Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

  • 3822 Replies
  • 491884 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #420 on: August 09, 2016, 12:07:50 PM »

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.
The scary part of it all for all of us arrogant (in the nicest way) humans is that we are merely nothing more than vibrations at frequencies, like everything Earth is and has to offer.
X number of layers react with Y number of layers  because different densities and frequencies of vibrations create entirely different things.
It's really hard to fully explain without it appearing nuts.

Back to analogies. It's like you going out in light summer clothes. You're a molecule by the way.
You then decide to wear heavy winder clothes.
Then you decide to wear a hat whilst nude.
Then you wear shoes and a hat with leather shorts.

And so on.
What does this show?
It shows attachment of different densities of molecules all taking a shape to our perception. We see the same molecules but they are just set out differently in infinite sizes by expansion and compression under frequency of vibration.


*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16310
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #421 on: August 09, 2016, 12:09:57 PM »
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #422 on: August 09, 2016, 12:10:53 PM »
Doesn't sound silly at all (it's what I thought, just checking), I can definitely see how that one building block could give rise to all manner of things. A different amount of layers, different densities, would give different results and different properties. (I'm assuming shape isn't the relevant factor because we don't seem to observe chemicals changing dependent on the vessel they're in, or at lower concentrations).
So, yep, I'm with you (up to the jellyfish at least).

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.

In the RE model, electric currents are described as freely flowing electrons. If electrons don't exist in this model, where does electricity come from?
Electricity is simply friction burning. Newtons cradle shows you how it works.
Newtons cradle actually shows you why the speed of light is a load of baloney but we won't dwell on all this stuff.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #423 on: August 09, 2016, 12:12:34 PM »
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #424 on: August 09, 2016, 12:18:01 PM »
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Let's me get this straight. The molecule at the top freezes in its most expanded state? This contradicts even the most basic principles of matter that you can observe yourself.

What is more dense? A solid? Or a gas? The solid, every single time. You are saying that any gas particle can freeze in its most expanded state? So the frozen particle is actually less dense than the gaseous one?

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #425 on: August 09, 2016, 12:26:13 PM »
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #426 on: August 09, 2016, 12:29:30 PM »
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Let's me get this straight. The molecule at the top freezes in its most expanded state? This contradicts even the most basic principles of matter that you can observe yourself.

What is more dense? A solid? Or a gas? The solid, every single time. You are saying that any gas particle can freeze in its most expanded state? So the frozen particle is actually less dense than the gaseous one?

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
Do you agree that everything on Earth is vibrating?
Whichever answer you give, explain why.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #427 on: August 09, 2016, 12:30:36 PM »
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #428 on: August 09, 2016, 12:31:36 PM »
Thanks Scepti, I think you've answered all my questions at the moment.

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
What he's saying does make a sort of sense. not possible under conventional physics, but it's sort of the inverse of a known principle. You can get an object to be solid long after you've heated it enough to form a gas, simply by applying enough pressure. What Scepti's saying is basically that the opposite holds too; put an object under no pressure in such a cold environment, it'll freeze. Makes sense, as far as needing energy for movement goes.
Think of it in terms of the model being proposed, not what you're used to. First off, establish that the model is internally consistent, which it certainly seems to be. The next step is experimentation; making sure it matches reality.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
This is how experiments are determined: examining the contents of a model.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #429 on: August 09, 2016, 12:32:54 PM »
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Let's me get this straight. The molecule at the top freezes in its most expanded state? This contradicts even the most basic principles of matter that you can observe yourself.

What is more dense? A solid? Or a gas? The solid, every single time. You are saying that any gas particle can freeze in its most expanded state? So the frozen particle is actually less dense than the gaseous one?

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
Do you agree that everything on Earth is vibrating?
Whichever answer you give, explain why.

Please stop derailing the thread and answer my questions as best you can.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16310
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #430 on: August 09, 2016, 12:34:14 PM »
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

Perhaps.  But we've provided you a lot of links to the science involved with gravity.  If there's any part part of physics or the scientific method that you're not grasping, there's a lot of smart people in this thread.  We'd be glad to help you learn it.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #431 on: August 09, 2016, 12:40:05 PM »


If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
What he's saying does make a sort of sense. not possible under conventional physics, but it's sort of the inverse of a known principle. You can get an object to be solid long after you've heated it enough to form a gas, simply by applying enough pressure. What Scepti's saying is basically that the opposite holds too; put an object under no pressure in such a cold environment, it'll freeze. Makes sense, as far as needing energy for movement goes.
Think of it in terms of the model being proposed, not what you're used to. First off, establish that the model is internally consistent, which it certainly seems to be. The next step is experimentation; making sure it matches reality.

I agree that, against a vacuum, particles can achieve very low temperatures. This could cause some particles (like Oxygen) to freeze. The problem is, even though it is frozen, it would be far more dense than gaseous oxygen. According to denpressure, the now frozen particle should plummet toward the surface.

