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

Quote from: fliggs on August 23, 2016, 02:45:54 AM

Quote from: zork on August 23, 2016, 02:42:42 AM

Quote from: fliggs on August 23, 2016, 02:31:54 AM

A molecule is the smallest particle in a chemical element or compound that has the chemical properties of that element or compound. Molecules are made up of atoms that are held together by chemical bonds. These bonds form as a result of the sharing or exchange of electron s among atoms.

and now... what is an atom....

I think its useless to explain that to him even when there are chip makers who literally play with atoms and put them in rows or whatever shapes they want. These things doesn't fint in his wordview.

I know it is a waste of time. He will not reply on topic. I feel sorry for him in a way. He he very clearly the blown bulb on the Christmas tree of life... at the bottom of the tree... away from the presents.

Is that your professional opinion, Dr. PhD in Psychology?

If might surprise you to learn that not everyone who works in, researches or publishes in the field of psychology has a PhD

And still, scepti-moron wont explain to us what 'molecules' are in his imaginary drug-affected 'universe'.

27 pages after debunking denpressure?
I think this will reach 100! let's see..

27 pages after debunking denpressure?
I think this will reach 100! let's see..

I'm not sure which thread is the longest.  Heiwa's challenge?  Does that one really deserve to be the largest.

The impediment I see to getting this thread to 100 is that scepti has Jane and that's about it.  I guess iWitness is his ally but for some reason I don't think I've ever seen him post on this thread.  On top of that this thread has been over for quite a while.  We've been running around in circles for about 500 posts now.

Maybe we can trick him into approving of an experiment that seems like something that would definitely prove denspressure but takes forever to execute and has extremely questionable results that take constant adjustment and retesting.

That's not too evil right?  Lying to a man of questionable mental balance about an imaginary experiment to prove an absurd theory just to make the high score on a flat earth website.

That's not too evil right?  Lying to a man of questionable mental balance about an imaginary experiment to prove an absurd theory just to make the high score on a flat earth website.

Only you can decide that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2016, 01:42:23 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 23, 2016, 01:34:15 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 22, 2016, 03:01:36 PM

Scepti I hope this video helps explain inertia. It is from a children's show, so it should be around your speed.

Nope. It doesn't tell me what inertia is.

Yes it does. It tells you precisely what inertia is. I'm sorry you're too dense to comprehend the subject matter of a children's show.

No, it doesn't say what inertia is.

sceptimatic, could you please for the x:th time explain to me your model of the atom and molecules?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2016, 01:33:43 AM

Quote from: fliggs on August 23, 2016, 01:27:14 AM

I have noticed, sceptimoron that you have failed to answer my question as to what molecules are. You use the word but clearly have no idea. Would you care to entertain us with your predictably tortured and idiotic definition of 'molecules'?

Of course you wont. This goes to the hard of your idiotic trolling.

How about you explain in your own words what molecules are. Explain them in a such a way that they're easy to understand by all. Explain why and how they work.

You people don't know how to actually think. All you know is how to parrot.

A molecule is the smallest particle in a chemical element or compound that has the chemical properties of that element or compound. Molecules are made up of atoms that are held together by chemical bonds. These bonds form as a result of the sharing or exchange of electron s among atoms.

and now... what is an atom....

Atoms are the basic units of matter and the defining structure of elements. Atoms are made up of three particles: protons, neutrons and electrons.

Protons and neutrons are heavier than electrons and reside in the center of the atom, which is called the nucleus. Electrons are extremely lightweight and exist in a cloud orbiting the nucleus. The electron cloud has a radius 10,000 times greater than the nucleus.

And now... what are the subatomic particles composed of themselves?

We will leave that to another post after you acknowledge or repudiate the above. Which of course you wont/cant because it requires more from you than you can bring to the table.

So basically you don't  know what they are and have just copied and pasted some words that basically explain NOTHING.
And to think that you people go on at me.

Quote from: fliggs on August 23, 2016, 02:31:54 AM

A molecule is the smallest particle in a chemical element or compound that has the chemical properties of that element or compound. Molecules are made up of atoms that are held together by chemical bonds. These bonds form as a result of the sharing or exchange of electron s among atoms.

and now... what is an atom....

I think its useless to explain that to him even when there are chip makers who literally play with atoms and put them in rows or whatever shapes they want. These things doesn't fint in his worldview.

