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 ... 774
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 30, 2020, 01:21:51 AM »
I'm not going to accept something from you if I don't believe it.
And anything that I provide that refutes your model you typically wont believe.
So there is no point in me wasting time to make a picture for you to ignore it.

Then back out and stop pretending I'm not trying to explain.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 30, 2020, 01:20:20 AM »


You have the right to keep your mind wherever you want.

I'm just showing the difference between your "no space between molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles", and the reality where the space is the most of it.
Your logic should come into play when you're dealing with being told there's space between molecules/atoms/matter or whatever, because, for space to exist between anything would mean there wasn't anything to begin with.

Absolutely everything is attached on all levels. No free space can exist.

The logic DID come into play.
Temperature is shown in speed of atoms and molecules (or subatomic particles in case of plazma).

If they were packed so tightly, then the particles wouldn't be able to have any speed and the temperature wouldn't exist.
Temperature is shown by agitation of molecules.

Exactly.
When they are agitated they gain speed.
In solids they oscillate faster, in liquids and gasses they wander faster, and hit the walls of a container harder, increasing the pressure.

For all those movements they have to have room.
That's how we know there is enough (a lot) of empty space between them.

Now google, compare several different sources, and learn how they stay together.
Not how you imagine it, but how experiments show.
They don't wander faster they simply create a chain reaction from the energy applied.

There is no empty space. Everything is attached.

It's like having a container of compressed spoingeballs and taking them as an analogy of molecules.
No free space between those sponge balls as they take up all space.


All you need to start off a chain reaction is to apply pressure to one or allow it to expand by taking away pressure upon one.

An example.
Imagine the container full of super compressed atmospheric sponge balls.
Outside of that container are  much less compressed atmospheric sponge balls.

You now open the container to allow decompression of those internal super compressed sponge balls.
Let's say just one is allowed to decompress before the lid is placed back on.
This will cause a massive expansion of it into the less compressed external sponge balls which will create a chain reaction push or compression into those waiting balls directly in front and around that expanding/decompressing ball which decompresses them, which decompresses those near them...and so on until that expansion to compression to decompression is finished.

That's it.
There's no wandering molecules just jumping into free space, because to have free space would be to never exist in the first place.














3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 30, 2020, 12:51:03 AM »


You have the right to keep your mind wherever you want.

I'm just showing the difference between your "no space between molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles", and the reality where the space is the most of it.
Your logic should come into play when you're dealing with being told there's space between molecules/atoms/matter or whatever, because, for space to exist between anything would mean there wasn't anything to begin with.

Absolutely everything is attached on all levels. No free space can exist.

The logic DID come into play.
Temperature is shown in speed of atoms and molecules (or subatomic particles in case of plazma).

If they were packed so tightly, then the particles wouldn't be able to have any speed and the temperature wouldn't exist.
Temperature is shown by agitation of molecules.

If they are packed so tightly it wouldn't agitate.
It's what creates the heat you feel. Dense agitation creates massive expansion which creates massive friction caused by a pressure push which is that force of expansion pushing into dense resistance.


Higher up you still get agitation but it's agitation of expanded molecules into already expanded molecules of a much less area per molecule, resulting in little friction, meaning little heat.



4

It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.

And no, you wrote:

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
 You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.
There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.

Quote from: Stash
So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?
The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.

Even at a 95% vacuum? Then it would seem the stacks' ability to press down, hold up, or whatever, a dense object is independent of the level of pressure.
Let's use you as an example inside a container.

You walk into that container and you know you've evacuated your own dense mass of atmosphere from it. Right?

Now you are shut in and are enveloped by the pressure inside.
Your feet are pushing into the floor of the container.
This is happening because your body displaces that atmosphere inside and the walls of the container as well as the roof is ensuring that the dense mass of pressure you push away is pushing right back onto you.
Surely you can understand this....right?


Ok, so someone decides to push out atmosphere from that container.
If you could survive it you'd start to feel your body expand because the atmosphere in that container is being allowed to expand out of the opening up to the pump that is pushing the external atmosphere away from trying to equalise that pressure.

