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

Having your Brian Cox's and co fronting crap like this is akin to knowing all your girlfriends cheat on you. That's how blatant they are and it reeks.

Scepti why do you hate evacuation chambers so much? You seem to becone irrationally angry every time they are mentironed. I'd like to hear any theories you have involving The Conspiracy of the Near-Vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 12:42:11 AM

Quote from: crutonius on August 09, 2016, 10:21:13 PM

Quote from: Woody on August 09, 2016, 05:50:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 05:00:52 PM

So basically any evidence you may not be entirely right gets dismissed automatically. With no need to look further into it or trying to conduct your own experiments to verify it. Just if it says you may be wrong it is lies.

Here is a feather and bowling ball being dropped in a 12 story vacuum chamber.

At normal pressure

very low pressure

If 12 stories is not a descent height what is?

What changes if these two things were dropped from higher?  Would one eventually begin to accelerate faster?

Is this video faked?  If so could you point out the evidence?

I have seen things dropped in a vacuum several times.  Even in a vacuum chamber my grandfather and I made in his shop.(He did most of the work since I was around 10 at the time)  It was only about 5x3 feet, but the lead weight and the piece of paper we crumbled into a ball accelerated at the same rate.

I dated a volcanologist in Hawaii and been there to see gravity measured more than once.  My understanding is the build up and decreased distance of mass below the surface would cause slight changes in measurements.

I tend to think a lot of FE's fail to recognize that throughout the various fields of Earth science they share and use the same models that come together rather nicely.  If they did not there would be errors noticed everywhere.

I know the theory behind this but seeing videos like this, wow!  It just puts a smile on my face.  Science makes us a bunch of god damn wizards.

These people that go through life assuming it's all a lie... what a terrible way to live.   It's like assuming that every woman you meet is guaranteed to cheat on you.

Having your Brian Cox's and co fronting crap like this is akin to knowing all your girlfriends cheat on you. That's how blatant they are and it reeks.

Holy God!  I was sort of joking but this is seriously what you think?  To use a hyperbolic example, do you think the same thing at a hospital while they're saving your life or your families life?  What about low grade technological tools we use everyday:  Like the computer you're reading this on? 

This world is fucking amazing and part of the reason why is because of us.

I think he would be fine with what medical science says and comes up with. 

While Brian Cox, Neil Tyson and Bill Nye and their ilk teach people about the universe and world around them that says he is wrong about denpressure and the shape of the Earth.

If what they teach is right then scepti is likely wrong, so they must be lying and part of the conspiracy.

The video I posted if real totally and thoroughly disproves denpressure.  That is why a near vacuum is impossible under his model.  It is also why he states the distance the items are dropped needs to be high.  My guess the height required is what ever is higher than the height of the largest vacuum chamber.  Then of course any current and future cameras can not capture enough frames per second to record the results accurately enough the determine if things really accelerate at the same rate when dropped.

I think he would be fine with what medical science says and comes up with.

I'm fine with a lot of science. I'm not fine with what I'm dealing with right now.

While Brian Cox, Neil Tyson and Bill Nye and their ilk teach people about the universe and world around them that says he is wrong about denpressure and the shape of the Earth.

These people have proved nothing against anything. All they are, are low level narrators/actors who are given scripts to parrot what's required for us gullible public to swallow up without resistance.

If what they teach is right then scepti is likely wrong, so they must be lying and part of the conspiracy.

The word "IF" is huge.
I'd call it acting out a script and fibbing more than blatant lying by these people. They're just small time actors who are employed to feed us fantasy, just like films.
Let's be fair. For a bit of fame or life comforting monetary gains, most of us would narrate scripts whether they were true or lies or whether we actually knew it or not.

The video I posted if real totally and thoroughly disproves denpressure.

The word "IF" again. The video is a lie. It's a blatant attempted scam of our minds.

  That is why a near vacuum is impossible under his model.

Understand how evacuation chambers work and you'll know for sure that what I say is true.

  It is also why he states the distance the items are dropped needs to be high.

It doesn't need to be high but it would need extremely good slow motion cameras to get conclusive proof.
This is why I mention high buildings.

