Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

  • 1234 Replies
  • 269749 Views
?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #900 on: December 01, 2014, 12:25:44 PM »
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.

About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium.  ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #901 on: December 01, 2014, 12:27:07 PM »
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.

While likely true, all he has proven is that he will just fuck around with you.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #902 on: December 01, 2014, 12:28:09 PM »
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.

About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium.  ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #903 on: December 01, 2014, 12:34:20 PM »
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.

sceptimatic invariably reverts to using these kindergarten-level parables whenever he's backed into a corner by questions that he can't answer.  It's actually quite funny to see him wallowing in the truckloads of bovine excrement he repeatedly buries himself in—without a shovel.

I think my goldfish have a far better understanding of mass, displacement, buoyancy and pressure than poor old sceptimatic.  Unlike sceptimatic, they're capable of utilising those theories every day, and to the best of my knowledge they've never even read a science book.  Maybe sceptimatic should start eating fish food sandwiches and catch up with my carassius auratus auratus?

    ;D

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #904 on: December 01, 2014, 12:40:12 PM »
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.

About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium.  ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.

I wrote you a haiku  :-*

A denier calls foul
claims air can push it all down
but not a bubble

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #905 on: December 01, 2014, 12:42:29 PM »
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?

I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #906 on: December 01, 2014, 12:53:47 PM »
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.

About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium.  ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #907 on: December 01, 2014, 12:59:06 PM »

Buoyancy pushes up and gravity pulls down.  How complicated is that?  ???
It's not complicated to say, it just doesn't work when explained by MSS.
What is MSS?  Is it another name for denpressure?

Then why does a ball keep going upwards for a while when you throw it upwards?
Due to the energy you exerted to overcome the pressure on that mass/density.
Now, let's say that the ball is in the middle of an airplane that is going that exact same speed and path of that ball that was thrown upwards.  Is the ball weightless relative to the plane?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #908 on: December 01, 2014, 02:12:15 PM »
I have an idea to save trillions of dollars. How about all cargo ships ship their cargo in a vacuum. Take an oil tanker for instance. All the shipping company would have to do is fill up the tanks and then pull the best vacuum they can on the head space. Then poof, the oil is weightless. Imagine how much easier it would be to ship things. I will go ahead and collect my Nobel Prize now.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #909 on: December 01, 2014, 03:55:39 PM »
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?

I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.

Can you answer this?

I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but you redefined how pressure moves things by saying molecules push down on other things and you thereby made it inconsequential that pressure is higher near the surface than above. Like you said the stack just pushes down. So then instead of asking why things fall down, how about why do things float? Why would denpressure be capable of pushing down a car, a building, a ball or even a naval ship, but it can't seem to push down a bubble or a helium balloon?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 03:57:10 PM by rottingroom »

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • +0/-0
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #910 on: December 01, 2014, 05:20:50 PM »
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.

You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.

  • What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
  • In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease

Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Don't forget you think I'm a troll so why are you even bothering with a troll?
So was Thork, but at least he mumbled half-responses when asked. Also, all my questions are legitimate problems of your hypothesis. Regardless of my intention, the fact that you dont adress them says a lot, and, ofcourse, an hypothesis that can be disproven is a failed one.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #911 on: December 02, 2014, 02:01:41 AM »
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.

About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium.  ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.
I have explained but you just cannot seem to absorb it. So let me explain it simply again.

The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
Because of this, they are under a different resistance of friction. The more denser metals will push through resistance much easier than less denser metals, which is why they fall faster.
Now why can't you understand this?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #912 on: December 02, 2014, 02:06:36 AM »

What is MSS?  Is it another name for denpressure?

No it's just mainstream science silliness.
 
Now, let's say that the ball is in the middle of an airplane that is going that exact same speed and path of that ball that was thrown upwards.  Is the ball weightless relative to the plane?
Can you clarify what you mean here because I can't decide whether the ball is inside the plane or thrown up to the plane.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #913 on: December 02, 2014, 02:08:24 AM »
I have an idea to save trillions of dollars. How about all cargo ships ship their cargo in a vacuum. Take an oil tanker for instance. All the shipping company would have to do is fill up the tanks and then pull the best vacuum they can on the head space. Then poof, the oil is weightless. Imagine how much easier it would be to ship things. I will go ahead and collect my Nobel Prize now.
Tell them to take a raincheck on your nobel prize. You've just sunk your cargo ship. Not very wise, was it?  ;D

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #914 on: December 02, 2014, 02:25:03 AM »
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?

