If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

Sorry, but they are correct.  The back wall of the bus will apply force to the air molecules in front of it, causing that air to in turn apply force to the next set of molecules.  The inertia of all the molecules in the bus will resist this force and compress the molecules at the back, while leaving an area of low pressure at the front of the bus.  Indeed air can come in from outside the bus and dampen these effects, but they can't eliminate them altogether.

The "inertia" of the air mass doesn't exist as long as the bus is interconnected with the outside atmosphere.  Which it is. The air mass inside the bus does not and can not be compressed under these circumstances.  It is not a monolithic mass, but a fluid.  Air can only be compressed within a sealed container.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 08:39:02 AM

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 08:32:23 AM

I've got a question for scepti. According to the Flat Earth theory, the Earth is constantly accelerating (i.e., not moving at a constant velocity) upward at 9.8 m/s². Is this correct?

Not in my world it's not. I don't follow the flat earth model in it's entirety. This being one. I follow the slight concave model with a dome.
My earth is a cell in suspended animation of darkness of what people refer to as space, meaning it does not exist.
Everything you see in the sky that is not man made, are reflections of what's happening inside this earth.

Okay, then I won't continue with my question on the Earth accelerating upward. I've got another question: In what direction(s) does air pressure apply to an object (using terms such as up, down, to the sides, and so on)?

He has said down. Which is interesting and makes your question about UA valid. In the bus example air is compressed because of motion but in sceptis flat earth air is also compressed near the surface but he doesn't believe the earth is accelerating upward. If it isn't accelerating upward, then why is it compressing? If sceptis relies on motion causing compression against some surface then it would seem that he would be a fan of UA.

The thing is that sceptis explanations have relied on the back of the bus to stop the air from going back and compressing the air in the back. If you placed a ball by the drivers seat and placed another on the roof of the bus above the drivers seat then both balls would behave the same way. They would both roll back to the back of the bus in the same way.

I thank you for your voice of sanity in this intellectual desert my friend!

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 07:25:42 AM

Nope again!  The path of the ball has nothing whatsoever to do with either the velocity or the acceleration of the van.  Until you can understand and accept that gravity is the ONLY force acting on the ball in mid-air, you'll never come to grips with the physics of this scenario.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:32:48 AM

constant motion itself is not a force.  Force causes acceleration.  If there is no acceleration, then there is no force or balanced force.  A bouncing ball in a moving bus only has its vertical speed changing.  The horizontal speed is not.  Therefore the only net force on the ball is vertical.  The only vertical forces the ball can encounter are gravity, and a tiny bit if air resistance.  If you're a flat earther, then there are no forces at all on the ball, and the thing that's accelerating vetically is the vehicle, and the air inside it.

You both say essentially the same thing here.  So please tell us why SEs use the explanation of the atmosphere moving WITH the Earth as it supposedly spins.

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity. The atmosphere stays with the Earth and doesn't dissipate into space because of gravity.

EDIT: additional information added

So please tell us why REs use the explanation of the atmosphere moving WITH the Earth as it supposedly spins.

The atmosphere is "stuck" to the ground due to the force of gravity.  Therefore we get a layer of air stationary above the earth's surface.




And the earth does spin; there's no "supposedly" about it.  Even Galileo figured that out 500 years ago.  Which was long before modern scientists invented lying to the masses.
 
 

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 11, 2014, 08:44:53 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 07:25:42 AM

Nope again!  The path of the ball has nothing whatsoever to do with either the velocity or the acceleration of the van.  Until you can understand and accept that gravity is the ONLY force acting on the ball in mid-air, you'll never come to grips with the physics of this scenario.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:32:48 AM

constant motion itself is not a force.  Force causes acceleration.  If there is no acceleration, then there is no force or balanced force.  A bouncing ball in a moving bus only has its vertical speed changing.  The horizontal speed is not.  Therefore the only net force on the ball is vertical.  The only vertical forces the ball can encounter are gravity, and a tiny bit if air resistance.  If you're a flat earther, then there are no forces at all on the ball, and the thing that's accelerating vetically is the vehicle, and the air inside it.