Explain what these chip makers do with these atoms?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2016, 12:12:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 22, 2016, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 22, 2016, 02:04:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 22, 2016, 01:21:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 22, 2016, 12:57:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 22, 2016, 12:37:09 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 22, 2016, 12:02:28 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 22, 2016, 09:14:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 22, 2016, 08:16:39 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 22, 2016, 08:12:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 22, 2016, 08:06:27 AM

Also what is inertia.

Scepti, inertia is simply the tendency for things to not change.  You know, sorta like your tendency to not accept a simple definition of inertia.

Tell me what inertia is.
A tendency for things not to change explains nothing.

Well, I'm not sure if I can explain it any simpler.  A simple block of wood sitting on the floor isn't going to move unless someone or something does something to move it, right?

A block of wood isn't going to move until something moves it. So what is the inertia part?

The inertia part is the part where the block of wood won't move until something moves it.  What might be confusing you is that inertia is something of an abstract concept.

Ahh ok, so you're saying that it's just a saying that literally has no real meaning.

No, that isn't what abstract means.  Abstract concepts are real, they just aren't tangible.  Inertia is just as real as emotions or ideas.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 22, 2016, 12:57:18 PM

So inertia is basically just a saying for the none movement of an object, or am I getting it wrong again?

I think that you're getting closer.  Inertia is saying that if an object isn't moving, then it won't move unless something moves it.  It also says that if an object is moving, then it will keep moving in a straight line unless something tries to change it.

Essentially, inertia is the abstract property of an object's resistance to change.

So basically in a nutshell we can change inertia to resistance.

Inertia is merely resistance, right?

Not merely resistance, but resistance to change in motion.  Friction is resistance, but it isn't the same as inertia.

Oh, ok, so tell me what exactly INERTIA is.

***PRIMAL SCREAM*** This thread is a perfect example of intellectual inertia: your resistance to understanding the definition of inertia.

So inertia is really just resistance. Why can't resistance just be used?

Inertia is quite easy to understand.

An object will stay still if no force is applied to it.

And as we know, nowhere on Earth does this happen. There is always a force no matter how small or large. So basically this is scuppered.

An object will stay in motion unless a force is applied to it.

A force has to be apllied to get an object in motion and a force must be constantly applied to keep an object in motion.

It costs 0 energy for an object to stay still.

That's impossible. Energy must be used to RESIST pressure at all times. Things may look still but I assure you they never are.
Sit and listen to your expanding and contracting water pipes, etc, as one example. It's energy used is resistance to pressure.

But it also takes 0 energy for an object to stay in motion.

An object requires constant energy to stay in motion. An object in motion will never use zero energy.

The only time you need to expend energy is when want to change the speed of its motion.

You expend more energy to change the speed of motion.

For example: it costs energy to change the speed of an object form 0 Mph to 10 Mph. And it also costs energy to reduce the speed from 10 mph to 5 mph.

Yep, I agree.

But it does not cost any energy for an object to keep its current speed (whether that is 0 Mph or 10,000 Mph)

I absolutely disagree and you shouldn't really be falling for this. It's clearly nonsense in every sense of the word.
Unless of course you are using fictional space as your argument. Are you?

The tendency of matter to stay in the state that it is (either motion or rest) is called inertia.

So basically inertia does not exist. It's a word that is used to have people believe that fiction outstrips reality.
It's clearly nonsense and anyone that wants to sit back and really think on it will know how silly it is.
It's just another word that ties in with many other words that profess to mean something (gravity etc) and the reality is, they mean absolutely nothing.

Quote from: Omega on August 23, 2016, 11:26:41 AM

Inertia is quite easy to understand.

An object will stay still if no force is applied to it.

And as we know, nowhere on Earth does this happen. There is always a force no matter how small or large. So basically this is scuppered.

Galileo proved the concept on Earth with balls and a ramp. The fact that there are always forces working on an object on Earth does not disprove the principle.

You'd only have to ask a series of simple questiosn and answer them:

If I put a hockey puck on the ice and hit it with a stick, it will move for a while and then slow down. What slows it down?

The answer, as you will no doubt confirm: friction. The ice and the air exert a force on the moving object and it slows down. It loses the energy we put into the puck when we hit it. This energy is converted into heat.

So what would happen if there was no friction? No air? Would the puck keep moving? Or would it slow down?

If you find this too hard to visualize, do the following experiment.

Put a ball on gravel. Push it. It will roll and slow down and stop. The gravel has high friction.

Now put the ball on normal pavement. Push it. It will roll and slow down but will roll longer and roll faster. The pavement has less friction.

Now put the ball on ice and push it. It will roll (and skid) longer and faster because the ice has even less resistance. Less friction.

So the more friction you remove, the longer the ball will move. If you remove all friction, the ball *must* keep moving. Why else would it stop?