You now have less pressure on you but your body compensates by expanding with the rest of the atmospheric molecules inside of that chamber, meaning it is still pushing into that atmosphere inside even though it's less pressure.
the body still displaces it's own mass of that atmosphere only this time the body is losing its own volume of atmosphere already in its make up to try and keep an equilibrium inside the container....but can't without being breached itself by expansion.


Ok so, you say 95% of atmosphere evacuated.
Let's go with it for the sake of it.
Now you can see that your body fills the container, massively against whatever atmosphere is still left in, which the pump by this time would be struggling like hell to hold back that 955 of atmosphere let out to compress into it.

It still leaves that 5% against you which still pushes your dense mass to the floor.
You're not going to float in it because it's just too expanded to allow you to sit in the below stack to resist you.

The realistic thing is (for me) you can never evacuate all of the atmosphere from a container, because the only way atmosphere can leave the container is by it's own expansion which can only be allowed by stopping compressed atmosphere pushing against it, externally, which is why a pump solves that issue.......or, you put something inside the container that is dense enough to evacuate atmosphere, which is you or any object dense enough to overcome external atmospheric push.

5
Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.

As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.

Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.
And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?

You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.
No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.
I've explained. Now have a real think.
How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?

Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.

Of course we all go by the word "pull" because we see a to and a fro which we simply accept as a push and pull...but let's look at some simple stuff.

Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.

6

So, the vertical stack applies forces horizontally?
There is always a natural resistant force between matter/molecules, up, down or all around.
However the main compression back from this, only starts when a dense object is placed/pushed into it all with the major force acting at that point, like you prodding your finger into a sponge in terms of compressive force but also having that sponge envelope your entire finger as your finger compresses, it.

However, if you were to think of it as pushing your body up into a dome full of sponge, you can see in that sponge what your body is compressing. What you are displacing of that sponge by your body shape within it.
You'll also notice (if you think of it) that although the sponge is pushed away from you all around, it is compressed over a large area even though that compression appears to be dissipated throughout the sponge where you can clearly see (imagine) the sponge appears not to be changed in original structure farther afield but you can clearly see the compression directly around you and the lesser compression over a small area until everything appears normal.

So, because your dense mass has displaced that, you need a resistant foundation to actually stop that sponge from compressing you down, bearing in mind that you have compressed the sponge up above your entire body length as well and you still have a lot of that sponge stack above you as the resistance to your push, which is also pushing you down in an action/reaction sequence.


7
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 29, 2020, 11:31:46 PM »
Maybe you can then please repeat back, in your own words, what you think my question is, then state how it doesnt apply - knowing full well we understand "hair displaces little air".

Becuase this IS what my question is.
Im not sure how you can say its not my question.
You appear to understand how hair displaces very little atmosphere but then go on to ask how  that hair can push you down. It actually amazes me how you can go back to square one and not understand what I'm telling you.

Ok finally! Some insight into your brain!

Im not asking how hair pushes me down.
Im asking how the air pressure is pushing down.
Draw an arrow from the dome straight to the top of my head.
Then draw a different arrow from the dome, down through my hair, through my head, down through my feet, to the foundation.
The difference in arrow lengths visually represents the compressed air resulting in the down force giving me "weight".
How is the pushing force, pushing down, pushing on my being, not pushing on my hair, whne that arrow represents the entirty of the air push?
I'm going to try and put as much detail into everything you're asking for.

I'll try my best to get it done today....seriously.
All I expect from you is to try your utmost to understand it from my side. I'm not asking you to agree to anything, obviously.

When I do the diagram, then you can ask questions on it...on each piece of it, as crude and simple as the diagram will be.
This way I can explain, piece by piece.

Fair enough?

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 29, 2020, 11:23:38 PM »


Not agreeing with you is not the same as "not getting it". I get what you're on about when it comes to displacement, I'm just saying that your application of it does not make sense in terms of observable reality.
I'm not asking you to agree. I'm simply giving my side for you to understand.
You keep saying you do understand but you only partially understand what I'm saying....trust me.

You keep telling me I'm wrong without showing how I'm wrong by your own reality of observations.



