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

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?

I see that you are saying things that are untrue.

The pressure at sea level is 1 atmosphere. So when we remove the air from a container, there is 1 atmosphere of pressure working on the container. We can create containers that resist much higher pressure than that without breaking.

Ever seen a bottle of compressed air?

Quote from: markjo on August 25, 2016, 12:53:03 PM

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.

How does this thing you are calling mass/density push against atmospheric pressure in only one direction?

What actually do you mean by mass/density pushing against atmospheric pressure?    That phrase means absolutely nothing to me.

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.

What are you talking about? Honestly, I have no clue what you mean here. Are you saying the feather is just as heavy as the ball? Because... tubes?

What?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 03:04:28 PM

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?

If you cannot understand that when there is not a perfect vacuum the objects cannot fall at the same speed then i suggest you talk it over with somebody who can help you understand the principles involved.    You can have the final word.  If you want to be ignorant that is fine by me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:57:51 PM

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?

I see that you are saying things that are untrue.

The pressure at sea level is 1 atmosphere. So when we remove the air from a container, there is 1 atmosphere of pressure working on the container. We can create containers that resist much higher pressure than that without breaking.

Ever seen a bottle of compressed air?

Ever wondered why compressed air cylinders are as heavy as they are?
Here's a tanker under atmospheric pressure.

Have a think about what a feather consists of. A clue: Think of tubes.

Now watch the video again.

Feathers are made of proteins called keratin. This is the same protein used to make horns, nails, hair, etc.

What does this have to do with evacuation chambers again?

How does this thing you are calling mass/density push against atmospheric pressure in only one direction?

It doesn't. Haven't you been reading?

What actually do you mean by mass/density pushing against atmospheric pressure?    That phrase means absolutely nothing to me.

Read up on it, I've put plenty hints out there.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 03:07:41 PM

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.

What are you talking about? Honestly, I have no clue what you mean here. Are you saying the feather is just as heavy as the ball? Because... tubes?

What?

Why do birds fly so effortlessly?

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 02:53:39 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 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

  Again, same speed. I don't talk about speed. I said they reached destination at same time. I really don't understand how you can't make out if objects reach destination same time or if one lands before and other after. I really can't. And I also don't get why you always shift from "determining with eyes if two objects reach the destination same time" to "measuring speed with eyes". They are not same  things.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 03:07:41 PM

Have a think about what a feather consists of. A clue: Think of tubes.

Now watch the video again.

Feathers are made of proteins called keratin. This is the same protein used to make horns, nails, hair, etc.

What does this have to do with evacuation chambers again?

What is inside  the tubes of a feather?

Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2016, 03:09:04 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:57:51 PM

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?

I see that you are saying things that are untrue.

The pressure at sea level is 1 atmosphere. So when we remove the air from a container, there is 1 atmosphere of pressure working on the container. We can create containers that resist much higher pressure than that without breaking.

Ever seen a bottle of compressed air?

Ever wondered why compressed air cylinders are as heavy as they are?
Here's a tanker under atmospheric pressure.

You have talked a great deal about how science does not deal in reality but here are the facts which anybody can demonstrate to you.

1. It is common place for small sizes of glass ware in a laboratory to be capable of withstanding the best vacuums that can be created on Earth

2. Steel can very easily handle a vacuum when the container size is not abnormally large

3. Ordinary objects show the properties of matter which you are claiming do not exist, such as for example an accelerating and stopping car, and a car going around a corner.

So what is going on here?   Do you really believe what you are typing here or is this just a big joke for you?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 03:07:20 PM

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2016, 02:53:39 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 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

  Again, same speed. I don't talk about speed. I said they reached destination at same time. I really don't understand how you can't make out if objects reach destination same time or if one lands before and other after. I really can't. And I also don't get why you always shift from "determining with eyes if two objects reach the destination same time" to "measuring speed with eyes". They are not same  things.

If you cannot understand why the human being is unable to accurately determine the speed of objects then i suggest you talk it over with a person who understands the principles involved.  You can have the last word.  I just do not care what you think about this topic.   Please think whatever you want and leave me out of it.

If you cannot understand why the human being is unable to accurately determine the speed of objects then i suggest you talk it over with a person who understands the principles involved.  You can have the last word.  I just do not care what you think about this topic.   Please think whatever you want and leave me out of it.

  Again, I definitely don't talk about how to determine speed of objects by eye. Its you who push it and I can't understand why. Making out if two objects reach destination at same time is not same as determining speed by eye (is it really so hard to understand difference between them?). You have a floor and you drop 2 objects at some height. You don't even need eyes to determine if they reach their destination same time or one reaches first and second later. You can determine it by hearing. And you can also determine it by eyes. If you are unable to do it then you really have some serious seeing/hearing problems.

You have talked a great deal about how science does not deal in reality but here are the facts which anybody can demonstrate to you.

1. It is common place for small sizes of glass ware in a laboratory to be capable of withstanding the best vacuums that can be created on Earth

That depends on what is construed as the best vacuums.

