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

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 09:25:00 AM

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.

Have you ever dived off a diving board and belly flopped into the water?
It hurt like hell, right?
The water resisted your body for a short time until your body overcome it with the force that you hit it with, minus the immediate resistance plus the continued resistance of you are your body sinks and then it stops you, unless you keep going by moving your arms and feet to sweep the water behind you and plough through.
It's no different with air, except water is much denser.

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.

In a reality where everything is enclosed in an Ice dome, why is there a change in pressure at different parts of the dome?

The air is enclosed at both the top and bottom so the air stacks up just as much as it stacks down. what defines down in a world without gravity?

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 09:23:55 AM

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.

I didn't mention anything about sea level atmospheric pressure or compressed air containers. You claimed that the air molecules are held together by compression. The concept of compression in this sense inherently implies that something is pushing down on the molecules from the top with something (whether this is simply a heavier object on the top or air moving from a point of high pressure to a point of low pressure in order to equalize the air pressure). I asked you to explain how compression could occur if the top molecules are under lower pressure than the bottom molecules are.

EDIT: grammar adjustment

Quote from: Spank86 on January 11, 2014, 09:28:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 09:25:00 AM

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.

Have you ever dived off a diving board and belly flopped into the water?
It hurt like hell, right?
The water resisted your body for a short time until your body overcome it with the force that you hit it with, minus the immediate resistance plus the continued resistance of you are your body sinks and then it stops you, unless you keep going by moving your arms and feet to sweep the water behind you and plough through.
It's no different with air, except water is much denser.

Right.

You do know that's all inertia is don't you? It's a word for that resistance to movement that all things including air exhibit.

It doesn't replace anything that air pressure explains it simply explains another part of the puzzle.

Have you ever dived off a diving board and belly flopped into the water?
It hurt like hell, right?

This is nonsensical.  If this scenario did cause you pain, how is it that when you do a "bomb" or a clean dive, you feel no pain whatsoever?

Any pain on your abdomen is caused sole by the relatively shallow musculature around your belly coupled with visceral fat, which readily yields to external pressure.

That's why when someone punches you in the guts, rather than your shoulder, it winds you.

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?

Imagine a domed football stadium full of tennis balls.The balls at the top will be fully expanded, right?
The balls in the middle will be under pressure from those above, but the balls that are towards the outer edge are under far far less pressure than those in the middle.
Further down to the bottom in the centre, you would see extreme compression and resistance creating friction, which creates heat, which over time would become super hot and it would be resonating sound due to friction which agitates the balls around it, making them vibrate. Those on the outer, will receive none or very little of this, so they become motionless/dormant or FROZEN.

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?

As explained above. It's all about density of more minute particles under agitation.

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.

Incorrect. To discuss it all intelligently, people have to be allowed to question it all so that they can debate the points that don't answer their questions, like gravity being a force but science does not know why. This is not an answer. It's like saying god is watching you so be good.

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

I cannot prove something does not exist if it does not exist.

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

If they are accredited then they will not hold this view...TO US, it will be kept to themselves whilst they enjoy the trappings of their status.

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

My own common sense and experiments and logic. I don't need to give you any links to anything. It only takes one person to question one thing, which can lead to thousands of people questioning one thing that is different from the other.
They question, because the explanations do not add up. We are feeble organisms in the grand scheme of things and life is about learning and putting two and two together and coming up with YOUR answer, not having to be told that it must be the answer they give us and to accept it or be ridiculed by those who are prepared to follow it, blindly.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 09:32:07 AM

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.

In a reality where everything is enclosed in an Ice dome, why is there a change in pressure at different parts of the dome?

The air is enclosed at both the top and bottom so the air stacks up just as much as it stacks down. what defines down in a world without gravity?

Think of all the gaseous elements you can and that might give you a small clue.
 as to what is where in the dome.

Here's how sceptis examples work:

Hey everyone has it wrong, here is an example of how it works and fits in with my world view. I'm going to go ahead and neglect the fact that it doesn't seem to work with any other scenario's and imply that it means I'm right anyway. I'm also going to try very hard to replace science even though the concepts which I'm attempting to replace seem to work with every situation and can actually predict the behavior of real world situations with perfect accuracy.

Scepti, your football stadium is cool and all but why aren't the tennis balls pushing in the opposite direction? Why are they preferring to push down instead of upward to the top of the dome or to the sides.

I didn't mention anything about sea level atmospheric pressure or compressed air containers. You claimed that the air molecules are held together by compression. The concept of compression in this sense inherently implies that something is pushing down on the molecules from the top with something (whether this is simply a heavier object on the top or air moving from a point of high pressure to a point of low pressure in order to equalize the air pressure). I asked you to explain how compression could occur if the top molecules are under lower pressure than the bottom molecules are.