Quote from: Stash
For one, there is equal pressure from all directions.
There is a perceivement of equal pressure but there never is equal pressure. It's why everything works, due to the imbalance, however minor or major that imbalance is.

An example: You can say a container is equalised with external atmospheric pressure until you evacuate some.
However, although that sort of rings true, it's not quite what it seems from my side, because the atmosphere is always stacked and there has to be a foundation for pressure at some stage, which, in this case would be the container using a foundation to hold it which in itself is an imbalance of pressure, just as the shape itself would create an imbalance of pressure.
It seems a nit pick but it makes sense to me as to how and why it all works.
What doesn't make any sense is how we are told it all works; mainly the use of gravity added into the set up of anything thrown at us.
A mild wind is an imbalance.
You walking is an imbalance.
The start and end result of every movement is always action and equal and opposite, reaction. This is imbalance in itself and never an equalisation of anything.

It's literally (in my book) how and why things can only work.
All matter is energy. ALl matter is under pressure. It's all under a compressive force. This force is via each piece of matter and each piece of molecule or atoms or whatever people wish to call it.
They vibrate at frequencies, creating energy that we see as a work in progress, whatever it is.

Basically speaking, everything is connected. There is no free space and everything is stacked. Nothing is every free space....ever.

Why have I said all this?
It's because once you understand this you'll understand better of what I'm telling you, whether you agree or think I'm a loop the loop.

Quote from: Stash
You say there isn't. But you are wrong as that has been measured countless times and engineering of things in the real world depend on it. So right there, I understand your point, but your point is incorrect. See the difference?
I'm not arguing about what we have in the world. I'm arguing what we're told is in conjunction with the engineering process, which is clearly not needed. Gravity is one massive thing added in to dupe us from the reality, which is what I've been trying to explain for long enough. Something which you believe you grasp but then clearly show me you do not.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 29, 2020, 11:00:55 PM »
And yet again you avoid the issue.

Directly above the person's head and shoulders is more stacking resting on the head and shoulders.

If another person climbs on top and stands on those shoulders then those shoulder become the foundation for the dense mass of the person upon them, who now is pushing up their own dense mass into the stack above  as well as pushing away their own dense mass of horizontal atmosphere.
It also means the air can no longer act on the head and shoulders of the person below.
Instead it has to act on the person above them, having the force transfer through the person above to act on them.
So it doesn't matter if the person is on the top or the bottom, the same force is acting on them.
This isn't about just the air directly above. This is about the push into the atmosphere by the dense mass of the people, or whatever displaces it.

One person standing on top of another does not negate the pressure, it adds that displacement to each person from each place in that stack. It just channelled.


Quote from: JackBlack

The only other option is to have the air just no longer push down because someone got in the way so it doesn't matter if you are standing by yourself or have 100 people on top of you, it should feel the same.
As soon as the air above cannot push a dense mass through the resistant stacking below, you have buoyancy.
A helium balloon is a classic example of it.
A ship is also a classic example of it.


Put your mind to work in a serious fashion and you just might grasp my side, because as much as you believe you have.....you haven't.

.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 29, 2020, 10:50:59 PM »
Maybe you can then please repeat back, in your own words, what you think my question is, then state how it doesnt apply - knowing full well we understand "hair displaces little air".

Becuase this IS what my question is.
Im not sure how you can say its not my question.
You appear to understand how hair displaces very little atmosphere but then go on to ask how  that hair can push you down. It actually amazes me how you can go back to square one and not understand what I'm telling you.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 29, 2020, 07:28:03 AM »


You have the right to keep your mind wherever you want.

I'm just showing the difference between your "no space between molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles", and the reality where the space is the most of it.
Your logic should come into play when you're dealing with being told there's space between molecules/atoms/matter or whatever, because, for space to exist between anything would mean there wasn't anything to begin with.

Absolutely everything is attached on all levels. No free space can exist.

The logic DID come into play.
Temperature is shown in speed of atoms and molecules (or subatomic particles in case of plazma).

