iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight

I'm honestly trying to understand what you're telling me.
You said I would feel more force from the wind in sticking a piece of metal out the window than a piece of cardboard of the same area.  Or did I misunderstand?

This should be obvious to you.

And the scale spring compresses more for the metal block than the cardboard block because the air is exerting more force on it. Or did I misunderstand?

I don't know what you're trying to say.

But you are also saying that if I blow on both a piece of cardboard and a piece of metal that I will measure the same force. Right?

No, I never said that. This is where you have to try to understand what I'm telling you and not try to twist it, whether you're being deliberate or not.

It seems like air is pushing harder on the metal some of the time but not any harder other times, and I haven't figured out how you are deciding which is which.

Try and make a better analogy as to what you think I'm saying to what you are saying.

What I am trying to do is find a controlled laboratory experiment where the gravity model and the air pressure model make measurably different predictions.  It would help if you could explain why, when the air pressing on the cardboard sheet from below pushes just as hard as the air pushing it from above, the same would not be true for the metal sheet.

You are confusing yourself and me to be fair. Try something that is more easier for me to explain to you so you can grasp it.

Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written. 

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.

The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 01, 2016, 06:02:12 PM

Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written. 

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.

The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Bad analogy.  The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth.  The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them. 

If the atmosphere is held on by a dome, then why isn't all the air spread out evenly (as every gas experiment ever says it should)

The atmosphere isn't held on by a dome. The dome is the natural ending to a stacked molecule mass by greater expansion as the stack is built up.
The dome isn't solid. It's a constantly moving dome, sort of like breathing due to atmospheric changes or expansion and contraction of molecules, but we won't go into that.

Can you evenly spread out water in a concave pool?
Answer that question then think about a concave dome to out vision/perception, covering a flattish Earth.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 01, 2016, 06:57:25 PM

If the atmosphere is held on by a dome, then why isn't all the air spread out evenly (as every gas experiment ever says it should)

The atmosphere isn't held on by a dome. The dome is the natural ending to a stacked molecule mass by greater expansion as the stack is built up.
The dome isn't solid. It's a constantly moving dome, sort of like breathing due to atmospheric changes or expansion and contraction of molecules, but we won't go into that.

Can you evenly spread out water in a concave pool?
Answer that question then think about a concave dome to out vision/perception, covering a flattish Earth.

So the dome is more like a soap skin than a solid structure?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:46:25 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 01, 2016, 06:02:12 PM

Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written. 

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.

The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Bad analogy.  The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth.  The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.

Wrong. And for that reason and the fact you're not interested in grasping it, you're out.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on August 02, 2016, 02:54:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:46:25 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 01, 2016, 06:02:12 PM

Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written. 

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.

The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Bad analogy.  The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth.  The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.

Wrong. And for that reason and the fact you're not interested in grasping it, you're out.

You must have missed my most recent question. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 03:00:11 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on August 02, 2016, 02:54:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:46:25 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 01, 2016, 06:02:12 PM

Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written. 

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.

The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Bad analogy.  The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth.  The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.

Wrong. And for that reason and the fact you're not interested in grasping it, you're out.

You must have missed my most recent question.

Yes I did. I was a bit hasty.

Have you ever see inside a chamber under evacuation of pressure where the water turns to ice and then back to water in quick succession?

Think about that happening above as the expansion and contraction of molecules are under the same type of change.. It creates what would appear to be a breathing dome, ICE skin.

 

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Scepti I'll play, I would think the bottom row of people would experience the most pressure, decreasing until the person up the top, who is under the least amount of pressure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:46:25 AM

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Scepti I'll play, I would think the bottom row of people would experience the most pressure, decreasing until the person up the top, who is under the least amount of pressure.

Ok.

Quote from: AdamSK on August 01, 2016, 05:40:48 PM

I'm honestly trying to understand what you're telling me.
You said I would feel more force from the wind in sticking a piece of metal out the window than a piece of cardboard of the same area.  Or did I misunderstand?

This should be obvious to you.

