Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 251800 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #990 on: September 14, 2013, 03:14:04 AM »
Quote from: Antonio
Sorry for the delay.
As the water is not compressible, if it is pushed backwards, there would be some gap of *something* in the front of the plane. It's not a good analogy. May we continue with air ?
Fair enough but I simply used it to give a better insight.

Quote from: Antonio
This raises more questions:
If the air is pushed backwards during the plane's acceleration, there is more pressure in the back of the cabin than in the front It seems logical as air molecules are pushed backwards but can't allow empty space in the front. You said that they expand there, so the pressure lowers. Is it correct ?
Molecules get agitated by vibrations/sound and friction, right? When you run in a sports hall, you feel the friction of air on your body. If you try to swing a ping pong bat really fast, it puts pressure on your wrist due to the force.
You are compressing the air in front because of that speed of swing.
In a plane, your acceleration is doing the same thing inside the cockpit. like a bat compressing the air and you feel that on your body as a force whilst under acceleration only, but to feel it for a while, your plane must accelerate rapidly each second, because once it levels out, so does the air pressure.

Quote from: Antonio
If the air is pushed backwards, why the pilot's body isn't pushed too ? I can ask in another manner. What pushes the air back and why this *force* (or call it the name you want)  doesn't push on the pilot ?
The pilots body is pushed, only he/she has a seat that absorbs that push, plus a large strong body frame that can easily dissipate that energy under normal flight conditions.Remember. Our bodies are designed to live under strong atmospheric forces and it takes huge accelerations to distress us in a closed environment.
Quote from: Antonio
Some planes do have open cockpits. There is no glass around the pilot, just outside air at atmospheric pressure. How can the air around him can be pushed backwards, as it will immediately equalize with the surrounding air? You still experience some accelerations in these planes.
The air around him is pushed backwards but marginally, because an open cockpit plane will not be going fast enough, so all he/she will feel, is deflected wind onto them.

Quote from: Antonio
When I'm in a plane accelerating before take-off, I cleary feel the seat pushing on my back, not the air around me pushing on my body. How do you explain that ?

No, you don't feel that seat pushing on your back. You feel your back pushing onto that seat. Your body frame is large and your head is small, so your body takes the lions share of that compression which results in you being pushed back.
Get in your car and tie a rubber ball on a string onto your sun visor. Now accelerate away and watch that ball come at your face. It's just compression of air.
If people try to look for the complicated gravity forces and what not, they will never grasp the simple concept.

*

g el

  • 96
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #991 on: September 14, 2013, 03:23:28 AM »
What you described with the ball is called momentum or moment of inertia and is caused by the distance of the ball from your visor it has nothing to do with air. Also in a closed car or plain or whatever the air inside is not pushing you to try that drive fast in your car with your windows closed and open the air pushing you is the one outside

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #992 on: September 14, 2013, 03:34:45 AM »
Quote from: ERTW
Great, so then it seems that if I remove all air from a container, and I have a small steel ball on a scale, the scale will read zero? If you agree with this, I will happily do this experiment. If not, please clarify your model. My understanding of your model is still that the air above us is pushing down on us, causing the appearance of weight. If I misunderstand, please provide more details.
Good luck with removing "ALL" matter from a container.

You can evacuate as much air as you want but it's still not enough to create a perfect vacuum, so any experiment you conduct, will be conducted with an atmosphere. The big difference is atmospheric pressure being much much lower, so any experiment done in that, will differ from one done outside of it.

You will never test anything out in a perfect vacuum, because a perfect vacuum becomes a non existence.
No matter. No life. No movement. No nothing.
Who said anything about a perfect vacuum? All matter? All I am looking for is a noticeable effect. If the weight even decreases 1% I could easily measure that. My question to you is very simple, is the weight caused by air pressure? If the answer is yes, then changing the air pressure should change the weight. If I change the air pressure by 10X, is the weight going to change 10X? What does your theory predict? Honestly, if I can change the air pressure in a container by 10X and the measured weight doesn't change at all, I would call that conclusive proof that air pressure is an insignificant factor in the weight of objects. Do you agree? If not, please explain. If you agree, I will be happy to conduct this test.
How do you calibrate this?