If they were packed so tightly, then the particles wouldn't be able to have any speed and the temperature wouldn't exist.
Temperature is shown by agitation of molecules.


12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 29, 2020, 06:32:01 AM »


You have the right to keep your mind wherever you want.

I'm just showing the difference between your "no space between molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles", and the reality where the space is the most of it.
Your logic should come into play when you're dealing with being told there's space between molecules/atoms/matter or whatever, because, for space to exist between anything would mean there wasn't anything to begin with.

Absolutely everything is attached on all levels. No free space can exist.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 29, 2020, 06:28:15 AM »
How about you address what has been said, rather than deflecting by asking for something you will ignore like everything else you have asked for?
How about you do it.
What issues have been raised that I need to address?
Or do mean why don't I provide the picture?
If the latter, I already explained that. How many times before have you demanding something from me or another RE, just for you to dismiss it.

I'm not going to accept something from you if I don't believe it.



Quote from: JackBlack
You make it quite clear that you aren't interested in what we provide.
When you provide an understanding then I'm interested.
You seem to provide words that you say are your understanding by saying, you understand but then don't show me that you do.

Quote from: JackBlack
So no, how about you deal with the issues.
How about you explain how your air molecules expand when the freeze, and thus are no longer being agitated, when you claim that agitation is the very thing which makes them expand?
I've already explained all this in great detail but you've obviously taken little to no notice.
It's all about pressure stacking from the to the top and agitation is gained by applied energy or a sweeping pressure push provided by the good old central energy of Earth (the sun).
Failure of this energy in reaching areas of Earth from bottom to top will result in less agitation and a dormancy.

Read it many times to understand what I'm saying and you may not need to keep asking.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 29, 2020, 06:15:14 AM »


This is specific to the question ive been asking you.
Dodgedodgedodge
No it's not.

15
Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.

The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.

Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.
The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.
And as already pointed out, that just pushes the problem down to the molecular level.
It doesn't answer anything.
How do these molecular links hold themselves together?
How does the right side of an individual link transfer the force to the left side to make the left side move with the right side, rather than just falling apart and having the left side remain where it is while the right side is moved?
Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
I explain it by saying it's made up of linked molecules. How would you explain it?



Quote from: JackBlack
The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?
Conservation of angular momentum.
How does your nonsense explain the intermediate axis theorem or the results consistent with it?

Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.

Quote from: JackBlack
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
Really?
So far all you have provided are magic forces.
You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.

16

It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.

And no, you wrote:

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
 You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.
There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.

Quote from: Stash
So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?
The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 29, 2020, 05:54:25 AM »

If you have a stack 5 objects high, with object 1 at the top and object 5 at the bottom, then each object, according to your nonsense, will displace the air and cause it to push down from above.
But other than object 1, there is another object in the way. That means the air can't push from there and instead needs to push from the top of the stack.
For object 2, object 1 is in the way and thus the air can't push directly down on object 2. Instead it needs to push on object 1, have that force transferred through object 1 and push down onto object 2.
For object 3, now object 1 and 2 are in the way and thus the air needs to push down on object 1, have that force transferred through object 1 to object 2, and then transferred through object 2 to finally push on object 3.
And so on.
The force pushing each object down needs to be applied on top of object 1.

So the entire force to hold the entire stack down needs to be applied on top of object 1.

Combine that with the force from below preventing the stack moving through the ground, which all has to be applied from below, then the force is constant throughout the stack.
There should be no variation in force and thus a fragile object being part of that stack should be destroyed regardless of if it is at the bottom or the top. A person should be crushed regardless of if they are at the bottom or the top.



Each individual displaces their own dense mass of atmosphere.

If one individual stands upright then that individual is pushing into the atmosphere and pushes that atmosphere away from that person's body, so all that pressure is added to the pressure already upon and around that person.

Directly above the person's head and shoulders is more stacking resting on the head and shoulders.

If another person climbs on top and stands on those shoulders then those shoulder become the foundation for the dense mass of the person upon them, who now is pushing up their own dense mass into the stack above  as well as pushing away their own dense mass of horizontal atmosphere.


