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

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:38:57 AM

This is where you're getting confused and is where you go into the fiction mode that has been ingrained into your mind, which is not entirely your fault.

The ball would cease to exist as a ball if there was no friction, because everything would cease to exist.

Honestly, I have only one explanation!

Quote from: Lewis Carroll

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Sceppy, your words have a completely different meaning to ours! Mind making up a dictionary for us one day?
You could start with:

friction =
energy =
vibration =
compression  =
resistance  =
force =
vacuum =
denpressure =

Because without such a translation, this is utterly meaningless:

Quote

Observe this post carefully.
The ball would cease to be a ball under zero friction. Everything would cease to be anything under zero friction.
Honestly try and comprehend that because the sooner you do, the sooner you'll realise just how much of your life has been spent under brainwashing tactics and techniques.

Without some definitions, that is complete hog-wash!

You talk about brainwashing! Anyone would need a full brain transplant to make sense of that little bit.

If you can't follow what I'm saying then you can actually try harder or simply treat me with whatever contempt you think I deserve. However, if you decide to do this then try not to expend too much energy doing so, because it will be wasted energy.

The choice is entirely yours.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 25, 2016, 04:57:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:22:06 AM

Ok my molecules are like a jaw breaker. Let's start from there.
How does your model start off.

My model is explained here:

Quote

In my model, the smallest parts are elementary particles. Some of them called quarks can group together to build nucleons. Nucleons can group together to form atomic nuclei. Elementary particles called electrons orbit these nuclei to form atoms and ions. Atoms and ions can group together in many different ways to build up molecules or crystals. Molecules and crystals and group together to make an object.

So, you say that in your model you have something that is similar to a jawbreaker, and that it is comparable to our molecules? So, what are these jawbreakers made of?

Layers of matter in states of compression and expansion.
I don't think they're comparable to your molecules because I honestly don't know how your molecules work in a real workable way. It's basically magic.

Explain in simple terms how your molecules work in the most basic way.
You just mention quarks and obits of nuclei and what not. How about telling me how these things actually work in simple terms.

Oh, I was referring to my question:
"So, what are all the basic structures an object is made up off?"

So what I meant was that when you said "molecules" I interpreted it as if it was at the same place in the hierarchy as my molecules, i.e. they were the biggest of all the basic structures. If I may come with a suggestion, start answering the question by explaining what the absolutely tiniest part of matter is, then work your way up. I just want to make sure that I first know what your model states everything is made up of before I dive into how they interact with each other.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:22:59 AM

Great, so let's n ot use a word that describes nothing. Let's use proper words that do describe it all.
You know like resistance and friction and atmospheric pressure and denpressure. That type of stuff. Reality.

Banish inertia and gravity plus all the rest of the absolute utter gunk to the fictional part of the library.

Unfortunately for you, there are quite a lot of people who find the words "inertia" and "gravity" to be quite useful for describing certain phenomena.  Just because you don't believe in inertia and gravity, that doesn't stop the scientific and engineering communities from using those words in their everyday work to produce very real and useful products.

Seriously, would you want to drive over a bridge that was designed by someone who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of the properties of inertia and gravity?  I know that I wouldn't.

How about explaining to me how inertia and gravity aid in making a bridge.
All I need to know is the tools used and how they work.
Let's see if we can work this out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 09:02:54 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 25, 2016, 04:57:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:22:06 AM

Ok my molecules are like a jaw breaker. Let's start from there.
How does your model start off.

My model is explained here:

Quote

In my model, the smallest parts are elementary particles. Some of them called quarks can group together to build nucleons. Nucleons can group together to form atomic nuclei. Elementary particles called electrons orbit these nuclei to form atoms and ions. Atoms and ions can group together in many different ways to build up molecules or crystals. Molecules and crystals and group together to make an object.

So, you say that in your model you have something that is similar to a jawbreaker, and that it is comparable to our molecules? So, what are these jawbreakers made of?

Layers of matter in states of compression and expansion.
I don't think they're comparable to your molecules because I honestly don't know how your molecules work in a real workable way. It's basically magic.

Explain in simple terms how your molecules work in the most basic way.
You just mention quarks and obits of nuclei and what not. How about telling me how these things actually work in simple terms.

