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

Quote from: Jane on August 21, 2016, 12:14:54 PM

Regardless, if you consider it simply as a hypothetical model, as I do, you'll find it far more interesting than asking the same rote questions.

Sure, and it is also very interesting to tell person with paranoia things which makes his anxiety and fear greater. Like "yes, there is someone who follows you", "yes, there is someone who wants to kill you" or something similar. Hypothetical model being interesting must have something real behind it. Denpressure has nothing not so far. Molecules expanding and popping out from itself and expanding again and ... has maybe some interest if you look at it as an abstract art.

That situation hardly compares to simply listening to someone. A hypothetical model's just a hypothetical model. If you want to waste time going after evidence, have fun, but it'll be dull and pointless, I've had that conversation a lot with various people, and regardless you can't get evidence of something unless you know what you're trying to look at.

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2016, 12:40:26 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 21, 2016, 12:14:54 PM

Regardless, if you consider it simply as a hypothetical model, as I do, you'll find it far more interesting than asking the same rote questions.

Sure, and it is also very interesting to tell person with paranoia things which makes his anxiety and fear greater. Like "yes, there is someone who follows you", "yes, there is someone who wants to kill you" or something similar. Hypothetical model being interesting must have something real behind it. Denpressure has nothing not so far. Molecules expanding and popping out from itself and expanding again and ... has maybe some interest if you look at it as an abstract art.

That situation hardly compares to simply listening to someone.

But you just don't listen, you encourage. In my opinion its quite like the situation I described.

A hypothetical model's just a hypothetical model.

 One thing is hypothetical other thing is pure fantasy. If it is quite clear that things go out of real world then what good does encouraging. Its like... how come there are holes on asphalt road? Ohh, holes. You know small dwarves or leprechauns come at nigh and nibble asphalt sometimes and so the holes appear. Quite good hypothetical model or what do you think? Its clearly worth more thinking and maybe we can imagine how asphalt eating dwarves/leprechauns live and dress and what they do and so on. Its really worth encouraging other person to delve deeper in that.

You probably couldn't predict an eclipse using RET if you were working from scratch.

At least it predicts there will be eclipses.    In scepti's speculations (please stop calling it a model) the sun we see is a reflection off the ice dome and the moon is a reflection of that reflection.   

Good luck  working out how you get an eclipse out of that hot mess

But you just don't listen, you encourage. In my opinion its quite like the situation I described.

Not really encouraging to hear him out, you've got a very low bar. In case you haven't noticed, the opposite approach hasn't exactly discouraged. If anything, the opposite: the adversarial approach makes people instinctively react defensively, and cling tighter to the idea. What do you expect? If you're mocked, your reaction isn't going to be "Ah, yes, you're right, I am deluded/narcissistic/mentally ill/should die," it's going to be "Screw you."
Simply listening to the idea isn't going to make him believe what he says more than any other behaviour. What it does do, is allow for actual back-and-forth, rather than insults responded to with understandable defensiveness. I get to understand what it is he's proposing, and hopefully he gets to derive a little enjoyment, as well as being able to dedicate more time to the less cliche discussions and topics.

I would be very interested to hear what benefit you imagine ridicule has. If we accept your analogy, is going up to someone with paranoia and saying "You're an idiot, there's no one following you, you're incapable of any rational thought, and you should lock yourself in a vacuum chamber and suffocate to death," any better?

At least it predicts there will be eclipses.    In scepti's speculations (please stop calling it a model) the sun we see is a reflection off the ice dome and the moon is a reflection of that reflection.   

Good luck  working out how you get an eclipse out of that hot mess

No offence, but I'm going to listen to Scepti's phrasing of it. Maybe you're oversimplifying, maybe there's an element omitted... To begin with, there'd be the set-up and properties of what it is that's being reflected.

A hypothetical model's just a hypothetical model. If you want to waste time going after evidence, have fun, but it'll be dull and pointless, I've had that conversation a lot with various people, and regardless you can't get evidence of something unless you know what you're trying to look at.

What's the point of having a hypothetical model if you aren't willing to go after evidence to prove that the model is even remotely plausible?

