Sceptimatics theory

I have another question for you sceptimatic.  I don't think this ever was answered before (if it was I can't find it, or you deleted it ) and since it has to do with your theory and air pressure, I'll ask it again.

A car tire with 35 psi inside at ground level in a 14.7 psi environment. 

You claim the inside and outside of the tire equalize, which would mean 35 psi inside and 35 psi outside. 

If there is a 35 psi layer of air against the outside of the tire, then what physically holds that air at 35 psi since there's nothing between it and the 14.7 psi environment?

I did answer it, but you chose to totally ignore it and twist it, which is the reason why you are coming out with what you have, when you know fine well, I'm not talking about the outside air being 35 psi.
The air at sea level is what it is, barring fluctuations due to temperature, slightly. It's about the item at hand, which in this case, is your 35 psi tyre.

You are COMPRESSING the air inside that tyre, but as you do so, you are still taking that air from your environment to compress into that tyre, so it's an equal pressure around the tyre, ONLY.
To put it in to context. Stick the same tyre at 35 psi in a container and evacuate some pressure and you will see that tyre expand. It expands because the air pressure around it has been reduced in area.

Can you see what I mean now?

So the inside is 35 and outside is 14.  Glad that's settled. 

so it's an equal pressure around the tyre, ONLY.

Is the immediate layer of air around the tire 35psi or 14psi?

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 30, 2013, 08:06:34 PM

I have another question for you sceptimatic.  I don't think this ever was answered before (if it was I can't find it, or you deleted it ) and since it has to do with your theory and air pressure, I'll ask it again.

A car tire with 35 psi inside at ground level in a 14.7 psi environment. 

You claim the inside and outside of the tire equalize, which would mean 35 psi inside and 35 psi outside. 

If there is a 35 psi layer of air against the outside of the tire, then what physically holds that air at 35 psi since there's nothing between it and the 14.7 psi environment?

I did answer it, but you chose to totally ignore it and twist it, which is the reason why you are coming out with what you have, when you know fine well, I'm not talking about the outside air being 35 psi.
The air at sea level is what it is, barring fluctuations due to temperature, slightly. It's about the item at hand, which in this case, is your 35 psi tyre.

You are COMPRESSING the air inside that tyre, but as you do so, you are still taking that air from your environment to compress into that tyre, so it's an equal pressure around the tyre, ONLY.
To put it in to context. Stick the same tyre at 35 psi in a container and evacuate some pressure and you will see that tyre expand. It expands because the air pressure around it has been reduced in area.

Can you see what I mean now?

If you remove air from a 14 psi area, and put it into a 35psi container, the psi of the area you removed air from does not go up.

But let's examine a different angle. Let's take a 100 psi container, compressed, in, say, California, and take it to New York City, and fill up the 35 psi tire there. How much does the local air pressure in New York go down, and why?

Your north and south poles are slightly flattened, we are led to believe. You know, with the earth's so called equator bulge, so you can have all of it. You can have all of the flattened area...BUT... from that point on, your pendulum should not work.

Think of your north and south poles as a big roundabout sat on top of a grassy domed hill. Everything on that roundabout is turning and also , so it the grassy domed hill.

Putting your pendulum on that roundabout, at any point and you would get your Foucault pendulum effect.
Anything off of that roundabout would be pointless, because no buildings are going to ROTATE in the way it's being said.
Now if I'm wrong...explain in simple terms how I'm wrong, because to me, it does not seem right at all.

Other latitudes, 45 degrees for example (halfway between the pole and equator) are still on that grassy domed hill and rotating.  The only latitude line that doesn't 'turn left or right' is the equator (which would be the base of that domed hill)

So the inside is 35 and outside is 14.  Glad that's settled. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 31, 2013, 05:27:29 AM

so it's an equal pressure around the tyre, ONLY.

Is the immediate layer of air around the tire 35psi or 14psi?

What do you want to do? Just play silly games?

I've explained to you what it is, why are you twisting it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 31, 2013, 05:27:29 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 30, 2013, 08:06:34 PM

I have another question for you sceptimatic.  I don't think this ever was answered before (if it was I can't find it, or you deleted it ) and since it has to do with your theory and air pressure, I'll ask it again.

A car tire with 35 psi inside at ground level in a 14.7 psi environment. 