My guess the height required is what ever is higher than the height of the largest vacuum chamber.

No, not at all.

  Then of course any current and future cameras can not capture enough frames per second to record the results accurately enough the determine if things really accelerate at the same rate when dropped.

This is a test that never proves anything with you people because whatever happens outside in the atmosphere that disproves your mass claims, you people automatically go into air resistance mode.

Then you jump straight into believing a supposed test inside a supposed humongous chamber that's supposed to get so close to a vacuum, then watch supposed NASA experts and a rocker turned supposed professor, Brian Cox stand there and act like they've never seen anything like it in their entire lives.

They act like they do in order to give the gullible public the impression that gravity is proved and that all things drop at the same rate in a vacuum.

It's complete and utter nonsense.

Isn't it wonderful to be able to claim that all contrary evidence was fake, inaccurate or a product of lying conspirators.

I just wish I could, with a clear conscience, be able to argue that way.

But all Flat Earthers seem to use that tactic.
Just claim that we have satellite photos of the globe and the response is "We can let you use that! Satellites are impossible."
 
The I claim that the measurements of the earth prove it is a globe, and we get ""We can let you use that! Surveyors are all Freemasons."

So I try to claim that the six months daylight at the South Pole proves that the FE sun is not correct, and we get ""We can let you use that! There is no South Pole!"

Finally, The way objects fall and weigh in a vacuum proves denpressure is not correct, and we get ""We can let you use that! You can't make a vacuum."

And so on!

Isn't it wonderful to be able to claim that all contrary evidence was fake, inaccurate or a product of lying conspirators.

I just wish I could, with a clear conscience, be able to argue that way.

But all Flat Earthers seem to use that tactic.
Just claim that we have satellite photos of the globe and the response is "We can let you use that! Satellites are impossible."
 
The I claim that the measurements of the earth prove it is a globe, and we get ""We can let you use that! Surveyors are all Freemasons."

So I try to claim that the six months daylight at the South Pole proves that the FE sun is not correct, and we get ""We can let you use that! There is no South Pole!"

Finally, The way objects fall and weigh in a vacuum proves denpressure is not correct, and we get ""We can let you use that! You can't make a vacuum."

And so on!

It's all so very convenient!

It's not a case of being convenient, it's a case of what we're saying is the truth.
The convenience is with what you people have been told/hypnotised/indoctrinated to follow.
Everything just conveniently works how it's said because nobody can prove otherwise in a physically strong way because it's immediately rejected.

Things fall. Why? Mass attracts mass. How? Gravity. What's that? We don't know but we can measure it.
And so on. It's all convenient because magic makes it convenient.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 11, 2016, 03:09:44 AM

It's all so very convenient!

It's not a case of being convenient, it's a case of what we're saying is the truth.
The convenience is with what you people have been told/hypnotised/indoctrinated to follow.
Everything just conveniently works how it's said because nobody can prove otherwise in a physically strong way because it's immediately rejected.

Things fall. Why? Mass attracts mass. How? Gravity. What's that? We don't know but we can measure it.
And so on. It's all convenient because magic makes it convenient.

Magnets attract - please explain that!
Electric charges attract - explain that!
Masses attract, but very weakly - and you are bothered that it can't yet be explained perfectly yet.
I believe that a lot of the difficulty in "explaining" gravitation is that it such a weak force.^[1]

Yes, possibly with gravitation "Mass attracts mass. How? Gravity. What's that? We don't know but we can measure it."

Maybe we can't yet explain it fully, but it can be measured and has been measured numerous times to far better accuracy than any measurements you have ever done to verify your denpressure hypothesis.

And your denpressure ideas are completely contrary to many other things in physics. One example is the "kinetic theory of gases" which is behind so much of gas dynamics including aerodynamics.

So, do you wonder why so many don't want to don't want to waste much time with your ideas?  We simply see no need.
Gravitation (or GR if needed) explains all we see so much better!

[1] This would (probably) make gravitons (if they exist) have an energy many orders of magnitude than that of photons.
       Detection would be extremely difficult, possibly below any foreseeable limit.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 11, 2016, 03:15:35 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 11, 2016, 03:09:44 AM

It's all so very convenient!