You both say essentially the same thing here.  So please tell us why SEs use the explanation of the atmosphere moving WITH the Earth as it supposedly spins.

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity.

Air and everything else is under CONSTANT agitation due to pressure of each molecule stacked onto each molecule.
If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity. The atmosphere stays with the Earth and doesn't dissipate because of gravity.

EDIT: additional information added

There is one major difference between the two and that is the SE model is not ENCLOSED but a vehicle is.

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 08:49:33 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 11, 2014, 08:44:53 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 07:25:42 AM

Nope again!  The path of the ball has nothing whatsoever to do with either the velocity or the acceleration of the van.  Until you can understand and accept that gravity is the ONLY force acting on the ball in mid-air, you'll never come to grips with the physics of this scenario.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:32:48 AM

constant motion itself is not a force.  Force causes acceleration.  If there is no acceleration, then there is no force or balanced force.  A bouncing ball in a moving bus only has its vertical speed changing.  The horizontal speed is not.  Therefore the only net force on the ball is vertical.  The only vertical forces the ball can encounter are gravity, and a tiny bit if air resistance.  If you're a flat earther, then there are no forces at all on the ball, and the thing that's accelerating vetically is the vehicle, and the air inside it.

You both say essentially the same thing here.  So please tell us why SEs use the explanation of the atmosphere moving WITH the Earth as it supposedly spins.

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity.

Air and everything else is under CONSTANT agitation due to pressure of each molecule stacked onto each molecule.
If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

But the question is then, what causes the downward push of the very top molecules?  Why does pressure lessen as you raise in elevation?  What is the downward pull?

The atmosphere is "stuck" to the ground due to the force of gravity.  Therefore we get a layer of air stationary above the earth's surface.

And the earth does spin; there's no "supposedly" about it.  Even Galileo figured that out 500 years ago.  Which was long before modern scientists invented lying to the masses.

HAHAHA!  It's funny to me how naïve you are.

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 08:49:33 AM

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity. The atmosphere stays with the Earth and doesn't dissipate because of gravity.

EDIT: additional information added

There is one major difference between the two and that is the SE model is not ENCLOSED but a vehicle is.

I'm sorry, I thought by "SE model" you meant "RE model," as in round earth model. I should have asked you to clarify. What do you mean by SE model?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 08:58:31 AM

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 08:49:33 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 11, 2014, 08:44:53 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 07:25:42 AM

Nope again!  The path of the ball has nothing whatsoever to do with either the velocity or the acceleration of the van.  Until you can understand and accept that gravity is the ONLY force acting on the ball in mid-air, you'll never come to grips with the physics of this scenario.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:32:48 AM

constant motion itself is not a force.  Force causes acceleration.  If there is no acceleration, then there is no force or balanced force.  A bouncing ball in a moving bus only has its vertical speed changing.  The horizontal speed is not.  Therefore the only net force on the ball is vertical.  The only vertical forces the ball can encounter are gravity, and a tiny bit if air resistance.  If you're a flat earther, then there are no forces at all on the ball, and the thing that's accelerating vetically is the vehicle, and the air inside it.

You both say essentially the same thing here.  So please tell us why SEs use the explanation of the atmosphere moving WITH the Earth as it supposedly spins.

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity.

Air and everything else is under CONSTANT agitation due to pressure of each molecule stacked onto each molecule.
If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

But the question is then, what causes the downward push of the very top molecules?  Why does pressure lessen as you raise in elevation?  What is the downward pull?

There is no pull, it's simply a stack. The very top molecules are under the least pressure and are under no pressure but their own, so they become dormant. They freeze because they are not affected by temperature of friction.

Think of a compost heap, where is it hottest and ask yourself why. and where is the coldest parts of it?

I'm sorry, I thought by "SE model" you meant "RE model," as in round earth model. I should have asked you to clarify. What do you mean by SE model?

You're correct.  Spherical Earth is more accurate.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 08:56:56 AM

The atmosphere is "stuck" to the ground due to the force of gravity.  Therefore we get a layer of air stationary above the earth's surface.