Oh, I was referring to my question:
"So, what are all the basic structures an object is made up off?"

So what I meant was that when you said "molecules" I interpreted it as if it was at the same place in the hierarchy as my molecules, i.e. they were the biggest of all the basic structures. If I may come with a suggestion, start answering the question by explaining what the absolutely tiniest part of matter is, then work your way up. I just want to make sure that I first know what your model states everything is made up of before I dive into how they interact with each other.

It's not so easy to simply say the tiniest part of matter is because they are in states of compression and expansion from bottom to top in the stack of Earth.

For instance: The jawbreaker appears to have the tiniest piece of matter dead centre inside the layered ball. However, this is because it's so densely compressed.
The key to figuring it all, out is in stripping layers.

You see, people can construe that an outer layer will simply fall off and stay the same. It does not. It decompresses. It gets smaller and attaches  to the next layer and between the next layers of all other likewise molecules/matter.

It's not easy to explain and certainly not easy for anyone to grasp unless they're fully focused on trying to understand it, regardless of accepting it.

Jane is the closest to getting a real grip and hopefully she'll keep probing.

It's not so easy to simply say the tiniest part of matter is because they are in states of compression and expansion from bottom to top in the stack of Earth.

For instance: The jawbreaker appears to have the tiniest piece of matter dead centre inside the layered ball. However, this is because it's so densely compressed.
The key to figuring it all, out is in stripping layers.

You see, people can construe that an outer layer will simply fall off and stay the same. It does not. It decompresses. It gets smaller and attaches  to the next layer and between the next layers of all other likewise molecules/matter.

It's not easy to explain and certainly not easy for anyone to grasp unless they're fully focused on trying to understand it, regardless of accepting it.

Jane is the closest to getting a real grip and hopefully she'll keep probing.

I think you are very close to getting my question. So, everything is made out of jawbreaker like parts. Now these parts are made out of some sort of expanding and retracting matter. So, is this expanding and retracting matter made out of something else? And are the jawbreakers part of a larger "particle"? Or is it just those two things everything is made out of?

If I have a garbage bag and I tie it close with some air trapped into it. And I twist the bag in the middle so two bubbles of air appear, did I just 'break air in two'?

If I use a vacuum seal to remove the air out of my little sandwich bag, is all the air still in that bag? Why then is the surrounding air pushing so hard against the bag that it fits so tightly around my bread?

If a vacuum pump can remove some air from a bag with a sandwich, why can't it remove all air from a glass tube with a feather and a nail in it?

Why would there still be atmospheric pressure in a chamber without air?

Quote from: Mainframes on August 25, 2016, 04:58:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:22:06 AM

Ok my molecules are like a jaw breaker. Let's start from there.
How does your model start off.

If your molecules are like jawbreakers why do we experience such effects as:

Enzyme catalysis
Chirality
Polarity
Chemical cracking

Why don't you explain them in simple terms, in your own words so I know what you're saying that goes against what I'm saying.

Enzyme catalysis - enzymes act as catalysts for organic reactions but only for very specific proteins due to their shape.
Chirality - two molecules can be exactly the same except that they are left or right handed - they are a mirror image of each other. The properties of these molecules can be very different is one is toxic and one isn't.
Polarity - the shape of molecules can lead to polar charges lending different physical properties. Water is polar and has a much higher boiling point than similar sized molecules and is also the most powerful solvent around.
Chemical cracking - molecules shaped as long chains that can be 'cracked' in half to form new molecules.

You cannot achieve this with round layered jaw breakers.

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Quote from: markjo on August 25, 2016, 06:49:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:22:59 AM

Great, so let's n ot use a word that describes nothing. Let's use proper words that do describe it all.
You know like resistance and friction and atmospheric pressure and denpressure. That type of stuff. Reality.

Banish inertia and gravity plus all the rest of the absolute utter gunk to the fictional part of the library.

Unfortunately for you, there are quite a lot of people who find the words "inertia" and "gravity" to be quite useful for describing certain phenomena.  Just because you don't believe in inertia and gravity, that doesn't stop the scientific and engineering communities from using those words in their everyday work to produce very real and useful products.

Seriously, would you want to drive over a bridge that was designed by someone who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of the properties of inertia and gravity?  I know that I wouldn't.