EDIT: grammar adjustment

Which bricks on a house are under most pressure and which are under the least pressure?

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:27:47 AM

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. 

Quote

all matter has inertia.  There are no exceptions

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.

False.  There are high and low pressure systems in our weather.  They aren't contained in sealed containers.  Also look at the pressure waves in front of supersonic jets.  That's compressed air outside a sealed container.  Jet engines are not sealed containers, yet they can be relied upon to compress air to ignite the fuel.  If a force is applied to air, it compresses slightly.  That's all there is to it.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 11, 2014, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 09:32:07 AM

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.

In a reality where everything is enclosed in an Ice dome, why is there a change in pressure at different parts of the dome?

The air is enclosed at both the top and bottom so the air stacks up just as much as it stacks down. what defines down in a world without gravity?

Think of all the gaseous elements you can and that might give you a small clue.
 as to what is where in the dome.

I can think of a lot of gaseous elements but that still doesn't answer where the concept of up and down comes from without gravity.

Without gravity to give us a down then up and down become like side to side.

Theres air to the left and right of me but it's pressure is equal. likewise if I was to go halfway up to the ice dome I ought to be able to fly around under equal pressure on all sides.

Here's how sceptis examples work:

Hey everyone has it wrong, here is an example of how it works and fits in with my world view. I'm going to go ahead and neglect the fact that it doesn't seem to work with any other scenario's and imply that it means I'm right anyway. I'm also going to try very hard to replace science even though the concepts which I'm attempting to replace seem to work with every situation and can actually predict the behavior of real world situations with perfect accuracy.

If that was the case then fair enough. The point is, it does work.
Your version is, "hey, we are right because Newton said this and the Greeks said that and it's obvious the earth spins, so there.2
Give it a rest, it only makes you look good with the people who back slap each other who play the same game.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 11, 2014, 09:56:47 AM

Here's how sceptis examples work:

Hey everyone has it wrong, here is an example of how it works and fits in with my world view. I'm going to go ahead and neglect the fact that it doesn't seem to work with any other scenario's and imply that it means I'm right anyway. I'm also going to try very hard to replace science even though the concepts which I'm attempting to replace seem to work with every situation and can actually predict the behavior of real world situations with perfect accuracy.

If that was the case then fair enough. The point is, it does work.
Your version is, "hey, we are right because Newton said this and the Greeks said that and it's obvious the earth spins, so there.2
Give it a rest, it only makes you look good with the people who back slap each other who play the same game.

I don't care how much you don't like Newton. His laws are good based on their merits. They work in the real world. Your laws only work in certain situations and you have to make up new behaviors for this pressure for different scenarios. That is pseudo science.

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 09:39:29 AM

I didn't mention anything about sea level atmospheric pressure or compressed air containers. You claimed that the air molecules are held together by compression. The concept of compression in this sense inherently implies that something is pushing down on the molecules from the top with something (whether this is simply a heavier object on the top or air moving from a point of high pressure to a point of low pressure in order to equalize the air pressure). I asked you to explain how compression could occur if the top molecules are under lower pressure than the bottom molecules are.

EDIT: grammar adjustment

Which bricks on a house are under most pressure and which are under the least pressure?

Air is a gas, bricks are a solid. Gases and solids have different properties. For example, solids don't attempt to fill a given space evenly because the atoms in a solid do not move nearly as much as the atoms in gases do. In other words, if you put a brick in an small enclosed container and then put that same brick in a larger enclosed container, the brick will not change. If you put the same volume of the same type of gas in those two different-sized containers, they will fill up each container evenly because the molecules in a gas are moving much more quickly. This means that the atoms of gas in the larger container would be more spread apart than those in the smaller container.

My point is that in order for you to make your argument, you need to compare a gas to a gas, not a gas to a solid, otherwise we're comparing "apples to oranges," as the cliche goes.

Imagine a domed football stadium full of tennis balls. The balls at the top will be fully expanded, right?

Yep.  Agreed.

The balls in the middle will be under pressure from those above, but the balls that are towards the outer edge are under far far less pressure than those in the middle.

Yep.  Agreed again.

Further down to the bottom in the centre, you would see extreme compression and resistance creating friction, which creates heat, which over time would become super hot and it would be resonating sound due to friction which agitates the balls around it, making them vibrate.

Yep.  The balls in the centre of the pile will be under extreme pressure from all the balls above.