And the earth does spin; there's no "supposedly" about it.  Even Galileo figured that out 500 years ago.  Which was long before modern scientists invented lying to the masses.

HAHAHA!  It's funny to me how naïve you are.

It's shocking isn't it, how intelligent people can be so duped by all of this.

If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

Totally false analogy.  Air molecules are not "stacked up" like a vertical frame of snooker balls.  Atoms in the air are held together by electrostatic bonds in a 3-dimensional grid, and not gravity.

Its simply a stack? How can that be? If there is nothing causing them to pulled in a certain direction then there is no reason why they couldn't stack in the opposite direction. We might as well stack upward onto the dome. There needs to be something that causes the stack, like UA or gravity. Without that, then there is no up or down.

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 11, 2014, 09:01:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 08:58:31 AM

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 08:49:33 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 11, 2014, 08:44:53 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 07:25:42 AM

Nope again!  The path of the ball has nothing whatsoever to do with either the velocity or the acceleration of the van.  Until you can understand and accept that gravity is the ONLY force acting on the ball in mid-air, you'll never come to grips with the physics of this scenario.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:32:48 AM

constant motion itself is not a force.  Force causes acceleration.  If there is no acceleration, then there is no force or balanced force.  A bouncing ball in a moving bus only has its vertical speed changing.  The horizontal speed is not.  Therefore the only net force on the ball is vertical.  The only vertical forces the ball can encounter are gravity, and a tiny bit if air resistance.  If you're a flat earther, then there are no forces at all on the ball, and the thing that's accelerating vetically is the vehicle, and the air inside it.

You both say essentially the same thing here.  So please tell us why SEs use the explanation of the atmosphere moving WITH the Earth as it supposedly spins.

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity.

Air and everything else is under CONSTANT agitation due to pressure of each molecule stacked onto each molecule.
If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

But the question is then, what causes the downward push of the very top molecules?  Why does pressure lessen as you raise in elevation?  What is the downward pull?

There is no pull, it's simply a stack. The very top molecules are under the least pressure and are under no pressure but their own, so they become dormant. They freeze because they are not affected by temperature of friction.

Think of a compost heap, where is it hottest and ask yourself why. and where is the coldest parts of it?

But if there is no downward pressure at the very top, they would not exert any pressure at all.

In a compost heap, the hottest is in the center because the top layers are essentially insulating the inner layers from heat loss into the atmosphere.  I fail to see how this is even close to a valid analogy since the compost heap has an atmosphere around it yet your model has nothing.

There is no pull, it's simply a stack. The very top molecules are under the least pressure and are under no pressure but their own, so they become dormant. They freeze because they are not affected by temperature of friction.

Think of a compost heap, where is it hottest and ask yourself why. and where is the coldest parts of it?

If the top molecules are under the least pressure, this implies that the pressure pushing down on each layer of molecules decreases the higher the layer is. How is the top layer able to hold down all of the other layers of molecules if the top layer is under the least amount of pressure?

Also, a compost heap would most likely be hottest at the center, since the other parts of the compost heap insulate the center and increase the time that it takes for the heat in the center to move toward the outside (assuming that the temperature outside of the compost heap is colder than the center of the compost heap). Friction does not cause the center to be the hottest; the insulating effect of the other parts of the compost heap is what causes the center to be the hottest.

Think of a compost heap, where is it hottest and ask yourself why. and where is the coldest parts of it?

Uh... I think we're veering into a fantasy world here.  What does the temperature of a compost heap have to do with air pressure,  molecular bonding, or gravity?

Or are you suggesting that the heat generated in a compost heap is due to the pressure on lower layers from those layers above?  You do know that the heat is produced as a by-product of the microbial breakdown of organic material?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 08:58:31 AM

If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

Totally false analogy.  Air molecules are not "stacked up" like a vertical frame of snooker balls.  Atoms in the air are held together by electrostatic bonds in a 3-dimensional grid, and not gravity.

They are held together by compression. We interpret that compression and the agitation of it as many things from electricity, magnetism and whatever you would like to name.
Stop bringing gravity into it, it's not needed anymore. It should blatantly obvious how the earth works, which rules out your space and rotating nonsensical globe as well as many other things.