You claim the inside and outside of the tire equalize, which would mean 35 psi inside and 35 psi outside. 

If there is a 35 psi layer of air against the outside of the tire, then what physically holds that air at 35 psi since there's nothing between it and the 14.7 psi environment?

I did answer it, but you chose to totally ignore it and twist it, which is the reason why you are coming out with what you have, when you know fine well, I'm not talking about the outside air being 35 psi.
The air at sea level is what it is, barring fluctuations due to temperature, slightly. It's about the item at hand, which in this case, is your 35 psi tyre.

You are COMPRESSING the air inside that tyre, but as you do so, you are still taking that air from your environment to compress into that tyre, so it's an equal pressure around the tyre, ONLY.
To put it in to context. Stick the same tyre at 35 psi in a container and evacuate some pressure and you will see that tyre expand. It expands because the air pressure around it has been reduced in area.

Can you see what I mean now?

If you remove air from a 14 psi area, and put it into a 35psi container, the psi of the area you removed air from does not go up.

But let's examine a different angle. Let's take a 100 psi container, compressed, in, say, California, and take it to New York City, and fill up the 35 psi tire there. How much does the local air pressure in New York go down, and why?

It's got nothing to do with that. What are you talking about saying the psi outside goes up...who's mentioned that.
The psi is around 15 psi always. When you pump air into a tyre, it expands the rubber due to more compressed air molecules being pumped inside it. The area outside of it equalises the pressure around it, not by jumping up to 35 psi but by more area of 15 psi.

By inflating the tyre, you are increasing it's outside area and pushing it against the outside pressure, which pushes back with equal force.

The push back against the air in the tire is from the tire.  Not the air outside the tire.

The push back against the air in the tire is from the tire.  Not the air outside the tire.

What do you think stops that tyre from exploding?

The strength of the rubber.

The strength of the rubber.

Obviously. but that's just one part of it.
Let me put this to you, see if you can grasp it.

Let's assume that a tyre cannot stand 40 psi and will explode, so it's filled with 35 psi against the atmosphere of 15 psi. Ok, so you think it's just the tyre itself holding that 35 psi due to it's strength alone.

Well let's put the same 35 psi tyre inside a chamber. We know that the chamber is at, atmospheric sea level pressure of 15 psi...and we know the tyre is inside it, filled with 35 psi.

Ok, we now evacuate 5 psi from the chamber around this tyre. What do you think is going to happen to that tyre?

Depends on the strength of the rubber.  You are oversimplifying.

If the rubber is strong enough, nothing will happen.  If it is something like a balloon, the balloon may not be holding the air in by itself, and indeed the atmosphere helps maintain equilibrium.  So if you lower the pressure in the room, a balloon may expand, but a thick rubber tire may not.

Depends on the strength of the rubber.  You are oversimplifying.

If the rubber is strong enough, nothing will happen.  If it is something like a balloon, the balloon may not be holding the air in by itself, and indeed the atmosphere helps maintain equilibrium.  So if you lower the pressure in the room, a balloon may expand, but a thick rubber tire may not.

Maybe. It would be another good experiment if someone had the means of doing it in a reasonable sized chamber.

Dig around. It probably has been done.

It's got nothing to do with that. What are you talking about saying the psi outside goes up...who's mentioned that.

Basically you did when stating the pressure inside and outside equalizes.

The psi is around 15 psi always. When you pump air into a tyre, it expands the rubber due to more compressed air molecules being pumped inside it. The area outside of it equalises the pressure around it, not by jumping up to 35 psi but by more area of 15 psi.

By inflating the tyre, you are increasing it's outside area and pushing it against the outside pressure, which pushes back with equal force.

I see what you're saying now.

Here's the problem though... the inside and outside are still not equal.

35 psi inside is more than double 15 psi outside.  The surface area inside the tire is only slightly less than the surface area outside.  There is no where near twice as much outside surface area.

As for expanding, the visual difference between an uninflated tire (assuming it isn't mounted on a car or with the car's weight on it) and an inflated tire is almost unnoticeable at a glance.

Guys, Scepti already posted a steel rail road car tanker imploding from atmosphere pressure. They just pulled a vacuum to the inside of the car. Regular atmosphere pressure crushed it. IDK where it is now.

Hmmm, according to him unless they managed to create a total zero-matter vacuum inside that tanker, which is impossible, the air molecules should have expanded to fill the void, thus equalizing the inside and outside pressure.