Does this mean, yes, I have understood you correctly on this point?
Please note that this is an example where conventional physics gives a different result.  According to the model of physics I hold, a 2ft by 2ft sheet of cardboard or metal will experience the same force from the wind when held out the window and so I will feel the same push either way.  No difference.  So if you claim the metal will experience much more force and I will feel a harder push, proportional to the greater weight of the metal, then this helps me identify a testable difference.

Quote from: AdamSK on August 01, 2016, 05:40:48 PM

And the scale spring compresses more for the metal block than the cardboard block because the air is exerting more force on it. Or did I misunderstand?

I don't know what you're trying to say.

Scales work by compressing a spring (or something spring-like).  The harder you push, the more the spring compresses.  That's how we get the measurement of "weight" to begin with - it's about compression of the spring.  You are claiming (please confirm) that the air is pushing harder on the metal and the metal in turn is pushing harder on the scale, and that's why the metal compresses more.

Quote from: AdamSK on August 01, 2016, 05:40:48 PM

But you are also saying that if I blow on both a piece of cardboard and a piece of metal that I will measure the same force. Right?

No, I never said that. This is where you have to try to understand what I'm telling you and not try to twist it, whether you're being deliberate or not.

So please explain what happens.  In a given wind, for a sheet of material with a given size, does the wind push denser objects with more force (as I understand your model would predict) or with the same force (as my model predicts)?

Quote from: AdamSK on August 01, 2016, 05:40:48 PM

What I am trying to do is find a controlled laboratory experiment where the gravity model and the air pressure model make measurably different predictions.  It would help if you could explain why, when the air pressing on the cardboard sheet from below pushes just as hard as the air pushing it from above, the same would not be true for the metal sheet.

You are confusing yourself and me to be fair. Try something that is more easier for me to explain to you so you can grasp it.

I use a hair dryer or a fan and blow upwards on a sheet of cardboard such that it hovers there.
It is hovering because it is experiencing the same air pressure from below it as from above.  Correct?  The two forces cancel out because they are pushing on it from opposite directions.
If I replace the sheet of cardboard with a sheet of metal, will it also hover there?
If not, then it seems like it reacts differently to the air below it than to the air above it.  The sheet of cardboard doesn't, but the sheet of metal does.  This is the next thing I don't understand.

Does this mean, yes, I have understood you correctly on this point?
Please note that this is an example where conventional physics gives a different result.  According to the model of physics I hold, a 2ft by 2ft sheet of cardboard or metal will experience the same force from the wind when held out the window and so I will feel the same push either way.  No difference.  So if you claim the metal will experience much more force and I will feel a harder push, proportional to the greater weight of the metal, then this helps me identify a testable difference.

The force you're talking about is an adage to the actual force that is more or less a  (to us) static force of pressure. As in wind or movement into resistance by acceleration.

Basically ask yourself with the cardboard and metal out of the window, which one bends back more than the other?
Naturally you will know that the cardboard will, so that tells you that the cardboard is not resisting the pressure as much as the metal, so more force is naturally felt whilst holding the metal sheet.
However, this is veering off the path because we are talking about the actual density of both materials in displacing the atmospheric pressure upon them without acceleration or wind being involved.

Scales work by compressing a spring (or something spring-like).  The harder you push, the more the spring compresses.  That's how we get the measurement of "weight" to begin with - it's about compression of the spring.  You are claiming (please confirm) that the air is pushing harder on the metal and the metal in turn is pushing harder on the scale, and that's why the metal compresses more.

Try and picture this. Try it if you want to.
Get a bike pump and put your finger over the hole whilst you pump down on the handle. You feel the pressure of the compressed air, right?
I'll leave that with you.

So please explain what happens.  In a given wind, for a sheet of material with a given size, does the wind push denser objects with more force (as I understand your model would predict) or with the same force (as my model predicts)?

The wind doesn't push denser objects with more force. The densewr objects resist the force better than less dense objects.