You have been duped in mammoth proportions but I understand you sticking rigidly to your model because for you to change your mind, would render all your science life being mostly fantasy stories which could wreck your mind, so carry on believing. I'm just happy that I can see it all for what it really is.

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 09:04:53 AM

I'm sorry, I thought by "SE model" you meant "RE model," as in round earth model. I should have asked you to clarify. What do you mean by SE model?

You're correct.  Spherical Earth is more accurate.

Okay. That doesn't affect my point then. For reference, I have included it below:
The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity. The atmosphere stays with the Earth and doesn't dissipate because of gravity.

Your argument is below:
There is one major difference between the two and that is the SE model is not ENCLOSED but a vehicle is.

My response:
The same thing would happen if you were in a convertible, which is a vehicle that is not enclosed. Once the convertible stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body will move at the same velocity as the convertible. This is regardless of whether or not the car is enclosed.

Its simply a stack? How can that be? If there is nothing causing them to pulled in a certain direction then there is no reason why they couldn't stack in the opposite direction. We might as well stack upward onto the dome. There needs to be something that causes the stack, like UA or gravity. Without that, then there is no up or down.

Look inside the earth for what causes the stack. It's a stacked dome and it's like putting a cooking apple in a microwave and watching it spew it's contents out and around it...but think in terms of molecules in various states of compression and agitation of expansion and contraction depending on the molecule of what we know as different elements from heavy to light and compressed or expanded.
There is no pull...nothing pulls, it's all push. No gravity needed. No fictional forces that cannot be explained. You will never grasp it because you have no intention of grasping it. That's not your game.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:39:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:35:34 PM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:25:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 03:38:31 PM

Basically, yes. I don't know if you meant to say this to be sarcastic but you are correct anyway.

No, that actually IS the way it works.

Do you still hang onto gravity and inertia or have I got you thinking?

My only problem with your air pressure theory is it still doesn't explain why air is able to compress. If it didn't resist forces then it wouldn't compress except in a sealed container.

The ground you stand on holds the air onto it and it's under pressure from the air above and above that and so on and so on.
The highest pressure is naturally at sea level and in the centre. We are round the edge of the dome.
Think of it like this.
If you ran into a shipping container full of air filled soft balls you will compress them and they will take your full weight plus energy you used to run into them and then they would eventually stop you when your energy and weight cannot push any further. Once that happens, you will be forced back because the balls will want to resume their natural shape...BUT, not all will, because they are all under the pressure of each other.
That's a basic blunt analogy and is not the entire story of it all but it should give you an idea what I'm talking about.

It's a terrible analogy.

It works for a sealed container not not for an open one.

It doesn't explain why a bus accelerating would have low pressure at the front and high at the back or vice versa UNLESS the air in some way resists acceleration

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 09:08:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 08:58:31 AM

If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

Totally false analogy.  Air molecules are not "stacked up" like a vertical frame of snooker balls.  Atoms in the air are held together by electrostatic bonds in a 3-dimensional grid, and not gravity.

They are held together by compression. We interpret that compression and the agitation of it as many things from electricity, magnetism and whatever you would like to name.
Stop bringing gravity into it, it's not needed anymore. It should blatantly obvious how the earth works, which rules out your space and rotating nonsensical globe as well as many other things.

You have been duped in mammoth proportions but I understand you sticking rigidly to your model because for you to change your mind, would render all your science life being mostly fantasy stories which could wreck your mind, so carry on believing. I'm just happy that I can see it all for what it really is.

If the air molecules were held together by compression, this would require a higher pressure at the top than at the bottom. You've stated that the top molecules are under the least amount of pressure. If the top molecules are under the least amount of pressure, how are the air molecules held together by compression?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:49:59 PM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:39:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:35:34 PM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:25:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 03:38:31 PM

Basically, yes. I don't know if you meant to say this to be sarcastic but you are correct anyway.

No, that actually IS the way it works.

Do you still hang onto gravity and inertia or have I got you thinking?

My only problem with your air pressure theory is it still doesn't explain why air is able to compress. If it didn't resist forces then it wouldn't compress except in a sealed container.