It's not a case of being convenient, it's a case of what we're saying is the truth.
The convenience is with what you people have been told/hypnotised/indoctrinated to follow.
Everything just conveniently works how it's said because nobody can prove otherwise in a physically strong way because it's immediately rejected.

Things fall. Why? Mass attracts mass. How? Gravity. What's that? We don't know but we can measure it.
And so on. It's all convenient because magic makes it convenient.

Magnets attract - please explain that!
Electric charges attract - explain that!
Masses attract, but very weakly - and you are bothered that it can't yet be explained perfectly yet.
I believe that a lot of the difficulty in "explaining" gravitation is that it such a weak force.^[1]

Yes, possibly with gravitation "Mass attracts mass. How? Gravity. What's that? We don't know but we can measure it."

Maybe we can't yet explain it fully, but it can be measured and has been measured numerous times to far better accuracy than any measurements you have ever done to verify your denpressure hypothesis.

And your denpressure ideas are completely contrary to many other things in physics. One example is the "kinetic theory of gases" which is behind so much of gas dynamics including aerodynamics.

So, do you wonder why so many don't want to don't want to waste much time with your ideas?  We simply see no need.
Gravitation (or GR if needed) explains all we see so much better!

[1] This would (probably) make gravitons (if they exist) have an energy many orders of magnitude than that of photons.
       Detection would be extremely difficult, possibly below any foreseeable limit.

Well you enjoy your fantasies. I'll stick to fine tuning my theories.

I await your 50 Nobel Prizes lol.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 11, 2016, 03:56:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 11, 2016, 03:15:35 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 11, 2016, 03:09:44 AM

It's all so very convenient!

It's not a case of being convenient, it's a case of what we're saying is the truth.
The convenience is with what you people have been told/hypnotised/indoctrinated to follow.
Everything just conveniently works how it's said because nobody can prove otherwise in a physically strong way because it's immediately rejected.

Things fall. Why? Mass attracts mass. How? Gravity. What's that? We don't know but we can measure it.
And so on. It's all convenient because magic makes it convenient.

Magnets attract - please explain that!
Electric charges attract - explain that!
Masses attract, but very weakly - and you are bothered that it can't yet be explained perfectly yet.
I believe that a lot of the difficulty in "explaining" gravitation is that it such a weak force.^[1]

Yes, possibly with gravitation "Mass attracts mass. How? Gravity. What's that? We don't know but we can measure it."

Maybe we can't yet explain it fully, but it can be measured and has been measured numerous times to far better accuracy than any measurements you have ever done to verify your denpressure hypothesis.

And your denpressure ideas are completely contrary to many other things in physics. One example is the "kinetic theory of gases" which is behind so much of gas dynamics including aerodynamics.

So, do you wonder why so many don't want to don't want to waste much time with your ideas?  We simply see no need.
Gravitation (or GR if needed) explains all we see so much better!

[1] This would (probably) make gravitons (if they exist) have an energy many orders of magnitude than that of photons.
       Detection would be extremely difficult, possibly below any foreseeable limit.

Well you enjoy your fantasies. I'll stick to fine tuning my theories.

Glad to hear it.  You do that and get back to us with some experiments. 

By "fine tuning" I'm sure he means sitting in his room thinking about how reality works, without actually testing anything.

This thread was supposed to be about designing and executing experiments that test the denpressure model. We have seen Scepti accept and then refute all 4 experiments. We have not seen him actually suggest any experiments of his own.

Anybody can wave off mainstream theories. That's what conspiracy theorists do every day. But to actually convince anybody, you need to give us concrete proof.

You cannot simply wave analogy after analogy at us and expect us to believe a word you say. You are far more dogmatic than the scientific community. In your feeble mind, denpressure is the alpha and omega. The rising and setting sun. No evidence will ever convince you otherwise. At least scientists will admit when they are wrong.

Evacuation chambers pump gas out, and seal it. Where's the magic? Why can't this work? Why do you think every evacuation chamber on earth is some magician's box?

@scepti

You are just claiming the video is fake.  No evidence offered to support why you think it is except it says you maybe wrong about denpressure.