I use a hair dryer or a fan and blow upwards on a sheet of cardboard such that it hovers there.
It is hovering because it is experiencing the same air pressure from below it as from above.  Correct?  The two forces cancel out because they are pushing on it from opposite directions.
If I replace the sheet of cardboard with a sheet of metal, will it also hover there?
If not, then it seems like it reacts differently to the air below it than to the air above it.  The sheet of cardboard doesn't, but the sheet of metal does.  This is the next thing I don't understand.

You would have to increase the force below for the metal to match its density.

Imagine you are laid under those sheets. Cardboard first and then the metal sheet. You push up the cardboard and you immediately feel how light it is but also you feel the resistance above is quite easy to overcome because your cardboard bends as the atmospheric pressure is pushed into.
With your metal sheet it will bend much less meaning the resistance on it is much larger.

Also the cardboard and metal sheet (although the same shape and size) are repelling much different amount of atmosphere due to the cardboard already being ,mostly atmosphere within it. It's much more porous than the metal sheet, so is repelling much less atmosphere overall.

[The force you're talking about is an adage to the actual force that is more or less a  (to us) static force of pressure. As in wind or movement into resistance by acceleration.
Basically ask yourself with the cardboard and metal out of the window, which one bends back more than the other?
Naturally you will know that the cardboard will, so that tells you that the cardboard is not resisting the pressure as much as the metal, so more force is naturally felt whilst holding the metal sheet.

Again, I claim that even though the metal is stronger, the push by the wind will actually feel the same.
Will the push felt by the two sheets be proportional to their density?  That is, if the metal sheet weighs five times as much as the cardboard sheet, will I be able to measure a force five times as great pushing against my hand when held out the car window?

Quote from: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 04:05:22 AM

Scales work by compressing a spring (or something spring-like).  The harder you push, the more the spring compresses.  That's how we get the measurement of "weight" to begin with - it's about compression of the spring.  You are claiming (please confirm) that the air is pushing harder on the metal and the metal in turn is pushing harder on the scale, and that's why the metal compresses more.

Try and picture this. Try it if you want to.
Get a bike pump and put your finger over the hole whilst you pump down on the handle. You feel the pressure of the compressed air, right?
I'll leave that with you.

And does the force of that compressed air depend on the density of my finger?  That is, if I attach a spring to a sheet and blow the compressed air on it, will the amount that the spring compresses depend on the material of the sheet?  For two rigid sheets of very different densities, will the spring compression be the same or different?

The wind doesn't push denser objects with more force. The densewr objects resist the force better than less dense objects.

So air pressure pushes dense objects with more force, but wind doesn't?

Quote from: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 04:05:22 AM

I use a hair dryer or a fan and blow upwards on a sheet of cardboard such that it hovers there.
It is hovering because it is experiencing the same air pressure from below it as from above.  Correct?  The two forces cancel out because they are pushing on it from opposite directions.
If I replace the sheet of cardboard with a sheet of metal, will it also hover there?
If not, then it seems like it reacts differently to the air below it than to the air above it.  The sheet of cardboard doesn't, but the sheet of metal does.  This is the next thing I don't understand.

You would have to increase the force below for the metal to match its density.

Why does the same air from above push harder on the metal, but the same air from below does not?

Imagine you are laid under those sheets. Cardboard first and then the metal sheet. You push up the cardboard and you immediately feel how light it is but also you feel the resistance above is quite easy to overcome because your cardboard bends as the atmospheric pressure is pushed into.
With your metal sheet it will bend much less meaning the resistance on it is much larger.

How about wood and metal, then?  Neither bends at all in response to the wind, but the metal is still much heavier.

Again, I claim that even though the metal is stronger, the push by the wind will actually feel the same.
Will the push felt by the two sheets be proportional to their density?  That is, if the metal sheet weighs five times as much as the cardboard sheet, will I be able to measure a force five times as great pushing against my hand when held out the car window?

No, but you will feel a much bigger force with the metal sheet because the metal sheet cannot flex enough to allow the wind pressure to skim over it, whereas a cardboard sheet would simply bend around your hand and become much more aerodynamic.