And so on and so on.
Each person acting as a resistance to the atmosphere, meaning each person displacing their own dense mass of it or resisting another dense mass above  them which is resisting a dense mass above them...and so on. The dense mass at the top is under the least pressure because it is under the least dense mass of the above stacking system directly over them.
The person at the bottom is under the greatest pressure by resisting all of the above dense mass of people, using a solid foundation plus the added stacking force the top person is pushing into.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 29, 2020, 05:33:37 AM »

I don't understand why you always defer to 'displacement'? Is the atmosphere that sensitive to displacement?
It's not about the atmosphere being sensitive to displacement, it's simply about any object placed into it will displace its own dense mass of that atmosphere.

If you could imagine looking at the atmosphere as a large black painted sheet and you being the white paint on it. This would be your silhouette on that sheet. This would be your body taking up that black painted area, meaning where the black painted area was before you moved into it, is now added to the rest of the black, because you displaced it.
This is now added to the black that was already around you and above you.

In this analogy, I painted over the black paint. It didn't get displaced, it got covered up.
Ok, so I have to go a bit farther . I thought you'd grasp what I was saying.

Ok, so the black paint is taken away and replaced with your white painted shape, with the black paint originally where your white paint was, is now distributed into the rest of the black, adding to that black.

Is that any easier for you to grasp?

We all get what displacement means. What is the odd part is how you apply it from a bathtub to the entire earth. Scale matters.

Quote from: Stash
What happens when new things are introduced into the atmosphere? Like a new born baby. Does that baby now displace the atmosphere to the extent where it and other things are now affected when they weren't before?
The only think affected is the object pushing into the atmosphere, because the object is displacing it's own dense mass of it.

Displacement means me being a dense mass is taking up the space where atmosphere would normally be.
I've been trying to explain this for long enough.

Again, we get it. We all know what displacement means. Just that your application of it is odd. We all know what push and pull means, yet you have the complete opposite definition for the word 'pull' than anyone else on the planet. So stop with all of your, you people just can't get it, blah, blah nonsense. You speak a different language. What do you expect?

Quote from: Stash
That level of displacement is soooo minute in the atmospheric ocean covering the entire world, it has no assigned direct impact on me or anything I'm doing.
It may be so minute to the actual entire Earth but it is not minute back to you. It's what makes you what you are and what you measure against that, as in, a man made scale measurement of your atmospheric displacement upon a resistant but springed foundation...being that scale plate and spring.

The only way for it be back to me is if it's not minute to the rest of the world. When you jump in a lake, does the water level rise? No, not to any measurable or impactful extent. Now imagine jumping into the atmospheric ocean covering our whole world - The only way for me to be affected by my displacement is for the displaced atmosphere to react back off of the confines of the container. If that container is too vast in comparison to my displacement, nothing is affected. Not to mention the ripples of my displaced atmosphere would be moving away from me just like a splash in the ocean. So no, displacement does not work.

Quote from: Stash
Displacement has no relevance in this case. Unless your system is so airtight, so to speak, and the amount of my displacement reverberates off the earth and your dome that it has a direct impact.
The system is atmospherically tight. We are sealed in in a stacking system which I've explained.

Quote from: Stash
That would mean that for every new thing of any mass introduced into your system would displace more and more atmosphere to the point that pressure in the system would rise.
External pressure systems do rise and fall. Just remember that many things push into the atmosphere but many things decay below ground.
It's an attemtped balancing act of sorts, which is always unequal.

Yes, but what mechanism is maintaining such a perfect balance that me displacing atmosphere on the earth has an impact on me, but nowhere else. If my displacement is that impactful, then a baby boom would upset the atmospheric balance by displacing too much. Again, not observable reality.

Quote from: Stash
How does every single thing of any density each individually become directly affected by it's own displacement? That is an impossibility considering the scope and scale of the earth's atmosphere.
Get in a bath and see the water rise.
You're displacing that water because your body is displacing the atmosphere and using the water as your foundation but the water as your foundation is not a perfect foundation against your dense mass of atmospheric push, which means you get pushed down until a stronger foundation arrests that push. In this case it would be your bath tub bottom.