A flat slab of lead will weight more under atmospheric sea level conditions than it will inside a partially evacuated chamber, because there is more pressure on that slabs area.
However, if you were to place it on a scale under atmospheric pressure and take a reading, you would then need to put the scale inside the vacuum chamber "first" to see if any change in that scale occurs, because after all, that scale is also under atmospheric pressure and has to be calibrated for that, so it would also have to be re-calibrated for the partially evacuated environment.
Only then can you place the lead slab on it and measure it.
What you should find is that the lead inside the partially evacuated chamber appears lighter.
Try it and post the results.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #993 on: September 14, 2013, 03:39:35 AM »
What you described with the ball is called momentum or moment of inertia and is caused by the distance of the ball from your visor it has nothing to do with air. Also in a closed car or plain or whatever the air inside is not pushing you to try that drive fast in your car with your windows closed and open the air pushing you is the one outside
It's rapid movement of a solid object against a static as in the air inside your car.
Just because you are behind a windscreen does not mean that air will travel with you. It's always reacts against your forward movement, no matter what as long as you are under acceleration.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #994 on: September 14, 2013, 03:49:51 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #995 on: September 14, 2013, 03:54:01 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #996 on: September 14, 2013, 03:56:14 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
I think, therefore I am

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #997 on: September 14, 2013, 03:59:59 AM »

What you should find is that the lead inside the partially evacuated chamber appears lighter.
Try it and post the results.
I will. I am curious, how do you expect the effect to scale?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #998 on: September 14, 2013, 04:02:34 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #999 on: September 14, 2013, 04:05:20 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.
I think this leads back to a post many moons ago, if air pressure causes weight, what causes objects to have varying density? I can do another experiment with a fan and objects of differing densities but constant cross sectional areas. They will all experience the same force from the fan. Why is vertical air pressure different?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1000 on: September 14, 2013, 04:05:41 AM »

What you should find is that the lead inside the partially evacuated chamber appears lighter.
Try it and post the results.
I will. I am curious, how do you expect the effect to scale?
I really don't know, I'd be interested to find out a legitimate test to this.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1001 on: September 14, 2013, 04:11:51 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.
So the weight of an object is function of its mass rather than its surface then?
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1002 on: September 14, 2013, 04:17:08 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.
I think this leads back to a post many moons ago, if air pressure causes weight, what causes objects to have varying density? I can do another experiment with a fan and objects of differing densities but constant cross sectional areas. They will all experience the same force from the fan. Why is vertical air pressure different?
Ok, maybe this might explain.
Imagine you are stood in the street   and I say to you, "ok, I'm going to drape blankets over your head and I want you to tell me what part of your body feels the most pressure as I add blanket after blanket".

Now naturally you are going to say that your neck feels more force due to the density of the blanket layers building up on top of your head, whilst the rest of the blankets are deflected down to your sides, adding some pressure to your shoulders but the rest of your body does not feel those effects, because of your head and shoulder deflection.
So your head, neck and shoulders are holding the pressure of the blankets, which transfers down the body to the feet which stop you from being pushed into the ground.
Now try and jump up with those same blankets on your head and you will find that it's harder than simply just walking with them.
That's your air pressure in a nutshell.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1003 on: September 14, 2013, 04:17:16 AM »

What you should find is that the lead inside the partially evacuated chamber appears lighter.
Try it and post the results.
I will. I am curious, how do you expect the effect to scale?
I really don't know, I'd be interested to find out a legitimate test to this.

Ok, so here is my test:
1. Make a vacuum chamber with a window
2. Place a fish scale inside, hooked to the ceiling
3. Check the reading on the scale as an atmospheric reference
4. Pump down the chamber to below 50mTorr, or ~6.58e-5 atmospheres
5. Check the scale reading in vacuum
6. Hook a metal weight on the scale, and take a reading

I will take pictures at each step for record keeping.
Do you have any issues with the test protocol?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1004 on: September 14, 2013, 04:17:55 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.
So the weight of an object is function of its mass rather than its surface then?
It's both.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1005 on: September 14, 2013, 04:20:29 AM »
Ok, maybe this might explain.
Imagine you are stood in the street   and I say to you, "ok, I'm going to drape blankets over your head and I want you to tell me what part of your body feels the most pressure as I add blanket after blanket".