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2016, 01:38:23 PM

But you just don't listen, you encourage. In my opinion its quite like the situation I described.

Not really encouraging to hear him out, you've got a very low bar. In case you haven't noticed, the opposite approach hasn't exactly discouraged. If anything, the opposite: the adversarial approach makes people instinctively react defensively, and cling tighter to the idea. What do you expect? If you're mocked, your reaction isn't going to be "Ah, yes, you're right, I am deluded/narcissistic/mentally ill/should die," it's going to be "Screw you."

Sure, its automatic reaction but its possible to get over it and start thinking was there some reason behind mocking. If not then it s really "screw you" and I throw it out of my mind. But I also accept possibility that I may be wrong and start to figure out why I was mocked. And I can learn something. But in this case its really isn't mocking but there are real questions about how thing should work and how. But what comes back is not answers but something in style - you just don't get it.

Simply listening to the idea isn't going to make him believe what he says more than any other behaviour. What it does do, is allow for actual back-and-forth, rather than insults responded to with understandable defensiveness. 

If you simply listen then you just make some noises like mhmhm, ahah or whatever. But you don't. You agree, say yes, it is so, you understand and ask questions which makes other person to further his activities in subject.

I would be very interested to hear what benefit you imagine ridicule has. If we accept your analogy, is going up to someone with paranoia and saying "You're an idiot, there's no one following you, you're incapable of any rational thought, and you should lock yourself in a vacuum chamber and suffocate to death," any better? 

 Where is my "analogy" from what you derived such activity? I didn't said that you should ridicule or mock other person. And I only suggested him to try vacuum chamber out because he quite heavily insists that pump does nothing and its very good way to personally verify if his assumptions are true. Or if he doesn't want to do it himself then he can do it with mouse and smaller chamber.

Sure, its automatic reaction but its possible to get over it and start thinking was there some reason behind mocking. If not then it s really "screw you" and I throw it out of my mind. But I also accept possibility that I may be wrong and start to figure out why I was mocked. And I can learn something. But in this case its really isn't mocking but there are real questions about how thing should work and how. But what comes back is not answers but something in style - you just don't get it.

Often because of how the questions are asked.
There's very little time or reason to 'get over' the mocking on this site.

If you simply listen then you just make some noises like mhmhm, ahah or whatever. But you don't. You agree, say yes, it is so, you understand and ask questions which makes other person to further his activities in subject.

I say he's made something clearer when he has. It's just rude to say nothing but rapidfire questions. I don't agree with the model, I've said several times I don't accept it, but I understand the outline he puts forward. That doesn't mean I think it's right, just that I know what he's talking about.

Where is my "analogy" from what you derived such activity? I didn't said that you should ridicule or mock other person. And I only suggested him to try vacuum chamber out because he quite heavily insists that pump does nothing and its very good way to personally verify if his assumptions are true. Or if he doesn't want to do it himself then he can do it with mouse and smaller chamber.

"Sure, and it is also very interesting to tell person with paranoia..."
The specific instances I gave came from all the behaviour seen in this thread. And he has actually explained how the pump works, it does do something it just doesn't directly affect the inside of the chamber.
So, again, what benefit do you see from that behaviour?

What's the point of having a hypothetical model if you aren't willing to go after evidence to prove that the model is even remotely plausible?

Looking for evidence isn't the first step in science, forming a hypothesis is. No point in going after evidence until you know the details of what it is you're testing. Regardless, learning the models is pretty much the only interesting thing going on in the upper forums, repeating the same rebuttals over and over got tedious fast.

Quote

Where is my "analogy" from what you derived such activity? I didn't said that you should ridicule or mock other person. And I only suggested him to try vacuum chamber out because he quite heavily insists that pump does nothing and its very good way to personally verify if his assumptions are true. Or if he doesn't want to do it himself then he can do it with mouse and smaller chamber.

"Sure, and it is also very interesting to tell person with paranoia..."
The specific instances I gave came from all the behaviour seen in this thread. And he has actually explained how the pump works, it does do something it just doesn't directly affect the inside of the chamber.
So, again, what benefit do you see from that behaviour?