How about explaining to me how inertia and gravity aid in making a bridge.
All I need to know is the tools used and how they work.
Let's see if we can work this out.

Quite simple.  Gravity is what causes mass to have weight.  An engineer needs to know how much a bridge weighs and how much weight it can support.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 24, 2016, 01:42:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2016, 09:13:24 AM

Quote from: zork on August 24, 2016, 06:01:43 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 24, 2016, 05:37:12 AM

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

That experiment, or so called experiment is a complete and utter load of garbage.

What's garbage about it? How did the objects fall at the same rate?

We see you dismissing science outright, would you care to explain your reasoning?

Take a good look at the footage and see the bullshit for yourself. I won't bother explaining it because you people simply go into denial mode and idol mode where these so called pretend professors are concerned.

The footage looks exactly like what would happen if one dropped 2 objects at near vacuum. I have examined it carefully many times. I have seen you deny the credibility of this video and others like it.

What I have not seen is why you think these videos are fabrications. Elaborate your thoughts.

Otherwise you simply look to be denying these videos to shelter your fragile mindview from scrutiny.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

How are you going to tell the shape of the Earth with just your eyes and senses?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

How are you going to tell the shape of the Earth with just your eyes and senses?

do you have a point to make??

You claimed two different shaped objects would travel at the same speed when they were not in a vacuum where at one point you agreed they were not in a vacuum and at another you simply declared they were in a vacuum.

And when i challenged you on it you told me something to the effect that i should believe the evidence of your eyes.

Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2016, 02:02:06 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

How are you going to tell the shape of the Earth with just your eyes and senses?

do you have a point to make??

You claimed two different shaped objects would travel at the same speed when they were not in a vacuum where at one point you agreed they were not in a vacuum and at another you simply declared they were in a vacuum.

And when i challenged you on it you told me something to the effect that i should believe the evidence of your eyes.

I applaud your ability to build a straw man. It's pretty.

I said the tube was as close to vacuum as possible. A few molecules of air are not going to slow down a feather, just like an ant is not going to lift a car.

For all intents and purposes, the air is gone. There is no friction left. And in that condition, two objects no matter their mass will fall at the same speed.

This has been proven thousands of times. It is a repeatable highschool level experiment.

You seem to thing that wishing something is not true, makes it untrue.

I just whipped sandokahns arse by showing his own quoted article confirms the earth orbits the sun. And I just trounced your miserable wordplay.

What else you got?

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

  Just by looking. As I don't have imapaired eyesight then I quite don't understand your question. How is it not possible do determine just by looking if two objects reach destination almost same time? Its like you are saying that its impossible to determine between situations where two objects are both right at the edge of table or one is right at the edge and other is at some distance from edge.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:13:31 PM

Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2016, 02:02:06 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

How are you going to tell the shape of the Earth with just your eyes and senses?

do you have a point to make??

You claimed two different shaped objects would travel at the same speed when they were not in a vacuum where at one point you agreed they were not in a vacuum and at another you simply declared they were in a vacuum.

And when i challenged you on it you told me something to the effect that i should believe the evidence of your eyes.

I applaud your ability to build a straw man. It's pretty.

I said the tube was as close to vacuum as possible. A few molecules of air are not going to slow down a feather, just like an ant is not going to lift a car.

For all intents and purposes, the air is gone. There is no friction left. And in that condition, two objects no matter their mass will fall at the same speed.

This has been proven thousands of times. It is a repeatable highschool level experiment.

You seem to thing that wishing something is not true, makes it untrue.

I just whipped sandokahns arse by showing his own quoted article confirms the earth orbits the sun. And I just trounced your miserable wordplay.

What else you got?

There was no word play.  If you speak like a school boy then you are going to be corrected

Vacuum pumps dont suck,  you cannot remove all of the air from a tube with an ordinary vacuum pump, the objects cannot fall at the same speed and so forth

You specifically said there was a vacuum although in the same post you had said it was almost a vacuum and made no difference.   

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

  Just by looking. As I don't have imapaired eyesight then I quite don't understand your question. How is it not possible do determine just by looking if two objects reach destination almost same time? Its like you are saying that its impossible to determine between situations where two objects are both right at the edge of table or one is right at the edge and other is at some distance from edge.