Now naturally you are going to say that your neck feels more force due to the density of the blanket layers building up on top of your head, whilst the rest of the blankets are deflected down to your sides, adding some pressure to your shoulders but the rest of your body does not feel those effects, because of your head and shoulder deflection.
So your head, neck and shoulders are holding the pressure of the blankets, which transfers down the body to the feet which stop you from being pushed into the ground.
Now try and jump up with those same blankets on your head and you will find that it's harder than simply just walking with them.
That's your air pressure in a nutshell.
Blankets are very stiff in tension so the blankets concentrate most of their force on the highest point of contact. Air does not behave this way, it is isometric, hence air pressure exerts an equal force in all directions.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1006 on: September 14, 2013, 04:29:05 AM »

What you should find is that the lead inside the partially evacuated chamber appears lighter.
Try it and post the results.
I will. I am curious, how do you expect the effect to scale?
I really don't know, I'd be interested to find out a legitimate test to this.

Ok, so here is my test:
1. Make a vacuum chamber with a window
2. Place a fish scale inside, hooked to the ceiling
3. Check the reading on the scale as an atmospheric reference
4. Pump down the chamber to below 50mTorr, or ~6.58e-5 atmospheres
5. Check the scale reading in vacuum
6. Hook a metal weight on the scale, and take a reading

I will take pictures at each step for record keeping.
Do you have any issues with the test protocol?
Seems fair enough to me.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1007 on: September 14, 2013, 04:41:00 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.
So the weight of an object is function of its mass rather than its surface then?
It's both.

Do you know the definition of weight in physics? When you measure the weight of an object, you actually measure its force. Weight in physics is specified in Newton (N). So in UA or gravity model, a 1 kg object on earth has a downward force of 9.8 N, hence a weight of 9.8 N

However, force exerted by pressure depends on the surface of the object. The force is expressed as pressure (in Pascal or Pa) multiplied by the surface area of the object (in square meter). The pressure as sea level is around 100,000 Pascal. So, a 1 square meter piece of paper at sea level receives 100,000 N force due to pressure.

Does it match your observation?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 04:53:03 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1008 on: September 14, 2013, 04:54:46 AM »
@scepti

The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
No. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.

Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.
So the weight of an object is function of its mass rather than its surface then?
It's both.

Do you know the definition of weight in physics? When you measure the weight of an object, you measure its force. Weight in physics is specified in Newton (N). So in UA or gravity model, a 1 kg object on earth has a force of 9.8 N, hence a weight of 9.8 N

However, force exerted by pressure depends on the surface of the object. The force is expressed as pressure (in Pascal or Pa) multiplied by the surface area of the object (in square meter). The pressure as sea level is around 100,000 Pascal. So, a 1 square meter piece of paper at sea level receives 100,000 N force due to pressure.

Does it match your observation?
Newtons implies gravity. Gravity does not exist. Either be real about this or don't waste your time posting.
I'm not being nasty here, I'm simply saying, if you want to chop me down or take me on, you do it by playing the simple game.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1009 on: September 14, 2013, 05:10:03 AM »
I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1010 on: September 14, 2013, 05:15:44 AM »
I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.
What rings. I don't know of any rings, or planets. They are reflections off of the dome, whatever is seen as a planet.
1.5 billion miles by eye sight. Come on fella, have a think will you.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1011 on: September 14, 2013, 05:19:39 AM »
I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.
What rings. I don't know of any rings, or planets. They are reflections off of the dome, whatever is seen as a planet.
1.5 billion miles by eye sight. Come on fella, have a think will you.
Saturn clearly has rings. Photos, videos, people's accounts of what they saw. These all show rings. You can't just deny it because it doesn't fit with your model. If you still don't believe me then you can actually look at it for yourself.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1012 on: September 14, 2013, 05:26:17 AM »
I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.
What rings. I don't know of any rings, or planets. They are reflections off of the dome, whatever is seen as a planet.
1.5 billion miles by eye sight. Come on fella, have a think will you.
Saturn clearly has rings. Photos, videos, people's accounts of what they saw. These all show rings. You can't just deny it because it doesn't fit with your model. If you still don't believe me then you can actually look at it for yourself.
I'm denying nothing. I'm saying that the 1.5 billion miles think is ludicrous, just as ludicrous of the light speed and light years of so called stars.
I don't know what people see in the sky that they say is saturn and its rings.
I've never seen anything resembling something with rings by naked eye and my telescope is about as effective as a pair of strong reading glasses.
I've seen many pictures of what they say is saturn and they all look faked images or paintings, etc.