And does the force of that compressed air depend on the density of my finger?  That is, if I attach a spring to a sheet and blow the compressed air on it, will the amount that the spring compresses depend on the material of the sheet?  For two rigid sheets of very different densities, will the spring compression be the same or different?

The same thing applies with the car window analogy.

So air pressure pushes dense objects with more force, but wind doesn't?

No. The object REPELS more atmospheric pressure the denser it is and absorbs it the less dense it is.

Why does the same air from above push harder on the metal, but the same air from below does not?

It's the metal pushing into the atmosphere with the ground as a resistance to that push.
Imagine you are stood on scales and are bent under a low ceiling. You want to stand up straight. You can push up against that ceiling and to do so your scale plate acts as a resistance to your push and gives a reading of pressure, much more than your dense body actually would read under normal circumstances.

How about wood and metal, then?  Neither bends at all in response to the wind, but the metal is still much heavier.

Because the metal cannot absorb the amount of atmospheric pressure as the wood can and therefore repels more psi upon is whilst the wood would absorb some of that psi, leaving the pressure upon it, less and therefore less pressure upon your hand or your scale plate.

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 01, 2016, 06:02:12 PM

Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written. 

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.

The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

I can't answer that without one important detail; Is something pulling them toward the bottom of the stack?

I think charming anarchist just stopped posting. Maybe he realized how stupid his theory is.

I think charming anarchist just stopped posting. Maybe he realized how stupid his theory is.

I think it is time for you to stop posting.

no. I stop posting at 2:00.

no. I stop posting at 2:00.

Just ignore hoppy, he has never been in an intelligent debate.

I can blow air straight up,

No, you can not and all sane/honest persons on this planet can see that to be true  ---- if truth is in fact what they want to see. 

You can certainly blow air up but you can NOT blow air "straight" up. 
I have less than ZERO respect for contrarians here in this forum and my ignore list has just been updated.  I will continue to benefit from Scepti's and iWitness' responses to your shillery. 





The reason I make a point of highlighting your lie ---"Blow air straight up." --- is because I am convinced it is a distraction away from understanding the truth.   

I do not agree with ALL of what Scepti is saying about air pressure but my minor disagreement is trivial and in all probability, it would distract other novices like me from a deeper understanding of the truth.  I would rather honest lurkers/readers continue reading what Scepti has to say than to quibble with me because Scepti goes above and beyond to lay SUFFICENT scientific ground-work to lead a minimally-intelligent person to arrive at the truth. 




For what it may be worth, I am convinced that the reason tungsten "weighs" more than lead is because the tungsten "molecules" resist/mitigate/process/absorb/react to VIBRATIONS differently than the lead "molecules" do.  The same goes for air. 

Air "pressure" is what we observe/feel but it is nothing more than a resultant consequence of concurrent vibrations aiming to pass through a particular medium while the physical/chemical/magical properties of the medium is simply taking the energy hits. 

I hope my addendum does not sow more confusion than clarity among well-meaning true-earthers.   

There are a few things I still don't understand about FE theory. Scept has stated that there is some sort of dome keeping the atmosphere in, but there are fundamental flaws with this theory.

Absent gravity, air in an enclosed space will expand and fill the entire enclosure. Think of a balloon. When you inflate a balloon, the gas inside has a constant pressure throughout.

Now expand this kind of thinking to a terrestrial scale. If, as FE supporters have stated, earth's atmosphere is contained in a dome-like structure, air pressure should be constant throughout the entire earth, from the ground to the upper limits of said dome. As we all know, this is not the case. Air pressure decreases drastically as altitude increases, this is why Mt. Everest climbers need air supply and also the reason why  commercial jets need to pressurize their cabins.

Another issue concerns the dome itself. Scepti has stated this dome is created when hydrogen freezes as the atmosphere reaches into the supposed vacuum of space. Since frozen hydrogen is MUCH more dense than gaseous hydrogen, what is keeping the dome sky up?

Now expand this kind of thinking to a terrestrial scale.

You can not do that. 