I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.

Can you answer this?

I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but you redefined how pressure moves things by saying molecules push down on other things and you thereby made it inconsequential that pressure is higher near the surface than above. Like you said the stack just pushes down. So then instead of asking why things fall down, how about why do things float? Why would denpressure be capable of pushing down a car, a building, a ball or even a naval ship, but it can't seem to push down a bubble or a helium balloon?
The pressure is higher near the surface due to the stacked matter above it compressing it.
If you blow a bubble from a kids bubble blowing container, you have to use energy to do so. That energy is the force of hot air expanding that detergent which pushes the atmosphere above it around it, then that bubble is then forced down against resistance which is why it falls slowly.

Your helium balloon is expanded molecules and is doing teh same thing. Forcing the air above around the balloon and because the molecules are much denser than helium molecules, they try to crush the balloon back to the ground but can't because each time they do it, they force the balloon up against the lesser force of atmosphere above that the expanded balloon has taken up. This is why they float upwards.


That helium balloon is not different to you being anchored to the bottom of a river then released. The pressure of water tries to force the air out of you, or crush you but all it does it force you back to the top, unless you give up your air, just like if the helium balloon went pop.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #915 on: December 02, 2014, 02:28:58 AM »
Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.

You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.

  • What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
  • In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease

Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.
Don't forget you think I'm a troll so why are you even bothering with a troll?
So was Thork, but at least he mumbled half-responses when asked. Also, all my questions are legitimate problems of your hypothesis. Regardless of my intention, the fact that you dont adress them says a lot, and, ofcourse, an hypothesis that can be disproven is a failed one.
As soon as you put your questions to me without acting like a prick, let me know and I'll answer.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #916 on: December 02, 2014, 05:26:28 AM »
Speaking of which.... if this monstrous stack of air above is strong enough to send a car back to the ground after it's taken a jump of a cliff, then surely it could push a balloon, or a bubble, or anything that floats right?

I bet even your puny arms could smack a helium balloon from a higher level down to a lower one.

Can you answer this?

I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but you redefined how pressure moves things by saying molecules push down on other things and you thereby made it inconsequential that pressure is higher near the surface than above. Like you said the stack just pushes down. So then instead of asking why things fall down, how about why do things float? Why would denpressure be capable of pushing down a car, a building, a ball or even a naval ship, but it can't seem to push down a bubble or a helium balloon?
The pressure is higher near the surface due to the stacked matter above it compressing it.
If you blow a bubble from a kids bubble blowing container, you have to use energy to do so. That energy is the force of hot air expanding that detergent which pushes the atmosphere above it around it, then that bubble is then forced down against resistance which is why it falls slowly.

Your helium balloon is expanded molecules and is doing teh same thing. Forcing the air above around the balloon and because the molecules are much denser than helium molecules, they try to crush the balloon back to the ground but can't because each time they do it, they force the balloon up against the lesser force of atmosphere above that the expanded balloon has taken up. This is why they float upwards.


That helium balloon is not different to you being anchored to the bottom of a river then released. The pressure of water tries to force the air out of you, or crush you but all it does it force you back to the top, unless you give up your air, just like if the helium balloon went pop.

In the case of the helium balloon why does it matter what is inside the balloon. Why can't the atmosphere just push down on the top surface of the balloon just like my hand could push down on the top surface of the balloon to push it down? Look, because of buoyancy, the heavier air underneath the balloon is pushing the balloon up right? This is why it goes up rather than down, right, or left. The pressure is slightly more underneath. So if this is what pressure does, then why doesn't it work this way with everything else?

I think your theory is both very wrong a very confusing. The mechanism here is pressure. The only way to understand how it can move something is with a helium balloon but in that case it is the heavier air underneath pushing the lighter air inside the helium balloon up. So if that the case, then it follows that in the case of something like a car, it is the heavier car pushing the air up, not the lighter air pushing the heavier car down. This is why you redefined what pressure means for your theory. You can't just switch it up and use the proper definition for buoyancy in the case of helium balloons and use a totally different definition for everything else.