*

g el

  • 96
  • It works, bitches
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1013 on: September 14, 2013, 05:29:03 AM »
So why not take the challenge and go see it yourself?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1014 on: September 14, 2013, 05:33:38 AM »
So why not take the challenge and go see it yourself?
I intend to do a bit of sky observation of dome reflections over time with a decent telescope. I'll let you know what I see, although it could be a while away yet.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1015 on: September 14, 2013, 05:33:58 AM »
I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.
What rings. I don't know of any rings, or planets. They are reflections off of the dome, whatever is seen as a planet.
1.5 billion miles by eye sight. Come on fella, have a think will you.
Saturn clearly has rings. Photos, videos, people's accounts of what they saw. These all show rings. You can't just deny it because it doesn't fit with your model. If you still don't believe me then you can actually look at it for yourself.
I'm denying nothing. I'm saying that the 1.5 billion miles think is ludicrous, just as ludicrous of the light speed and light years of so called stars.
I don't know what people see in the sky that they say is saturn and its rings.
I've never seen anything resembling something with rings by naked eye and my telescope is about as effective as a pair of strong reading glasses.
I've seen many pictures of what they say is saturn and they all look faked images or paintings, etc.

Honestly scepti you shouldn't say another word about this until you rent/buy/borrow a telescope, go to a secluded area away from the city at night and take a look. You may be surprised.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1016 on: September 14, 2013, 05:34:21 AM »
So why not take the challenge and go see it yourself?
With a good telescope of course.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1017 on: September 14, 2013, 05:34:48 AM »
So why not take the challenge and go see it yourself?
I intend to do a bit of sky observation of dome reflections over time with a decent telescope. I'll let you know what I see, although it could be a while away yet.

the fact that you've never done this makes you unqualified to make judgements about what is up there.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1018 on: September 14, 2013, 05:36:49 AM »
I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.
What rings. I don't know of any rings, or planets. They are reflections off of the dome, whatever is seen as a planet.
1.5 billion miles by eye sight. Come on fella, have a think will you.
Saturn clearly has rings. Photos, videos, people's accounts of what they saw. These all show rings. You can't just deny it because it doesn't fit with your model. If you still don't believe me then you can actually look at it for yourself.
I'm denying nothing. I'm saying that the 1.5 billion miles think is ludicrous, just as ludicrous of the light speed and light years of so called stars.
I don't know what people see in the sky that they say is saturn and its rings.
I've never seen anything resembling something with rings by naked eye and my telescope is about as effective as a pair of strong reading glasses.
I've seen many pictures of what they say is saturn and they all look faked images or paintings, etc.
Do you have an issue with the speed of light? Care to elaborate?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1019 on: September 14, 2013, 05:38:40 AM »
I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.
What rings. I don't know of any rings, or planets. They are reflections off of the dome, whatever is seen as a planet.
1.5 billion miles by eye sight. Come on fella, have a think will you.
Saturn clearly has rings. Photos, videos, people's accounts of what they saw. These all show rings. You can't just deny it because it doesn't fit with your model. If you still don't believe me then you can actually look at it for yourself.
I'm denying nothing. I'm saying that the 1.5 billion miles think is ludicrous, just as ludicrous of the light speed and light years of so called stars.
I don't know what people see in the sky that they say is saturn and its rings.
I've never seen anything resembling something with rings by naked eye and my telescope is about as effective as a pair of strong reading glasses.
I've seen many pictures of what they say is saturn and they all look faked images or paintings, etc.

Honestly scepti you shouldn't say another word about this until you rent/buy/borrow a telescope, go to a secluded area away from the city at night and take a look. You may be surprised.
I've no doubt I'll be surprised at what reflections I will see against the mirrored dome, especially  from different locations. The naked eye can only see so much, so I expect to be amazed.
The fact is though..what I do see, will be reflections from earth and ice debris, periodically falling from the dome to be seen in the sky as comets with evaporating gaseous tails.
If I could get closer to the earth centre, I may see much much more, the same as the inner ice rim, yet I'm hardly going to be afforded the chance to do that, like all of us.