.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:33:02 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?

That is rubbish, the air just moves around.  'Invading space'???  'Pressure displaced'???
Air doesn't just move around at all. All molecules are ATTACHED. All MOLECULES!

If you throw a stone into water, it rippled out. That's what the air does. Nothing if free from anything. It is either expanded from heat due to friction or it's compressed due to much less friction...but it's all attached.
It's why we have air WAVES. It's like shaking a blanket or lashing a skipping rope back to the person holding the otehr end. It;s all magnetically (to our perception) pushing each other. No pulling, just pushing.

It's like you and your best friend who's just stole your cell tower GPS navigation phone and you grab hold of him so you are both in a clamped push against each other and a line of people run right between you and your ex mate separating you but in doing so, have all attached themselves inbetween you  as they motor through, until you eventually clamp back to your ex mate.

NO! Air is a gas. Water is a liquid.
It's all liquid. It just appears like a gas to us because it's so tiny. We use the term gas because it's a distinction from saying liquids for everything.
You live under your own sea, it's just different from the fishes and different from the molten iron and all the rest of the molten minerals all the way down and up.

All liquid, but for sake of argument we will use gases as we are accustomed to.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 06:33:51 AM
Well explain how it can be felt. Tell what I'm supposed to feel?

You are being drawn toward the ground? Are you not? There is something happening. That's the important thing to take away from this point.

Nope! I said the natural place for anything ejected from the ground is back to where it was ejected from.


This only happens with the ground? Why the ground? Why isn't it that things ejects from the sky get drawn back to the sky?

It's exactly like water displacement. That's how measurements can only work. Air displacement or water, etc, by whatever mass displaces it.

It almost seems like you get it here.


Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 06:35:12 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?

That is rubbish, the air just moves around.  'Invading space'???  'Pressure displaced'???
Air doesn't just move around at all. All molecules are ATTACHED. All MOLECULES!

If you throw a stone into water, it rippled out. That's what the air does. Nothing if free from anything. It is either expanded from heat due to friction or it's compressed due to much less friction...but it's all attached.
It's why we have air WAVES. It's like shaking a blanket or lashing a skipping rope back to the person holding the otehr end. It;s all magnetically (to our perception) pushing each other. No pulling, just pushing.

It's like you and your best friend who's just stole your cell tower GPS navigation phone and you grab hold of him so you are both in a clamped push against each other and a line of people run right between you and your ex mate separating you but in doing so, have all attached themselves inbetween you  as they motor through, until you eventually clamp back to your ex mate.

NO! Air is a gas. Water is a liquid.
It's all liquid. It just appears like a gas to us because it's so tiny. We use the term gas because it's a distinction from saying liquids for everything.
You live under your own sea, it's just different from the fishes and different from the molten iron and all the rest of the molten minerals all the way down and up.

All liquid, but for sake of argument we will use gases as we are accustomed to.

There really isn't a counter argument here. You just flat out don't have a clue.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2014, 06:37:11 AM
NO! Air is a gas. Water is a liquid.

Both are fluids. 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:38:16 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?

That is rubbish, the air just moves around.  'Invading space'???  'Pressure displaced'???
Air doesn't just move around at all. All molecules are ATTACHED. All MOLECULES!

If you throw a stone into water, it rippled out. That's what the air does. Nothing if free from anything. It is either expanded from heat due to friction or it's compressed due to much less friction...but it's all attached.
It's why we have air WAVES. It's like shaking a blanket or lashing a skipping rope back to the person holding the otehr end. It;s all magnetically (to our perception) pushing each other. No pulling, just pushing.

It's like you and your best friend who's just stole your cell tower GPS navigation phone and you grab hold of him so you are both in a clamped push against each other and a line of people run right between you and your ex mate separating you but in doing so, have all attached themselves inbetween you  as they motor through, until you eventually clamp back to your ex mate.

NO! Air is a gas. Water is a liquid.
It's all liquid. It just appears like a gas to us because it's so tiny. We use the term gas because it's a distinction from saying liquids for everything.
You live under your own sea, it's just different from the fishes and different from the molten iron and all the rest of the molten minerals all the way down and up.

All liquid, but for sake of argument we will use gases as we are accustomed to.
No you can't compress liquids but you can compress air.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 06:38:55 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
When that ball leaves your hand, upwards and forwards, you are compressing the air in an arc and the air above immediately goes to equalise the areas of air that the ball displaced as it goes through the air, bringing it down into an arc.
Why is air compressed in an arc? The only forces are going in a straight line in front of and behind the ball, pushing air directly forwards.
Have you ever seen a fireman pushed back by his hose? Why do you think this happens?
Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:40:05 AM
You are being drawn toward the ground? Are you not? There is something happening. That's the important thing to take away from this point.
You are being compressed into the ground by the atmosphere above you.  No gravity involved I'm afraid.


This only happens with the ground? Why the ground? Why isn't it that things ejects from the sky get drawn back to the sky?
It only happens with things ejected from the gound, unless they are lighter than the air they are under, as in helium and hydrogen, etc.

Think do fall from the sky once they build up but high pressure friction separates them and they go back up...unless they fall into a super low pressure part of the atmosphere and manage to make it further in odd circumstances, which you would probably see  as shooting stars or stuff like that.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 06:40:23 AM
NO! Air is a gas. Water is a liquid.

Both are fluids.

flu·id
ˈflo͞oid/
noun
noun: fluid; plural noun: fluids

    1.
    a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure; a gas or (esp.) a liquid.


SO YES. GAS = fluid, but GAS /= liquid
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 06:41:15 AM
There really isn't a counter argument here. You just flat out don't have a clue.
That's exactly what I think about you.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:41:49 AM
Please explain this to me, there's a ball in my hand, I throw it forwards and upwards, this creates high pressure in front of it and above it and low pressure where it was (in my hand). If these pressures are the only forces acting it should land back in my hand but it always seems to hit the floor in front of me :( , both in front of and below the starting position. Please correct my ignorant understanding of gravity and tell me why this happens.
You have just used your own energy to propel that ball upward and forwards, so why should it land back into your hand?
Because that's where the low pressure has been created so that's where it's being pulled to. I definitely haven't pushed it down so why does it go down?
When that ball leaves your hand, upwards and forwards, you are compressing the air in an arc and the air above immediately goes to equalise the areas of air that the ball displaced as it goes through the air, bringing it down into an arc.
Why is air compressed in an arc? The only forces are going in a straight line in front of and behind the ball, pushing air directly forwards.
Have you ever seen a fireman pushed back by his hose? Why do you think this happens?
Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
On that subject the firemen did not spray the water in an arc. It came out of the nozzle equally yet it did fall to the ground.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2014, 06:43:30 AM
No you can't compress liquids but you can compress air.

Are you 100% sure about this?  Maybe you should do a little research. 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 06:44:26 AM
You are being drawn toward the ground? Are you not? There is something happening. That's the important thing to take away from this point.
You are being compressed into the ground by the atmosphere above you.  No gravity involved I'm afraid.

I'm afraid not. If the only things causing what we perceive to be gravity was a result of where the was more compressed gas than other places, then we would be drawn toward the sky, NOT THE GROUND.

END.

This only happens with the ground? Why the ground? Why isn't it that things ejects from the sky get drawn back to the sky?
It only happens with things ejected from the gound, unless they are lighter than the air they are under, as in helium and hydrogen, etc.

Think do fall from the sky once they build up but high pressure friction separates them and they go back up...unless they fall into a super low pressure part of the atmosphere and manage to make it further in odd circumstances, which you would probably see  as shooting stars or stuff like that.
[/quote]

A helium balloon floats up because the helium inside of it has less mass than the air outside of it. This is a prime example of what happens when pressure is the only factor. Objects move away from the ground, not toward it.

JUST STOP.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 06:45:00 AM
There really isn't a counter argument here. You just flat out don't have a clue.
That's exactly what I think about you.

LOL. OK.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 07:02:20 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:02:47 AM
No you can't compress liquids but you can compress air.

Are you 100% sure about this?  Maybe you should do a little research.
Actually is accepted that a liquid can be compressible but it takes enormous pressure to squeeze the atoms closer together. Here is what i found:
 
The low compressibility of water means that even in the deep oceans at 4 km depth, where pressures are 40 MPa, there is only a 1.8% decrease in volume. If you do that with air the volume will be reduced my 400 times.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:05:18 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
If the firemen sprays straight up there should be no arc. And given if there is an arc can you explain it?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2014, 07:05:33 AM
So, it would probably be more correct to say, "many liquids are essentially incomprehensible."
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 07:07:43 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:08:06 AM
So, it would probably be more correct to say, "many liquids are essentially incomprehensible."
For the practical world it can't be compressed. Remember gas, liquids are considered as fluids.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 07:08:56 AM
I'm afraid not. If the only things causing what we perceive to be gravity was a result of where the was more compressed gas than other places, then we would be drawn toward the sky, NOT THE GROUND.

END.
You carry on like that. All you will learn is what they tell you. Your reality is different though, but you can't see that.


A helium balloon floats up because the helium inside of it has less mass than the air outside of it. This is a prime example of what happens when pressure is the only factor. Objects move away from the ground, not toward it.

JUST STOP.
Helium is PUSHED up until it reaches a place where nothing can push it up any further, then whatever is above it acts to push it down aginst its own push onto the matter below and below. It's a friction push all the way up and down in different stages of density of matter over another.

Throw your indoctrination books to the side and use your brain for thinking, not copying.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 07:11:54 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
If the firemen sprays straight up there should be no arc. And given if there is an arc can you explain it?
I can explain perfectly what really happens but before I do, I'd like you to tell me what happens to push the fireman back when he's using a full pressure hose.

I'll even diagram it for you as I explain it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 07:13:37 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
So you never see an arc as a foreman sprays a hose into the air and back down? Are you kidding me or what?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:16:32 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
So you never see an arc as a foreman sprays a hose into the air and back down? Are you kidding me or what?
The water goes up and back down.... no arc. Firemen gets wet.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 07:17:26 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
So you never see an arc as a foreman sprays a hose into the air and back down? Are you kidding me or what?
Sure the water moves in arc but this is the same as the example I gave you and you haven't explained that so this still isn't making any sense. What I meant was the fireman doesn't arc and neither does the air. You've just put my argument in a different context and somehow it proves you right?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 07:21:16 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
So you never see an arc as a foreman sprays a hose into the air and back down? Are you kidding me or what?
The water goes up and back down.... no arc. Firemen gets wet.
Ok, so you don't actually know what happens then, even the scientific explanation that's wrong. Fair enough!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 07:23:25 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
So you never see an arc as a foreman sprays a hose into the air and back down? Are you kidding me or what?
Sure the water moves in arc but this is the same as the example I gave you and you haven't explained that so this still isn't making any sense. What I meant was the fireman doesn't arc and neither does the air. You've just put my argument in a different context and somehow it proves you right?
Who's taking about the fireman arcing? I'm talking about the water arcing as it comes from the nozzle to where it lands.
Let's call it a curve, either large or small if that makes it any easier.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 07:25:37 AM
I'll wait until you have all read through the scientific explanation of it and all come back as experts. I'll be back soon.  ;)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 07:26:51 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
So you never see an arc as a foreman sprays a hose into the air and back down? Are you kidding me or what?
Sure the water moves in arc but this is the same as the example I gave you and you haven't explained that so this still isn't making any sense. What I meant was the fireman doesn't arc and neither does the air. You've just put my argument in a different context and somehow it proves you right?
Who's taking about the fireman arcing? I'm talking about the water arcing as it comes from the nozzle to where it lands.
Let's call it a curve, either large or small if that makes it any easier.
So why does it curve please explain this. With you're air pressure theory it should continue forwards until the hose is switched off and then return to where it was unless you would be so kind as to enlighten me about why this isn't the case.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:27:26 AM

Water goes forwards he goes backwards, simple. There's no arc involved.
Understanding why it happens is the key. There's always an arc.
You're impression of what happens and what raeally happens is the con of science.
So science is conning me, great but where does the "arc" come from and where is it with the fireman because I can't see one.
So you never see an arc as a foreman sprays a hose into the air and back down? Are you kidding me or what?
Sure the water moves in arc but this is the same as the example I gave you and you haven't explained that so this still isn't making any sense. What I meant was the fireman doesn't arc and neither does the air. You've just put my argument in a different context and somehow it proves you right?
Who's taking about the fireman arcing? I'm talking about the water arcing as it comes from the nozzle to where it lands.
Let's call it a curve, either large or small if that makes it any easier.
It started with the ball in the hand. you said it was thrown in an arc. Now we are at the firemen's water hose. The instant the water leaves the nozzle it is moving in the direction of the nozzle but after a bit it starts to arc. Now you explain how why it arcs?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 07:40:55 AM
I'm afraid not. If the only things causing what we perceive to be gravity was a result of where the was more compressed gas than other places, then we would be drawn toward the sky, NOT THE GROUND.

