Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sceptimatic

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 878
1
If you reject that force, you end up with this:

Where there is no pressure gradient.

This is a better set up. If you just use F without any minus then this is the deal.

No need for any W or G. It's just nonsense.

As you can see below I've used colour for clarity of the atmospheric stacking system. The stacked layers.
As you can also see, each layer rests on the next and each layer uses the below layer as its foundation.

You can see this as a push and resistance to push in below and above aspect.
The bottom layer is under immense pressure from all the above layers that are stacked upon it.
The next layer above that is also under immense pressure but not quite the same as the below.
And so on and so on and so on, all the way up.


Basically you end up with this type of scenario, below, when imagined in a more closer molecular stacking system.





I'm absolutely sure you'll reject it and also claim I don't explain anything.


This isn't directly for you, it's just conveying the message through you. It's for those who actually want to try and understand.




2


I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.

But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?

You seem to be struggling.

How and why doesnt matter for this particular part except that it does.

At this particular point of time, we re discussing  weight and why poka dot bags of rocks arent more popular.

Although we do seem to be transitioning to velocity...


Either way
If you want to discuss how and why things fall
We can start by defining atmospheric pressurre.
What is it?
Is it different from air pressure?
What about static and dynamic?
Atmospheric pressure is never static.
It's always dynamic.


3



No  we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.

Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.

Now you disagree?

Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.

You really are stupid.

A car hits 100km/h constant velocity.
Air drag slows the car down unless the driver maintains the added gas force needed to cancel out drag and maintain 100.

There
Constant V is achieved while satisfying your criteria and maintaining my original statement.

Be less stupid.
I don't think you've been paying attention.

I'll make it bigger.

You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact  constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.

In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.


In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.

The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.

It's as simple as that, really.


4


No details then?  After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, wonít you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.

The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.

Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.

I only asked about the experiments you said you did and thought it funny that suddenly you resort to one word answers. 

I donít really care that you are obviously wrong about all this, Iím just curious why you believe it?

So you didnít do any experiments then?

PS I have nothing more to do with the other people here than I do with you.  Thereís no ďyou peopleĒ.
Why are you curious?

5
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: Today at 12:58:30 AM »


Again, the only way for you to pretend there was a problem seeing the ground if by pretending you can't see anything below the level of the tube. But you have admitted that is not the case and you CAN see things below the tube.
Nope.
You're twisting it once again.

You're trying to use a scope or naked eye as your FOV to see ground on a slope.
I'm using a tube at 6 feet, plumb and level for sight.


You can change it up like the rest as much as you want but you won't gain any traction.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: Today at 12:55:53 AM »


Bored provided diagrams which you amazingly misunderstood, contradicted yourself and still have yet to provide your own.

And with jjas unleveled single tube photo showed that there is still a fov allowing you to see the ground at some far enough away distance.
Jackb followed up with the appropriate distance.

And you pathetically added a 2nd tube and a vertical plumb line.

We yet to see any effort from your side to educate us and explain what is going on.
Educate us.
Feel free.
Anytime now.
Pushing 150pg soon.
Educate you on what?

You don't want anything from me.
You have all you need from the curriculum you bought into, to present day of acceptance of anything officially put out by what you deem as, authority.

How can I educate you?


Maybe try and question what you were indoctrinated with and you might......I say "might" start to think outside of that box and maybe......I say "maybe" you could start seeing reasoning behind the stuff you massively reject with gusto, now.

You came here to tell us we re wrong.
We provided our standpoint.
You provided a glimps of yours - and nothing further.

If you continue to dodge and not partucipate i will conitnue to make fun of you.
Because we are no longer discussing ideas.
Its just you say "nuh uh" over and over.
If youre right, take it beyond "curshing friction fluted dark on light" and provide something of susbstance.
No, I didn't come here to tell you you were wrong.


So what are you talking about?

7
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: Today at 12:54:49 AM »
Skirting semanitcs and not actually addressing the question.

Still deflecting and avoiding.





Is


Your


Eyeball



A

Pinhole camera?
No. It's an eye ball.