Indeed. Just like at the olympics they can see when the first runner crosses the line.

And if I would doubt my eyes in the vacuum experiment, I can use my handy iPhone and use the high speed camera to check if both objects were indeed dropping at the same speed.

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 02:24:16 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 08:24:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that you did not have a method to measure the different speeds and you were satisfied they travelled at the same speed by eye balling it

  If I understand correctly then if two objects move side by side all the way and reach finish at same time then its possible that one object has way greater speed than the other and eyes are not sufficiently adequate instruments to evaluate (not measure) if objects have almost same speed?

Funny guy.  How are you going to tell if two objects reach their destination at the same time using just your eyes and senses?   

  Just by looking. As I don't have imapaired eyesight then I quite don't understand your question. How is it not possible do determine just by looking if two objects reach destination almost same time? Its like you are saying that its impossible to determine between situations where two objects are both right at the edge of table or one is right at the edge and other is at some distance from edge.

Indeed. Just like at the olympics they can see when the first runner crosses the line.

And if I would doubt my eyes in the vacuum experiment, I can use my handy iPhone and use the high speed camera to check if both objects were indeed dropping at the same speed.

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

I can see you are trying to use word games again.

I will be clear:

In a vacuum, two objects regardless of mass will fall at the same speed. I have witnessed this.

If you doubt that human eyes can determine if the speed is indeed the same, we have high speed cameras which can show us beyond a doubt if two objects fall at the same speed.

There are many such videos available online.

Or are you saying that NASA is doctoring these videos as well?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 09:40:18 AM

It's not so easy to simply say the tiniest part of matter is because they are in states of compression and expansion from bottom to top in the stack of Earth.

For instance: The jawbreaker appears to have the tiniest piece of matter dead centre inside the layered ball. However, this is because it's so densely compressed.
The key to figuring it all, out is in stripping layers.

You see, people can construe that an outer layer will simply fall off and stay the same. It does not. It decompresses. It gets smaller and attaches  to the next layer and between the next layers of all other likewise molecules/matter.

It's not easy to explain and certainly not easy for anyone to grasp unless they're fully focused on trying to understand it, regardless of accepting it.

Jane is the closest to getting a real grip and hopefully she'll keep probing.

I think you are very close to getting my question. So, everything is made out of jawbreaker like parts. Now these parts are made out of some sort of expanding and retracting matter. So, is this expanding and retracting matter made out of something else? And are the jawbreakers part of a larger "particle"? Or is it just those two things everything is made out of?

Basically just one thing. One part of matter that separates by expansion and/or compression.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:33:05 PM

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

I can see you are trying to use word games again.

I will be clear:

In a vacuum, two objects regardless of mass will fall at the same speed. I have witnessed this.

If you doubt that human eyes can determine if the speed is indeed the same, we have high speed cameras which can show us beyond a doubt if two objects fall at the same speed.

There are many such videos available online.

Or are you saying that NASA is doctoring these videos as well?

Yes and people talk about vacuum cleaners and they talk about vacuum pumps.

It is not so simple. 

Anyway you agreed there was not a vacuum there before you declared there was a vacuum there and therefore unless you want to claim you can break the laws of physics those objects could not have fallen at the same speed because there is no way there was a vacuum there.

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

I didn't say almost same speed. I didn't even say almost same time. I asked - how is it not possible to determine just by looking if two objects reach destination almost same time? I put almost there because its hard to make difference when time is less than second.  But we are not talking about such short time. You quite clearly claim that it is impossible to make out with your eyes if one object reaches destination earlier than other with any time difference. For example 5 seconds before other. Or even more. I am interested how is this possible?

Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2016, 02:38:01 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:33:05 PM

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

I can see you are trying to use word games again.

I will be clear:

In a vacuum, two objects regardless of mass will fall at the same speed. I have witnessed this.

If you doubt that human eyes can determine if the speed is indeed the same, we have high speed cameras which can show us beyond a doubt if two objects fall at the same speed.

There are many such videos available online.

Or are you saying that NASA is doctoring these videos as well?

Yes and people talk about vacuum cleaners and they talk about vacuum pumps.

It is not so simple. 