END.
You carry on like that. All you will learn is what they tell you. Your reality is different though, but you can't see that.


A helium balloon floats up because the helium inside of it has less mass than the air outside of it. This is a prime example of what happens when pressure is the only factor. Objects move away from the ground, not toward it.

JUST STOP.
Helium is PUSHED up until it reaches a place where nothing can push it up any further, then whatever is above it acts to push it down aginst its own push onto the matter below and below. It's a friction push all the way up and down in different stages of density of matter over another.

Throw your indoctrination books to the side and use your brain for thinking, not copying.

Your answer is terrible. I think you believe in gravity.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 07:46:17 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

(http://www.vinewoodalpacas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/hanging_scales.preview.jpg)

Why do they weigh the same?
Frist of all you appreciate that the hanging scales are not on a sky hook, right? ( Just a bit of fun)

All you have is the hook and harness, etc, that already been calibrated to zero, correct?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?


Let's imagine those same scales were hanging over a bucket, thee quarters full of water and PRETEND that it's a bucket full of theoretical compressed air. (I have to say this because you get them all jumping in with buoyancey and water if this and that when I try and explain stuff like this, knowing full well that the water is merely an anology) water

Ok, so we have the bucket, three quarters full with the harness inside. Now we need to add the block into the harness.
Once you place the block inside the bucket, it displaces the water and you see tht the bucket fills up. Basically the water dispaced is now above the block and around the sides gripping it, ok so far?

Now what you have is the displaced water acting on the scales, giving the weight of the block that displaced it in the first place. Equal and opposite action/reaction.
Any questions?

Uh uh.  The block is ALREADY in the bucket / atmosphere.  I haven't just clicked my fingers and the block magically materialises as soon as soon as I put in/on the scales. 

So using your analogy, the block already exists in the bucket of water.  I decide to weigh it in the water, I attach it to the scales.  Nothing is displaced.   If I leave the block on the scales for a week so all air movement stabilises around it, it will still weigh the same at the end of the week.

All matter is constant.  As you have previously said, we live in our own life support system - everything is constant, we just use the elements around us to bulld / create new things.   Eg, a house goes up, there is a hole in the ground where the raw material was extracted.  We don't just magic things into being.  That is why we can measure a constant air pressure at sea level....
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 08:39:07 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

(http://www.vinewoodalpacas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/hanging_scales.preview.jpg)

Why do they weigh the same?
Frist of all you appreciate that the hanging scales are not on a sky hook, right? ( Just a bit of fun)

All you have is the hook and harness, etc, that already been calibrated to zero, correct?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?


Let's imagine those same scales were hanging over a bucket, thee quarters full of water and PRETEND that it's a bucket full of theoretical compressed air. (I have to say this because you get them all jumping in with buoyancey and water if this and that when I try and explain stuff like this, knowing full well that the water is merely an anology) water

Ok, so we have the bucket, three quarters full with the harness inside. Now we need to add the block into the harness.
Once you place the block inside the bucket, it displaces the water and you see tht the bucket fills up. Basically the water dispaced is now above the block and around the sides gripping it, ok so far?

Now what you have is the displaced water acting on the scales, giving the weight of the block that displaced it in the first place. Equal and opposite action/reaction.
Any questions?

Uh uh.  The block is ALREADY in the bucket / atmosphere.  I haven't just clicked my fingers and the block magically materialises as soon as soon as I put in/on the scales. 

So using your analogy, the block already exists in the bucket of water.  I decide to weigh it in the water, I attach it to the scales.  Nothing is displaced.   If I leave the block on the scales for a week so all air movement stabilises around it, it will still weigh the same at the end of the week.

All matter is constant.  As you have previously said, we live in our own life support system - everything is constant, we just use the elements around us to bulld / create new things.   Eg, a house goes up, there is a hole in the ground where the raw material was extracted.  We don't just magic things into being.  That is why we can measure a constant air pressure at sea level....
You have totally missed the point. The block is already in the atmospghere, I agree, but it's not on the scales for the atmosphere to effect a reading from the scale dial.

This is the very reason I used the bucket of hypothetical air. Your block wasn't in that to start with, either so had no effect on the scales inside. If you can't grasp it, fair enough.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 16, 2014, 08:59:24 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tBwUTsbU0M0/TaxF3voG5-I/AAAAAAAAAeY/c-IxuGYm3gs/s1600/lion_face_palm.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 09:06:14 AM

I would love to see a diagram.

Small point - not all scales have a plate.

Why do they weigh the same?
Frist of all you appreciate that the hanging scales are not on a sky hook, right? ( Just a bit of fun)

All you have is the hook and harness, etc, that already been calibrated to zero, correct?

Ok, so now we add your block and bear in mind you have now invaded the space in that harness with the block, meaning you have displaced the air from that position by the size of that block. That pressure you displaced is now pushing back onto that block and reading the weight on the scales. Do you get what I'm saying?


Let's imagine those same scales were hanging over a bucket, thee quarters full of water and PRETEND that it's a bucket full of theoretical compressed air. (I have to say this because you get them all jumping in with buoyancey and water if this and that when I try and explain stuff like this, knowing full well that the water is merely an anology) water

Ok, so we have the bucket, three quarters full with the harness inside. Now we need to add the block into the harness.
Once you place the block inside the bucket, it displaces the water and you see tht the bucket fills up. Basically the water dispaced is now above the block and around the sides gripping it, ok so far?

Now what you have is the displaced water acting on the scales, giving the weight of the block that displaced it in the first place. Equal and opposite action/reaction.
Any questions?

Uh uh.  The block is ALREADY in the bucket / atmosphere.  I haven't just clicked my fingers and the block magically materialises as soon as soon as I put in/on the scales. 

So using your analogy, the block already exists in the bucket of water.  I decide to weigh it in the water, I attach it to the scales.  Nothing is displaced.   If I leave the block on the scales for a week so all air movement stabilises around it, it will still weigh the same at the end of the week.

All matter is constant.  As you have previously said, we live in our own life support system - everything is constant, we just use the elements around us to bulld / create new things.   Eg, a house goes up, there is a hole in the ground where the raw material was extracted.  We don't just magic things into being.  That is why we can measure a constant air pressure at sea level....
You have totally missed the point. The block is already in the atmospghere, I agree, but it's not on the scales for the atmosphere to effect a reading from the scale dial.

This is the very reason I used the bucket of hypothetical air. Your block wasn't in that to start with, either so had no effect on the scales inside. If you can't grasp it, fair enough.

But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 09:35:07 AM


But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
You have still totally missed the point. Nobody has to rewrite any laws, it's all there for them as it is.
I'll try one last timne then you'll just have to go with what you go with.

The block only becomes relevant once it becomes part of the scale plate and not until.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 10:22:15 AM


But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
You have still totally missed the point. Nobody has to rewrite any laws, it's all there for them as it is.
I'll try one last timne then you'll just have to go with what you go with.

The block only becomes relevant once it becomes part of the scale plate and not until.

Sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs per square inch, as you have already mentioned.  You might get some small increases and decreases for a nanosecond around an object when you move it, but it will equalise quickly.  Pressure comes from the weight of the air and air is not static, it is made up the air up of very fast moving and free molecules - it will equalise very quickly.  What have scales got to do with anything?  For sake of arguing about pressure on plates and hypothesise using hanging scales instead, it's just an object that the blocks are hanging freely from.   Atmospheric pressure works on surface area, not volume, there is nothing being displaced as it already exists and one block has a far greater surface area than the other, yet they have the same volume and the same weight.

It's not me missing your point, it's me arguing your point. Two very different things....
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 10:28:25 AM


But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
You have still totally missed the point. Nobody has to rewrite any laws, it's all there for them as it is.
I'll try one last timne then you'll just have to go with what you go with.

The block only becomes relevant once it becomes part of the scale plate and not until.

Sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs per square inch, as you have already mentioned.  You might get some small increases and decreases for a nanosecond around an object when you move it, but it will equalise quickly.  Pressure comes from the weight of the air and air is not static, it is made up the air up of very fast moving and free molecules - it will equalise very quickly.  What have scales got to do with anything?  For sake of arguing about pressure on plates and hypothesise using hanging scales instead, it's just an object that the blocks are hanging freely from.   Atmospheric pressure works on surface area, not volume, there is nothing being displaced as it already exists and one block has a far greater surface area than the other, yet they have the same volume and the same weight.

It's not me missing your point, it's me arguing your point. Two very different things....
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time. Before we move on, do you accept this?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 10:31:43 AM
They are all connected at all times.
So what's the difference between solid, liquid and gas?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 10:37:56 AM
They are all connected at all times.
So what's the difference between solid, liquid and gas?
Expansion and contraction of dense matter/molecules by friction/vibration and frequency.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 10:40:04 AM
They are all connected at all times.
So what's the difference between solid, liquid and gas?
Expansion and contraction of dense matter/molecules by friction/vibration and frequency.
By most part it is true but he want to know what makes the different state happen.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 10:40:35 AM


But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
You have still totally missed the point. Nobody has to rewrite any laws, it's all there for them as it is.
I'll try one last timne then you'll just have to go with what you go with.

The block only becomes relevant once it becomes part of the scale plate and not until.

Sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs per square inch, as you have already mentioned.  You might get some small increases and decreases for a nanosecond around an object when you move it, but it will equalise quickly.  Pressure comes from the weight of the air and air is not static, it is made up the air up of very fast moving and free molecules - it will equalise very quickly.  What have scales got to do with anything?  For sake of arguing about pressure on plates and hypothesise using hanging scales instead, it's just an object that the blocks are hanging freely from.   Atmospheric pressure works on surface area, not volume, there is nothing being displaced as it already exists and one block has a far greater surface area than the other, yet they have the same volume and the same weight.

It's not me missing your point, it's me arguing your point. Two very different things....
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time. Before we move on, do you accept this?

Actually no.  If you want to use that terminology, yes they pretty much bounce around like footballs. 

That is why a gas can disperse quickly (steam, methane etc) - if they were all connected, they wouldn't do this.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 10:45:40 AM
To expand, look at water.  In its solid state, the water molecules have low energy so move little and the molecular bonds are strong.

Add some energy in the form of heat, and the molecules start moving more, making the bonds weaker.  They will still hold together, but only in the form of the holding container and a little surface tension.

Add more heat - the molecules start moving a lot and the molecular bonds start breaking.  The molecules are free to extract themselves and disperse.  Molecular bonds are lost.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 10:47:55 AM
They are all connected at all times.
So what's the difference between solid, liquid and gas?
Expansion and contraction of dense matter/molecules by friction/vibration and frequency.
By most part it is true but he want to know what makes the different state happen.
I've just told you. It explains it perfectly. Here's a simple clue. Go and look at your kettle boiling.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 10:55:20 AM


But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
You have still totally missed the point. Nobody has to rewrite any laws, it's all there for them as it is.
I'll try one last timne then you'll just have to go with what you go with.

The block only becomes relevant once it becomes part of the scale plate and not until.

Sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs per square inch, as you have already mentioned.  You might get some small increases and decreases for a nanosecond around an object when you move it, but it will equalise quickly.  Pressure comes from the weight of the air and air is not static, it is made up the air up of very fast moving and free molecules - it will equalise very quickly.  What have scales got to do with anything?  For sake of arguing about pressure on plates and hypothesise using hanging scales instead, it's just an object that the blocks are hanging freely from.   Atmospheric pressure works on surface area, not volume, there is nothing being displaced as it already exists and one block has a far greater surface area than the other, yet they have the same volume and the same weight.

It's not me missing your point, it's me arguing your point. Two very different things....
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time. Before we move on, do you accept this?

Actually no.  If you want to use that terminology, yes they pretty much bounce around like footballs. 

That is why a gas can disperse quickly (steam, methane etc) - if they were all connected, they wouldn't do this.
They disperse quickly because they are separated by super friction on density, expanding quickly. You can't have empty space outside, it would constitute a vacuum.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Look at soap bubbles and how they stick together...NO space bertween the bubble skin. Go and have a look.
If you can't accept this then you'll just have to stick to what you think happens, because my explanations from this point on will simply fly over your head.
This is why people will never think for themselves. They're too scared to go outside of their comfort zone and be labelled a nut case if they even try, so they decide to totally disregard simple logic for the bull crap scientific explanations that cannot even make their own mind up on many things.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 16, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you? 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 10:58:31 AM
To expand, look at water.  In its solid state, the water molecules have low energy so move little and the molecular bonds are strong.

Add some energy in the form of heat, and the molecules start moving more, making the bonds weaker.  They will still hold together, but only in the form of the holding container and a little surface tension.

Add more heat - the molecules start moving a lot and the molecular bonds start breaking.  The molecules are free to extract themselves and disperse.  Molecular bonds are lost.
Nothing is lost, They simply take the form of expansion into air molecules and are pushed up by the now denser air molecules as what we see as steam. They are still connected, always. It's just that you see the steam and not the actual colder, denser air they are being pushed up through.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 10:59:18 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 16, 2014, 11:02:27 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius.
So you can't answer the question?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 11:05:12 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.

Please end your miserable life.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 11:05:57 AM


But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
You have still totally missed the point. Nobody has to rewrite any laws, it's all there for them as it is.
I'll try one last timne then you'll just have to go with what you go with.

The block only becomes relevant once it becomes part of the scale plate and not until.

Sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs per square inch, as you have already mentioned.  You might get some small increases and decreases for a nanosecond around an object when you move it, but it will equalise quickly.  Pressure comes from the weight of the air and air is not static, it is made up the air up of very fast moving and free molecules - it will equalise very quickly.  What have scales got to do with anything?  For sake of arguing about pressure on plates and hypothesise using hanging scales instead, it's just an object that the blocks are hanging freely from.   Atmospheric pressure works on surface area, not volume, there is nothing being displaced as it already exists and one block has a far greater surface area than the other, yet they have the same volume and the same weight.

It's not me missing your point, it's me arguing your point. Two very different things....
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time. Before we move on, do you accept this?

Actually no.  If you want to use that terminology, yes they pretty much bounce around like footballs. 

That is why a gas can disperse quickly (steam, methane etc) - if they were all connected, they wouldn't do this.
They disperse quickly because they are separated by super friction on density, expanding quickly. You can't have empty space outside, it would constitute a vacuum.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Look at soap bubbles and how they stick together...NO space bertween the bubble skin. Go and have a look.
If you can't accept this then you'll just have to stick to what you think happens, because my explanations from this point on will simply fly over your head.
This is why people will never think for themselves. They're too scared to go outside of their comfort zone and be labelled a nut case if they even try, so they decide to totally disregard simple logic for the bull crap scientific explanations that cannot even make their own mind up on many things.

But you are now changing basic chemistry principles to suit your hypothesis.

Unfortunately, as chemical equations rely on knowing the effects of heat, matter state and the types of bonds (molecular, ionic, covalent etc), you can't just change it.  Chemical equations are written to predict the reaction between compounds, and the experiments then prove it.

And bubbles have nothing to do with the gaseous state of molecules! It is the viscosity of the liquid and the molecular bonds between the liquid skin of the bubbles that forms them. 

And yes, in gaseous form, there is space between molecules.  In fact there is space between them in liquids and solids as well, just progressively less.  So air is full of free moving molecules of different compounds, but they are not linked to each other.  And it's not a vacuum, cos it's got molecules in it..... Doesn't mean they have to be bonded together! Like a snow globe being constantly shaken up....
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Salviati on March 16, 2014, 11:06:44 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about.
In a gas molecules are free moving bouncing about. Basic science no one ever argued against.
Quote
They expand and contract according to friction.
Molecules don't expand or contract. A molecule of oxygen, or nitrogen or carbon dioxyde or other atmospheric gases are ever the same size. Basic science no one ever argued against.
Quote
They are all connected at all times.
In a gas, they are free to get closer or farther according to temperature and pressure. Basic science no one ever argued against.
Quote
There is no free space between them at any time.
In gases there is free space between, mainly in very rarefied ones. In certain interstellar zones there is a single atom of hydrogen per meter cube. Oh, i just forgot, you don't believe in space...
Quote
Before we move on, do you accept this?
You don't have a clue about anything.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 11:08:22 AM
To expand, look at water.  In its solid state, the water molecules have low energy so move little and the molecular bonds are strong.

Add some energy in the form of heat, and the molecules start moving more, making the bonds weaker.  They will still hold together, but only in the form of the holding container and a little surface tension.

Add more heat - the molecules start moving a lot and the molecular bonds start breaking.  The molecules are free to extract themselves and disperse.  Molecular bonds are lost.
Nothing is lost, They simply take the form of expansion into air molecules and are pushed up by the now denser air molecules as what we see as steam. They are still connected, always. It's just that you see the steam and not the actual colder, denser air they are being pushed up through.

What is an air molecule?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 11:10:51 AM
Perhaps this will help.

(http://)

But I doubt it.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 11:15:04 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
Compared to who? Even pee wee Herman is smarter than you.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 11:19:51 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
True story guys, I think we should just believe him.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 11:29:12 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius.
So you can't answer the question?
Well, when you respond by saying I can't possibly know this and yet simply accpet that you do, without proof, then I can simply answer it in how I did, if this is where it's going.
I'm simply trying to give you all an insight but it's not about that, it's simply a fight all the way, so if that's how it has to be, then let's keep to the picture however frustrating it becomes.
If it was easy, then the debate would be over.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 11:30:43 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius.
So you can't answer the question?
Well, when you respond by saying I can't possibly know this and yet simply accpet that you do, without proof, then I can simply answer it in how I did, if this is where it's going.
I'm simply trying to give you all an insight but it's not about that, it's simply a fight all the way, so if that's how it has to be, then let's keep to the picture however frustrating it becomes.
If it was easy, then the debate would be over.

The debate is over. There is no question that you are wrong. You need therapy.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 11:31:25 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.

Please end your miserable life.
My life is fine. It's fulfilling and I'm happy with it. Why should I end, because someone like you can't handle someone having a different outlook?
How about taking a few days off and reflecting on your own, you seem extremely irate and frustrated.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 16, 2014, 11:40:07 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius.
So you can't answer the question?
Well, when you respond by saying I can't possibly know this and yet simply accpet that you do, without proof, then I can simply answer it in how I did, if this is where it's going.
I'm simply trying to give you all an insight but it's not about that, it's simply a fight all the way, so if that's how it has to be, then let's keep to the picture however frustrating it becomes.
If it was easy, then the debate would be over.
So you can't answer the question?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 11:44:25 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.

Please end your miserable life.
My life is fine. It's fulfilling and I'm happy with it. Why should I end, because someone like you can't handle someone having a different outlook?
How about taking a few days off and reflecting on your own, you seem extremely irate and frustrated.

You should end it because you are awful. I'm not personally frustrated but I want you to fuck off, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 11:45:37 AM
But you are now changing basic chemistry principles to suit your hypothesis.
What am I changing?
Unfortunately, as chemical equations rely on knowing the effects of heat, matter state and the types of bonds (molecular, ionic, covalent etc), you can't just change it.  Chemical equations are written to predict the reaction between compounds, and the experiments then prove it.
Experiments do show many reactions, I agree. They don't always show exactly WHY those reactios happened in a lot of cases. You can argue this, but I'm just saying.
And bubbles have nothing to do with the gaseous state of molecules! It is the viscosity of the liquid and the molecular bonds between the liquid skin of the bubbles that forms them. 
Take is as from the eye not what actually happens. I'm simplifying it to keep it easy.
And yes, in gaseous form, there is space between molecules.
There is never space. All molecules are bonded, they simply change state.
In fact there is space between them in liquids and solids as well, just progressively less.
As above.
So air is full of free moving molecules of different compounds, but they are not linked to each other.
Everything is linked all the way up and all the way down in their different densities.
 
And it's not a vacuum, cos it's got molecules in it..... Doesn't mean they have to be bonded together! Like a snow globe being constantly shaken up....
If molecules do not touch there must be a vacuum, so that rules out hem not touching.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 11:46:43 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius.
So you can't answer the question?
Well, when you respond by saying I can't possibly know this and yet simply accpet that you do, without proof, then I can simply answer it in how I did, if this is where it's going.
I'm simply trying to give you all an insight but it's not about that, it's simply a fight all the way, so if that's how it has to be, then let's keep to the picture however frustrating it becomes.
If it was easy, then the debate would be over.
So you can't answer the question?
I can but there's no proof, so it's not really going to pacify you.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 11:47:38 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.

Please end your miserable life.
My life is fine. It's fulfilling and I'm happy with it. Why should I end, because someone like you can't handle someone having a different outlook?
How about taking a few days off and reflecting on your own, you seem extremely irate and frustrated.

You should end it because you are awful. I'm not personally frustrated but I want you to fuck off, that's for sure.
Take a rest, you are frustrated, trust me.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 16, 2014, 11:48:55 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.

Please end your miserable life.
My life is fine. It's fulfilling and I'm happy with it. Why should I end, because someone like you can't handle someone having a different outlook?
How about taking a few days off and reflecting on your own, you seem extremely irate and frustrated.

You should end it because you are awful. I'm not personally frustrated but I want you to fuck off, that's for sure.
Take a rest, you are frustrated, trust me.

Read a book. You are stupid. Trust me.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 11:53:39 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius.
So you can't answer the question?
Well, when you respond by saying I can't possibly know this and yet simply accpet that you do, without proof, then I can simply answer it in how I did, if this is where it's going.
I'm simply trying to give you all an insight but it's not about that, it's simply a fight all the way, so if that's how it has to be, then let's keep to the picture however frustrating it becomes.
If it was easy, then the debate would be over.
So you can't answer the question?
I can but there's no proof, so it's not really going to pacify you.
I wonder why there's no proof...
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 11:58:43 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius.
So you can't answer the question?
Well, when you respond by saying I can't possibly know this and yet simply accpet that you do, without proof, then I can simply answer it in how I did, if this is where it's going.
I'm simply trying to give you all an insight but it's not about that, it's simply a fight all the way, so if that's how it has to be, then let's keep to the picture however frustrating it becomes.
If it was easy, then the debate would be over.
So you can't answer the question?
I can but there's no proof, so it's not really going to pacify you.
I wonder why there's no proof...
Because we are on a forum where hardly any proof is put forward, so it's reliant on using your logic and common sense with whichever you choose to look into.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 12:07:04 PM
But you are now changing basic chemistry principles to suit your hypothesis.
What am I changing?
Unfortunately, as chemical equations rely on knowing the effects of heat, matter state and the types of bonds (molecular, ionic, covalent etc), you can't just change it.  Chemical equations are written to predict the reaction between compounds, and the experiments then prove it.
Experiments do show many reactions, I agree. They don't always show exactly WHY those reactios happened in a lot of cases. You can argue this, but I'm just saying.
And bubbles have nothing to do with the gaseous state of molecules! It is the viscosity of the liquid and the molecular bonds between the liquid skin of the bubbles that forms them. 
Take is as from the eye not what actually happens. I'm simplifying it to keep it easy.
And yes, in gaseous form, there is space between molecules.
There is never space. All molecules are bonded, they simply change state.
In fact there is space between them in liquids and solids as well, just progressively less.
As above.
So air is full of free moving molecules of different compounds, but they are not linked to each other.
Everything is linked all the way up and all the way down in their different densities.
 