No; there will be no friction, as the balls are all stationary—not moving relative to each other—therefore there can be no friction and no heat produced.  There'll also be no sound generated, as sound requires that the balls be moving constantly against each other because of an external applied force—which they're not. 

The entire stack of balls is considered to be a static system in terms of physics.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 08:23:33 AM

Not quite.  I believe the tendency of matter to stay still or at constant speed and direction (a.k.a. interia) is what causes the high and low pressures in the first place.  So if it works, it actually proves that inertia is a real effect (though not actually a force).  Since gravity acts perpendicular to the motion of a bus, it can't affect your results, and so can't be proved or dis-proved with this experiment.

If you have to hang onto something..hang onto it for dear life. Enjoy the rest of your life, because if you can't see the truth then you don't want to, for whatever reasons.

I'm sorry, but with everything I ever see, I can identify forces and inertia.  Engineers build buildings, bridges, busses, aircraft, roller coasters and every other complex machine and structure using primarily the laws newton and other physicists described regarding forces, gravity, inertia, energy etc...  If that's not how you define truth I don't know what is.  It seems like the best bet for something to hold on to.  We've been trying to give you the knowledge of these laws free of charge, but if you just want to hold on to your own truth for whatever rebellious purpose, that's fine, just don't act as if you know everything and show some respect, please.

I can think of a lot of gaseous elements but that still doesn't answer where the concept of up and down comes from without gravity.

The very fact that your balance and senses can determine up and down and the fact that you are udner pressure. You should not even need to ask this. You do, because your mind is so focused on gravity, that you cannot comprehend the simplicity of what you are living under and have to use gravity, even though it's a force that is unknown. Your gravity does not exist.

Without gravity to give us a down then up and down become like side to side.

If you want to believe that then fine. I'm obviously not going to change your mind because I'm a tin foil hat lunatic with no education and mainstream scientists are the dogs bo.....bo.....biscuits to you, so I'm under no illusions at all about you ever changing your mind and seeing it from anotehr view, which is  a real shame, for you..

Theres air to the left and right of me but it's pressure is equal. likewise if I was to go halfway up to the ice dome I ought to be able to fly around under equal pressure on all sides.

You will fly, only it will be in various forms as your body is taken apart molecule by molecule.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 10:00:45 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on January 11, 2014, 09:56:47 AM

Here's how sceptis examples work:

Hey everyone has it wrong, here is an example of how it works and fits in with my world view. I'm going to go ahead and neglect the fact that it doesn't seem to work with any other scenario's and imply that it means I'm right anyway. I'm also going to try very hard to replace science even though the concepts which I'm attempting to replace seem to work with every situation and can actually predict the behavior of real world situations with perfect accuracy.

If that was the case then fair enough. The point is, it does work.
Your version is, "hey, we are right because Newton said this and the Greeks said that and it's obvious the earth spins, so there.2
Give it a rest, it only makes you look good with the people who back slap each other who play the same game.

I don't care how much you don't like Newton. His laws are good based on their merits. They work in the real world. Your laws only work in certain situations and you have to make up new behaviors for this pressure for different scenarios. That is pseudo science.

I'm not really bothered what you call it. I simply call it, the truth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 09:58:15 AM

Quote from: TPMS on January 11, 2014, 09:39:29 AM

I didn't mention anything about sea level atmospheric pressure or compressed air containers. You claimed that the air molecules are held together by compression. The concept of compression in this sense inherently implies that something is pushing down on the molecules from the top with something (whether this is simply a heavier object on the top or air moving from a point of high pressure to a point of low pressure in order to equalize the air pressure). I asked you to explain how compression could occur if the top molecules are under lower pressure than the bottom molecules are.

EDIT: grammar adjustment

Which bricks on a house are under most pressure and which are under the least pressure?

Air is a gas, bricks are a solid. Gases and solids have different properties. For example, solids don't attempt to fill a given space evenly because the atoms in a solid do not move nearly as much as the atoms in gases do. In other words, if you put a brick in an small enclosed container and then put that same brick in a larger enclosed container, the brick will not change. If you put the same volume of the same type of gas in those two different-sized containers, they will fill up each container evenly because the molecules in a gas are moving much more quickly. This means that the atoms of gas in the larger container would be more spread apart than those in the smaller container.

My point is that in order for you to make your argument, you need to compare a gas to a gas, not a gas to a solid, otherwise we're comparing "apples to oranges," as the cliche goes.