Then you are incorrect.
Being an eye doctor does not require acceptance the earth is flat.
The eyeball behaves just like a pinhole camera and fully explains far = small close = big.
You asked if the eye ball was a pin hole camera.

It's an eye ball.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 10:27:29 AM »


I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.

But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?

You seem to be struggling.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 10:26:10 AM »



No  we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.

Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.

Now you disagree?

Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 10:23:35 AM »


Bored provided diagrams which you amazingly misunderstood, contradicted yourself and still have yet to provide your own.

And with jjas unleveled single tube photo showed that there is still a fov allowing you to see the ground at some far enough away distance.
Jackb followed up with the appropriate distance.

And you pathetically added a 2nd tube and a vertical plumb line.

We yet to see any effort from your side to educate us and explain what is going on.
Educate us.
Feel free.
Anytime now.
Pushing 150pg soon.
Educate you on what?

You don't want anything from me.
You have all you need from the curriculum you bought into, to present day of acceptance of anything officially put out by what you deem as, authority.

How can I educate you?


Maybe try and question what you were indoctrinated with and you might......I say "might" start to think outside of that box and maybe......I say "maybe" you could start seeing reasoning behind the stuff you massively reject with gusto, now.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 10:19:17 AM »
Skirting semanitcs and not actually addressing the question.

Still deflecting and avoiding.





Is


Your


Eyeball



A

Pinhole camera?
No. It's an eye ball.


12
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:45:32 AM »


Ok
Weve agreed.
See how communication works?
Where we use words with commonly understood definitoons and then repeat back qhat the other was saying in our own words to convey common understanding.
So now you know that constant velocity is not a thing.
There is no need to use it in any scientific way.
It is fine if it's used in a fictional fantasy of something but it has no place in reality.

You know this and so does many.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:43:27 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Extra accelleration.

The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.

Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.

By means of up and down.
You ever seen a rollercoaster?
Youre making yourself out to be real ignorant.
So you can't tell me why it accelerates going down?
If you can't then just say you can't.


14
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:39:44 AM »


Its been explained
With a diagram

Keep deflecting.



Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope


Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
I seriously don't understand what you're trying to say against what I'm saying.

Explain it like I'm a dummy, or whatever you think.

I said your eye is a pinhole.


You responded with "fluted compression over distance."
 Showing you neither read the words nor looked at the image but instead merely happy to repeat your meaningless word salad.

Then youresponded "is there a scope?"
  Showing once again zero comprehension of the words and picture provided.



So
Very simply

You are an idiot.
No I didn't.
I said you people are making out it's fluted  over distance.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:38:48 AM »
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.

With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.

which contradicts this :-

If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Of course they contradict.

I'm trying to tell you what you would see on your globe against what you are seeing on real Earth that you think is a globe, which is why you're mixed up to all hell..


Correct
Two separate points

1.  people can see a FIELD OF VIEW hence jjas tu-tube photo showing you wrong.


2.  Eye level has been explained to you and you have yet to diagram how in denP two people at different heights wil obtain an eyelevel of rhe horizon.
I have no issue with FOV. I never have.
It was twisted to say I did.
Go back and see it all and put up the quotes and reference where they came from and let's see.

I said you have FOV by naked eye.
I said your FOV is in tunnel vision through a tube.

The argument skewed into nonsense from this point with you all throwing in all kinds of stuff and having a good old back patting giggle while I sat back and just smirked at your silliness.


Now you're trying to be serious and you don't know what you're trying to be serious about.

Put better effort in.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:33:25 AM »
Youve been asked many times


Define atmospheric pressure and how/if it differs from regular air pressure
Atmospheric pressure is a range of pressures from the ground up. From sea level, up.
It's a change and breakdown of molecular matter within that atmosphere.

Go back to the gobstopper analogy in terms of using one for sea level to dome atmosphere.

Take out so many layers from that one molecule holding more molecules compressed within.
Stack them by having below layers peel away from a molecules to sit above which will have molecules with a layer less as they stack, not to mention the fill in of layers not quite compressing back into a molecules but instead adhering to it, just like a sink full of washing up bubbles, as another simple analogy.