Very similar behavior of unwilling to answer what would prove denpressure wrong.   Being what I assume one of the leading researchers and top experts on denpressure in the world you should be able to come up with a list what would prove it wrong if true.  Not just one thing.  This is a helpful step in advancing a theory or hypothesis since it will aid in creating experiments to test it.

A rotating round earth does not disprove denpressure.  It would only mean you are not completely right and need to make adjustments to your model.

If you are truly confident in denpressure you would have no problem answering the question.

Sceptimatic, could you please explain how siphons work in your model?

Sceptimatic, could you please explain how siphons work in your model?

Yes, it works by atmospheric pressure upon the water. Did you think it works by gravity?

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 11, 2016, 11:57:22 AM

Sceptimatic, could you please explain how siphons work in your model?

Yes, it works by atmospheric pressure upon the water. Did you think it works by gravity?

So condescending...

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 11, 2016, 11:57:22 AM

Sceptimatic, could you please explain how siphons work in your model?

Yes, it works by atmospheric pressure upon the water. Did you think it works by gravity?

You ask "Did you think it works by gravity?" YES, since gravity is the cause of atmospheric pressure.

The moon and minor planets have insufficient gravity to maintain any atmosphere - so no atmospheric pressure.

Mars has insufficient gravity to maintain much atmosphere - so very little atmospheric pressure.

And having an atmosphere, gravity then causes the atmospheric pressure - simply the weight of the atmosphere above us - easy!

There is much more to it than this. The lack of a magnetic field can allow the solar wind to strip off atmosphere too.

And we STILL don't know how a thermos is supposed to work in the denpressure model! If these gas particles are supposed to be touching, then the thermos would radiate heat at a much faster rate. Somehow, my soup still stays steaming hot for hours.

Think of a Newton's cradle. Energy passes through all the balls efficiently because they are all touching. If you create empty space, the energy will not make it to the final ball. The near-vacuum inside the thermos clearly demonstrates the true nature of gas particles in a near-vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 11, 2016, 02:58:26 PM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 11, 2016, 11:57:22 AM

Sceptimatic, could you please explain how siphons work in your model?

Yes, it works by atmospheric pressure upon the water. Did you think it works by gravity?

You ask "Did you think it works by gravity?" YES, since gravity is the cause of atmospheric pressure.

Without gravity, as in space, no atmosphere - so no atmospheric pressure.

The moon and minor planets have insufficient gravity to maintain any atmosphere - so no atmospheric pressure.

Mars has insufficient gravity to maintain much atmosphere - so very little atmospheric pressure.

And having an atmosphere, gravity then causes the atmospheric pressure - simply the weight of the atmosphere above us - easy!

There is much more to it than this. The lack of a magnetic field can allow the solar wind to strip off atmosphere too.

Start over with your jigsaw and always start to build the edges first then fill the rest in as you go.
Basically, never look at the picture on the front assume the picture inside, when built, is the same, because it's not always as it seems.

Try and help yourself by trying to rid your mind of the fantasies put into it. I'm being serious.

Evacuation chambers pump gas out, and seal it. Where's the magic? Why can't this work? Why do you think every evacuation chamber on earth is some magician's box?

You can't explain how your vacuum chamber pumps our pressure, can you?

If you can then explain it to me. Show me that you know.

@scepti

You are just claiming the video is fake.  No evidence offered to support why you think it is except it says you maybe wrong about denpressure.

Very similar behavior of unwilling to answer what would prove denpressure wrong.   Being what I assume one of the leading researchers and top experts on denpressure in the world you should be able to come up with a list what would prove it wrong if true.  Not just one thing.  This is a helpful step in advancing a theory or hypothesis since it will aid in creating experiments to test it.

A rotating round earth does not disprove denpressure.  It would only mean you are not completely right and need to make adjustments to your model.

If you are truly confident in denpressure you would have no problem answering the question.

Answer what question?

And we STILL don't know how a thermos is supposed to work in the denpressure model! If these gas particles are supposed to be touching, then the thermos would radiate heat at a much faster rate. Somehow, my soup still stays steaming hot for hours.