And it's not a vacuum, cos it's got molecules in it..... Doesn't mean they have to be bonded together! Like a snow globe being constantly shaken up....
If molecules do not touch there must be a vacuum, so that rules out hem not touching.

Chemical principles about the state of matter are as I have stated.  You are arguing this against decades of the most intelligent eminent chemists.  This is not even about flat earth, space, moon walking etc etc - chemistry done on this earth with the elements / compounds that surround us.  Are they all wrong?

Fair enough - we can't always predict HOW a reaction occurs, but I have done enough chemistry experiments to know that the fundamental principles apply. 

We can now take microscopic images of molecules and atoms.  Molecules do not expand or contract, as someone else has already said.   When a gas is formed from heating a liquid, it may look like steam initially (actually this is because of microscopic beads of molecules still in a liquid state) but then disperse and quickly.  If the air was packed with molecules with no space to move (cos you said it can't have spaces in it), the molecules of whatever gas it is would just stay suspended in its own cloud.

I still don't know what you mean about the bubbles.  Within them the molecules within the air are bouncing around, until the bubble bursts and they are released.  From what I see! Well I can see surface tension on water - I see the same thing happening with bubbles. What's it got to do with air?

Definition of vacuum: a space empty of matter.  So you can have a space with one molecule, and it would not be a vacuum (bloody close, but not complete)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 12:15:25 PM

Chemical principles about the state of matter are as I have stated.  You are arguing this against decades of the most intelligent eminent chemists.  This is not even about flat earth, space, moon walking etc etc - chemistry done on this earth with the elements / compounds that surround us.  Are they all wrong?

Fair enough - we can't always predict HOW a reaction occurs, but I have done enough chemistry experiments to know that the fundamental principles apply. 

We can now take microscopic images of molecules and atoms.  Molecules do not expand or contract, as someone else has already said.   When a gas is formed from heating a liquid, it may look like steam initially (actually this is because of microscopic beads of molecules still in a liquid state) but then disperse and quickly.  If the air was packed with molecules with no space to move (cos you said it can't have spaces in it), the molecules of whatever gas it is would just stay suspended in its own cloud.

I still don't know what you mean about the bubbles.  Within them the molecules within the air are bouncing around, until the bubble bursts and they are released.  From what I see! Well I can see surface tension on water - I see the same thing happening with bubbles. What's it got to do with air?

Definition of vacuum: a space empty of matter.  So you can have a space with one molecule, and it would not be a vacuum (bloody close, but not complete)
Ok, fair enough. You are entitled to your thoughts, I have no qualms with that. It still doesn't solve the gravity problem though.
How about telling me what gravity is made up of. What compounds or chemicals or molecules, if you don't mind.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 16, 2014, 12:22:53 PM
I wonder why there's no proof...
Because we are on a forum where hardly any proof is put forward, so it's reliant on using your logic and common sense with whichever you choose to look into.
I have, I asked a sensible question which you declined to answer with no justification or explanation. Common sense tells me there's a reason for that.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 12:31:34 PM


But your bucket of water represents the entire planet (as long as the items are not in a hermetically sealed unit).  The atmosphere and it's associated pressure is a continuous entity across the whole face of the hugeness of earth.   Nature finds it's own equilibrium so the very tiny disturbance in air pressure if something moves, will very, very quickly balance out to normal. 

Hence I expanded it by saying even if you left something being weighed for a week. It would still weigh the same at the end of the week than the beginning. Nothing has moved for a week, so air pressure will have normalised to the standard air pressure. Yet one item with bigger surface area (so more area for pressure to act upon) will weigh the same as the one that has the smaller surface area.

And if your theory is correct, then engineers had better get to work rewriting the laws of aerodynamics....
You have still totally missed the point. Nobody has to rewrite any laws, it's all there for them as it is.
I'll try one last timne then you'll just have to go with what you go with.

The block only becomes relevant once it becomes part of the scale plate and not until.

Sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs per square inch, as you have already mentioned.  You might get some small increases and decreases for a nanosecond around an object when you move it, but it will equalise quickly.  Pressure comes from the weight of the air and air is not static, it is made up the air up of very fast moving and free molecules - it will equalise very quickly.  What have scales got to do with anything?  For sake of arguing about pressure on plates and hypothesise using hanging scales instead, it's just an object that the blocks are hanging freely from.   Atmospheric pressure works on surface area, not volume, there is nothing being displaced as it already exists and one block has a far greater surface area than the other, yet they have the same volume and the same weight.

It's not me missing your point, it's me arguing your point. Two very different things....
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time. Before we move on, do you accept this?

I never claimed to understand gravity, this was about your theory.  So if, as chemistry principles dictate, air is full of free moving molecules bouncing around in space (and pressure is the weight of these molecules and constant around objects at rest), then we are back to my poser about why two blocks with the same volume but different surface area weigh the same, if weight is dictated by the pressure exerted on them. 

But if you don't accept basic chemistry principles, then we have reached an impasse.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 12:54:51 PM

I never claimed to understand gravity, this was about your theory.  So if, as chemistry principles dictate, air is full of free moving molecules bouncing around in space (and pressure is the weight of these molecules and constant around objects at rest), then we are back to my poser about why two blocks with the same volume but different surface area weigh the same, if weight is dictated by the pressure exerted on them. 

But if you don't accept basic chemistry principles, then we have reached an impasse.
You were happy to read books and listen to a man/woman in a overall/suit/white coat or similar with letters after their names, right.
You were happy to learn from them, knowing that they once read similar books to you and done similar little fizzing experiments, etc that they showed you, right?
You main work is based on the theory, so let me explain mine, in easy terms, on basic terms, to help you maybe understand what's going on AT THE MOST BASIC.

I want you to think of the air as if you are walking about inside jelly. Just for the sake of it. Do not come back with, "oh but the air is not jelly." Ok?
Just do what most can't and that's seeing it from the basic point of view as to why all matter is stuck together, or to be plainer, pushing against each other in every direction.

Ok, so you're walking about in this jelly and every step you take you push the jelly in front of you, out of the way, which then gets pushed back around you to keep filling every part around you immediately and the same above your head.
If you stop dead, you know the jelly is beside you and above you, whilst the base of the jelly plate is below you as a solid.

Ok so far?

Your body is strong enough to stand up against the mass of jelly above your head and you don't really think about the pressure because your body is used to it and equalised with it; you being compact, yourself.

You see a set of scales on the base plate reading zero and 'like you', it's covered in jelly but has been calibrated to zero with this jelly on it. (remember, the jelly is your air pressure).

Next to the scales, is a brick also encased in jelly and under pressure, but you want to weigh it to see what it weighs, so you pick up the brick and immediately as you do so, the jelly has filled the area you are picking it up from and all the time you move it.

Ok, now you want to weigh it, so you put the brick on the scale plate and now you can see that the brick has taken up an amount of jelly and pushed it out of the way of that scale plate, so now you have the pressure of the jelly solely acting on the scale plate against the area of that brick, so now the brick has the jelly wanting to fill that place where the brick is but it can't so it applies it's pressure on the brick and making a reading on the scale.
Can you now see what I mean or can anyone see what I mean?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 16, 2014, 01:00:32 PM
I can but there's no proof, so it's not really going to pacify you.

I didn't ask for proof.   You made this statement:

Quote
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.

And I asked: How could you possibly know this?

So, how do you know this?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 01:40:06 PM

I never claimed to understand gravity, this was about your theory.  So if, as chemistry principles dictate, air is full of free moving molecules bouncing around in space (and pressure is the weight of these molecules and constant around objects at rest), then we are back to my poser about why two blocks with the same volume but different surface area weigh the same, if weight is dictated by the pressure exerted on them. 

But if you don't accept basic chemistry principles, then we have reached an impasse.
You were happy to read books and listen to a man/woman in a overall/suit/white coat or similar with letters after their names, right.
You were happy to learn from them, knowing that they once read similar books to you and done similar little fizzing experiments, etc that they showed you, right?
You main work is based on the theory, so let me explain mine, in easy terms, on basic terms, to help you maybe understand what's going on AT THE MOST BASIC.

I want you to think of the air as if you are walking about inside jelly. Just for the sake of it. Do not come back with, "oh but the air is not jelly." Ok?
Just do what most can't and that's seeing it from the basic point of view as to why all matter is stuck together, or to be plainer, pushing against each other in every direction.

Ok, so you're walking about in this jelly and every step you take you push the jelly in front of you, out of the way, which then gets pushed back around you to keep filling every part around you immediately and the same above your head.
If you stop dead, you know the jelly is beside you and above you, whilst the base of the jelly plate is below you as a solid.

Ok so far?

Your body is strong enough to stand up against the mass of jelly above your head and you don't really think about the pressure because your body is used to it and equalised with it; you being compact, yourself.

You see a set of scales on the base plate reading zero and 'like you', it's covered in jelly but has been calibrated to zero with this jelly on it. (remember, the jelly is your air pressure).

Next to the scales, is a brick also encased in jelly and under pressure, but you want to weigh it to see what it weighs, so you pick up the brick and immediately as you do so, the jelly has filled the area you are picking it up from and all the time you move it.

Ok, now you want to weigh it, so you put the brick on the scale plate and now you can see that the brick has taken up an amount of jelly and pushed it out of the way of that scale plate, so now you have the pressure of the jelly solely acting on the scale plate against the area of that brick, so now the brick has the jelly wanting to fill that place where the brick is but it can't so it applies it's pressure on the brick and making a reading on the scale.
Can you now see what I mean or can anyone see what I mean?

Jeez, talk about belittling someone's life experiences. Fizzing little experiments?

I understand what you are trying to say - what I am saying is that it is flawed.  And take away the whole plate thing - it is not required, there other ways of measuring weight.

1. Air (or whatever) can't "know" what volume it is not inhabiting. If you had a brick in jelly or water, where yes, the molecules are "stuck together", it would be the same - it would be the surface area that takes the pressure,  ergo, greater surface area = greater pressure exerted on the object.  That is why the common unit of measurement is pounds per square inch.  At the bottom of jelly, the pressure around (not on) the pea will be the same as the pressure around an apple. The apple will have more pressure exerted on it because it has a greater surface area.

2.  Biology - my favourite subject (and many, many years studying it).  If matter were all "stuck together", we wouldn't be able to breathe. End of. Us surviving relies on the exchange of Co2, H2O and O2 molecules across the membranes of the alveoli of the lungs in gaseous form, with the molecules free moving.  If they were all stuck together, air would stagnate in our lungs as we never fully exhale all the air on each breath (our lungs would collapse) and the molecules wouldn't be able to circulate freely.

So we're back to molecules being free moving in air (otherwise we would die).
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 16, 2014, 02:00:09 PM

I want you to think of the air as if you are walking about inside jelly. Just for the sake of it. Do not come back with, "oh but the air is not jelly." Ok?
Just do what most can't and that's seeing it from the basic point of view as to why all matter is stuck together, or to be plainer, pushing against each other in every direction.

Ok, so you're walking about in this jelly and every step you take you push the jelly in front of you, out of the way, which then gets pushed back around you to keep filling every part around you immediately and the same above your head.
If you stop dead, you know the jelly is beside you and above you, whilst the base of the jelly plate is below you as a solid.

Your body is strong enough to stand up against the mass of jelly above your head and you don't really think about the pressure because your body is used to it and equalised with it; you being compact, yourself.