The ground you stand on holds the air onto it and it's under pressure from the air above and above that and so on and so on.
The highest pressure is naturally at sea level and in the centre. We are round the edge of the dome.
Think of it like this.
If you ran into a shipping container full of air filled soft balls you will compress them and they will take your full weight plus energy you used to run into them and then they would eventually stop you when your energy and weight cannot push any further. Once that happens, you will be forced back because the balls will want to resume their natural shape...BUT, not all will, because they are all under the pressure of each other.
That's a basic blunt analogy and is not the entire story of it all but it should give you an idea what I'm talking about.

It's a terrible analogy.

It works for a sealed container not not for an open one.

It doesn't explain why a bus accelerating would have low pressure at the front and high at the back or vice versa UNLESS the air in some way resists acceleration

The air does resist acceleration. Are you reading and absorbing or just skipping over like scinty method does?

Your argument is below:
There is one major difference between the two and that is the SE model is not ENCLOSED but a vehicle is.

My response:
The same thing would happen if you were in a convertible, which is a vehicle that is not enclosed. Once the convertible stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body will move at the same velocity as the convertible. This is regardless of whether or not the car is enclosed.

Technically not because a large portion of the convertible IS enclosed.

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 11, 2014, 09:01:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 08:58:31 AM

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 08:49:33 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 11, 2014, 08:44:53 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 07:25:42 AM

Nope again!  The path of the ball has nothing whatsoever to do with either the velocity or the acceleration of the van.  Until you can understand and accept that gravity is the ONLY force acting on the ball in mid-air, you'll never come to grips with the physics of this scenario.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:32:48 AM

constant motion itself is not a force.  Force causes acceleration.  If there is no acceleration, then there is no force or balanced force.  A bouncing ball in a moving bus only has its vertical speed changing.  The horizontal speed is not.  Therefore the only net force on the ball is vertical.  The only vertical forces the ball can encounter are gravity, and a tiny bit if air resistance.  If you're a flat earther, then there are no forces at all on the ball, and the thing that's accelerating vetically is the vehicle, and the air inside it.

You both say essentially the same thing here.  So please tell us why SEs use the explanation of the atmosphere moving WITH the Earth as it supposedly spins.

The atmosphere moves with the Earth as it rotates for the same reason that you eventually move at the same speed as a car when it stops accelerating. Once a car stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body also moves at the same velocity until some other force (e.g., applying the brakes) slows the car down. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, the atmosphere continues rotating at that same velocity.

Air and everything else is under CONSTANT agitation due to pressure of each molecule stacked onto each molecule.
If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

But the question is then, what causes the downward push of the very top molecules?  Why does pressure lessen as you raise in elevation?  What is the downward pull?

There is no pull, it's simply a stack. The very top molecules are under the least pressure and are under no pressure but their own, so they become dormant. They freeze because they are not affected by temperature of friction.

Think of a compost heap, where is it hottest and ask yourself why. and where is the coldest parts of it?

It's hottest in the middle where the air can't easily penetrate because the heat is generated by the anaerobic processes of bacteria.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 11, 2014, 09:23:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:49:59 PM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:39:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:35:34 PM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:25:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 03:38:31 PM

Basically, yes. I don't know if you meant to say this to be sarcastic but you are correct anyway.

No, that actually IS the way it works.

Do you still hang onto gravity and inertia or have I got you thinking?

My only problem with your air pressure theory is it still doesn't explain why air is able to compress. If it didn't resist forces then it wouldn't compress except in a sealed container.

The ground you stand on holds the air onto it and it's under pressure from the air above and above that and so on and so on.
The highest pressure is naturally at sea level and in the centre. We are round the edge of the dome.
Think of it like this.
If you ran into a shipping container full of air filled soft balls you will compress them and they will take your full weight plus energy you used to run into them and then they would eventually stop you when your energy and weight cannot push any further. Once that happens, you will be forced back because the balls will want to resume their natural shape...BUT, not all will, because they are all under the pressure of each other.
That's a basic blunt analogy and is not the entire story of it all but it should give you an idea what I'm talking about.