Anyway you agreed there was not a vacuum there before you declared there was a vacuum there and therefore unless you want to claim you can break the laws of physics those objects could not have fallen at the same speed because there is no way there was a vacuum there.

So all those videos that prove you are wrong, are fake?

If I have a garbage bag and I tie it close with some air trapped into it. And I twist the bag in the middle so two bubbles of air appear, did I just 'break air in two'?

No. You simply separated atmospheric molecules into two compartments.

If I use a vacuum seal to remove the air out of my little sandwich bag, is all the air still in that bag? Why then is the surrounding air pushing so hard against the bag that it fits so tightly around my bread?

There will be some air in the bag. If there wasn't then your sandwich would be ruined as the sandwich you came to be fond of.
When you take air from the bag you are adding it to the atmosphere which now becomes part of that atmospheric pressure pushing on the outside of that bag with much less resistance inside of the bag in terms of atmosphere.
It means that the bag will envelope whatever dense material you have inside it.

If a vacuum pump can remove some air from a bag with a sandwich, why can't it remove all air from a glass tube with a feather and a nail in it?

Because a glass tube would simply be crushed, eventually. A bell jar is shaped like a bell because it can resist external pressure safely. A glass tube would be much less effective, meaning a much weaker pump has to be used, which also means much less atmospheric pressure is allowed to expand out of it, which means there will be resistance inside of it, even if it is low compared to external.

Why would there still be atmospheric pressure in a chamber without air?

If there's air in there's atmospheric pressure in. Atmospheric pressure is a mixture of gases that make up air.
Let's make this easier.
Get that sandwich bag and put nothing inside of it. Now squeeze every last drop of pressure from it. What do you have?
You have a container that has become not a container. It ceases to hold atmospheric pressure. It becomes a flat piece of plastic.

Now then, if you do that with a glass cylinder container with a strong enough pump, you will see that cylinder shatter or be breached. Once it's shattered or breached, it ceases to be a glass cylinder container. Why?...Because it cannot contain any pressure. It becomes equalised against it's own wall thickness with atmospheric pressure.

Take a metal container and put a strong enough pump on it. It will eventually be crushed and if it doesn't get breached, it will eventually be crushed flat which then leaves it as nothing more than a sheet of flat metal and not a container at all.
Can you see what I'm saying?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 09:06:20 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 25, 2016, 04:58:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:22:06 AM

Ok my molecules are like a jaw breaker. Let's start from there.
How does your model start off.

If your molecules are like jawbreakers why do we experience such effects as:

Enzyme catalysis
Chirality
Polarity
Chemical cracking

Why don't you explain them in simple terms, in your own words so I know what you're saying that goes against what I'm saying.

Enzyme catalysis - enzymes act as catalysts for organic reactions but only for very specific proteins due to their shape.
Chirality - two molecules can be exactly the same except that they are left or right handed - they are a mirror image of each other. The properties of these molecules can be very different is one is toxic and one isn't.
Polarity - the shape of molecules can lead to polar charges lending different physical properties. Water is polar and has a much higher boiling point than similar sized molecules and is also the most powerful solvent around.
Chemical cracking - molecules shaped as long chains that can be 'cracked' in half to form new molecules.

You cannot achieve this with round layered jaw breakers.

They aren't just round layered jaw breakers. That's just one aspect. Think of soap bubbles as a good analogy to how it works.
The reality is right there in our faces. It's simple and there for anyone who takes the time out to see it in its simplest form.

I know you've explained certain stuff but the truth is it doesn't show me what's happening and how it happens.

Start with just one thing and explain how it all works in the simplest way with a good analogy if possible.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:45:54 PM

Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2016, 02:38:01 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:33:05 PM

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

I can see you are trying to use word games again.

I will be clear:

In a vacuum, two objects regardless of mass will fall at the same speed. I have witnessed this.

If you doubt that human eyes can determine if the speed is indeed the same, we have high speed cameras which can show us beyond a doubt if two objects fall at the same speed.

There are many such videos available online.

Or are you saying that NASA is doctoring these videos as well?

Yes and people talk about vacuum cleaners and they talk about vacuum pumps.

It is not so simple. 