Explain what these chip makers do with these atoms?

  Explaining something to you is fools errand but you can listen to another guy who talks about it

Quote from: markjo on August 23, 2016, 05:27:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2016, 12:12:22 AM

Oh, ok, so tell me what exactly INERTIA is.

***PRIMAL SCREAM*** This thread is a perfect example of intellectual inertia: your resistance to understanding the definition of inertia.

So inertia is really just resistance. Why can't resistance just be used?

Because inertia is a very special kind of resistance and shouldn't be confused with other kinds of resistance.

So inertia is really just resistance. Why can't resistance just be used?

Because inertia is NOT "just" resistance!

"Resistance" in this context is just something that resists motion and causes an object in motion to slow. Common forms of resistance are:

• Friction, which is highest (static friction) until an object it starts moving, when it falls to a lower "kinetic friction" when the object is moving. "Kinetic friction" is reasonably independent of velocity.
  Friction can be loosely thought of the force needed to overcome the rubbing together of tiny bumps on the surfaces of objects.
  
  
• Fluid resistance, which at low speeds at least is due to the viscosity of the fluid. The distinction between friction and fluid resistance is that fluid resistance is roughly proportional to velocity. It is zero for very low speeds.

Friction and fluid drag are present for even constant velocities, but "inertia" is what opposes "changes in velocity".

An object at rest subject to no forces at all stays at rest.

To increase the velocity requires an acceleration and this requires a force = mass x acceleration.
Once the object is in motion it will stay in motion unless some force is applied to it.

Now as you say there is almost nowhere on earth when this is precisely true, but a massive flywheel on very good bearings can keep spinning for hours, but it is still subject to some friction and drag, so it does slow down.
Probably the best practical systems are energy storage systems using high speed (30,000 rpm and faster) in a vacuum, levitated via magnetic bearings.

Drop an object in a near perfect vacuum is as close as we can get to completely removing friction and drag.

But ideally, the principle still holds, an object with no force applied stays at rest or continues moving at a constant velocity.

"Inertia" is a fairly loose term for this resistance to change in velocity, and it the simple case of linear motion is simply mass.

Has Den pressure been defined in this thread?

What is den pressure?

Has Den pressure been defined in this thread?

What is den pressure?

As far as I can understand it from the ramblings, den pressure is a way to explain weight from air pressure, rather than from gravity.

But since an object does not become lighter if you lower its surrounding air pressure, this is a ludicrous idea.

Drop an object in a near perfect vacuum is as close as we can get to completely removing friction and drag.

 Which I think is quite well demonstrated in this video

As far as I can understand it from the ramblings, den pressure is a way to explain weight from air pressure, rather than from gravity.

Not from air pressure but from athmospheric pressure. Don't ask from me how they differ.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 24, 2016, 05:44:17 AM

Has Den pressure been defined in this thread?

What is den pressure?

As far as I can understand it from the ramblings, den pressure is a way to explain weight from air pressure, rather than from gravity.

But since an object does not become lighter if you lower its surrounding air pressure, this is a ludicrous idea.

The object becomes heavier?  Right?

The video linked by zork () shows an entire chamber that is brought as close to absolute vacuum as possible. Then they drop a bowling ball and feathers.

If air pressure was the force that kept stuff to the ground instead of gravity, the ball and the feathers would not fall down. This means there is another reason for them falling. Whatever other reason you can come up with, the reason is *not* den pressure.

The air has literally been sucked out of that hypothesis.

The video linked by zork () shows an entire chamber that is brought as close to absolute vacuum as possible. Then they drop a bowling ball and feathers.

If air pressure was the force that kept stuff to the ground instead of gravity, the ball and the feathers would not fall down. This means there is another reason for them falling. Whatever other reason you can come up with, the reason is *not* den pressure.

The air has literally been sucked out of that hypothesis.

I do not envy the amount of reading youll have to do on this thread just to find out that scrotum thinks it's witchcraft and therefore doesn't disprove his point.

Damn autocorrect making an ass out me of! Sceptimatic is what I meant. Not scrotum.

sceptimatic, could you please for the x:th time explain to me your model of the atom and molecules?

I am eagerly awaiting your response.

Damn autocorrect making an ass out me of! Sceptimatic is what I meant. Not scrotum.

Damn funny though.

How can there be an 800+ number of posts in a thread about the theory that stuff has weight because of the air?

Even here?

I mean: the mantra of FEers seems to be: 'I only believe what I can observe'. Has any FEer observed something become less heavy when the air pressure drops?