Think of a Newton's cradle. Energy passes through all the balls efficiently because they are all touching. If you create empty space, the energy will not make it to the final ball. The near-vacuum inside the thermos clearly demonstrates the true nature of gas particles in a near-vacuum.

We are talking about reducing friction under pressure.
We are trying to make the bridge too weak too cross or so weak that crossing it is a long and arduous journey for the masses and can only be overcome a few at a time.

Try and work that out.

Quote from: Woody on August 11, 2016, 11:56:29 AM

@scepti

You are just claiming the video is fake.  No evidence offered to support why you think it is except it says you maybe wrong about denpressure.

Very similar behavior of unwilling to answer what would prove denpressure wrong.   Being what I assume one of the leading researchers and top experts on denpressure in the world you should be able to come up with a list what would prove it wrong if true.  Not just one thing.  This is a helpful step in advancing a theory or hypothesis since it will aid in creating experiments to test it.

A rotating round earth does not disprove denpressure.  It would only mean you are not completely right and need to make adjustments to your model.

If you are truly confident in denpressure you would have no problem answering the question.

Answer what question?

What if true proves your hypothesis wrong?

As I pointed out thinking about that helps you to create experiments to test denpressure.

It also shows you are willing to look objectively at your hypothesis.

One very common question someone in the scientific community coming up with and presenting a hypothesis or theory they are expected to answer is, "What falsifies it?"

Again this is not asking someone to prove themselves wrong.  It is asking, "What if true proves something wrong?"

A round stationary or rotating Earth does not disprove denpressure.  It only means you may need to refine your hypothesis.   The Earth has an atmosphere under the round rotating model.  Air pressure exist in the model.  There is less molecules at the top and more at the bottom on a round Earth.  All of which suggest your model should hold up with some refinements.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 12, 2016, 01:25:21 AM

Quote from: Woody on August 11, 2016, 11:56:29 AM

@scepti

You are just claiming the video is fake.  No evidence offered to support why you think it is except it says you maybe wrong about denpressure.

Very similar behavior of unwilling to answer what would prove denpressure wrong.   Being what I assume one of the leading researchers and top experts on denpressure in the world you should be able to come up with a list what would prove it wrong if true.  Not just one thing.  This is a helpful step in advancing a theory or hypothesis since it will aid in creating experiments to test it.

A rotating round earth does not disprove denpressure.  It would only mean you are not completely right and need to make adjustments to your model.

If you are truly confident in denpressure you would have no problem answering the question.

Answer what question?

What if true proves your hypothesis wrong?

As I pointed out thinking about that helps you to create experiments to test denpressure.

It also shows you are willing to look objectively at your hypothesis.

One very common question someone in the scientific community coming up with and presenting a hypothesis or theory they are expected to answer is, "What falsifies it?"

Again this is not asking someone to prove themselves wrong.  It is asking, "What if true proves something wrong?"

A round stationary or rotating Earth does not disprove denpressure.  It only means you may need to refine your hypothesis.   The Earth has an atmosphere under the round rotating model.  Air pressure exist in the model.  There is less molecules at the top and more at the bottom on a round Earth.  All of which suggest your model should hold up with some refinements.

I'm arrogantly and steadfastly standing by my theory like a scrap yard dog. Why?

Because there's far too many pricks on here that would take just one set of words and use them  like a dog with a tasty bone to keep using to gnaw and gnaw, telling me that I've already admitted my theory is wrong. Yeah, this is what happens, so don't you try telling me to accept anything you people say.

If you don't want to understand it an d wish to merely keep trying to ridicule it whilst pushing your indoctrinated model onto people, then carry on but the more crap you spew at me, the more crap will be spewed back.

I'll deal with those who are interested in a proper way. The rest can wither and disappear for all I care.

Has anyone ever picked up 2 flat boards or whatever - and found that as you pick up the top board, the bottom board is stuck to it and yet all that's between them is a very small covering of water moisture.

I'd like to see people's explanations as to why that happens. I'd like to see the explanations in simple terms from the words of the person and not by looking at google or any other reference.