You see a set of scales on the base plate reading zero and 'like you', it's covered in jelly but has been calibrated to zero with this jelly on it. (remember, the jelly is your air pressure).

Next to the scales, is a brick also encased in jelly and under pressure, but you want to weigh it to see what it weighs, so you pick up the brick and immediately as you do so, the jelly has filled the area you are picking it up from and all the time you move it.

Ok, now you want to weigh it, so you put the brick on the scale plate and now you can see that the brick has taken up an amount of jelly and pushed it out of the way of that scale plate, so now you have the pressure of the jelly solely acting on the scale plate against the area of that brick, so now the brick has the jelly wanting to fill that place where the brick is but it can't so it applies it's pressure on the brick and making a reading on the scale.
Can you now see what I mean or can anyone see what I mean?

I'm afraid that I just don't have the time, or the patience, or even the will to read through literally dozens of sceptimatic's ludicrous pseudo-scientific "reasonings" on this (currently) 20-page thread.  Some of his more bizarre personal hypotheses defy all of mankind's accrued centuries of scientific discovery, hypothesising, and theorising.  I'm seriously astounded that any rational adult living in an enlightened 21st-century could actually maintain some of the totally  preposterous ideas this guy has about what amounts to—in the majority of cases—simple high-school science that any reasonably well-educated teenager comprehends without any difficulties.

This current, farcical analogy of sceptimatic's of a human being submerged in, and walking through some giant tank of jelly defies all belief that the guy is actually trying to support some serious scientific proposition of his, but instead is simply a major (and very successful) troll who's no doubt spending most of his time pissing himself laughing at our repeated attempts to engage with him in some sort of legitimate debate.  Personally, I can't accept that anybody could be—apparently—so woefully ignorant of contemporary scientific theories, or even the basic tenets of mass, forces, acceleration, time, hydraulics, pressure, optics, astronomy, geophysics etc.

Sceptimatic, if he is genuine, seems to be inhabiting some sort of parallel world to the rest of us—all 7,000,000,000 of us—to the extent that he really and truly believes the nonsensical drivel that originates somewhere in the dislocated depths of his brain's prefrontal cortex.

I'm also a little perplexed as to why the more intelligent of us—or the round earthers—are still responding to this Dark Ages throwback?  Thankfully, he's included me on his IGNORE list, so I only slip in the odd response to him here and there as I see fit.  Apparently I touched too many raw nerves with my responses to his weird and wonderful fairy tales, and he simply couldn't fathom my logic in most cases.

In some ways I feel sorry for the guy;  that someone like him is potentially going to live the rest of his life in ignorance of all the wonders that modern science has to offer us, and all the undoubted wonders yet to be discovered.  To be locked into a mind-set that was outmoded two centuries ago must be inevitably and extremely atrophying to the human brain.

I can only suggest that sceptimatic (and a few of the other more extreme flat earthers) check out 10 Scientific Laws and Theories You Really Should Know (http://bit.ly/1grmaQj) for a nicely encapsulated version of the main tenets of modern science.  Hopefully, it'll help correct the apparent ignorance of basic science that people such as sceptimatic repeatedly demonstrate.
 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 03:29:08 PM
Jeez, talk about belittling someone's life experiences. Fizzing little experiments?
I understand what you are trying to say - what I am saying is that it is flawed.  And take away the whole plate thing - it is not required, there other ways of measuring weight.
Of course tehre are other ways to measure weight but they still involve measuring scales, whether hanging or on solid ground. They're either hanging from a solid surface or ground. The outcome is still the same.
1. Air (or whatever) can't "know" what volume it is not inhabiting. If you had a brick in jelly or water, where yes, the molecules are "stuck together", it would be the same - it would be the surface area that takes the pressure,  ergo, greater surface area = greater pressure exerted on the object.  That is why the common unit of measurement is pounds per square inch.  At the bottom of jelly, the pressure around (not on) the pea will be the same as the pressure around an apple. The apple will have more pressure exerted on it because it has a greater surface area.
This is incorrect.
2.  Biology - my favourite subject (and many, many years studying it).  If matter were all "stuck together", we wouldn't be able to breathe. End of. Us surviving relies on the exchange of Co2, H2O and O2 molecules across the membranes of the alveoli of the lungs in gaseous form, with the molecules free moving.  If they were all stuck together, air would stagnate in our lungs as we never fully exhale all the air on each breath (our lungs would collapse) and the molecules wouldn't be able to circulate freely.
I don't know why you even think this.
So we're back to molecules being free moving in air (otherwise we would die).
No, we wouldn't  but we certainly would if molecules were actually really freely moving.
The science world has done one hell of a number on us all, not just you. It's about deciphering the truth from the fiction or sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I'm a simplistic genius. Learn to be a simplistic genius and you will see the reality.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 03:31:22 PM

I want you to think of the air as if you are walking about inside jelly. Just for the sake of it. Do not come back with, "oh but the air is not jelly." Ok?
Just do what most can't and that's seeing it from the basic point of view as to why all matter is stuck together, or to be plainer, pushing against each other in every direction.

Ok, so you're walking about in this jelly and every step you take you push the jelly in front of you, out of the way, which then gets pushed back around you to keep filling every part around you immediately and the same above your head.
If you stop dead, you know the jelly is beside you and above you, whilst the base of the jelly plate is below you as a solid.

Your body is strong enough to stand up against the mass of jelly above your head and you don't really think about the pressure because your body is used to it and equalised with it; you being compact, yourself.

You see a set of scales on the base plate reading zero and 'like you', it's covered in jelly but has been calibrated to zero with this jelly on it. (remember, the jelly is your air pressure).

Next to the scales, is a brick also encased in jelly and under pressure, but you want to weigh it to see what it weighs, so you pick up the brick and immediately as you do so, the jelly has filled the area you are picking it up from and all the time you move it.

Ok, now you want to weigh it, so you put the brick on the scale plate and now you can see that the brick has taken up an amount of jelly and pushed it out of the way of that scale plate, so now you have the pressure of the jelly solely acting on the scale plate against the area of that brick, so now the brick has the jelly wanting to fill that place where the brick is but it can't so it applies it's pressure on the brick and making a reading on the scale.
Can you now see what I mean or can anyone see what I mean?

I'm afraid that I just don't have the time, or the patience, or even the will to read through literally dozens of sceptimatic's ludicrous pseudo-scientific "reasonings" on this (currently) 20-page thread.  Some of his more bizarre personal hypotheses defy all of mankind's accrued centuries of scientific discovery, hypothesising, and theorising.  I'm seriously astounded that any rational adult living in an enlightened 21st-century could actually maintain some of the totally  preposterous ideas this guy has about what amounts to—in the majority of cases—simple high-school science that any reasonably well-educated teenager comprehends without any difficulties.

This current, farcical analogy of sceptimatic's of a human being submerged in, and walking through some giant tank of jelly defies all belief that the guy is actually trying to support some serious scientific proposition of his, but instead is simply a major (and very successful) troll who's no doubt spending most of his time pissing himself laughing at our repeated attempts to engage with him in some sort of legitimate debate.  Personally, I can't accept that anybody could be—apparently—so woefully ignorant of contemporary scientific theories, or even the basic tenets of mass, forces, acceleration, time, hydraulics, pressure, optics, astronomy, geophysics etc.

Sceptimatic, if he is genuine, seems to be inhabiting some sort of parallel world to the rest of us—all 7,000,000,000 of us—to the extent that he really and truly believes the nonsensical drivel that originates somewhere in the dislocated depths of his brain's prefrontal cortex.

I'm also a little perplexed as to why the more intelligent of us—or the round earthers—are still responding to this Dark Ages throwback?  Thankfully, he's included me on his IGNORE list, so I only slip in the odd response to him here and there as I see fit.  Apparently I touched too many raw nerves with my responses to his weird and wonderful fairy tales, and he simply couldn't fathom my logic in most cases.

In some ways I feel sorry for the guy;  that someone like him is potentially going to live the rest of his life in ignorance of all the wonders that modern science has to offer us, and all the undoubted wonders yet to be discovered.  To be locked into a mind-set that was outmoded two centuries ago must be inevitably and extremely atrophying to the human brain.

I can only suggest that sceptimatic (and a few of the other more extreme flat earthers) check out 10 Scientific Laws and Theories You Really Should Know (http://bit.ly/1grmaQj) for a nicely encapsulated version of the main tenets of modern science.  Hopefully, it'll help correct the apparent ignorance of basic science that people such as sceptimatic repeatedly demonstrate.
You seem to be making one hell of an informed opinion about it all for not reading it.  ;)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 03:51:01 PM
Jeez, talk about belittling someone's life experiences. Fizzing little experiments?
I understand what you are trying to say - what I am saying is that it is flawed.  And take away the whole plate thing - it is not required, there other ways of measuring weight.
Of course tehre are other ways to measure weight but they still involve measuring scales, whether hanging or on solid ground. They're either hanging from a solid surface or ground. The outcome is still the same.
You were the one that kept saying that pressure also had an affect on the weighing plate and not just the object being weighed.

1. Air (or whatever) can't "know" what volume it is not inhabiting. If you had a brick in jelly or water, where yes, the molecules are "stuck together", it would be the same - it would be the surface area that takes the pressure,  ergo, greater surface area = greater pressure exerted on the object.  That is why the common unit of measurement is pounds per square inch.  At the bottom of jelly, the pressure around (not on) the pea will be the same as the pressure around an apple. The apple will have more pressure exerted on it because it has a greater surface area.
This is incorrect.
Why?

So we're back to molecules being free moving in air (otherwise we would die).
No, we wouldn't  but we certainly would if molecules were actually really freely moving.
Why?  Anatomy contradicts you.  If it doesn't, tell me what I've missed in years of dissection, pharmacology, anatomy and physiology?

2.  Biology - my favourite subject (and many, many years studying it).  If matter were all "stuck together", we wouldn't be able to breathe. End of. Us surviving relies on the exchange of Co2, H2O and O2 molecules across the membranes of the alveoli of the lungs in gaseous form, with the molecules free moving.  If they were all stuck together, air would stagnate in our lungs as we never fully exhale all the air on each breath (our lungs would collapse) and the molecules wouldn't be able to circulate freely.
I don't know why you even think this.
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 03:58:26 PM
Well, airyfairy76, there's nothing you need to know. I think you know it all, just like me, so enjoy it and go about your life as I will do mine.
If you want to take onboard what I've said then feel free. Nobody has to know your thoughts, either way. If not, then good luck to you in whatever you are doing or what you choose in future.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 16, 2014, 04:11:03 PM

If you want to take on board what I've said then feel free.


Pardon me whilst I pick myself up from the floor!   ;D

I have to ask you sceptimatic..... do you really, truly, seriously think for one nanosecond that anybody with even a dozen functioning brain cells would even consider taking your endless drivel "on board"?  Most people here would prefer to stick toothpicks in their eyeballs—it'd be a less painful personal experience I'm sure.

Is there an emoticon for a massive, uncontrollable, rib-splitting, side-clutching, tear-inducing guffaw?
 
 

 
EDIT: spelling gremlins grrrr... 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 04:22:31 PM
Well, airyfairy76, there's nothing you need to know. I think you know it all, just like me, so enjoy it and go about your life as I will do mine.
If you want to take onboard what I've said then feel free. Nobody has to know your thoughts, either way. If not, then good luck to you in whatever you are doing or what you choose in future.
In the condescending tone that you appear to favour:

If you give in, that's fine, I understand.

Oh, and the genius comment was sarcasm. I assume you got that.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:26:10 PM

If you want to take on board what I've said then feel free.


Pardon me whilst I pick myself up from the floor!   ;D

I have to ask you sceptimatic..... do you really, truly, seriously think for one nanosecond that anybody with even a dozen functioning brain cells would even consider taking your endless drivel "on board"?  Most people here would prefer to stick toothpicks in their eyeballs—it's be a less painful personal experience I'm sure.