I have seen many experiments in near vacuum conditions. At no point did the test matter float up or show any other behavior that suggests a decrease in weight. Has anyone here observed anything like that at all?

How can there be an 800+ number of posts in a thread about the theory that stuff has weight because of the air?

Even here?

I mean: the mantra of FEers seems to be: 'I only believe what I can observe'. Has any FEer observed something become less heavy when the air pressure drops?

I have seen many experiments in near vacuum conditions. At no point did the test matter float up or show any other behavior that suggests a decrease in weight. Has anyone here observed anything like that at all?

To be honest this thread ends at post 240.  Everything past that is scepti refusing to accept reality.

Galileo proved the concept on Earth with balls and a ramp. The fact that there are always forces working on an object on Earth does not disprove the principle.

It does not prove it either.

You'd only have to ask a series of simple questiosn and answer them:

If I put a hockey puck on the ice and hit it with a stick, it will move for a while and then slow down. What slows it down?
The answer, as you will no doubt confirm: friction. The ice and the air exert a force on the moving object and it slows down. It loses the energy we put into the puck when we hit it. This energy is converted into heat.
So what would happen if there was no friction? No air? Would the puck keep moving? Or would it slow down?

Nothing would happen because it can never be done. There is always friction. There is always pressure. There is always a reaction to action in equal measures.

If you find this too hard to visualize, do the following experiment.

Put a ball on gravel. Push it. It will roll and slow down and stop. The gravel has high friction.

Now put the ball on normal pavement. Push it. It will roll and slow down but will roll longer and roll faster. The pavement has less friction.

Now put the ball on ice and push it. It will roll (and skid) longer and faster because the ice has even less resistance. Less friction.

So the more friction you remove, the longer the ball will move. If you remove all friction, the ball *must* keep moving. Why else would it stop?

If you remove friction you lose the ability to be alive and so does everything else. Basically, lose friction and you have nothing. You don't exist and neither does Earth that you live in.

Your problem is, in your mind you can picture magic, because you've been told about this magic. You picture floating in space forever. You picture falling around large balls.
You accept what you're told causes this and somehow do not feel the need to question it. I find that weird but it's your choice.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2016, 01:31:49 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 23, 2016, 05:27:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2016, 12:12:22 AM

Oh, ok, so tell me what exactly INERTIA is.

***PRIMAL SCREAM*** This thread is a perfect example of intellectual inertia: your resistance to understanding the definition of inertia.

So inertia is really just resistance. Why can't resistance just be used?

Because inertia is a very special kind of resistance and shouldn't be confused with other kinds of resistance.

Ahhh, so it's a magical resistance, is it?

Because inertia is NOT "just" resistance!

"Resistance" in this context is just something that resists motion and causes an object in motion to slow. Common forms of resistance are:

• Friction, which is highest (static friction) until an object it starts moving, when it falls to a lower "kinetic friction" when the object is moving. "Kinetic friction" is reasonably independent of velocity.
  Friction can be loosely thought of the force needed to overcome the rubbing together of tiny bumps on the surfaces of objects.
  
  
• Fluid resistance, which at low speeds at least is due to the viscosity of the fluid. The distinction between friction and fluid resistance is that fluid resistance is roughly proportional to velocity. It is zero for very low speeds.

Friction and fluid drag are present for even constant velocities, but "inertia" is what opposes "changes in velocity".

An object at rest subject to no forces at all stays at rest.

To increase the velocity requires an acceleration and this requires a force = mass x acceleration.
Once the object is in motion it will stay in motion unless some force is applied to it.

Now as you say there is almost nowhere on earth when this is precisely true, but a massive flywheel on very good bearings can keep spinning for hours, but it is still subject to some friction and drag, so it does slow down.
Probably the best practical systems are energy storage systems using high speed (30,000 rpm and faster) in a vacuum, levitated via magnetic bearings.

Drop an object in a near perfect vacuum is as close as we can get to completely removing friction and drag.

But ideally, the principle still holds, an object with no force applied stays at rest or continues moving at a constant velocity.

"Inertia" is a fairly loose term for this resistance to change in velocity, and it the simple case of linear motion is simply mass.

So inertia is a resistance to a force.
So resistance is the word we require for reality.
The problem is we are not allowed to deal in reality so that's why inertia is used, because inertia  can be used in a few ways to basically scramble people's brains and yet to this very day, when asked about inertia as to what it is, it really can't be explained. It's like gravity and many other silly magical processes. It's there to simply baffle people and simply get them to follow the bullshit because they feel embarrassed to question it enough.