You asked me why pressure happen, so me being me and thinking you would grasp the analogy, I thought I'd use bricks but of course, I shouldn't have done that because I'm dealing with another scientist who can't be simplistic.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 11, 2014, 10:03:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 10:00:45 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on January 11, 2014, 09:56:47 AM

Here's how sceptis examples work:

Hey everyone has it wrong, here is an example of how it works and fits in with my world view. I'm going to go ahead and neglect the fact that it doesn't seem to work with any other scenario's and imply that it means I'm right anyway. I'm also going to try very hard to replace science even though the concepts which I'm attempting to replace seem to work with every situation and can actually predict the behavior of real world situations with perfect accuracy.

If that was the case then fair enough. The point is, it does work.
Your version is, "hey, we are right because Newton said this and the Greeks said that and it's obvious the earth spins, so there.2
Give it a rest, it only makes you look good with the people who back slap each other who play the same game.

I don't care how much you don't like Newton. His laws are good based on their merits. They work in the real world. Your laws only work in certain situations and you have to make up new behaviors for this pressure for different scenarios. That is pseudo science.

I'm not really bothered what you call it. I simply call it, the truth.

For it to be truth it needs to apply to the real world. Unfortunately for you, they don't. Nonsense by definition.

Sceptimatic, what do you call the thing that causes air to compress?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 09:53:54 AM

Imagine a domed football stadium full of tennis balls. The balls at the top will be fully expanded, right?

Yep.  Agreed.

Quote

The balls in the middle will be under pressure from those above, but the balls that are towards the outer edge are under far far less pressure than those in the middle.

Yep.  Agreed again.

Quote

Further down to the bottom in the centre, you would see extreme compression and resistance creating friction, which creates heat, which over time would become super hot and it would be resonating sound due to friction which agitates the balls around it, making them vibrate.

Yep.  The balls in the centre of the pile will be under extreme pressure from all the balls above.

No; there will be no friction, as the balls are all stationary—not moving relative to each other—therefore there can be no friction and no heat produced.  There'll also be no sound generated, as sound requires that the balls be moving constantly against each other because of an external applied force—which they're not. 

The entire stack of balls is considered to be a static system in terms of physics.

Well, I don't really know what to say to this, except, if nothing moves from the central point, then nothing exists , so either we don't exist, or everything is moving.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 10:20:15 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on January 11, 2014, 10:03:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 10:00:45 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on January 11, 2014, 09:56:47 AM

Here's how sceptis examples work:

Hey everyone has it wrong, here is an example of how it works and fits in with my world view. I'm going to go ahead and neglect the fact that it doesn't seem to work with any other scenario's and imply that it means I'm right anyway. I'm also going to try very hard to replace science even though the concepts which I'm attempting to replace seem to work with every situation and can actually predict the behavior of real world situations with perfect accuracy.

If that was the case then fair enough. The point is, it does work.
Your version is, "hey, we are right because Newton said this and the Greeks said that and it's obvious the earth spins, so there.2
Give it a rest, it only makes you look good with the people who back slap each other who play the same game.

I don't care how much you don't like Newton. His laws are good based on their merits. They work in the real world. Your laws only work in certain situations and you have to make up new behaviors for this pressure for different scenarios. That is pseudo science.

I'm not really bothered what you call it. I simply call it, the truth.

For it to be truth it needs to apply to the real world. Unfortunately for you, they don't. Nonsense by definition.

It applies to the world I live in. If it doesn't apply to you, then fair enough.

If they are accredited then they will not hold this view...TO US, it will be kept to themselves whilst they enjoy the trappings of their status.

Fair enough.  Then maybe you could name a few fringe scientists (non-mainstream) that believe the world is flat.

 

My own common sense and experiments and logic. I don't need to give you any links to anything.

Common sense is often anything but common—as they say.  Only joking.   Why would you say that your common sense is any better than mine, considering we're both educated people?  And how can you assess one person's common sense against another's?

Can you tell us specifically what "experiments" you've personally carried out to determine that the theory of gravity is false?  What sort of apparatus did you use?  And how did you record your findings? 

Why is it that you refuse to give me any links "to anything"?  Wouldn't that be the easiest and most convincing way to prove your flat earth/no inertia/no gravity theories?  I don't understand your concepts with these three points, so yes; you do need to give me some explanatory links.

Sceptimatic, what do you call the thing that causes air to compress?

Would it be a pump?

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 10:29:21 AM

Sceptimatic, what do you call the thing that causes air to compress?

Would it be a pump?

I mean as you describe in a moving bus.  When a bus accelerates, why doesn't the air just accelerate with the bus?  Why compress?

False.  There are high and low pressure systems in our weather.  They aren't contained in sealed containers.  Also look at the pressure waves in front of supersonic jets.  That's compressed air outside a sealed container.  Jet engines are not sealed containers, yet they can be relied upon to compress air to ignite the fuel.  If a force is applied to air, it compresses slightly.  That's all there is to it.