Hmmm, according to him unless they managed to create a total zero-matter vacuum inside that tanker, which is impossible, the air molecules should have expanded to fill the void, thus equalizing the inside and outside pressure.

That is what happened, the outside air pressure crushed the steel tanker.

Was it steel?  I don't know. Was there any manipulation of the tanker to create the effect?  I don't know. Do you think that video is evidence for Scepti's model of reality?  I doubt it. What are you trying to say Hoppy?

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 31, 2013, 05:52:51 PM

Hmmm, according to him unless they managed to create a total zero-matter vacuum inside that tanker, which is impossible, the air molecules should have expanded to fill the void, thus equalizing the inside and outside pressure.

That is what happened, the outside air pressure crushed the steel tanker.

Not according to scepti.  He says the air molecules inside a container that has had most of the air sucked out, is in fact full of the remaining molecules that have enlarged, and therefor still putting pressure against the inside, and so it should not have collapsed.

Myself on the other hand, I think the air being sucked out reduced the inner pressure enough so that the outside pressure was simply too great over that much surface area for the structural integrity to handle.

Quote from: hoppy on October 31, 2013, 07:40:20 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 31, 2013, 05:52:51 PM

Hmmm, according to him unless they managed to create a total zero-matter vacuum inside that tanker, which is impossible, the air molecules should have expanded to fill the void, thus equalizing the inside and outside pressure.

That is what happened, the outside air pressure crushed the steel tanker.

Not according to scepti.  He says the air molecules inside a container that has had most of the air sucked out, is in fact full of the remaining molecules that have enlarged, and therefor still putting pressure against the inside, and so it should not have collapsed.

Myself on the other hand, I think the air being sucked out reduced the inner pressure enough so that the outside pressure was simply too great over that much surface area for the structural integrity to handle.

It seems you guys are trolling Scepti. Why would Scepti post the tanker collapsing if, he said it wouldn't collapse?

This would not be the first time that Scepti has proven to be inconsistent and self-contradictory.

This would not be the first time that Scepti has proven to be inconsistent and self-contradictory.

There's nothing contradictory about what I've said. There is, however a keen interest by some to attempt to twist what I say, for some strange reason.
It's as if you people don't want to know what's going on and are not interested in finding out what it is that we exist on and what's around us. It appears like you are simply keeping alive, everything that you have been taught to.

You owe it to yourselves to question what you've been told. You've been told a lot of stuff throughout your life. Some can physically be proved, yet most cannot.
You aren't fighting me by twisting what I say or trying to scatter my thoughts, you are fighting a battle between yourselves. One which you'll never win, yet you will believe you have won, because you simply accept every piece of SUPPOSED scientific, OFFICIAL evidence or hypotheses.

You profess to be smart people, yet you choose to totally blank what should be in your faces, because logic is not a word the scientific world like to use, as it implies SIMPLICITY in terms of working something out in it's simplest form, instead of going through a maze in all directions, to come back to the logic that stares you in the face, yet cannot be seen.

I've said this before but I'll say it again: your science, or shall I say, your unproven science that hangs onto the word THEORY as a truth, is all about mimicking what you have had put in front of you and you are forced to commit that to memory, because you don't get your work marked unless you can prove that you can recite what you are ORDERED to recite, from memory to paper.

95% of what people learn in science cannot be physically tested, when it comes down to what the earth actually is and what space is in what's perceived by the people who study it.
So what makes a so called smart person be perceived as a smart person to an average Joe?

It can be something as simple as knowing the names of a cluster of so called stars and yet it's stuff like this that make those who know it, believe they know what the hell the stars are...but they don't.
All they know is, that those stars show patterns.

A lot of science works by experimentation, as in, certain elements will react with other elements and create whatever reactions they create. It's great to do them and it's fun to see the reactions, but it doesn't show the whole picture of why and how some of them come about, yet in the right quantities, they can be used for certain things in daily life after being tested.

People should start to open up their minds and question the stuff that's been implanted into it. You round earthers think you're right but you're here as regulars on a flat earth site where people can think outside the box, yet some of you absolutely refuse to even dare to look at anything put forward by anyone who doesn't follow what's been brainwashed into your heads.
It makes me wonder why you are even here if you're not willing to at least be open to a POSSIBILITY that you are wrong.
I can't believe for the life of me that round earthers who think every other theory is nuts would come and stay on a flat earth site just to argue their side, as if protecting it like a guard dog in a scrap yard, because that's how it comes across.

