Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

So sceptimatic has claimed that "denpressure" = F+fv+EV/DM*rM

We now need a further two things:

1)   What F, fv, EV, DM, and rM stand for.
2)   What is the unit of measurement for "denpressure"?

Without these definitions, the "formula" is meaningless and untestable.

Go septic, can you tell us how it works.

F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume

DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.

So the more the air expands the more dunny pressure and the more density and mass the less.
Is fv your hand on your dick?.

So the more the air expands the more dunny pressure and the more density and mass the less.
Is fv your hand on your dick?.

Nope. The vibration and frequency of it decides the energy we see and use. That energy is creating expansion by friction that creates a force upon any dense mass which resists that force due to energy expended.

There you go. There's my formula.

So, no formula then.  Just a bunch of your usual bullshit.

So bang in some numbers,lets see this at work up a mountain and on the flat.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2014, 03:25:16 AM

There you go. There's my formula.

So, no formula then.  Just a bunch of your usual bullshit.

To you, yes. I mean it's similar to your Einsteinain bullshit of gravity and the other absolute laughable piece of bullshit in the equation, E=mc²

So bang in some numbers,lets see this at work up a mountain and on the flat.

Let's see you bang in some numbers for your equation first for the mountain and on the flat. Off you go.

Top of mt Everest it is 9.78 m/sec

Top of mt Everest it is 9.78 m/sec

How did you come to this?

Went back too school as an old fart a few years ago,it was an exam question.

Went back too school as an old fart a few years ago,it was an exam question.

Never mind the exam question. I want you to tell me how YOU know that the top of everest is what you say it is. Just tell me how it was calculated.

Get on with your dunny pressure sum and watch the fv under the table. It seems to make you forget things.

Get on with your dunny pressure sum and watch the fv under the table. It seems to make you forget things.

Just as I thought. You can't come up with an answer and have to try and use silliness to avoid it. Hahahaha.

You and your cronies are living like parrots. All youa re doing is looking for equations that are there for you and when asked how the measured force came into being, you can't describe it. Why?

The reason is very simple. None of you have a clue what the hell you are doing and you rely on the full back up of shoehorned science to aid you. As I said before. None of you are capable of rational thought. Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought. Cannot think outside of the box and prefer the comfort of that box you are sealed inside.

Prove me wrong and lay out the basics of how your gravity equation came about to be what it is.
Also, tell me when the equation was first recognised as that equation.
Come back with the silliness and it makes you the clown that I knew you were and that goes for all otherswho can't think for themselves.

Your formula makes no sense septic,how about you prove it.
You sound like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar trying too bullshit a way out of it.

The reason is very simple. None of you have a clue what the hell you are doing and you rely on the full back up of shoehorned science to aid you. As I said before. None of you are capable of rational thought. Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought. Cannot think outside of the box and prefer the comfort of that box you are sealed inside..

Whenever you are stuck in a corner it is always this.  The emotional rant full of insults about how we are all "Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought." or whatever.

We've heard a million times, and all it shows is that you've got nothing.

Your formula makes no sense septic,how about you prove it.
You sound like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar trying too bullshit a way out of it.

How about you make sense of your own equations and spew out what they mean and how they are what they are. Come on, give me something to work on. Be basic and let's understand what they mean. Come on my little bow legged friend, I'm sure you can manage this.
Don't try and bullshit your way out of it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2014, 05:07:49 AM

The reason is very simple. None of you have a clue what the hell you are doing and you rely on the full back up of shoehorned science to aid you. As I said before. None of you are capable of rational thought. Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought. Cannot think outside of the box and prefer the comfort of that box you are sealed inside..

Whenever you are stuck in a corner it is always this.  The emotional rant full of insults about how we are all "Dummies. Naive. Devoid of basic thought." or whatever.

We've heard a million times, and all it shows is that you've got nothing.

I'm in no corner, crabby. I'm out in the open. I'm stood in the circle with you all around me and I'm beckoning you all at once to show me how your gravity equations work and how they came about.
All I see is hot air and spouted clap trap.
Show me what your equations mean and what they do and how they calculate the thing you stock rigidly to.

Tell me who first calculated the math and by what means was the experiment performed to get to it.
Come on crabby, let's be having you.

F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume

DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.

If you are trying to calculate the force made by denpressure, the final answer would be in Force which is Mass*Distance/Time².

Force is force
frequency is time
expansion and volume is probably distance³
Density and mass I am assuming is mass
Resistance of mass is force

From this, I can come up with the units for your final answer with simple algebra, which is (Time*Distance³)/Mass.

Those units make no sense, you would expect that equation to output Force, but it outputs units that nobody has ever heard of.  Your equation does not work.

F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume

DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.

And in one fell swoop sceptimatic has totally destroyed any possible credibility for his "denpressure" hypothesis.

          

F+fv+EV/DM*rM

There you go. There's my formula [for denpressure].

F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume

DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.

Force has dimensions mass * length / time², written as m l t^-2

Frequency is 1 / time, or t^-1

Expansion is dimensionless

Volume is length³, or l³

Density is mass / volume = mass / length³, or m l^-3

Resistance is, I suppose, friction, which has the same dimensions as Force, so  m l t^-2

Is that right? When you say "friction of mass" in that last factor in the last term, do you mean friction times mass? If the former, it's just force, if the latter, force * mass. I'm going with the latter for the first try since I don't know what "friction of mass" means[nb]And the units are a little closer to matching as originally proposed.[/nb], but we'll see later that this may be wrong.