Let's see what answers you come up with as to why it happens. Maybe this can be another way to help prove what I'm saying. Or maybe not with the stubborn ones or the hypnotised ones, or the paid ones.

Maybe some genuine ones might come up with reality.

Let's go.

Has anyone ever picked up 2 flat boards or whatever - and found that as you pick up the top board, the bottom board is stuck to it and yet all that's between them is a very small covering of water moisture.

I'd like to see people's explanations as to why that happens. I'd like to see the explanations in simple terms from the words of the person and not by looking at google or any other reference.

Let's see what answers you come up with as to why it happens. Maybe this can be another way to help prove what I'm saying. Or maybe not with the stubborn ones or the hypnotised ones, or the paid ones.

Maybe some genuine ones might come up with reality.

Let's go.

You don't need moisture.
Take two clean pieces of fine glass. For example two pocket mirrors without frames.
Wash off grease from fingers, using some rubbing alcohol. Or wash with dish detergent and dry out.
Do not touch surface again.

Stack them on top of each other, and "plop" vacuum-held kitchen rag-holder on the center of the top one.
Press them together for a moment, then pull top one up about ten inches, then stop.

Movement of the top glass will try to create partial vacuum between them, but atmospheric pressure will push bottom glass up.

Yes, UP.

Air won't instantly get between them at the moment you start pulling.
It will take time and pieces of glass will start separating with delay.

If there is a bit of moisture between them, spread well by initial pressure, adhesion force between
water and glass will keep glass pieces together, together with air perssure on bottom glass from below,
as long as you keep it horizontal. Small tilt or shake, and bottom glass slides aside, reduces contact surface
and falls back down.

BEWARE OF SHATTERED GLASS, or glass chips from edges.
Do this on some thick fabric (like carpet or not-too-thin table cover),
not on hard surfaces (like marble table).

The same adhesion force between glass and water holds drops in place on wet window.
Small drops stay where they are until dry out.
Bigger drops are heavier and slide (roll) down, leaving trail of water taken from them again
by same adhesion force along their way down the glass.
Surface Tension reshapes individual portions of the trail back into drop shape.

Google for "Adhesion vs Cohesion", and for "Surface Tension".

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 12, 2016, 03:21:27 AM

Has anyone ever picked up 2 flat boards or whatever - and found that as you pick up the top board, the bottom board is stuck to it and yet all that's between them is a very small covering of water moisture.

I'd like to see people's explanations as to why that happens. I'd like to see the explanations in simple terms from the words of the person and not by looking at google or any other reference.

Let's see what answers you come up with as to why it happens. Maybe this can be another way to help prove what I'm saying. Or maybe not with the stubborn ones or the hypnotised ones, or the paid ones.

Maybe some genuine ones might come up with reality.

Let's go.

You don't need moisture.
Take two clean pieces of fine glass. For example two pocket mirrors without frames.
Wash off grease from fingers, using some rubbing alcohol. Or wash with dish detergent and dry out.
Do not touch surface again.

Stack them on top of each other, and "plop" vacuum-held kitchen rag-holder on the center of the top one.
Press them together for a moment, then pull top one up about ten inches, then stop.

Movement of the top glass will try to create partial vacuum between them, but atmospheric pressure will push bottom glass up.

Yes, UP.

Air won't instantly get between them at the moment you start pulling.
It will take time and pieces of glass will start separating with delay.

If there is a bit of moisture between them, spread well by initial pressure, adhesion force between
water and glass will keep glass pieces together, together with air perssure on bottom glass from below,
as long as you keep it horizontal. Small tilt or shake, and bottom glass slides aside, reduces contact surface
and falls back down.

BEWARE OF SHATTERED GLASS, or glass chips from edges.
Do this on some thick fabric (like carpet or not-too-thin table cover),
not on hard surfaces (like marble table).

The same adhesion force between glass and water holds drops in place on wet window.
Small drops stay where they are until dry out.
Bigger drops are heavier and slide (roll) down, leaving trail of water taken from them again
by same adhesion force along their way down the glass.
Surface Tension reshapes individual portions of the trail back into drop shape.

Google for "Adhesion vs Cohesion", and for "Surface Tension".