No free space. No gaps between.

Have a good think on it.
I'm sure you'll use washing up bubbles as molecules and pretend you don't grasp it, which will set you right back once again.

I'm too familiar with how you work.


17
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:25:38 AM »

Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration

This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.

Theoritcally - yes.
Practically - no.
No system is perfect and there are always resistive forces to overcome.
It doesnot prove anything against existence of accelleration.
So whats your point?
If you have any resistant force you cannot have constant velocity without force.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:24:12 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Extra accelleration.

The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.

Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:23:08 AM »

I mopped the floor with you last time you claimed that. Letís not do it again.
Next time dip it in the bucket and use a detergent. Don't do a dry run and expect to clean up.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:20:32 AM »
By observation and simple experiments.
You mean like observing things fall, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, clearly showing it isn't the air making them fall?
Clearly showing your model is pure garbage?
Clearly you don't think like me.
Clearly you don't believe in logic.
Clearly you believe atmosphere can simply envelope a ball and just stay there with no encasement, at all.

That's what magical fantasy suggests, which is what you go with and you're welcome to it.
Mine fits, yours does not.



Quote from: JackBlack

Mass obviously exists.
The fact that objects fall also shows that weight obviously exists, without any need for any scale.
Things falling has nothing whatsoever to do with weight and everything to do with mass.


Quote from: JackBlack


You don't seem to be good at understanding extremely simple concepts.
Again, if it is just the atmosphere, you don't get a pressure gradient.
I've already explained the pressure gradient by stacking.
Each stacked layer is less compact than the one below.
Alllllllllllll the way up.


Quote from: JackBlack

If it is just the atmosphere, then the top layer pushes the middle layer down with a force of F,
This middle layer then tries to move down but is stopped by the layer below, it transfers this force and applies a force of F to the bottom layer.
There is no pressure gradient as there is no extra force acting on the middle layer.
Each singular stacked layer pushes and resists the one above.
Each layer of molecules are more condensed than the layer above those layers.
This means more compression at sea level and less compression at the top with ever lessening compression all the way up to that top.


Quote from: JackBlack

Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout.
 There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.
A sideways force is can be the effects of an object placed into the atmosphere to compress it at that area which can create a ripple/wave/crash effect.
The sea will give you massive clues to this.
There is no constant pressure, anywhere. It's forever changing because the central energy never stops moving which always creates different strengths of force.



Quote from: JackBlack

Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
Keep thinking on these lines.


Quote from: JackBlack

That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.
I certainly can and I do and I will continue to do so.
It fits perfectly. You just don't have the thought process to understand why.

Quote from: JackBlack

And a pressure gradient in my case is the stacking system, so there is a pressure gradient.
I know there is a pressure gradient. That is the problem for your BS. You can't explain the pressure gradient.
I just have but I'm more than sure you'll dismiss it, which is fine and always expected.



21
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:00:16 AM »


No details then?  After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, wonít you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.

The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.

Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 03:20:28 AM »
Green bag of rocks weigh less than blue bags of rocks due to absorption of photons.
Good for you.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 03:19:14 AM »
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.

With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.

which contradicts this :-

If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Of course they contradict.

I'm trying to tell you what you would see on your globe against what you are seeing on real Earth that you think is a globe, which is why you're mixed up to all hell..


24
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 03:17:01 AM »


Its been explained
With a diagram

Keep deflecting.



Or
Time to explain why you think my words mean an introducing of an external scope


Time to say back, in your words, what your understanding of my words means
I seriously don't understand what you're trying to say against what I'm saying.

Explain it like I'm a dummy, or whatever you think.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 02:57:21 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 02:55:54 AM »
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.

This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say.  What makes you think thatís actually how things work?
By observation and simple experiments.

Oh really. What experiments have you done?
Many.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 02:54:46 AM »
Here with the tube 6ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 6ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the top of the tree 24 ft above the red line


And here with the tube 24ft high, the centre of the tube (the red line) would be 24ft high on the tree :-
We can also see the bottom of the tree 24 ft below the red line

The ground is still visible as we can still see the base of the tree.