You can not presume that what your tiny eyeballs observe in a tiny balloon is the same as what a gigantic mass will do along the firmament. 

For all we know, there are different elements of matter up there that do not exist on earth. 

Another issue concerns the dome itself. Scepti has stated this dome is created when hydrogen freezes as the atmosphere reaches into the supposed vacuum of space. Since frozen hydrogen is MUCH more dense than gaseous hydrogen, what is keeping the dome sky up?

--- because it has no place else to go and it is bloody cold up there. 

What is keeping the air up at the top of your balloon? 

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 03, 2016, 05:55:48 PM

Now expand this kind of thinking to a terrestrial scale.

You can not do that. 

You can not presume that what your tiny eyeballs observe in a tiny balloon is the same as what a gigantic mass will do along the firmament. 

For all we know, there are different elements of matter up there that do not exist on earth.

Why not? In every single experiment conducted, gas expands to fill whatever container it is in. Why would the earth enclosed in the dome of the firmament be any different?

Another issue concerns the dome itself. Scepti has stated this dome is created when hydrogen freezes as the atmosphere reaches into the supposed vacuum of space. Since frozen hydrogen is MUCH more dense than gaseous hydrogen, what is keeping the dome sky up?

--- because it has no place else to go and it is bloody cold up there. 

What is keeping the air up at the top of your balloon?
[/quote]

How do you know it is cold up there? Have you been? Who has measured temperatures near the firmament, I would like to know.

Furthermore, what evidence do you have of the existence of a firmament? If there were such a thing, where do meteorites come from?

The top of the balloon is kept up by the air pressure inside the balloon, but it doesn't expand further because of OUTSIDE pressure. What is on the outside of the firmament keeping the earth's air pressure from escaping?

Why not?

--- because neither YOU nor your circle-jerk-reviewers have proven that you can. 

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 03, 2016, 07:31:19 PM

Why not?

--- because neither YOU nor your circle-jerk-reviewers have proven that you can.

Thanks for the continued unwarranted insults. I thought this place was for discussion. At any rate, thousands of scientists have tested air under pressure. It always, ALWAYS maintains constant pressure in an enclosed space, no matter how large. Why would it be different under the firmament?

By the way, the scientific community has time and time again disproven the firmament theory by launching rockets into space, but FE believers refuse to believe in rockets and space travel. Instead they believe in a magic dome that nobody has seen or even gone near.

What do you say to people like my father who, as a boy, watched the 300 foot tall Saturn V rocket lift off up into the sky and disappear? What happened to it? What do FE-ers say about the rocket launches that happen to this day? You realize you can go watch them, right? Where do you think they go? Why would humans waste millions of dollars on some charade?

Charming Anarchist is just trolling you.   He just sprays insults, and stupid remarks every time he posts,  and never brings anything of consequence to any discussion.  He can be safely ignored, you won't miss anything.

Thanks for pointing that out. Makes me think he doesn't believe in the FE theory at all, since he never actually defends it. Maybe my points are too difficult to answer for a real FE supporter. I wish that, when faced with irrefutable evidence contrary to one's beliefs, we all had the courage to admit we were wrong. Unfortunately some people are so stubborn they refuse to even acknowledge me. I almost wish Scepti would revisit this thread, it is impossible to assume he has missed this thread at the top of the list. Perhaps, even scepti has no answer for the questions I have posed?

What do you say to people like my father who,

I laugh in their faces and tell them to grow up. 

[/quote]

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 10:46:27 AM

What do you say to people like my father who,

I laugh in their faces and tell them to grow up.

Thanks for pointing that out. Makes me think he doesn't believe in the FE theory at all, since he never actually defends it. Maybe my points are too difficult to answer for a real FE supporter. I wish that, when faced with irrefutable evidence contrary to one's beliefs, we all had the courage to admit we were wrong. Unfortunately some people are so stubborn they refuse to even acknowledge me. I almost wish Scepti would revisit this thread, it is impossible to assume he has missed this thread at the top of the list. Perhaps, even scepti has no answer for the questions I have posed?

...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?