This is assuming oxygen would be near the vacuum in the first place. Hydrogen, being much less dense, should be pushed upward at a much higher rate. Yet, to turn hydrogen into a solid that can form any kind of symmetrical shape, it needs to be at extremely high pressures (over 1 million atmospheres or 160 Gigapascals).

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #432 on: August 09, 2016, 12:44:49 PM »
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

Perhaps.  But we've provided you a lot of links to the science involved with gravity.  If there's any part part of physics or the scientific method that you're not grasping, there's a lot of smart people in this thread.  We'd be glad to help you learn it.
I have no doubt that you people are smart. I'm sure you're very intelligent in many ways.
This isn't about being just smart, it's about trying to see past one model that's been put on a plate and to look into another model that has potential, even if it's potential is tiny to you.

Jane's grasping it all way faster and miles ahead of you and others. She may not agree with much of it in terms of a reality yet or if ever but the point is, she's delving into it and trying to understand it all by trying to piece snippets together.

Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 12:47:46 PM by sceptimatic »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #433 on: August 09, 2016, 12:50:03 PM »
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

I grasp the concepts. I have demonstrated this. I even correctly answered questions about your model while you slept. Stop insulting people as though your intellect were so infallible. You are my peer, my equal. Treat me like it. Answer my question as best you can, let's see if I can understand it.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 12:52:55 PM by TheRealBillNye »

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16310
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #434 on: August 09, 2016, 12:53:33 PM »
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #435 on: August 09, 2016, 12:57:19 PM »
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I'm trying not to fight you on it, but you seem so arrogant and headstrong. You ask us to examine another model as an alternative, yet you show an elementary knowledge (at best) of the RE model. How could you possibly compare the two until you know them both to the best of your ability?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #436 on: August 09, 2016, 12:59:15 PM »
I agree that, against a vacuum, particles can achieve very low temperatures. This could cause some particles (like Oxygen) to freeze. The problem is, even though it is frozen, it would be far more dense than gaseous oxygen. According to denpressure, the now frozen particle should plummet toward the surface.

This is assuming oxygen would be near the vacuum in the first place. Hydrogen, being much less dense, should be pushed upward at a much higher rate. Yet, to turn hydrogen into a solid that can form any kind of symmetrical shape, it needs to be at extremely high pressures (over 1 million atmospheres or 160 Gigapascals).
Hydrogen at low temperatures would become solid. If memory serves, the point at which the dome forms is almost at absolute zero (due to distance from the Sun), so hydrogen would definitely be solid then.
There are a few ways the rest could work. Hydrogen freezing/falling/evaporating/rising in which case you would end up with a dome, just one constantly replenished. Or you'd have the full arc of the dome frozen and so supporting itself, meaning it wouldn't fall.

Quick query for Scepti, though: what is it that decides whether an element/compound is a solid/liquid/gas? Is it strictly a matter of density (assuming not as some liquids can be heavier than some solids, though that might just be down to porousness. Mercury comes to mind) or is frequency a factor too?
Energy can certainly alter the state, but at a constant temperature, what decides that A would be solid, B would be a gas, etc?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #437 on: August 09, 2016, 01:03:55 PM »
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

I grasp the concepts. I have demonstrated this. I even correctly answered questions about your model while you slept. Stop insulting people as though your intellect were so infallible. You are my peer, my equal. Treat me like it. Answer my question as best you can, let's see if I can understand it.
Not nice is it?
If you want forum respect then earn it by being the respectful. And don't say you have been and also do not answer to this. Just accept what's been said to you and go from here.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #438 on: August 09, 2016, 01:09:20 PM »
Why do you keep trying to shut me out of the conversation? I am simply asking questions. If you cannot answer them, fine.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #439 on: August 09, 2016, 01:12:35 PM »
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
And that's what I'm trying to help you on but I'm not going to just jump in head forst and tell you that one experiment will make it or break it.
I've been through that before with people and they were less than honest.

It becomes an attack fest.
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

It's entirely up to you. I'm not changing my stance because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.
The more I'm told I'm wrong the more I'll arrogantly defend it.
What I'd really like is for people to go deep into it like Jane is attempting to do.

The ball is in your court and anyone else who feels they want to grasp it. It's simple for an open mind but difficult when a mind has been saturated with all the indoctrinated mainstream methods and ways.

I'm not saying they're all wrong. I'm simply saying that the one's that are theoretical and peer reviewed and done so with dogma.
Anyway it's up to you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #440 on: August 09, 2016, 01:24:04 PM »
I agree that, against a vacuum, particles can achieve very low temperatures. This could cause some particles (like Oxygen) to freeze. The problem is, even though it is frozen, it would be far more dense than gaseous oxygen. According to denpressure, the now frozen particle should plummet toward the surface.