Anyway, your formula

Q = F+fv+EV/DM*rM   [Q is "denpressure", I guess]

has dimensions:

? = m l t^-2 + t^-1 + (l³) (m l^-3 m)^-1 (m) (m l t^-2)

= m l t^-2 + t^-1 + (l³) (m^-1 l³ m^-1) (m) (m l t^-2)

= m l t^-2 + t^-1 + l⁷ t^-2

We can see there's a problem here. You can't add terms unless they have the same units, and these are clearly different (thus the '?' on the left, since we can't tell what the dimensions are). In the last term, if you should have multiplied by density instead of dividing, its dimensions would change from l⁷ t^-2 to m² l t^-2 (volume divided by mass is simply the inverse of density, and multiplying by density leaves only the dimensionless Expansion factor and friction of mass factor, which is force times mass - or is it?) Perhaps that friction of mass factor really doesn't have a distinct mass dimension and is simply friction (force), m l t^-2, so we now have dimensions for the last term, which is the same as the first, which are those of a force. Ta daaa! Maybe squaring the frequency term is needed so all three terms have a common t^-2? That would help, but still isn't a force to match the first or last terms; another possibility is that you're missing a constant with dimensions that supply the missing m l and possibly t^-1 if fv is, in fact, not squared. Let's conjure up a constant S with dimensions m l or S' with dimensions m l t^-1. If we do that, then the "denpressure formula" becomes:

Q = F+S*fv²+EVD/M*rM

or

Q = F+S'*fv+EVD/M*rM

Since V = M/D, then these can be simplified to

Q = F+S*fv²+E*rM

or

Q = F+S'*fv+E*rM

Hey, at least the units will work now[nb]Many students when introduced to dimensional analysis dread it and think it's dumb. When applied, though, it's actually a very powerful way to tell if there are fundamental errors in your approach; if the units don't work, the answer is wrong.[/nb]. What say, sceptimatic? It's your formula. If this is correct, what is the value for S or S' as appropriate? Or is this way off track and it's really something completely different?

BTW, what force does 'F' in your original represent? Was that mis-typed and should have been F = fv+EV/DM*rM   [making 'F' "denpressure"]?

[Edit] Corrected 'volume' to 'density' in description of suggested correction to formula.
 

F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume

DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.

So rM is inertia?

What part of your equation allows an object in lower pressure to weigh less?

Looks to me like expansion makes things heavier and more mass makes things lighter. So in septic land they must have cold air balloons that throw out ballast to land.
SMDDD

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2014, 03:52:34 AM

F is force.
fv is frequency of vibration
EV is expansion and volume

DM is density and mass
rM is resistance of mass.

So rM is inertia?

What part of your equation allows an object in lower pressure to weigh less?

and is there a part that explains the difference between only working in a straight down direction, and not working in the infinite number of other directions?

This is a bit better septic.

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sfall.htm

And keep the fv under the table, mum will cut your nuts out.

Wow!  Thanks for your thorough debunking of sceptimatic's absurd "denpressure" notion Alpha2Omega.

I'm guessing we won't be seeing him back here to respond to your exposure of his nonsensical ideas.  You've also exposed his ignorance of both physics and maths by pointing out all the obvious errors in his absurd "formula"—which I'm guessing he just made up on the spot and hoped it wouldn't be challenged for its authenticity.

So... it's farewell "denpressure" our old friend.  You've served sceptimatic well for hundreds of hours of fun and games on these forums, but now it's time to commit you to the graveyard of scientific absurdities—along with phlogiston and all the other similar crackpot notions.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the gravity equation works and how it is tested to prove it works as we are told.
I see a lot of equations put up about all sorts of stuff and it is less than impressive. You see, we are humans, we are primitive. We need PROOF that these equations relate to reality and not just a bunch of numbers and letters describing crap.
Don't come back with anything other than explaianing it for gravity to show how it works.
I'm never impressed with comebacks of, "oh ho, look at scepti, he can't work them out, any kindergarten kid does this before breakfast."
And blah blah blah.

Omega looks like he may have a chance to explain a few things, so here we go.

Omega: Can you explain in basic terms the gravity equation and how it proves what it supposedly proves.
Can you also tell me when this equation was first used as absolute proof the equation works.
An experiment that gives a person no doubt it is what it is, that cannot be rigged to fit will also be good.
Can you try and refrain from coming out with stuff like, " everyone knows what gravity is, it's been tested" and what not, just lay it out in basic terms what the equation means in testable science.

Remember not to forget who first done this equation for it to be valid today, regardless of nobody knowing what the hell it is.
If anyone else can do it, then do it. Stop the idle chit chat about denpressure being destroyed. Denpressure is alive and kicking because it's as real as it gets for any layperson to understand.

I understand that you people work on copying stuff and making out the equations are all valid, etc, which naturally destroys your ability to actually critically think against that system.

I'll bypass the usual onslaught but inbetween it, I expect some clarification for what I've asked, or I'll be forced to pur gravity where it belongs. In the fantasy books.

Why do you need to be told here, can you not do your own research?

Why do you need to be told here, can you not do your own research?

Well yes, I suppose I could. I mean, we could all just go and do research on everything. Then what?
Then it becomes a case of whether a person believes it or not, which I clearly don't or has this escaped your limited attention span?
I come here to think. I come here to see different takes on stuff as well as giving out my own. It matters not that people like you come into it to attempt to destroy people's thoughts, because I'm not here for the likes of you. Get this firmly planted into that one track brain of yours and you might not keep coming out with one liners that mean absolutely eff all.

Your contrbution in any topic is usually, " so how come satellite dishes are all pointed the same way, then?"
This will be said in a thread about anything. You have nothing to give and appear to hang onto the coat tails of those that do give out answers. You're the little kid that pops your head out from behind bully beef who's giving it large, to shout "yeah."

I've told you time and time again that your goal here is to make yourself appear smart due to having all the so called answers at your fingertips. It doesn't make you smart. It makes you as dumb and naive as they come.

The definition of parrot; is you.