Note: As the tree is only 400ft away we only need to raise the tube by 0.046 inch 11 ft to match the 8 inches per mile squared downslope of the globe of sceppys strawman of the globe.


When I actually look through the tube in real life the horizon appears much closer to the centre of the tube, like this picture (that has the tube much higher) :-


According to you it should actually be right in the middle.


If you're honest and want to know the reality then get your basic stuff, which costs nothing.
A kitchen roll tube or a hoover pipe or whatever, similar.
Place a strand of cotton thread over one end, half way.
If you have a tripod or something to rest the roll holder on so you can horizontally level it and also horizontally level your cotton line.
Now look out to sea and see your horizon line meet your cotton line.
Note: Nowhere in this statement do you specify that the tube must be exactly 6ft from sea level (looking over the sea).

Unless of course you wish to 'change your mind' about one of these claims.

So which is it? Is the ground visible in the middle of the tube? Or can you tell us at what tube height the ground magically disappears from view (you have agreed the ground can be seen when the tube is 6ft high)
Deal with a tube 6 feet high and looking level over the sea.
Or deal with the level tube at 6 feet looking over a downward gradient like JJA supposedly did.


With the sea your horizon would be gone and sky would be your view.

In JJA's downward gradient and 6 feet level tube, you would not see the downward slope.
The very reason why JJA will not do the revised set up.


You've tried all kinds of ways to not be bothered and been bothered but still change stance.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: April 16, 2021, 02:48:51 AM »
A very small hole.

However You Deflect
No scope was introduced.
Your eyeball is a pinhole camera.
Yes or no


Do you understand the very basoc and non indoctrined concept of how a pinhole camera works?
Explain the pin hole camera to me.
Tell me what it does.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 02:47:30 AM »
You don't know your mass until you measure it
Knowing it, and it existing, are 2 different things.
Just because you don't know the value of something until it is measured doesn't mean it only exists when you measure it.

Mass obviously exists. Measuring it to show a weight reading requires person made scales to show resistance of that mass against atmospheric pressure upon it.




Quote from: JackBlack
Like we have been over countless times, if that garbage was true, unless you put a mass onto a scale, it wouldn't fall.
Things continue to exist, even when not measured.
Things do exist but only as mass, not weight, until they measure a weight on a person made scale that gives out a person made reading of that mass.
No, mass and weight are separate.
Mass is mass. Weight is the reading of it, as above.


Quote from: JackBlack
Weight is the downwards force trying to make you go to Earth.
No.
Weight is a person made numbered reading of mass resistance to atmospheric pressure.

Quote from: JackBlack
The relationship between mass and weight varies as you move around Earth.
Yep due to varying pressures.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, without weight, things would not fall.
Things only fall if energy is applied to raise the object up. Opposite reaction to that action, equally.


Quote from: JackBlack
You would never be able to tell anyone how much you weigh if there were no scales.
But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have weight.
If you have no way to measure mass you have zero weight. You can understand that you're heavier than another object, or lighter but you have no weight.

Quote from: JackBlack
And yet again, you have tried to run off on a train of semantics to avoid the main point.
Not at all.
I'm simply telling you that weight is merely a person made measurement of mass by using a scale to show numbered movements due to applied pressure of that mass by atmosphere that mass displaces upon that scale.

Quote from: JackBlack
Once more, as clearly shown in this diagram:

That diagram should read force against force or push against push or resistance against push.
No need for weight nor gravity, so you can omit them.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, without that force of W, which has to act on the layer of air/whatever, in addition to the force from the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
The force is atmospheric pressure. That's it. Nothing works without it.
Once again, weight is a reading of atmospheric force.
And a pressure gradient in my case is the stacking system, so there is a pressure gradient.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: April 16, 2021, 02:28:24 AM »
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.

This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say.  What makes you think thatís actually how things work?
By observation and simple experiments.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 878