My paranoia phrase illustrated your behaviour and I still see it that way. So its no use to attribute it to me like I told that others should act that way. Also you can say that he explained how pump works and you get it but there is absolutely nothing which you can relate to actual world. And explanation is still quite the same, if it does not affect inside of the chamber then it should be very easy to test, with mouse if he does not want to experience it himself. And what benefit I see? If person gets too far from real world then someone must bring him down to the ground. Its no use helping him to get even farther away. Asking him to bring things down to the level where we can relate with things that we can actually observe and test is not unreasonable.

Looking for evidence isn't the first step in science, forming a hypothesis is.

Hypothesis was that there is no gravity and air pressure is to blame for keeping things on the Earth and creating weight. What came after (density and molecules and other things) were just unsubstantiated claims which no one can test or verify. They are kind of hypothesis made to explain your previuos hypothesis. In that way you never reach to the point when you look for evidence but just make new hypothesis to explain you hypothesis about hypothesis about...

Quote from: Jane on August 21, 2016, 08:28:28 AM

You probably couldn't predict an eclipse using RET if you were working from scratch.

At least it predicts there will be eclipses.    In scepti's speculations (please stop calling it a model) the sun we see is a reflection off the ice dome and the moon is a reflection of that reflection.   

Good luck  working out how you get an eclipse out of that hot mess

This page from NASA states that use many approximations in their predictions. They actually use the historical record for predictions, they are repeating cycles. It is the same way the Mayans and such made predictions.

Saros cycle.
http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/115032.aspx

Quote from: fliggs on August 21, 2016, 02:30:55 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 20, 2016, 03:54:13 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 20, 2016, 03:42:44 PM

In the past, when you explained how celestial bodies are formed and where their energy comes from, you were ridiculed so thoroughly that you refuse to even articulate your points anymore. Honestly, if denpressure cannot explain something so basic as the sun and moon, there is no reason why anybody should accept it, even as a thought experiment.

Ridicule isn't a good thing. Generally two things get ridiculed on this site: the stupid, and the complicated. The stupid, for obvious reasons, and the complicated down to the sheer number of users who're just here to feel superior. When it takes effort to respond to and debunk, they default to ridicule.
Personally I'm withholding judgement as to that aspect of the model down to how little I know, but frankly you can see why someone might be unwilling to go into detail again in an area where they don't get responses, but just get mocking. Seriously, there's a whole section of the forum dedicated to ranting and insulting other users, keep it there. Easy to see why someone might not be happy to write as much as Scepti often does when no one actually reads it.
It doesn't make sense at first glance, but neither do a lot of things. Sticking to Scepti's model, initially it seemed possible you could walk up walls. It took a fair bit more explaining and effort before the reasons why you couldn't were made clear.

I dont quite get where you are coming from, but it is beginning to sound a lot like mental illness. There is no way known that sceptis model passes even the briefest of investigation without totally collapsing. it is garbage from beginning to end and yet you seem to be desperate to support it and I have no idea why. You are not being to polite to him. You are in the wort possible way mocking him by trying to convince him that some of his idea is okay when in reality it is total garbage.

Have you noticed that he things the smallest part of matter is MOLECULES which can mysteriously expand to fill empty space? His understanding of science wouldn't challenge someone from 500BC.

I've never said I think it's right, but as a hypothetical situation it's fun to see what the answers are. And no idea is total garbage, even in the most ludicrous there will be a handful of valid responses. The fact is Scepti's model does answer more than a lot of people think: that's nothing special. The same thing can likely be said for every bit of worse pseudoscience out there, by force of numbers, and the fact those that develop theories don't do so in total isolation and ignorance. Of course they'd be able to answer the obvious questions. (Even if it's something as basic as "Homeopathic remedies: you can't overdose").
Scepti's idea of molecules is different to ours. No doubt they're simply called that to aid understanding: objects that directly compose matter without having such a firm existing definition as an atom. Indeed, most people that think of molecules do think of a soap-sud type combination of balls, rather than the protons, neutrons and whirling electrons of an atoms.