We all get how displacement works. Couple of things wrong with this. Water, like atmosphere, has equal pressure from all directions. Actually, greater pressure as you go down horizontally than you would have vertically. For two, my foundation may not be the bottom of the tub. I may float, not getting pushed down.

Your bathtub/pool displacement analogies don't work on the scale of the earth. Pressure is equal in all directions. It's been measured. And you have no evidence to the contrary.
I don;t think you understand displacement from my side.
Just by you saying it has no effect against atmosphere tells me you are right back to square one.

19


Then a spinning top wouldn't stay balanced in a vacuum. But they do. In fact, things spin longer in a vacuum than when not in a vacuum. Your explanation, again, is not supported by observable reality.
That's because the spinning top is not in any vacuum. It's in lower pressure and it's still displacing that lower pressure by it's own dense mass.
It means there's less resistance to its mass which means it holds the initial force of spin for much longer in the very same environment which I explained earlier, only with less pressure.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 28, 2020, 11:06:57 PM »


I don't understand why you always defer to 'displacement'? Is the atmosphere that sensitive to displacement?
It's not about the atmosphere being sensitive to displacement, it's simply about any object placed into it will displace its own dense mass of that atmosphere.

If you could imagine looking at the atmosphere as a large black painted sheet and you being the white paint on it. This would be your silhouette on that sheet. This would be your body taking up that black painted area, meaning where the black painted area was before you moved into it, is now added to the rest of the black, because you displaced it.
This is now added to the black that was already around you and above you.

In this analogy, I painted over the black paint. It didn't get displaced, it got covered up.
Ok, so I have to go a bit farther . I thought you'd grasp what I was saying.

Ok, so the black paint is taken away and replaced with your white painted shape, with the black paint originally where your white paint was, is now distributed into the rest of the black, adding to that black.

Is that any easier for you to grasp?


Quote from: Stash
What happens when new things are introduced into the atmosphere? Like a new born baby. Does that baby now displace the atmosphere to the extent where it and other things are now affected when they weren't before?
The only think affected is the object pushing into the atmosphere, because the object is displacing it's own dense mass of it.

Displacement means me being a dense mass is taking up the space where atmosphere would normally be.
I've been trying to explain this for long enough.


Quote from: Stash
That level of displacement is soooo minute in the atmospheric ocean covering the entire world, it has no assigned direct impact on me or anything I'm doing.
It may be so minute to the actual entire Earth but it is not minute back to you. It's what makes you what you are and what you measure against that, as in, a man made scale measurement of your atmospheric displacement upon a resistant but springed foundation...being that scale plate and spring.


Quote from: Stash
Displacement has no relevance in this case. Unless your system is so airtight, so to speak, and the amount of my displacement reverberates off the earth and your dome that it has a direct impact.
The system is atmospherically tight. We are sealed in in a stacking system which I've explained.


Quote from: Stash
That would mean that for every new thing of any mass introduced into your system would displace more and more atmosphere to the point that pressure in the system would rise.
External pressure systems do rise and fall. Just remember that many things push into the atmosphere but many things decay below ground.
It's an attemtped balancing act of sorts, which is always unequal.

Quote from: Stash
How does every single thing of any density each individually become directly affected by it's own displacement? That is an impossibility considering the scope and scale of the earth's atmosphere.
Get in a bath and see the water rise.
You're displacing that water because your body is displacing the atmosphere and using the water as your foundation but the water as your foundation is not a perfect foundation against your dense mass of atmospheric push, which means you get pushed down until a stronger foundation arrests that push. In this case it would be your bath tub bottom.

21


No, your explanation is wrong. "...expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction..." does not work. The same experiment can be done with a closed wheel/disc. No spokes to 'agitate' anything and you get the same result. You need a better explanation. Yours fails to meet observable reality.
The closed wheel disc is the same thing, except it's more dense agitation causing more friction.
It's still cutting through the atmosphere on the rim and still agitating the atmosphere over its entire area and dense displacement of it.


Let's see if I can make this a bit clearer.

Think of a kids' spinning top.
You push the top a few times to get a rotation. The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?