Come back to me when you learn to actually type from your own fingers.
No wonder you people can never understand anything.

What are you implying? Do you accuse him of plagiarism? That explanation makes sense to me, and those were his own words. Do you just result to ad hominem every time somebody disagrees with you? How immature.

Has anyone ever picked up 2 flat boards or whatever - and found that as you pick up the top board, the bottom board is stuck to it and yet all that's between them is a very small covering of water moisture.

I'd like to see people's explanations as to why that happens. I'd like to see the explanations in simple terms from the words of the person and not by looking at google or any other reference.

Let's see what answers you come up with as to why it happens. Maybe this can be another way to help prove what I'm saying. Or maybe not with the stubborn ones or the hypnotised ones, or the paid ones.

Maybe some genuine ones might come up with reality.

Let's go.

Trivial,  air pressure works in all directions equally.    Remove the air using a suction cup or in this case just two things that have an airtight gap between them, as you try to pull them apart you are creating a region of lower pressure,  air pressure is about 15 pounds per square inch,  so a one pound per square inch difference between the pressure between the boards  times the area of the boards and they will stick together.

I use a vacuum chuck on the mill for holding thin sheet material,  once you turn the vacuum on, you'd never shift it..

It can work the other way as well,  if you have two perfectly fitting smooth surfaces, you can get a layer of air trapped between them and have zero friction,  air bearings are a good example of this effect.

Come back to me when you learn to actually type from your own fingers.
No wonder you people can never understand anything.

That sound like a petulant little child,  try to avoid insulting people.

What are you implying? Do you accuse him of plagiarism? That explanation makes sense to me, and those were his own words. Do you just result to ad hominem every time somebody disagrees with you? How immature.

You calling people immature.

No; actually I was basically telling him/her that copy and pasting stuff will not aid in him/her understanding what's really happening.

I'll tell you what. In your own words, tell me what's happening from start to finish with what I said.

Has anyone ever picked up 2 flat boards or whatever - and found that as you pick up the top board, the bottom board is stuck to it and yet all that's between them is a very small covering of water moisture.

I'd like to see people's explanations as to why that happens. I'd like to see the explanations in simple terms from the words of the person and not by looking at google or any other reference.


There it is above. Now explain what's really happening as best you can. Let's see what you really understand.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 11, 2016, 11:53:37 PM

And we STILL don't know how a thermos is supposed to work in the denpressure model! If these gas particles are supposed to be touching, then the thermos would radiate heat at a much faster rate. Somehow, my soup still stays steaming hot for hours.

Think of a Newton's cradle. Energy passes through all the balls efficiently because they are all touching. If you create empty space, the energy will not make it to the final ball. The near-vacuum inside the thermos clearly demonstrates the true nature of gas particles in a near-vacuum.

We are talking about reducing friction under pressure.
We are trying to make the bridge too weak too cross or so weak that crossing it is a long and arduous journey for the masses and can only be overcome a few at a time.

Try and work that out.

You have a bridge that is too weak for the throng of people to cross.

In my model, there's a gap in the bridge. People have to jump just to get across. Some fall and don't even make it.

Which is more efficient at preventing people from crossing?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 12, 2016, 01:28:44 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 11, 2016, 11:53:37 PM

And we STILL don't know how a thermos is supposed to work in the denpressure model! If these gas particles are supposed to be touching, then the thermos would radiate heat at a much faster rate. Somehow, my soup still stays steaming hot for hours.

Think of a Newton's cradle. Energy passes through all the balls efficiently because they are all touching. If you create empty space, the energy will not make it to the final ball. The near-vacuum inside the thermos clearly demonstrates the true nature of gas particles in a near-vacuum.

We are talking about reducing friction under pressure.
We are trying to make the bridge too weak too cross or so weak that crossing it is a long and arduous journey for the masses and can only be overcome a few at a time.

Try and work that out.

You have a bridge that is too weak for the throng of people to cross.

In my model, there's a gap in the bridge. People have to jump just to get across. Some fall and don't even make it.

Which is more efficient at preventing people from crossing?

Your bridge must still be attached no matter what to be a bridge.