I'm not interested in refuting FE models. If you want to spam with questions about the Coriolis force and weather prediction, and earthquakes, and circumpolar stars, and the ISS and satellites, and neutrinos, and formation, and meteors, and the conspiracy, and evidence, and travel times... There's nothing stopping you, I just find it unutterably tedious to have the exact same conversation dozens of times, to say nothing of the FEers who've likely had to have the same exchange hundreds of times.
What is it you think you're achieving? I don't think a single FEer has been convinced that FET is false, and I can't think of a single person who enjoys repeating themselves, and I have no sympathy for the kind of person who comes here because they enjoy mocking and insulting others. So what, exactly, is the point in that tactic?

Sceptis model answer virtually nothing. If you have to completely over-rule every bit of scientific understand we have then it IS total garbage. And stop defending his concept of molecules. He is 200 years out of date and is full of wishful and imaginary thinking.

But I also ask you: what is YOUR point? You are merely stringing scepti along letting him think that he is even partly right when he is literally 100% wrong. That is cruel. He has something seriously wrong with him and feeding his delusions is irresponsible.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 21, 2016, 07:59:22 AM

The fact that he doesn't even bother explaining is proof enough for me to dismiss his theory altogether. Honestly, if he cannot predict a solar eclipse using his model, why would I believe it could conceivably be feasible, even theoretically?

He ignores the issue. Instead of facing facts, he ignores the dozens of other facts presented to him in this and many other threads.

You probably couldn't predict an eclipse using RET if you were working from scratch. I've seen the equations for planetary motion, deriving them, much less applying them, is far from easy. I can generally figure out the maths, but I would not have been able to derive them without a few hints. And of course, to be able to predict an eclipse with respect to the model, you'd need to be able to model the Earth's rotation around the Sun, the moon's around the Earth, and be able to note when they're all in alignment.
It's a bit premature to say he can't respond to the facts, just because he chooses not to. You have to acknowledge that you are highly unlikely to be the first person to have thought to ask him certain questions, if he doesn't think you seem to be paying attention what would be the point in writing out the answer yet again?

Thats kinda the point of building on a body of science. We DONT have to start from scratch. Others have done it all before us. And this is part of the delusion of FEers that they dont accept any work done before them. They feel they have to start from scratch and they are not up to the task.

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2016, 11:50:49 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 21, 2016, 08:28:28 AM

You probably couldn't predict an eclipse using RET if you were working from scratch.

And thing with vacuum pumps... if he is sure that pump there does nothing then there are some quite big vacuum chambers where you can put human inside. He can go inside and ask others to switch pump on and then test it out himself if pump does something or not.

Nope. Terrible experiment. You can only perform it once so you can't be sure if the first time was just an anomaly.

It reminds me of a great cartoon showing an AlQuaeda terrorist demonstrating a suicide bombing and saying 'watch carefully. I can only show you this once'

Quote from: crutonius on August 21, 2016, 11:58:09 AM

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2016, 11:50:49 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 21, 2016, 08:28:28 AM

You probably couldn't predict an eclipse using RET if you were working from scratch.

And thing with vacuum pumps... if he is sure that pump there does nothing then there are some quite big vacuum chambers where you can put human inside. He can go inside and ask others to switch pump on and then test it out himself if pump does something or not.

Nope. Terrible experiment. You can only perform it once so you can't be sure if the first time was just an anomaly.

It reminds me of a great cartoon showing an AlQuaeda terrorist demonstrating a suicide bombing and saying 'watch carefully. I can only show you this once'

Well to be fair that's only if he's wrong.

But if he's right... 

Oh my God!

He hasn't posted in a while. I think I know where he's headed; the world's largest vacuum chamber in Sandusky, Ohio! If he's right he'll grow in size to 122 feet tall! He'll be able to annihilate whole cities until we accept Denspressure!

Jane you have to stop him! You're the only one he hasn't blocked yet!

Quote from: fliggs on August 21, 2016, 06:39:14 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 21, 2016, 11:58:09 AM

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2016, 11:50:49 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 21, 2016, 08:28:28 AM

You probably couldn't predict an eclipse using RET if you were working from scratch.