Is there an emoticon for a massive, uncontrollable, rib-splitting, side-clutching, tear-inducing guffaw?
I'll take that as you saying you won't be partaking in the theory.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 04:26:51 PM
Is there an emoticon for a massive, uncontrollable, rib-splitting, side-clutching, tear-inducing guffaw?

There should be - I was almost crying with laughter earlier.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:29:28 PM
Well, airyfairy76, there's nothing you need to know. I think you know it all, just like me, so enjoy it and go about your life as I will do mine.
If you want to take onboard what I've said then feel free. Nobody has to know your thoughts, either way. If not, then good luck to you in whatever you are doing or what you choose in future.
In the condescending tone that you appear to favour:

If you give in, that's fine, I understand.

Oh, and the genius comment was sarcasm. I assume you got that.
Yes, of course I got that. Anyway, like I said, good luck.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 16, 2014, 04:30:29 PM
Is there an emoticon for a massive, uncontrollable, rib-splitting, side-clutching, tear-inducing guffaw?

There should be - I was almost crying with laughter earlier.
It's always good to laugh, it keeps your mind fresh and your spirits high.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: airyfairy76 on March 16, 2014, 04:58:22 PM
Well, airyfairy76, there's nothing you need to know. I think you know it all, just like me, so enjoy it and go about your life as I will do mine.
If you want to take onboard what I've said then feel free. Nobody has to know your thoughts, either way. If not, then good luck to you in whatever you are doing or what you choose in future.
In the condescending tone that you appear to favour:

If you give in, that's fine, I understand.

Oh, and the genius comment was sarcasm. I assume you got that.
Yes, of course I got that. Anyway, like I said, good luck.
Excellent - so you won't answer my counter arguments against your theory (I have an enquiring mind, what's the problem? I am certainly not a know it all, but I can use the knowledge that I do have) and then finish with a "good luck with what you decide to do", which smacks or me of a thinly veiled "Go away now, I'm tired of your questions, there's a good girl".

Good night all.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 16, 2014, 05:37:38 PM
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
Please end your miserable life.
Why do you have to say such mean things?  Would you want people saying that to you or you kid?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 16, 2014, 05:43:47 PM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
Please end your miserable life.
My life is fine. It's fulfilling and I'm happy with it. Why should I end, because someone like you can't handle someone having a different outlook?
How about taking a few days off and reflecting on your own, you seem extremely irate and frustrated.
You should end it because you are awful. I'm not personally frustrated but I want you to fuck off, that's for sure.
Reality check, YOU are awful.  Do you hate yourself?  Don't feel loved or what?  Is your life REALLY that bad that you have to FORCE yourself to read Scepti's threads? 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 16, 2014, 05:54:55 PM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
Please end your miserable life.
My life is fine. It's fulfilling and I'm happy with it. Why should I end, because someone like you can't handle someone having a different outlook?
How about taking a few days off and reflecting on your own, you seem extremely irate and frustrated.
You should end it because you are awful. I'm not personally frustrated but I want you to fuck off, that's for sure.
Reality check, YOU are awful.  Do you hate yourself?  Don't feel loved or what?  Is your life REALLY that bad that you have to FORCE yourself to read Scepti's threads?

To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 05:56:12 PM
Most people here would prefer to stick toothpicks in their eyeballs—it'd be a less painful personal experience I'm sure.
Then why are they STILL here?  They keep coming back for more...like Rotting room.
Because RE people want entertainment. What a better place.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 16, 2014, 06:09:43 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:13:40 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.
Who died and made you god to think you know any better. What make you think you have all the right answers to history? Talk about arrogant.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 16, 2014, 06:27:09 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.

I actually DO things about that. And in my spare time, I like to go onto websites and debate things with people. And educate them.

Now unlike most, the idea of questioning the shape of the Earth isn't a strange thing to me. Indeed, I encourage questioning any bit of information. Skepticism is healthy, and steers us through the fog of lies and fantasies too many people tell.

But, if after being shown empirical evidence, and even the means to disprove said evidence, and someone still chooses to spread disinformation, well...They have shown themselves to be an opponent of truth, and progress. They should be combated at every turn.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on March 16, 2014, 06:37:26 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.
Who died and made you god to think you know any better. What make you think you have all the right answers to history? Talk about arrogant.
It has nothing to do with me.  It's the facts.  Either they are mistaken or they have deliberately suppressed the truth.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:37:40 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.

I actually DO things about that. And in my spare time, I like to go onto websites and debate things with people. And educate them.

Now unlike most, the idea of questioning the shape of the Earth isn't a strange thing to me. Indeed, I encourage questioning any bit of information. Skepticism is healthy, and steers us through the fog of lies and fantasies too many people tell.

But, if after being shown empirical evidence, and even the means to disprove said evidence, and someone still chooses to spread disinformation, well...They have shown themselves to be an opponent of truth, and progress. They should be combated at every turn.
I can tell you are  nonlinear thinker. you love history, arts and abstract thing. I am sure you have no scientific skills.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 06:39:57 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.
Who died and made you god to think you know any better. What make you think you have all the right answers to history? Talk about arrogant.
It has nothing to do with me.  It's the facts.  Either they are mistaken or they have deliberately suppressed the truth.
The kids of today are not stupid. They know about the vikings and the pyramids. If they need to find information they can find it. And you can be sure they will not be here to get an education.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 16, 2014, 06:44:12 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.

I actually DO things about that. And in my spare time, I like to go onto websites and debate things with people. And educate them.

Now unlike most, the idea of questioning the shape of the Earth isn't a strange thing to me. Indeed, I encourage questioning any bit of information. Skepticism is healthy, and steers us through the fog of lies and fantasies too many people tell.

But, if after being shown empirical evidence, and even the means to disprove said evidence, and someone still chooses to spread disinformation, well...They have shown themselves to be an opponent of truth, and progress. They should be combated at every turn.
I can tell you are  nonlinear thinker. you love history, arts and abstract thing. I am sure you have no scientific skills.

Are you asking me am I a scientist? If so, no, I freely admit to not being one.

I am a freelance reporter and parolee herder. Sifting through bullshit is what I do for a living.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:18:27 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.

I actually DO things about that. And in my spare time, I like to go onto websites and debate things with people. And educate them.

Now unlike most, the idea of questioning the shape of the Earth isn't a strange thing to me. Indeed, I encourage questioning any bit of information. Skepticism is healthy, and steers us through the fog of lies and fantasies too many people tell.

But, if after being shown empirical evidence, and even the means to disprove said evidence, and someone still chooses to spread disinformation, well...They have shown themselves to be an opponent of truth, and progress. They should be combated at every turn.
I can tell you are  nonlinear thinker. you love history, arts and abstract thing. I am sure you have no scientific skills.

Are you asking me am I a scientist? If so, no, I freely admit to not being one.

I am a freelance reporter and parolee herder. Sifting through bullshit is what I do for a living.
If you don't have a scientific mind (and it is different) you will never understand what we are talking about. Went specific details are debated you have to know the exact laws of physics to know what you about. Here is the difference.

The guy who has a scientific mind (linear thinker) wants to have a nice house. He talk to his wife, figures out how much money he has and can borrow, look for the ideal affordable area, buy a lot facing in the right direction, takes in account the future expansion, Looks for a ideal plan, find a good contractor, makes all the necessary legalities, arranges to be at the building site for the time of construction, foresees details so there are no mistakes. In the end it all works out to his expectation.

The non scientific mind (nonlinear thinker) guy want a house also. He talks to his buddies first, he talks about his dreams of a nice house, he gets excited about all the nice furniture he saw the week before. He gets books on house interior design, look at it for a month, goes back to the furniture store and finds even better furniture and paintings for the other rooms, eventually talk to his wife about it with excitement, bring her to the furniture store, she gets excited in the kitchen department, they eventually decide to look for a house, building one is too complicated, they drive all over the place shopping for their dream house, they find one in the worst place, they talk to the reality, they visit the house, they are ecstatic about it, they find out it is way too expensive, they don't know what they want anymore, they go to their apartment, order a pizza, and watch a movie and forget about the whole ordeal.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 16, 2014, 07:21:47 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.

I actually DO things about that. And in my spare time, I like to go onto websites and debate things with people. And educate them.

Now unlike most, the idea of questioning the shape of the Earth isn't a strange thing to me. Indeed, I encourage questioning any bit of information. Skepticism is healthy, and steers us through the fog of lies and fantasies too many people tell.

But, if after being shown empirical evidence, and even the means to disprove said evidence, and someone still chooses to spread disinformation, well...They have shown themselves to be an opponent of truth, and progress. They should be combated at every turn.
I can tell you are  nonlinear thinker. you love history, arts and abstract thing. I am sure you have no scientific skills.

Are you asking me am I a scientist? If so, no, I freely admit to not being one.

I am a freelance reporter and parolee herder. Sifting through bullshit is what I do for a living.
If you don't have a scientific mind (and it is different) you will never understand what we are talking about. Went specific details are debated you have to know the exact laws of physics to know what you about. Here is the difference.

The guy who has a scientific mind (linear thinker) wants to have a nice house. He talk to his wife, figures out how much money he has and can borrow, look for the ideal affordable area, buy a lot facing in the right direction, takes in account the future expansion, Looks for a ideal plan, find a good contractor, makes all the necessary legalities, arranges to be at the building site for the time of construction, foresees details so there are no mistakes. In the end it all works out to his expectation.

The non scientific mind (nonlinear thinker) guy want a house also. He talks to his buddies first, he talks about his dreams of a nice house, he gets excited about all the nice furniture he saw the week before. He gets books on house interior design, look at it for a month, goes back to the furniture store and finds even better furniture and paintings for the other rooms, eventually talk to his wife about it with excitement, bring her to the furniture store, she gets excited in the kitchen department, they eventually decide to look for a house, building one is too complicated, they drive all over the place shopping for their dream house, they find one in the worst place, they talk to the reality, they visit the house, they are ecstatic about it, they find out it is way too expensive, they don't know what they want anymore, they go to their apartment, order a pizza, and watch a movie and forget about the whole ordeal.

I see.

And what leads you to conclude that I fall into the later category?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:24:12 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.

I actually DO things about that. And in my spare time, I like to go onto websites and debate things with people. And educate them.

Now unlike most, the idea of questioning the shape of the Earth isn't a strange thing to me. Indeed, I encourage questioning any bit of information. Skepticism is healthy, and steers us through the fog of lies and fantasies too many people tell.

But, if after being shown empirical evidence, and even the means to disprove said evidence, and someone still chooses to spread disinformation, well...They have shown themselves to be an opponent of truth, and progress. They should be combated at every turn.
I can tell you are  nonlinear thinker. you love history, arts and abstract thing. I am sure you have no scientific skills.

Are you asking me am I a scientist? If so, no, I freely admit to not being one.

I am a freelance reporter and parolee herder. Sifting through bullshit is what I do for a living.
If you don't have a scientific mind (and it is different) you will never understand what we are talking about. Went specific details are debated you have to know the exact laws of physics to know what you about. Here is the difference.

The guy who has a scientific mind (linear thinker) wants to have a nice house. He talk to his wife, figures out how much money he has and can borrow, look for the ideal affordable area, buy a lot facing in the right direction, takes in account the future expansion, Looks for a ideal plan, find a good contractor, makes all the necessary legalities, arranges to be at the building site for the time of construction, foresees details so there are no mistakes. In the end it all works out to his expectation.

The non scientific mind (nonlinear thinker) guy want a house also. He talks to his buddies first, he talks about his dreams of a nice house, he gets excited about all the nice furniture he saw the week before. He gets books on house interior design, look at it for a month, goes back to the furniture store and finds even better furniture and paintings for the other rooms, eventually talk to his wife about it with excitement, bring her to the furniture store, she gets excited in the kitchen department, they eventually decide to look for a house, building one is too complicated, they drive all over the place shopping for their dream house, they find one in the worst place, they talk to the reality, they visit the house, they are ecstatic about it, they find out it is way too expensive, they don't know what they want anymore, they go to their apartment, order a pizza, and watch a movie and forget about the whole ordeal.