It's own mass is agitating the atmosphere all around it, above it and below it.
This agitation is creating expansion of air on its surface  consistently and this expansion of air is pushing against the atmosphere and creating a pressure push.
The atmosphere reacts by squeezing back which creates an all round balance to the spinning top.

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.


It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 28, 2020, 10:29:36 PM »


I don't understand why you always defer to 'displacement'? Is the atmosphere that sensitive to displacement?
It's not about the atmosphere being sensitive to displacement, it's simply about any object placed into it will displace its own dense mass of that atmosphere.

If you could imagine looking at the atmosphere as a large black painted sheet and you being the white paint on it. This would be your silhouette on that sheet. This would be your body taking up that black painted area, meaning where the black painted area was before you moved into it, is now added to the rest of the black, because you displaced it.
This is now added to the black that was already around you and above you.



Quote from: Stash
What happens when new things are introduced into the atmosphere? Like a new born baby. Does that baby now displace the atmosphere to the extent where it and other things are now affected when they weren't before?
The only think affected is the object pushing into the atmosphere, because the object is displacing it's own dense mass of it.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 28, 2020, 10:13:06 PM »
Ugh
I cant help myself...


Thats a very good question!
If the air was pushing down, the air we breath, the air the birds fly on, the air the blows wind in our face, the air pushes down with such force that the guy at bottom is pushed so hard his pungs feel crushed, if he is pushed fron the air above him, then that same air column pushing down, would also be pushing down on the top guy, force transferring down through each guy.

Try it.
Try lining up 10 cups on a table so theyre tocuhing.
Try pusjing on the last cup so that through the train, thw 1st cup moves.
Are you saying it is possible your finger to magically push the 1st cup wihout the last cup feeling it?
We're talking about people being stacked not cups set up side by side.

We re talking about transferrence of force.



Did none of the center balls feel any push from the front?
Care to put your finger in between one of those and claim your finger only displaces a little bit of air so it wont get hurt?


And berfore you try to claim vertical vs horziontal


You keep pushing yourself off course.
Come back to me when you're specific to what I'm talking about.


24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 28, 2020, 10:09:15 PM »

How about you address what has been said, rather than deflecting by asking for something you will ignore like everything else you have asked for?
How about you do it.

25
All links push. There is no pull at all.
Pay particular attention to what's happening and you'll understand.
Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.

The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.

Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.
The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.

26
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?
No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.

How does the vertical stack determine horizontal crush/push?
By what's pushed into and against it, displacing it.

Just think of water. It's not hard.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 28, 2020, 09:59:10 PM »
why does an object at the top of a stack of objects not experience the same force as one at the bototm.
If you were laid on top of 10 men, who would feel the most pressure....you or each man under you?
That is the problem, reality does not match your model.

If your claims were true, and the air pushes objects down from above, then it should matter where in the stack you are.
The air has to push down from above with the force for all objects in the stack.
That means if your model was correct, everyone would feel the same force.

That is why I asked WHY. Because a simple observation from reality does not match your model at all.

So can you answer why?
Can you tell us why, with your model where the air pushes down from above, the people (or objects or fluid) further down in the stack experiences more force?
Can you tell us where this force is coming from?

If not, can you admit this simple observation refutes your model?
Understand the atmosphere displaced by each of the dense person.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: June 28, 2020, 09:54:51 PM »
Ugh
I cant help myself...


Thats a very good question!
If the air was pushing down, the air we breath, the air the birds fly on, the air the blows wind in our face, the air pushes down with such force that the guy at bottom is pushed so hard his pungs feel crushed, if he is pushed fron the air above him, then that same air column pushing down, would also be pushing down on the top guy, force transferring down through each guy.

Try it.
Try lining up 10 cups on a table so theyre tocuhing.
Try pusjing on the last cup so that through the train, thw 1st cup moves.
Are you saying it is possible your finger to magically push the 1st cup wihout the last cup feeling it?
We're talking about people being stacked not cups set up side by side.

29

Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...

Yes. Try the box of rocks.
Yes, you try them.

30
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?
No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 774