And thing with vacuum pumps... if he is sure that pump there does nothing then there are some quite big vacuum chambers where you can put human inside. He can go inside and ask others to switch pump on and then test it out himself if pump does something or not.

Nope. Terrible experiment. You can only perform it once so you can't be sure if the first time was just an anomaly.

It reminds me of a great cartoon showing an AlQuaeda terrorist demonstrating a suicide bombing and saying 'watch carefully. I can only show you this once'

Well to be fair that's only if he's wrong.

But if he's right... 

Oh my God!

He hasn't posted in a while. I think I know where he's headed; the world's largest vacuum chamber in Sandusky, Ohio! If he's right he'll grow in size to 122 feet tall! He'll be able to annihilate whole cities until we accept Denspressure!

Jane you have to stop him! You're the only one he hasn't blocked yet!

I dont block anyone in any forum. Dont know how to do it in this one.

Jane still has his ear, but she is filling his ear with encouragement rather than help.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2016, 02:27:44 PM

What's the point of having a hypothetical model if you aren't willing to go after evidence to prove that the model is even remotely plausible?

Looking for evidence isn't the first step in science, forming a hypothesis is. No point in going after evidence until you know the details of what it is you're testing.

Actually, background research is generally done before forming the hypothesis.  However, it seems that scepti has already formed several specific hypotheses concerning denpressure which are currently being discussed.  That seems to suggest that it's time to start looking for supporting evidence.  Please try to keep up.

Quote from: Jane on August 21, 2016, 02:48:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2016, 02:27:44 PM

What's the point of having a hypothetical model if you aren't willing to go after evidence to prove that the model is even remotely plausible?

Looking for evidence isn't the first step in science, forming a hypothesis is. No point in going after evidence until you know the details of what it is you're testing.

Actually, background research is generally done before forming the hypothesis.  However, it seems that scepti has already formed several specific hypotheses concerning denpressure which are currently being discussed.  That seems to suggest that it's time to start looking for supporting evidence.  Please try to keep up.

All of these ridiculous hypotheses amaze me because they start with such arrant nonsense like saying that gravity is some mysterious magical non-existent force. This, despite the evidence of our own eyes that it exists. But they can happily dismiss the irrefutable and in its place put the utterly ridiculous and unsupportable and think all is well.

Gravity explains everything and denpressure explains nothing at all.  30 seconds of clear thinking is all that is necessary to debunk denpressure. Of course, that is the core of the problem - the utter absence of clear thinking.

He hasn't posted in a while. I think I know where he's headed; the world's largest vacuum chamber in Sandusky, Ohio! If he's right he'll grow in size to 122 feet tall! He'll be able to annihilate whole cities until we accept Denspressure!

Jane you have to stop him!

Ha ha ha!!! This sounds like an alcohol induced rant, but I don't care!! Had me laughing legitimately out loud. I got the actual mental image.

Jane!!!! Listen to him!!! He must be stopped!!!

I began reading page one but stopped when I got to this:

It's basically down to friction and frequency of vibration. Or to put it simply, it's the massive expansion of matter and the ability to be cooled under varying pressures that determines how much each matter holds in their make up in terms of trapped atmospheric pressure.

That probably might not explain much. Maybe you can grasp that.

Was denpressure ever defined in this thread?

My paranoia phrase illustrated your behaviour and I still see it that way. So its no use to attribute it to me like I told that others should act that way. Also you can say that he explained how pump works and you get it but there is absolutely nothing which you can relate to actual world. And explanation is still quite the same, if it does not affect inside of the chamber then it should be very easy to test, with mouse if he does not want to experience it himself. And what benefit I see? If person gets too far from real world then someone must bring him down to the ground. Its no use helping him to get even farther away. Asking him to bring things down to the level where we can relate with things that we can actually observe and test is not unreasonable.

Again, no direct effect. It does still reduce the amount of air within the chamber, it just does so by preventing more air getting in, so the air inside is able to expand out.
You're clearly not bringing him down to the ground.