It's a terrible analogy.

It works for a sealed container not not for an open one.

It doesn't explain why a bus accelerating would have low pressure at the front and high at the back or vice versa UNLESS the air in some way resists acceleration

The air does resist acceleration. Are you reading and absorbing or just skipping over like scinty method does?

Ok so WHY does the air resist acceleration.

And what is your name for this.

They are held together by compression.

Can you please define what you mean by "compression"?  Where do the compressive forces originate?  Do they work in all dirsctions, or only verticaly?  How would you measure these compressive forces?

We interpret that compression and the agitation of it as many things from electricity, magnetism and whatever you would like to name.

How can you explain then that the ferrous atoms in a magnet are totally stationary, and not being "compressed" or "agitated".  If they were, what could potentially cause this alleged agitation?

Stop bringing gravity into it, it's not needed anymore.

To discuss astrophysics and geophysics intelligently, one must include the force of gravity.  Gravity effects every body in the entire universe, from a microbe to a housebrick.

You have been duped in mammoth proportions but I understand you sticking rigidly to your model because for you to change your mind, would render all your science life being mostly fantasy stories which could wreck your mind, so carry on believing.

Apparently you missed these questions I asked you earlier, so I'll ask them again here:

Can you please post some viable evidence that supports your viewpoint that gravity and inertia do not exist?

Or, can you give us the names of any accredited scientists who also hold this view?

And what, precisely, has led you to the opinion that these two theories are "lies"?  Any documentation?  Any YouTube links?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 09:14:50 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2014, 09:08:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 08:58:31 AM

If you were in a person pyramid of say 10 people on the floor and stacked up like snooker balls before break off, only a vertical pyramid...which person will be under the most pressure and who is under the least pressure?

Totally false analogy.  Air molecules are not "stacked up" like a vertical frame of snooker balls.  Atoms in the air are held together by electrostatic bonds in a 3-dimensional grid, and not gravity.

They are held together by compression. We interpret that compression and the agitation of it as many things from electricity, magnetism and whatever you would like to name.
Stop bringing gravity into it, it's not needed anymore. It should blatantly obvious how the earth works, which rules out your space and rotating nonsensical globe as well as many other things.

You have been duped in mammoth proportions but I understand you sticking rigidly to your model because for you to change your mind, would render all your science life being mostly fantasy stories which could wreck your mind, so carry on believing. I'm just happy that I can see it all for what it really is.

If the air molecules were held together by compression, this would require a higher pressure at the top than at the bottom. You've stated that the top molecules are under the least amount of pressure. If the top molecules are under the least amount of pressure, how are the air molecules held together by compression?

Ahhh right. So this is where you can't get your head around it all.
What you need to do, is stop thinking about SEA LEVEL atmospheric pressure or compressed air containers, because by doing this  you will NEVER, EVER grasp what the reality is.

I'm not saying it's easy to grasp but it's not hard if you are prepared to open your mind and stop hanging onto a spinning, ridiculous globe model and gravity and inertia and all the other stuff they implanted into your head and I say that  in the nicest possible way, because we were all under that spell as some point.

Look at low pressures and high pressures and think about evacuated chambers and temperatures and what causes them at sea level...then try and under stand that we are the ants that live on the bottom of the big filled dome that has all that stacked pressure for however high it goes, onto us.

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 09:19:05 AM

Your argument is below:
There is one major difference between the two and that is the SE model is not ENCLOSED but a vehicle is.

My response:
The same thing would happen if you were in a convertible, which is a vehicle that is not enclosed. Once the convertible stops accelerating and it is moving at a constant velocity, your body will move at the same velocity as the convertible. This is regardless of whether or not the car is enclosed.

Technically not because a large portion of the convertible IS enclosed.

What part of the convertible is enclosed? Regardless, that has no effect on the basic principle that my body would move at the same constant velocity that the car is moving at once the car is moving at a constant velocity.

How about this: If I were standing on a completely flat rocket-powered skateboard and were moving at a constant velocity (because of the rockets), then my body would also move at that same velocity. There are no parts of this model that are enclosed.

EDIT: clarification