This is assuming oxygen would be near the vacuum in the first place. Hydrogen, being much less dense, should be pushed upward at a much higher rate. Yet, to turn hydrogen into a solid that can form any kind of symmetrical shape, it needs to be at extremely high pressures (over 1 million atmospheres or 160 Gigapascals).
Hydrogen at low temperatures would become solid. If memory serves, the point at which the dome forms is almost at absolute zero (due to distance from the Sun), so hydrogen would definitely be solid then.
There are a few ways the rest could work. Hydrogen freezing/falling/evaporating/rising in which case you would end up with a dome, just one constantly replenished. Or you'd have the full arc of the dome frozen and so supporting itself, meaning it wouldn't fall.

Quick query for Scepti, though: what is it that decides whether an element/compound is a solid/liquid/gas? Is it strictly a matter of density (assuming not as some liquids can be heavier than some solids, though that might just be down to porousness. Mercury comes to mind) or is frequency a factor too?
Energy can certainly alter the state, but at a constant temperature, what decides that A would be solid, B would be a gas, etc?

Ok think of the dome. The very top would be frozen hydrogen//helium or whatever that has (like you mentioned) frozen. The outer skin is up against the true vacuum but the inner skin is still pushed into, albeit very weakly.
The thing is, weak at the top means nothing to us at the bottom.
the rest of the atmosphere is holding it up but as you say it's a replenishing system. It changes due to energy applied, as in the sun, as you say again.

Ok, so once that dome is expanded into again, we have the frozen gas to liquid gas or super fluid if you want.
Basically it can look like a sea up there and in truth, I believe there are many, just as I believe there are a few below our seas depending on where on Earth at depth they are.

So we're back to density build up. We have a drop off of ice through liquid or super fluid helium or hydrogen and a creating of a friction burn as the ice falls creating a gas which rises again unless it gets trapped enough to fall as a glowing ice ball or what we would term as a meteor.
I'm getting off track a bit there but it all ties in, in the end.

Obviously there's a lot more to it all.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #441 on: August 09, 2016, 01:25:18 PM »
Why do you keep trying to shut me out of the conversation? I am simply asking questions. If you cannot answer them, fine.
Learn to be a bit more civil and stop trying to belittle and I'll oblige you.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #442 on: August 09, 2016, 01:25:24 PM »
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16310
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #443 on: August 09, 2016, 01:31:10 PM »
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
And that's what I'm trying to help you on but I'm not going to just jump in head forst and tell you that one experiment will make it or break it.
I've been through that before with people and they were less than honest.

It becomes an attack fest.
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

It's entirely up to you. I'm not changing my stance because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.
The more I'm told I'm wrong the more I'll arrogantly defend it.
What I'd really like is for people to go deep into it like Jane is attempting to do.

The ball is in your court and anyone else who feels they want to grasp it. It's simple for an open mind but difficult when a mind has been saturated with all the indoctrinated mainstream methods and ways.

I'm not saying they're all wrong. I'm simply saying that the one's that are theoretical and peer reviewed and done so with dogma.
Anyway it's up to you.

I've done all four of the experiments listed in this thread.  My results match others who have run them also.  Are we all being dishonest? 

Peer review is is not the same as dogma.  Peer review helps us escape the quagmire of dogmatism. 

An example of dogma would be refusing to ever change your stance no matter what.  An example of how peer review helps us escape dogmatism is if a group of people perform experiments challenging a dogmatic belief and create a consensus that a dogmatic belief is incorrect and that it should be defied and challenged.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #444 on: August 09, 2016, 01:31:47 PM »
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.
Learn to take notice.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #445 on: August 09, 2016, 01:34:56 PM »
You guys should really just ignore Sceptictank. The things he's claiming about chemistry are so incredibly stupid it's unbelievable. She cannot back up anything she claims. Just trolling.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #446 on: August 09, 2016, 01:44:17 PM »
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.
Still no news on proof lead and copper fall at different speeds.   No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16310
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #447 on: August 09, 2016, 01:44:35 PM »
You guys should really just ignore Sceptictank. The things he's claiming about chemistry are so incredibly stupid it's unbelievable. She cannot back up anything she claims. Just trolling.

Trolling?  I kind of wondered about that but I don't think so.  And I think this because of post #240 in this thread.  The balloon experiment was proposed.  In the US at least weighing air is a pretty standard experiment in grade school.  Anybody trying to come up with an alternate theory of gravity would be aware of it and would have a counter argument thought up in advance.  But in post #240 sceptimatic becomes completely unhinged like it never occurred to him that the balloon would be heavier.

So I think he's a true believer.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #448 on: August 09, 2016, 01:45:54 PM »
No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.
No, there's an explanation, you've been given it twice now. Why is it every single thread I see you in, you're offering a question and then ignoring the response or any follow-up? It's beyond a one-off at this stage.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #449 on: August 09, 2016, 02:19:20 PM »
No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.
No, there's an explanation, you've been given it twice now. Why is it every single thread I see you in, you're offering a question and then ignoring the response or any follow-up? It's beyond a one-off at this stage.
please give a link, is the explanation accepted by all?