I see.

And what leads you to conclude that I fall into the later category?
It is by all the way you write and the ideas you express. Not to mention your avatar.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:26:10 PM
it is not good or bad. It is just different.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 16, 2014, 07:43:13 PM
To be fair, people who spread disinformation should be combated at every turn.

I mean, people have the ability to affect their world. Through elections, school boards, etc.

The loss of progress if we were to let people like Scepti slide is nightmarish to contemplate.
Disinformation is being spread in public schools.  Pyramids were not tombs, gravity is not a pull, Columbus was not the first to discover America and numerous other facts that I do not feel like discussing in detail.  If that is what you are so concerned about, then do something about THAT.  But you won't because you are ignorant, like many others.

I actually DO things about that. And in my spare time, I like to go onto websites and debate things with people. And educate them.

Now unlike most, the idea of questioning the shape of the Earth isn't a strange thing to me. Indeed, I encourage questioning any bit of information. Skepticism is healthy, and steers us through the fog of lies and fantasies too many people tell.

But, if after being shown empirical evidence, and even the means to disprove said evidence, and someone still chooses to spread disinformation, well...They have shown themselves to be an opponent of truth, and progress. They should be combated at every turn.
I can tell you are  nonlinear thinker. you love history, arts and abstract thing. I am sure you have no scientific skills.

Are you asking me am I a scientist? If so, no, I freely admit to not being one.

I am a freelance reporter and parolee herder. Sifting through bullshit is what I do for a living.
If you don't have a scientific mind (and it is different) you will never understand what we are talking about. Went specific details are debated you have to know the exact laws of physics to know what you about. Here is the difference.

The guy who has a scientific mind (linear thinker) wants to have a nice house. He talk to his wife, figures out how much money he has and can borrow, look for the ideal affordable area, buy a lot facing in the right direction, takes in account the future expansion, Looks for a ideal plan, find a good contractor, makes all the necessary legalities, arranges to be at the building site for the time of construction, foresees details so there are no mistakes. In the end it all works out to his expectation.

The non scientific mind (nonlinear thinker) guy want a house also. He talks to his buddies first, he talks about his dreams of a nice house, he gets excited about all the nice furniture he saw the week before. He gets books on house interior design, look at it for a month, goes back to the furniture store and finds even better furniture and paintings for the other rooms, eventually talk to his wife about it with excitement, bring her to the furniture store, she gets excited in the kitchen department, they eventually decide to look for a house, building one is too complicated, they drive all over the place shopping for their dream house, they find one in the worst place, they talk to the reality, they visit the house, they are ecstatic about it, they find out it is way too expensive, they don't know what they want anymore, they go to their apartment, order a pizza, and watch a movie and forget about the whole ordeal.

I see.

And what leads you to conclude that I fall into the later category?
It is by all the way you write and the ideas you express. Not to mention your avatar.

I am afraid that does not answer my question. At least not in enough detail that would satisfy me.

Remember, I have less than fifteen posts on this website, I feel there isn't a lot of material for you to infer my thinking style as of yet.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 07:53:02 PM
I sense you like to debate and talk a lot but you seem to answer other people questions more than you ask you own. I is hard to explain. I just know. Were you good at math and science in school?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 16, 2014, 08:00:54 PM
I sense you like to debate and talk a lot but you seem to answer other people questions more than you ask you own. I is hard to explain. I just know. Were you good at math and science in school?

Well, I am not interested in asking more difficult questions at the moment. I have pneumonia at the moment, and I do not have the energy for anything more in depth right now. I have begun penning a thread though so you might get that in a day or two.

And to answer your question, I was a low-A, high-B student in my College science courses.

As for my math courses...well, I eventually graduated, so I wasn't a complete failure at mathematics!

 :P
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 16, 2014, 08:04:07 PM
I sense you like to debate and talk a lot but you seem to answer other people questions more than you ask you own. I is hard to explain. I just know. Were you good at math and science in school?

Well, I am not interested in asking more difficult questions at the moment. I have pneumonia at the moment, and I do not have the energy for anything more in depth right now. I have begun penning a thread though so you might get that in a day or two.

And to answer your question, I was a low-A, high-B student in my College science courses.

As for my math courses...well, I eventually graduated, so I wasn't a complete failure at mathematics!

 :P
I have a cold also. Glad you went to college. I did also in electronics and communications. I worked at a air traffic control center for 25 years. Talk later..
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 17, 2014, 07:50:32 AM
I sense you like to debate and talk a lot but you seem to answer other people questions more than you ask you own. I is hard to explain. I just know. Were you good at math and science in school?

Well, I am not interested in asking more difficult questions at the moment. I have pneumonia at the moment, and I do not have the energy for anything more in depth right now. I have begun penning a thread though so you might get that in a day or two.

And to answer your question, I was a low-A, high-B student in my College science courses.

As for my math courses...well, I eventually graduated, so I wasn't a complete failure at mathematics!

 :P
I have a cold also. Glad you went to college. I did also in electronics and communications. I worked at a air traffic control center for 25 years. Talk later..

Okay...
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: rottingroom on March 17, 2014, 09:10:37 AM
Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about. They expand and contract according to friction. They are all connected at all times. There is no free space between them at any time.
How could you possibly know this?  You haven't seen them, have you?
Because I'm a genius. I know what I'm talking about.
Please end your miserable life.
My life is fine. It's fulfilling and I'm happy with it. Why should I end, because someone like you can't handle someone having a different outlook?
How about taking a few days off and reflecting on your own, you seem extremely irate and frustrated.
You should end it because you are awful. I'm not personally frustrated but I want you to fuck off, that's for sure.
Reality check, YOU are awful.  Do you hate yourself?  Don't feel loved or what?  Is your life REALLY that bad that you have to FORCE yourself to read Scepti's threads?

You're just as stupid. Except that you're scepti's lap dog. Pathetic.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 17, 2014, 09:13:46 AM
I sense you like to debate and talk a lot but you seem to answer other people questions more than you ask you own. I is hard to explain. I just know. Were you good at math and science in school?

Well, I am not interested in asking more difficult questions at the moment. I have pneumonia at the moment, and I do not have the energy for anything more in depth right now. I have begun penning a thread though so you might get that in a day or two.

And to answer your question, I was a low-A, high-B student in my College science courses.

As for my math courses...well, I eventually graduated, so I wasn't a complete failure at mathematics!

 :P
I have a cold also. Glad you went to college. I did also in electronics and communications. I worked at a air traffic control center for 25 years. Talk later..

Okay...
Open your mind with no judgement and listen to how the earth was formed.
(http://)
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Wygyfop on March 17, 2014, 09:17:07 AM
Back to scepti's 'theory' could you please provide a diagram of a ball being thrown and landing on the ground below where it started with some vectors drawn on. For arguments sake say it was propelled at 10 m/s and at 45 degrees to horizontal with a weight of 1kg. If you would like more details just ask.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Socratic Amusement on March 17, 2014, 09:27:57 AM
I sense you like to debate and talk a lot but you seem to answer other people questions more than you ask you own. I is hard to explain. I just know. Were you good at math and science in school?

Well, I am not interested in asking more difficult questions at the moment. I have pneumonia at the moment, and I do not have the energy for anything more in depth right now. I have begun penning a thread though so you might get that in a day or two.

And to answer your question, I was a low-A, high-B student in my College science courses.

As for my math courses...well, I eventually graduated, so I wasn't a complete failure at mathematics!

 :P
I have a cold also. Glad you went to college. I did also in electronics and communications. I worked at a air traffic control center for 25 years. Talk later..

Okay...
Open your mind with no judgement and listen to how the earth was formed.
(http://)

Um...I know the Earth is a sphere.

I have been arguing for that on this website. Why are you showing me something I agree with?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 02:56:28 AM
Back to scepti's 'theory' could you please provide a diagram of a ball being thrown and landing on the ground below where it started with some vectors drawn on. For arguments sake say it was propelled at 10 m/s and at 45 degrees to horizontal with a weight of 1kg. If you would like more details just ask.
Let me just explain to you the simplicity and logic of it all, as a basic.
Get the concept of gravity out of your mind and THINK!

Nothing has any weight measurement unless it becomes part of atmospheric pressure. Mass weighs nothing until it's weight (to our perceived thoughts) is measured. There is no such thing as weight of mass until it's measured by our interpretation of weight by the invention of numbers on a scale. Mass only becomes a measurement of weight by the atmospheric pressure sourrounding it. No atmpshere, no weight reading. Little atmosphere, little weight reading.
People can't or won't grasp it because it's too simple and science isn't meant to be simple, because to be simple would mean that all people become "simplistic" scientists very quickly. It's the reason why it's crammed so full of bull crap with equations to match.

The sole cause of anything you pick up, being what you regard as heavy, is not the mass you are picking up but the atmospheric pressure pushing on it and the pushing back of the mass itself.
Does the ground you walk on weigh anything? Can you physically weigh the ground you walk on? The answer is NO, you can't, unless you make it part of the atmosphere you walk on and place it on a measuring plate (scale).
Take a chunk out of the ground and place it on the scales and you can get a measurement of it's weight by the pressure placed upon it and the pressure created by the mass against it..
You won't allow it to make sense because you're always looking for the complicated answer, as in, gravity and you know fine well that gravity can't be rationally explained as to what it is, yet there's the real reason blowing in your face and you just can't accept it because it just doesn't seem possible.
The reason you think this, is because you do not appreciate the actual force of pressure you live under, because your body is built to survive in it and everything in your body works because of it and yet, you are accustomed and comfortable to it.

You take a large proportion of that pressure away and you're dead. Add a larger proportion and you're dead. Mess around with it a little bit in artificially created environments and your body will break down slowly.
If people would simply take their time and listen to me, they would see that what I'm saying is correct.

You can ask my ANYTHING you want to about the effects as long as you don't mention the fiction of space and space travel. Stick to reality because that's where too many people are going wrong and as soon as they actually realise the simplicity of what they are living under, they will start to realise that the clap trap that gets fed to them on a daily basis about particles in space, gravity  or big bang theory and the latest find of seeing the energy from it just a fraction of  second after it started. It boggles my mind as to how supposed intelligent people hang onto this stuff, it really does.

 Theoretical scientists are terrified to even dare to simplfy anything, because it would destroy their standing as apparent scientific gods of worship by those who live for the complicated - unsolvable, but theoretically possible (in their minds) equations for stupid things like gravity or black holes or warped space time and Higgs boson, etc, etc, etc.

If you want the truth then start at the bottom. The basics! It's not a step back into pre-historic times, it's actually stepping back into what the real pre-historic times were, instead of what has been spoon fed to us all in large doses.

This is how the scientific world works:

Average Joe: Did you know that atmospheric pressure is the cause of everything that we see and perceive on Earth. It's repsonsible for every movement you make and is responsible for all that you see.
Mainstream scientist: So what is it?
Average Joe: It's molecules all pushing together with no space in between that are attached to everything in different masses/densities of which energy and frequency play the part of how different things work on small or larger scale. You can feel it's power by trying to rob it by evacuating some of it and feeling the power of the pressure pushing back.


Mainstrean scientist: Gravity is why you walk on this Earth.
Average Joe: So what is this gravity?
Mainstream scientist: We don't know but we know it's there. I mean, you're stuck to the ground aren't... you and the moon is not falling, is it?

So rather than people use their own logic and look at logic, they get sucked in by scientific nonsense because it comes with pathetic equations to supposedly back it up, when what is getting backed up, is fictional.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 18, 2014, 04:09:53 AM
Let me just explain to you the simplicity and logic of it all, as a basic.
Get the concept of gravity out of your mind and THINK!
Simply reading this first sentence confirms that it's hardly worth my time reading any more of your pseudo-scientific drivel sceptimatic.  Whether you accept the theory of gravity or not is your prerogative, but you need to understand that 99.999999999% of the population and 100% of the scientific community accepts it as a given.  To start off by suggesting that we should forget gravitational theory altogether is not a good way to begin your argument.