Anyways this is somewhat unrelated, but I wanted you to try something:

Bear with me here. So you've seen many videos showing you how a feather and something like an iron ball would fall at the same rate in a vacuum right? You didn't believe these videos were honest but anyways, the point was that gravity works on the feather just as well as anything else as long as air resistance is removed. So another simple way that you can show this to yourself without having to worry about having a vacuum container is to use a book and a feather and instead of dropping the 2 side-by-side, you can drop them at the same time with the book directly underneath the feather so that the book shields the feather from air resistance. When you do this they drop together at the same rate. You can probably try this at home with things already available in your own house.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #917 on: December 02, 2014, 06:11:14 AM »
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.

About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium.  ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.
I have explained but you just cannot seem to absorb it. So let me explain it simply again.

The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
Because of this, they are under a different resistance of friction. The more denser metals will push through resistance much easier than less denser metals, which is why they fall faster.
Now why can't you understand this?
Please show the test results to prove it.  Please explain how to measure 'resistance of friction'.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 06:14:10 AM by inquisitive »

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • +0/-0
  • NASA shill
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #918 on: December 02, 2014, 07:25:14 AM »
The pressure is higher near the surface due to the stacked matter above it compressing it.

This is what I wanted to hear again.

Why is it higher near the surface? Your explanation, that is because of stacked matter compressing it, literally requires gravity, or else there would be equal pressure all around inside the dome.

Why not turn your model upside down, or on its side? Why doesn't denpressure push us up since the stack of matter caused by the ground compresses the air up?

Denpressure by nature requires am extra force. What is it?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 07:29:11 AM by Jet Fission »
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #919 on: December 02, 2014, 07:38:29 AM »
In the case of the helium balloon why does it matter what is inside the balloon. Why can't the atmosphere just push down on the top surface of the balloon just like my hand could push down on the top surface of the balloon to push it down? Look, because of buoyancy, the heavier air underneath the balloon is pushing the balloon up right?
The atmosphere cannot push down on anything until something pushes into it to compress it.
The helium in the balloon expands into the atmosphere and creates this push against the atmosphere as it compresses and forces that compressed air back over the balloon and around it to SQUEEZE the balloon to try and crush it but it can't, because just like you in the bath with a soapy hand and a bar of soap, you try and squeeze it and what happens?
It's the same thing, except different energies applied.

I think your theory is both very wrong a very confusing. The mechanism here is pressure. The only way to understand how it can move something is with a helium balloon but in that case it is the heavier air underneath pushing the lighter air inside the helium balloon up. So if that the case, then it follows that in the case of something like a car, it is the heavier car pushing the air up, not the lighter air pushing the heavier car down.
The car isn't heavier. It is the fact the the car is using the road or ground to push against atmosphere pushing down on it's dense body, minus the air actually inside of it. The so called lighter air above is not so. The pressure is enormous.
We only exist in it because we are simply made up of matter that mostly equalises the pressure because we are made up of mostly water, so we can resist it without being crushed. We still feel the pressure but we don't realsie we are because we are used to it and are born into it.

This is a little example of being used to something.

Walk about nude. No problems, right?
Now put on bug heavy boots - socks - heavy jeans - heavy jumper and coat. Top that off with a hard hat and even a back pack with your lunch in. Add a phone and a lap top and some change, etc.
You feel a difference but after being in them for a short whle, you forget you have them on because your body has adapted.
Well that's us against nature. We adapted because we grew into it by nature and we cannot survive without it and struggle with only minor changes to it.

This is why you redefined what pressure means for your theory. You can't just switch it up and use the proper definition for buoyancy in the case of helium balloons and use a totally different definition for everything else.
I haven't. I use it to highlight what I'm saying and hope logic kicks in with people to see it that way.

Anyways this is somewhat unrelated, but I wanted you to try something:

Bear with me here. So you've seen many videos showing you how a feather and something like an iron ball would fall at the same rate in a vacuum right? You didn't believe these videos were honest but anyways, the point was that gravity works on the feather just as well as anything else as long as air resistance is removed. So another simple way that you can show this to yourself without having to worry about having a vacuum container is to use a book and a feather and instead of dropping the 2 side-by-side, you can drop them at the same time with the book directly underneath the feather so that the book shields the feather from air resistance. When you do this they drop together at the same rate. You can probably try this at home with things already available in your own house.
But the book is going to do the exact same thing. It's going to compress the air below it and send it around the book - up against thelower pressure created behind it and compressing back onto the book and feather, clamping the feather to the book. The only time it won't happen is if the book is dropped unevenly which will push the feather away.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #920 on: December 02, 2014, 07:41:21 AM »
A submarine sinks due to displacement septic. So do we now have underwater dunny pressure or can we just go back to the gravity idea.
This is a pretty good point. Why do things sink underwater in the denpressure perspective, if they are not under the effect of the atmosphere? You could say that water works the same way air does, and causes its own denpessure, but then why do things fall much slower in water, if water is more dense?
Hopefully I explained that above.