Hypothesis was that there is no gravity and air pressure is to blame for keeping things on the Earth and creating weight. What came after (density and molecules and other things) were just unsubstantiated claims which no one can test or verify. They are kind of hypothesis made to explain your previuos hypothesis. In that way you never reach to the point when you look for evidence but just make new hypothesis to explain you hypothesis about hypothesis about...

Sure, so? It's still an interesting model.

 

Sceptis model answer virtually nothing. If you have to completely over-rule every bit of scientific understand we have then it IS total garbage. And stop defending his concept of molecules. He is 200 years out of date and is full of wishful and imaginary thinking.

But I also ask you: what is YOUR point? You are merely stringing scepti along letting him think that he is even partly right when he is literally 100% wrong. That is cruel. He has something seriously wrong with him and feeding his delusions is irresponsible.

I'm not defending it, I'm simply explaining it. I've never said I think the model's right. It answers some questions, yes, that's common sense: denying that just makes him think you're ignoring every word he says, which means he could justifiably ignore you further.
My point is to simply engage in a dialogue. Kinda weird how it's apparently cruel to just talk to him, not agreeing, just listening, while you apparently see nothing wrong with constant mocking and insults. Would love to hear how that's somehow a better thing to do.

Actually, background research is generally done before forming the hypothesis.  However, it seems that scepti has already formed several specific hypotheses concerning denpressure which are currently being discussed.  That seems to suggest that it's time to start looking for supporting evidence.  Please try to keep up.

And a lot of denpressure is tied to his model of the Sun, etc (such as the source of heat). You can't test a hypothesis until you understand it.

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2016, 04:03:09 PM

My paranoia phrase illustrated your behaviour and I still see it that way. So its no use to attribute it to me like I told that others should act that way. Also you can say that he explained how pump works and you get it but there is absolutely nothing which you can relate to actual world. And explanation is still quite the same, if it does not affect inside of the chamber then it should be very easy to test, with mouse if he does not want to experience it himself. And what benefit I see? If person gets too far from real world then someone must bring him down to the ground. Its no use helping him to get even farther away. Asking him to bring things down to the level where we can relate with things that we can actually observe and test is not unreasonable.

Again, no direct effect. It does still reduce the amount of air within the chamber, it just does so by preventing more air getting in, so the air inside is able to expand out.
You're clearly not bringing him down to the ground.

Quote

Hypothesis was that there is no gravity and air pressure is to blame for keeping things on the Earth and creating weight. What came after (density and molecules and other things) were just unsubstantiated claims which no one can test or verify. They are kind of hypothesis made to explain your previuos hypothesis. In that way you never reach to the point when you look for evidence but just make new hypothesis to explain you hypothesis about hypothesis about...

Sure, so? It's still an interesting model.

 

Quote from: fliggs on August 21, 2016, 08:37:52 PM

Sceptis model answer virtually nothing. If you have to completely over-rule every bit of scientific understand we have then it IS total garbage. And stop defending his concept of molecules. He is 200 years out of date and is full of wishful and imaginary thinking.

But I also ask you: what is YOUR point? You are merely stringing scepti along letting him think that he is even partly right when he is literally 100% wrong. That is cruel. He has something seriously wrong with him and feeding his delusions is irresponsible.

I'm not defending it, I'm simply explaining it. I've never said I think the model's right. It answers some questions, yes, that's common sense: denying that just makes him think you're ignoring every word he says, which means he could justifiably ignore you further.
My point is to simply engage in a dialogue. Kinda weird how it's apparently cruel to just talk to him, not agreeing, just listening, while you apparently see nothing wrong with constant mocking and insults. Would love to hear how that's somehow a better thing to do.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2016, 08:06:28 PM

Actually, background research is generally done before forming the hypothesis.  However, it seems that scepti has already formed several specific hypotheses concerning denpressure which are currently being discussed.  That seems to suggest that it's time to start looking for supporting evidence.  Please try to keep up.

And a lot of denpressure is tied to his model of the Sun, etc (such as the source of heat). You can't test a hypothesis until you understand it.

You cant understand something that is internally inconsistent and at complete odds with observations. There is nothing to understand, nevermind test. It is a pile of rubbish and no amount of nice thinking and encouragement will change that.