Anyway you agreed there was not a vacuum there before you declared there was a vacuum there and therefore unless you want to claim you can break the laws of physics those objects could not have fallen at the same speed because there is no way there was a vacuum there.

So all those videos that prove you are wrong, are fake?

Look if you want to believe the feather and ball fall at the same speed when a vacuum is not created then that is fine.

I was assuming however you were interested in science.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 09:27:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 25, 2016, 06:49:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:22:59 AM

Great, so let's n ot use a word that describes nothing. Let's use proper words that do describe it all.
You know like resistance and friction and atmospheric pressure and denpressure. That type of stuff. Reality.

Banish inertia and gravity plus all the rest of the absolute utter gunk to the fictional part of the library.

Unfortunately for you, there are quite a lot of people who find the words "inertia" and "gravity" to be quite useful for describing certain phenomena.  Just because you don't believe in inertia and gravity, that doesn't stop the scientific and engineering communities from using those words in their everyday work to produce very real and useful products.

Seriously, would you want to drive over a bridge that was designed by someone who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of the properties of inertia and gravity?  I know that I wouldn't.

How about explaining to me how inertia and gravity aid in making a bridge.
All I need to know is the tools used and how they work.
Let's see if we can work this out.

Quite simple.  Gravity is what causes mass to have weight.  An engineer needs to know how much a bridge weighs and how much weight it can support.

So let's put this in simple terms.
An engineer needs to know how much a bridge weighs.
Ok then he weighs each piece of material on a scale. The scale plate works by giving a man made measurement of mass/density pushing against atmospheric pressure. Denpressure.

If they work by different means then tell me what they use and tell me how the measurements come about.

Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2016, 02:57:44 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:45:54 PM

Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2016, 02:38:01 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:33:05 PM

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

I can see you are trying to use word games again.

I will be clear:

In a vacuum, two objects regardless of mass will fall at the same speed. I have witnessed this.

If you doubt that human eyes can determine if the speed is indeed the same, we have high speed cameras which can show us beyond a doubt if two objects fall at the same speed.

There are many such videos available online.

Or are you saying that NASA is doctoring these videos as well?

Yes and people talk about vacuum cleaners and they talk about vacuum pumps.

It is not so simple. 

Anyway you agreed there was not a vacuum there before you declared there was a vacuum there and therefore unless you want to claim you can break the laws of physics those objects could not have fallen at the same speed because there is no way there was a vacuum there.

So all those videos that prove you are wrong, are fake?

Look if you want to believe the feather and ball fall at the same speed when a vacuum is not created then that is fine.

I was assuming however you were interested in science.

I ask again: are all videos that show a feather and a heavier object fall at the same speed faked?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 02:33:05 PM

Since he is saying almost the same speed he is not agreeing with what you told me.

I didn't say almost same speed. I didn't even say almost same time. I asked - how is it not possible to determine just by looking if two objects reach destination almost same time? I put almost there because its hard to make difference when time is less than second.  But we are not talking about such short time. You quite clearly claim that it is impossible to make out with your eyes if one object reaches destination earlier than other with any time difference. For example 5 seconds before other. Or even more. I am interested how is this possible?

If you say almost the same time then it amounts to almost the same speed.

The human eye and brain have a very poor ability to know if things travel the same speed which is why special equipment is used at race meetings and so forth

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 01:35:02 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 24, 2016, 01:42:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2016, 09:13:24 AM

Quote from: zork on August 24, 2016, 06:01:43 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 24, 2016, 05:37:12 AM

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

That experiment, or so called experiment is a complete and utter load of garbage.

What's garbage about it? How did the objects fall at the same rate?

We see you dismissing science outright, would you care to explain your reasoning?

Take a good look at the footage and see the bullshit for yourself. I won't bother explaining it because you people simply go into denial mode and idol mode where these so called pretend professors are concerned.

The footage looks exactly like what would happen if one dropped 2 objects at near vacuum. I have examined it carefully many times. I have seen you deny the credibility of this video and others like it.

What I have not seen is why you think these videos are fabrications. Elaborate your thoughts.

Otherwise you simply look to be denying these videos to shelter your fragile mindview from scrutiny.

Here's a little tip for you to ponder. I'll elaborate further if required.
Have a think about what a feather consists of. A clue: Think of tubes.

Now watch the video again.