About things falling slower. They do because they are still porous, which is what I've been telling you all along.
A gold bar will fall extremely fast because it's much less porous but not completely. A block of dense wood will fall much slower because it's more porous and so have buoyancy, just like in the atmosphere things have buoyancy, only it's viewed differently and requires more in depth though as to why, which should be clear to people who can think.
Please provide relative fall times for gold, steel and aluminium.
Please answer.
Ok, let's go for Autumn. Gold falls fastest, then steel and then aluminium.
Now please provide detailed diagrams of things you can make with gold, steel and aluminium.  ;)
Please explain why and show proof with test results.
I was thinking of a real gold bar about 10 foot cubed. I then thought about a little steel bearing and an aluminium coke can filled with helium and sealed with a cork.
The test result for Autumn showed that the gold bar got stolen as it fell, fast. The ball bearing fell and rolled down a drain. And the coke can, somebody grabbed and tried to drink, which made them talk funny.
So you you have no idea about science, as proven here.
What is science?
Stick with explaining why 3 identical sized solid objects made of those materials fall at different speeds.
I have explained but you just cannot seem to absorb it. So let me explain it simply again.

The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
Because of this, they are under a different resistance of friction. The more denser metals will push through resistance much easier than less denser metals, which is why they fall faster.
Now why can't you understand this?
Please show the test results to prove it.  Please explain how to measure 'resistance of friction'.
No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations. Oh and let me say it before you do. I'm not interested what you think about me not being able to do them and this and that, so save yourself the bullshit, it's too tedious to deal with you.
You don't even attempt to learn it.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #921 on: December 02, 2014, 07:44:12 AM »
Please provide pressure measurements to prove.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #922 on: December 02, 2014, 08:00:09 AM »
This is what I wanted to hear again.

Why is it higher near the surface? Your explanation, that is because of stacked matter compressing it, literally requires gravity, or else there would be equal pressure all around inside the dome.
You know what. You are never going to understand what I'm saying. Why?...because you simply can't get this crap gravity out of your head to attempt to do so.
Why is it that you're so happy to believe in gravity when it can't be explained as to what it is as a force?
I;m explaining what it is using the real force of denpressure and you keep coming back with the gravity stuff when I've told you time and time again what causes the pressure.

Let me add it again.
The pressure is caused by energy pushing dense object up against the pressure pushing down. If the energy push8ing up, is larger than the pressure pushing down on it's mass/density, then it can exist in that pressure but will always have that pressure sitting on it because its added to the pressure in the atmosphere by forcing it out the way by density.
Why not turn your model upside down, or on its side? Why doesn't denpressure push us up since the stack of matter caused by the ground compresses the air up?
The ground does not compress the air up. The air at the ground us UNDER compression by the stacked atmosphere. All it's doing is resisting being crushed any further until something of density adds to it which can compress it even more.
Only energy can push it up.

A for instance: you are laid on the floor and I hand you a heavy barbel and weights. In order for you to push those weights up, you have to use your energy.
Now, once you've pushed them up, you now have to hold them by locking your arms. You are now under compression, beause you cannot do any more pushing, only resisting those weights wanting to crush you.
You will never be still doing this, just like the compressed air molecules are never still. They are always trying to resist and are contracting and exapnding a little to hold the resistance, only when the air pressure keeps changing by other dense objects being pushed by energy into the atmosphere, changing the pressures, slightly.