If I said that the sun was actually located in the next suburb over from mine would you give it any credence? It is no more credible than sceptis silly notion of the sun being just overhead.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2016, 08:06:28 PM

Actually, background research is generally done before forming the hypothesis.  However, it seems that scepti has already formed several specific hypotheses concerning denpressure which are currently being discussed.  That seems to suggest that it's time to start looking for supporting evidence.  Please try to keep up.

And a lot of denpressure is tied to his model of the Sun, etc (such as the source of heat). You can't test a hypothesis until you understand it.

Just because his model of the sun can't be tested yet, that doesn't mean that test his hypothetical relationship between density, pressure and weight can't be conclusively tested and falsified.

Too many of you people are seriously trying to make me look like some kind of retard. I hope you carry on doing so because anything I say, will be said for the purpose of those that have the ability to want to understand it and at least see it in a light that most won't or cannot.

Some of you people are so frenzied in trying to make sure that my thoughts are suppressed that you're attacking one of your very own theorists who happens to want to try and understand my model and is being patient enough and inquisitive enough to nibble away at it until she can see how it could work in the ways that I am putting it out.

That person is Jane, so let's be clear about something. As Jane has said, she's not accepting anything I say as any truth. She actually disagrees with what I say. Read this and understand it.

All Jane is doing, is trying to understand it, so I suggest that those who do not want to or cannot or are simply set on making sure my thoughts are not understood by anyone, I suggest you stay out of the topic.

Don't waste your energy believing that name calling will gain you any edge in this.

If your claims where true you would win multiple Nobel Prizes. Win any yet?

If your claims where true you would win multiple Nobel Prizes. Win any yet?

I have no wish to win worthless prizes.

I can tell. You won't even spend any of your pretend millions to setup a vacuum pump.

I can tell. You won't even spend any of your pretend millions to setup a vacuum pump.

You don't even know what a vacuum pump is or how it works, so your input is worthless.

Quote from: sokarul on August 22, 2016, 06:18:55 AM

If your claims where true you would win multiple Nobel Prizes. Win any yet?

I have no wish to win worthless prizes.

A Nobel Prize is worth about 950,000 euros.  Hardly worthless.

Quote from: sokarul on August 22, 2016, 06:26:38 AM

I can tell. You won't even spend any of your pretend millions to setup a vacuum pump.

You don't even know what a vacuum pump is or how it works, so your input is worthless.

Anyone can figure out how they work. Don't say I'm dumb because you are dumb.

"Inertia doesn't exist."
Don't forget who says that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 22, 2016, 06:31:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 22, 2016, 06:26:38 AM

I can tell. You won't even spend any of your pretend millions to setup a vacuum pump.

You don't even know what a vacuum pump is or how it works, so your input is worthless.

Anyone can figure out how they work. Don't say I'm dumb because you are dumb.

"Inertia doesn't exist."
Don't forget who says that.

Tell me what inertia is?

Too many of you people are seriously trying to make me look like some kind of retard. I hope you carry on doing so because anything I say, will be said for the purpose of those that have the ability to want to understand it and at least see it in a light that most won't or cannot.

Some of you people are so frenzied in trying to make sure that my thoughts are suppressed that you're attacking one of your very own theorists who happens to want to try and understand my model and is being patient enough and inquisitive enough to nibble away at it until she can see how it could work in the ways that I am putting it out.

That person is Jane, so let's be clear about something. As Jane has said, she's not accepting anything I say as any truth. She actually disagrees with what I say. Read this and understand it.

All Jane is doing, is trying to understand it, so I suggest that those who do not want to or cannot or are simply set on making sure my thoughts are not understood by anyone, I suggest you stay out of the topic.

Don't waste your energy believing that name calling will gain you any edge in this.

Sir, on behalf of the participants of this thread I take exception to this accusation. I believe that you may have misinterpreted some of things said due to cultural differences. Though I admit we have drifted from the original purpose of this thread which is testing and experimentation. But here you share the blame as much as the rest of us. You have allowed yourself to become distracted from doing the work only you are capable of, designing the experiments.

On a separate note and I'm just making conversation here, how tall are you right now?