Quote
Nothing has any weight measurement unless it becomes part of atmospheric pressure. Mass weighs nothing until it's weight (to our perceived thoughts) is measured. There is no such thing as weight of mass until it's measured by our interpretation of weight by the invention of numbers on a scale.
This makes absolutely no sense from any scientific standpoint.  All matter possesses mass regardless the passage of time.  Weight is the effect of a force acting upon a mass; in this case gravity is that force which gives the mass its weight.  And mass = energy.

Quote
Mass only becomes a measurement of weight by the atmospheric pressure surrounding it. No atmosphere, no weight reading. Little atmosphere, little weight reading.
Total distortion of science.  Atmospheric pressure—or a lack thereof—has nothing to do with the mass of an object.

Quote
People can't or won't grasp it because it's too simple and science isn't meant to be simple, because to be simple would mean that all people become "simplistic" scientists very quickly. It's the reason why it's crammed so full of bull crap with equations to match.
These assertions are pure Monty Python!  You claim that science is full of bullshit after just claiming that gravity doesn't exist?  Pull the other one mate: it plays the Star Spangled Banner LOL.

Quote
The sole cause of anything you pick up, being what you regard as heavy, is not the mass you are picking up but the atmospheric pressure pushing on it and the pushing back of the mass itself.
And once again, a total distortion of scientific principles.  In fact this lot is barely English LOL.

Quote
Does the ground you walk on weigh anything? Can you physically weigh the ground you walk on? The answer is NO, you can't, unless you make it part of the atmosphere you walk on and place it on a measuring plate (scale).
And yet again, a total distortion of scientific principles.  In fact this lot too is barely English.

Quote
Take a chunk out of the ground and place it on the scales and you can get a measurement of it's weight by the pressure placed upon it and the pressure created by the mass against it..
You won't allow it to make sense because you're always looking for the complicated answer, as in, gravity and you know fine well that gravity can't be rationally explained as to what it is, yet there's the real reason blowing in your face and you just can't accept it because it just doesn't seem possible.
The reason you think this, is because you do not appreciate the actual force of pressure you live under, because your body is built to survive in it and everything in your body works because of it and yet, you are accustomed and comfortable to it.
This lot's easy.  It's all bullshit!

Quote
You take a large proportion of that pressure away and you're dead. Add a larger proportion and you're dead. Mess around with it a little bit in artificially created environments and your body will break down slowly.
If people would simply take their time and listen to me, they would see that what I'm saying is correct.
People would have to be borderline narcoleptics to even contemplate trying to figure out what you're saying here.

Quote
You can ask my ANYTHING you want to about the effects as long as you don't mention the fiction of space and space travel.
Uh... okay.  That immediately gets rid of 99.9% of the questions I was going to ask you LOL.

Quote
Stick to reality because that's where too many people are going wrong and as soon as they actually realise the simplicity of what they are living under, they will start to realise that the clap trap that gets fed to them on a daily basis about particles in space, gravity  or big bang theory and the latest find of seeing the energy from it just a fraction of  second after it started. It boggles my mind as to how supposed intelligent people hang onto this stuff, it really does.
Your mind is easily boggled then is it not?  For someone such as yourself that possesses virtually no working knowledge of any of the sciences to be accusing others of scientific ignorance has to be the award-winning joke of the year.

Quote
Theoretical scientists are terrified to even dare to simplify anything, because it would destroy their standing as apparent scientific gods of worship by those who live for the complicated - unsolvable, but theoretically possible (in their minds) equations for stupid things like gravity or black holes or warped space time and Higgs boson, etc, etc, etc.
Keep going my friend.  That hole is getting deeper by the minute.  I have to laugh—again—at how a scientific ignoramus such as yourself reckons that scientists regard themselves as gods who like to over-complicate stuff just to retain their pedestals in the public's eyes.

Quote
If you want the truth then start at the bottom. The basics! It's not a step back into pre-historic times, it's actually stepping back into what the real pre-historic times were, instead of what has been spoon fed to us all in large doses.
And remind me again... how was it exactly that you managed to avoid being spoon-fed all this alleged bullshit?  It certainly wasn't your brain power.  Your good looks maybe?


Quote
This is how the scientific world works:

Average Joe: Did you know that atmospheric pressure is the cause of everything that we see and perceive on Earth. It's responsible for every movement you make and is responsible for all that you see.
Mainstream scientist: So what is it?
Average Joe: It's molecules all pushing together with no space in between that are attached to everything in different masses/densities of which energy and frequency play the part of how different things work on small or larger scale. You can feel it's power by trying to rob it by evacuating some of it and feeling the power of the pressure pushing back.


Mainstrean scientist: Gravity is why you walk on this Earth.
Average Joe: So what is this gravity?
Mainstream scientist: We don't know but we know it's there. I mean, you're stuck to the ground aren't... you and the moon is not falling, is it?
I'm now waiting with bated breath for you to wheel out your "denpressure" theory.  Remember that?  It combined two dissimilar entities—pressure being one, and density being the other—into a single entity for which you have yet to describe its units of measurement, and whether it's a scalar or a vector quantity.  I'm intrigued as to how you're going to "combine" force per unit area with mass per unit volume, as no scientist has done this before.

Quote
So rather than people use their own logic and look at logic, they get sucked in by scientific nonsense because it comes with pathetic equations to supposedly back it up, when what is getting backed up, is fictional.
So you're suggesting that we all use the sort of logic you use on this forum are you?  Well, I for one will probably give that a pass for the moment.  I don't fancy my future chances with a frontal lobotomy.  But thanks for the thought anyway.
 

Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 04:33:27 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 18, 2014, 04:35:47 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
I ask a few question about the feather and the ball test in a vacuum chamber and you did not answer my question on what is your definition of vacuum.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 04:38:29 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
I ask a few question about the feather and the ball test in a vacuum chamber and you did not answer my question on what is your definition of vacuum.
My definition of a vacuum is the none existence of matter. That would be a true vacuum! What you're dealing with is evacuated atmospheric pressure from a chamber.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 18, 2014, 04:41:11 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
I ask a few question about the feather and the ball test in a vacuum chamber and you did not answer my question on what is your definition of vacuum.
My definition of a vacuum is the none existence of matter. That would be a true vacuum! What you're dealing with is evacuated atmospheric pressure from a chamber.
In the chamber there are a few atoms is air. Also that is a metal ball made up of matter that has billions and billion of atoms. How can few atoms on air push the metal ball down?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 04:52:54 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
I ask a few question about the feather and the ball test in a vacuum chamber and you did not answer my question on what is your definition of vacuum.
My definition of a vacuum is the none existence of matter. That would be a true vacuum! What you're dealing with is evacuated atmospheric pressure from a chamber.
In the chamber there are a few atoms is air. Also that is a metal ball made up of matter that has billions and billion of atoms. How can few atoms on air push the metal ball down?
Because the molecules under that ball are equally weakened, so by force of nature, the molecules above still compress thse below as those below try to compress back, as in a push on push. Add in the metal ball and that area becomes a part of that push on push as it's displaced the molecules that were in it's place.
Same thing all the time, it's just a case of high or low pressure acting in the same manner.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 18, 2014, 04:58:21 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
I ask a few question about the feather and the ball test in a vacuum chamber and you did not answer my question on what is your definition of vacuum.
My definition of a vacuum is the none existence of matter. That would be a true vacuum! What you're dealing with is evacuated atmospheric pressure from a chamber.
In the chamber there are a few atoms is air. Also that is a metal ball made up of matter that has billions and billion of atoms. How can few atoms on air push the metal ball down?
Because the molecules under that ball are equally weakened, so by force of nature, the molecules above still compress thse below as those below try to compress back, as in a push on push. Add in the metal ball and that area becomes a part of that push on push as it's displaced the molecules at were in it's place.
Same thing all the time, it's just a case of high or low pressure acting in the same manner.
So just a few atoms of air is on top of the ball pushing down on it. Then a few atoms at the bottom pushing up on it pushing up. There must be more atoms on top than the bottom to make the ball fall down. Right!!
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 05:01:16 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
I ask a few question about the feather and the ball test in a vacuum chamber and you did not answer my question on what is your definition of vacuum.
My definition of a vacuum is the none existence of matter. That would be a true vacuum! What you're dealing with is evacuated atmospheric pressure from a chamber.
In the chamber there are a few atoms is air. Also that is a metal ball made up of matter that has billions and billion of atoms. How can few atoms on air push the metal ball down?
Because the molecules under that ball are equally weakened, so by force of nature, the molecules above still compress thse below as those below try to compress back, as in a push on push. Add in the metal ball and that area becomes a part of that push on push as it's displaced the molecules at were in it's place.
Same thing all the time, it's just a case of high or low pressure acting in the same manner.
So just a few atoms of air is on top of the ball pushing down on it. Then a few atoms at the bottom pushing up on it pushing up. There must be more atoms on top than the bottom to make the ball fall down. Right!!
Absolutely correct.
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 18, 2014, 05:02:56 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

I'd have answered to your post but there's nothing to answer to.
I ask a few question about the feather and the ball test in a vacuum chamber and you did not answer my question on what is your definition of vacuum.
My definition of a vacuum is the none existence of matter. That would be a true vacuum! What you're dealing with is evacuated atmospheric pressure from a chamber.
In the chamber there are a few atoms is air. Also that is a metal ball made up of matter that has billions and billion of atoms. How can few atoms on air push the metal ball down?
Because the molecules under that ball are equally weakened, so by force of nature, the molecules above still compress thse below as those below try to compress back, as in a push on push. Add in the metal ball and that area becomes a part of that push on push as it's displaced the molecules at were in it's place.
Same thing all the time, it's just a case of high or low pressure acting in the same manner.
So just a few atoms of air is on top of the ball pushing down on it. Then a few atoms at the bottom pushing up on it pushing up. There must be more atoms on top than the bottom to make the ball fall down. Right!!
Absolutely correct.
Glad we agree on that one. It look simple to me. Why are there more atoms on top that at the bottom?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: ausGeoff on March 18, 2014, 05:09:35 AM
Geoff: You can decide to do whatever you want with the information I gave out. It's for those who are WILLING to challenge the scientific brainwashing of gravity and for those who can attempt to see what is actual reality against the fantasy scientific methods and theories battered into their minds.

Fair enough.  You believe science is all smoke and mirrors, whereas I believe that it's the only way to go.  It characterises our present, and will also determine and define our future.  To ignore the sciences is to narrow the perspectives of our own lives.  And at least—even if you refute its existence—the force of gravity you so despise stops you from spinning away into deep space to be lost forever.

But can you at least answer this part of my post:  I'm now waiting with bated breath for you to wheel out your "denpressure" theory.  Remember that?  It combined two dissimilar entities—pressure being one, and density being the other—into a single entity for which you have yet to describe its units of measurement, and whether it's a scalar or a vector quantity.  I'm intrigued as to how you're going to "combine" force per unit area with mass per unit volume, as no scientist has done this before.

As I recall, you claimed that denpressure was what determined the actions of mass, force, and acceleration?
 
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 05:10:36 AM
Glad we agree on that one. It look simple to me. Why are there more atoms on top that at the bottom?
Your question should be, why are there more atoms/molecules ACTIVELY acting on the top than the bottom. You see, this is where it can be twisted so I better clarify it before someone does.

Equal and opposite is always the case, action/reaction, right?
That does not mean they work in unison, as it's always action then reaction. If you don;t get this, I'll explain.

Anyway, there are more atoms/molecules above that are actively pushing, as in what we know as air/gas/fluid but it's equally  resisted by the solid in which that mass sits on, as in the iron ball.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Title: Re: Questions regarding the Sceptimatic "Air pressure" Theory
Post by: Starman on March 18, 2014, 05:13:48 AM