Sorry, but you're interpreting my example totally out of context.

I said:  The air mass inside the bus does not and can not be compressed under these circumstances.

I stand by this statement without any hesitation.  There's really no point in introducing jet engines and aircraft into the equation—totally different physics apply. 

And meteorologically speaking, our earth's atmosphere is effectively a sealed system.  Admittedly a massive one, but sealed nonetheless.  That's why we have the so-called greenhouse effect.  Noxious gases are trapped by the impermeable ozone layer and can't escape.  If the earth's atmosphere was open to outer space, we'd all be dead.

Fair enough.  Then maybe you could name a few fringe scientists (non-mainstream) that believe the world is flat.

Whether I could name one or a million, it won't make any difference. I'm under no illusions about how alternative thinkers are labelled as nut cases, so any scientist with an alternative view to mainstream will be labelled equally as that by mainstream followers. It's the nature of the beast.

Common sense is often anything but common—as they say.  Only joking.   Why would you say that your common sense is any better than mine, considering we're both educated people?  And how can you assess one person's common sense against another's?

Common sense can differ with anyone. It doesn't mean you are any less logical in overall terms. It's dependent on beliefs.
For instance:
A lawyer or a brilliant scientist can believe in a god and the perceived (by many) village idiot can tell himself that common sense says there isn't a god.
Who is the real illogical person?

The very same scenario could be a salesman coming to the lawyers house and telling him that they have a deal on with windows and his are looking old and this deal is a one off.
The lawyer having been to court and seen scams, politely refuses, knowing he has a good chance of being duped.
The perceived (by many) village idiot hands over the money for the deal of a lifetime window offer.
Who used common sense?

The answer to both of those questions is , it's hard to tell but if you ask the people of the village...all or just about all, will tell all and sundry that the lawyer has the most common sense for no other reason that he is smart looking and speaks nicely and has a top job.
The perceived (by many) village idiot will be looked on as a lesser person because his views maybe didn't match the views of some or that he liked to cut his grass with a scythe instead of a mower.

You know, things like that.
This is the way it works in life and common sense , we all have, it just depends on how it's used and who it's used with or against in whatever situation.
A rotating ball is common sense to you. It's absolutely nonsensical to me for any number of reasons as I've stated many times.
Intelligence and gullibility and common sense and logic, we all have in our locker, all of us. It's what makes us what we are in learning and it's about who has the better story and can tell it, which can decide whether you can make an otherwise intelligent person act gullible and believe it by bypassing their natural logic and common sense that should tell them that it is, indeed, just a well told story.

Can you tell us specifically what "experiments" you've personally carried out to determine that the theory of gravity is false?  What sort of apparatus did you use?  And how did you record your findings? 

Just basic things like putting a balloon in a bottle top and piercing a hole in the side of the bottle and sucking out the air to watch the balloon inflate itself. Sitting in the car and testing moving objects and such. things like that, that easily tell me what I'm up against, which is certainly not gravity or inertia.
I don't need a lab coat and black rimmed glasses on to figure things out.

Why is it that you refuse to give me any links "to anything"?  Wouldn't that be the easiest and most convincing way to prove your flat earth/no inertia/no gravity theories?  I don't understand your concepts with these three points, so yes; you do need to give me some explanatory links.

There's an excellent link to disprove  gravity and inertia but I cannot find it.
Look it up. It's about 2 men driving a small bus with 4 helium and 4 air filled balloons in it. The helium balloons are tied to the seats and the air balloons are tied to the inside roof, hanging.

When the bus accelerates, the air balloons go backwards and the helium balloons go forwards. I lost it so maybe you can find it. It could have something to do with the slow mo guys or something like that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2014, 10:32:04 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 11, 2014, 10:29:21 AM

Sceptimatic, what do you call the thing that causes air to compress?

Would it be a pump?

I mean as you describe in a moving bus.  When a bus accelerates, why doesn't the air just accelerate with the bus?  Why compress?

The air is stable in the bus.
Once the bus accelerates, it starts to leave the air behind, but the air compresses as the back of the bus crashes into it and compresses against the back, so as the bus moves away under acceleration, it compresses all the other air in tandem to compress into the air that was already compressed into the back of the bus and this happens all the way down, it's like a motorway pile up, only in reverse.
This leaves a low pressure at the front for a moment until it's filled, which creates more pressure in the bus and if it keeps accelerating, this will happen more and more, bit by bit as the air compresses tighter and tighter.