The very least you can do is to spend some time evaluating things and attempt to think outside the box. It doesn't mean you have to give up your indoctrinated beliefs, just put them on the back burner and think of alternates.
If you think a sun or moon or whatever doesn't work on a flat earth...look for an alternate that can make it work, etc.

If you believe your rotating globe and all that goes with it, then it is head scratching as to why anyone would be here in the first place, seriously. It makes no sense, because I sure as hell would not come here if I had no intention of looking for an alternative and I certainly wouldn't come here just to say, the earth is a rotating globe, so there.

Anyone who comes for the purpose of ridiculing the alternative theories, to me, are the loonies themselves, if they can't see that it's about as effective as throwing a dry sponge at a bullet proof window and expecting to smash it. It just isn't going to happen.

Feel better?  Good.  I was not trying to ridicule you.  But you have contradicted yourself in the past.  And you are obviously ignorant about much of the science that your claim is false, so that claim means exactly nothing.  This is the logical response to someone who purports to know something they are obviously ignorant about.  I know you are ignorant by the number of priniciples you need explained to you.  29silhouette just pointed out another case of inconsistency; if you do not see it, that is your own trouble.

Feel better?  Good.  I was not trying to ridicule you.  But you have contradicted yourself in the past.  And you are obviously ignorant about much of the science that your claim is false, so that claim means exactly nothing.  This is the logical response to someone who purports to know something they are obviously ignorant about.  I know you are ignorant by the number of priniciples you need explained to you.  29silhouette just pointed out another case of inconsistency; if you do not see it, that is your own trouble.

We are all ignorant. We all profess to know what we are talking about, yet in truth, we can be wide of the mark. I accept this and have said so, many many times.
29 has pointed out no inconsistency. He's simply twisted what's being said. Big difference.
I never said you were ridiculing, I was speaking in general, I just happened to mention it in  whilst quoting you.

I'm not immune to contradicting myself, as no one is and we all do it, only I'm not doing it here. People are simply deciding to bend it out of shape.

Some are more ignorant than others.  For example, I suspect you know more about electrical engineering than I do.  I make no bones about that.  But I feel like you often presume that others knowledge of science cannot be more in depth, and grounded in experience and experiment than your own.

95% of what people learn in science cannot be physically tested,

This absolutely could not be further from the truth.

Some are more ignorant than others.  For example, I suspect you know more about electrical engineering than I do.  I make no bones about that.  But I feel like you often presume that others knowledge of science cannot be more in depth, and grounded in experience and experiment than your own.

Not at all. I don't know what people are or do on this forum. If they say they are this or that, I can either accept it or not. Either way, it's not going to change that person or change what they are qualified at doing or knowing.
I hold no respect for anyone on this forum, personally, because I do not know them personally, but I can respect the words of the people who write it, regardless of not knowing them.

I also do not have any thought for a persons alias or avatar on a forum. The name Dum dum is no different from the name Physics major and the picture of a cat is no different to a picture of Newton, because the person behind those made up names and copied avatars that counts and they could be anyone in any profession or no profession at all, yet they gain their so called understandings as it goes along, by simply looking up what's talked about, so they can come back and argue a point.

The weird thing about forums is, we all gain a mental picture of the person we correspond with, over time and yet a face to face meeting would be like going to meet an elephant and finding out it's a slug or vice versa.
We can all sit and spout off who we are and what we all do, yet very rarely will anyone get to find out the truth.
There are some on here that are what they are and have put pictures up of themselves and also personally know certain people, but most are simply names with attitudes, good/bad or indifferent and that's all we will ever know until it's met in the flesh, so basically, most can be what they want to be and try to pass it off as true. Whether it is or isn't, is irrelevant.

Quote

95% of what people learn in science cannot be physically tested,

This absolutely could not be further from the truth.

Remember the science we are talking about. It's this I'm referring to.

Remember the science we are talking about. It's this I'm referring to.

As am I.

Quote

Remember the science we are talking about. It's this I'm referring to.

As am I.

Ok. About the science we have been discussing. Tell me what is physically provable, as in, any person can physically verify the outcome.