See what I'm saying?
Gravity is a lie, it really is.
Denpressure by nature requires am extra force. What is it?
See above.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #923 on: December 02, 2014, 08:02:22 AM »
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #924 on: December 02, 2014, 08:05:08 AM »
The atmosphere cannot push down on anything until something pushes into it to compress it.
The helium in the balloon expands into the atmosphere and creates this push against the atmosphere as it compresses and forces that compressed air back over the balloon and around it to SQUEEZE the balloon to try and crush it but it can't, because just like you in the bath with a soapy hand and a bar of soap, you try and squeeze it and what happens?
It's the same thing, except different energies applied.

A helium molecule can overcome the weight of all the stacked molecules above it in the atmosphere but a car can't?

The car isn't heavier. It is the fact the the car is using the road or ground to push against atmosphere pushing down on it's dense body, minus the air actually inside of it. The so called lighter air above is not so. The pressure is enormous.
We only exist in it because we are simply made up of matter that mostly equalises the pressure because we are made up of mostly water, so we can resist it without being crushed. We still feel the pressure but we don't realsie we are because we are used to it and are born into it.

This is a little example of being used to something.

Walk about nude. No problems, right?
Now put on bug heavy boots - socks - heavy jeans - heavy jumper and coat. Top that off with a hard hat and even a back pack with your lunch in. Add a phone and a lap top and some change, etc.
You feel a difference but after being in them for a short whle, you forget you have them on because your body has adapted.
Well that's us against nature. We adapted because we grew into it by nature and we cannot survive without it and struggle with only minor changes to it.

The car isn't heavier? Look, that is just one example. We can just say a car driving off a cliff.

I haven't. I use it to highlight what I'm saying and hope logic kicks in with people to see it that way.

Sorry, but your version of pressure is quite different from the one everyone else knows.

But the book is going to do the exact same thing. It's going to compress the air below it and send it around the book - up against thelower pressure created behind it and compressing back onto the book and feather, clamping the feather to the book. The only time it won't happen is if the book is dropped unevenly which will push the feather away.

So you don't think the feather is falling?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #925 on: December 02, 2014, 08:23:08 AM »
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.

They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #926 on: December 02, 2014, 08:41:18 AM »
A helium molecule can overcome the weight of all the stacked molecules above it in the atmosphere but a car can't?

Please read what I'm saying.
Energy is the sole reason why a helium molecule or a car exists to be placed into teh atmosphere to start with,
Their densities obviously vary massively.
The car is made from all components, like metals and plastic, plus fabrics, etc. Not all of that mass displaces the atmosphere above, just the density of that mass. This is what the atmosphere is pushing down on and squeezing. The rest is equalised with that atmosphere.
A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.
Once it can't be crushed, it annot expand any more and tehre's no agitation, so it freezes or goes dormant and rests on the higher pressure resistance below it which is resting on the higher pressure below that, etc, all the way to the gound and beyond.



The car isn't heavier? Look, that is just one example. We can just say a car driving off a cliff.

It doesn't matter about a cliff or a mountain. To get the car up tehre requires an enormous amount of energy. to expend energy you have to reap energy from it, no matter what. It's like for like. Action and then a reaction in EQUAL terms.



Sorry, but your version of pressure is quite different from the one everyone else knows.
Of course it is because people simply believe what they're told and go with gravity as well as thinking the atmosphere works a little differently. The mainstream science world mixes the two because they know that atmospheric pressure kills off everyting we were taught about Earth and supposedly, beyond. It's no wonder.

So you don't think the feather is falling?
The feather is being pushed down with the book, against resistance. It's basically a squeeze once in motion. A grip when it's not.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #927 on: December 02, 2014, 08:49:04 AM »
How do you bullshit so hard?

Let's say the car factory exists in Denver. Then after that it is driven away from the factory away from the rocky mountains and then off a cliff.

torlolol

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #928 on: December 02, 2014, 08:52:16 AM »
Yet you still refuse to show measurements of these pressures.
You measure these pressures every day but your problem is, they have gravity calculations attached to them when tehre is no need at all, as it does not exist.

They should simply change all the measuring meters to names that deal with reality, instead of gravimeter and all the rest of the absolute crap, seriously.
Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.
How do you measure air pressure around an object to prove your theory?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #929 on: December 02, 2014, 08:52:26 AM »
How do you bullshit so hard?

Let's say the car factory exists in Denver. Then after that it is driven away from the factory away from the rocky mountains and then off a cliff.

torlolol
It doesn't matter where the car was made. Wherever you put that car, it is in the pressure it is in and will displace the atmosphere it is in.