2. Steel can very easily handle a vacuum when the container size is not abnormally large

They can sustain a much greater resistance to external atmospheric pressure against much less pressure remaining inside, I agree.

3. Ordinary objects show the properties of matter which you are claiming do not exist, such as for example an accelerating and stopping car, and a car going around a corner. So what is going on here?

It's atmospheric pressure build up and also a slosh effect. The same going around corners. It's just pressure build up.
It's easy when you allow time to think about it.

Do you really believe what you are typing here or is this just a big joke for you?

I 100% believe in what I'm typing. That doesn't make everything correct but to me it makes everything much more realistic against the crap we've been fed.

The very best I can offer you with some of the videos is that a feather would obviously encounter much less resistance to it's mass, especially in arrow mode.
There's still resistance and always will be, but different masses will all fall at different rates of speed.
The major issue with these experiments are the small distances used to try to prove a point.
It's a classic con job to somehow try to convince people that a vacuum has no bias on any dense object. It's complete crap and should be seen for what it is.

The very best I can offer you with some of the videos is that a feather would obviously encounter much less resistance to it's mass, especially in arrow mode.
There's still resistance and always will be, but different masses will all fall at different rates of speed.
The major issue with these experiments are the small distances used to try to prove a point.
It's a classic con job to somehow try to convince people that a vacuum has no bias on any dense object. It's complete crap and should be seen for what it is.

Once again we're back at personal incredulity.  Yelling bullshit is not an argument.

The apple and feathers are a good example of the preservation of the laws of physics where the apple falling in air falls faster than the feathers falling in what you are calling a vacuum.  The results would have been reversed if a near vacuum was present.

There is something you are missing here.  The same speed means the same speed.  It does not mean almost or approximately or sufficiently the same speed.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 03:32:47 PM

You have talked a great deal about how science does not deal in reality but here are the facts which anybody can demonstrate to you.

1. It is common place for small sizes of glass ware in a laboratory to be capable of withstanding the best vacuums that can be created on Earth

That depends on what is construed as the best vacuums.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 03:32:47 PM

2. Steel can very easily handle a vacuum when the container size is not abnormally large

They can sustain a much greater resistance to external atmospheric pressure against much less pressure remaining inside, I agree.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 03:32:47 PM

3. Ordinary objects show the properties of matter which you are claiming do not exist, such as for example an accelerating and stopping car, and a car going around a corner. So what is going on here?

It's atmospheric pressure build up and also a slosh effect. The same going around corners. It's just pressure build up.
It's easy when you allow time to think about it.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 03:32:47 PM

Do you really believe what you are typing here or is this just a big joke for you?

I 100% believe in what I'm typing. That doesn't make everything correct but to me it makes everything much more realistic against the crap we've been fed.

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

I'm genuine and I'm also not a person who just accepts something just for the hell of it.
In bold: Tell me what you mean by that?
You say that objects have that property. What property? Do you mean objects have instant acceleration and if so, how?
I could be wrong here. I'm just puzzled by what you said.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:22:34 PM

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

I'm genuine and I'm also not a person who just accepts something just for the hell of it.
In bold: Tell me what you mean by that?
You say that objects have that property. What property? Do you mean objects have instant acceleration and if so, how?
I could be wrong here. I'm just puzzled by what you said.

I wrote "it cannot be instantly accelerated" and you have focused on "Do you mean objects have instant acceleration"

I am assuming you misread something.

Please clarify your reply

I am saying it is our common experience that objects cannot be instantly accelerated.  It is what we expect.  We do not expect the car to instantly be at top speed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:22:34 PM

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

I'm genuine and I'm also not a person who just accepts something just for the hell of it.
In bold: Tell me what you mean by that?
You say that objects have that property. What property? Do you mean objects have instant acceleration and if so, how?
I could be wrong here. I'm just puzzled by what you said.

I wrote "it cannot be instantly accelerated" and you have focused on "Do you mean objects have instant acceleration"

I am assuming you misread something.

Please clarify your reply

Yes you wrote that but you also wrote this.

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason, objects have that property.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:32:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:22:34 PM

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

I'm genuine and I'm also not a person who just accepts something just for the hell of it.
In bold: Tell me what you mean by that?
You say that objects have that property. What property? Do you mean objects have instant acceleration and if so, how?
I could be wrong here. I'm just puzzled by what you said.

I wrote "it cannot be instantly accelerated" and you have focused on "Do you mean objects have instant acceleration"

I am assuming you misread something.

Please clarify your reply

Yes you wrote that but you also wrote this.

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason, objects have that property.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

For some reason we know an object cannot be instantly accelerated.    So we know that is something that happens to or is 'possessed' by an object.

So somehow we have to associate this behaviour with the object.   Where the object itself has this behaviour.     So by convention we say it has this particular property where it is difficult to accelerate this object.

So we say it has that property of that peculiar behaviour that we know about

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:36:53 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:32:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:22:34 PM

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

I'm genuine and I'm also not a person who just accepts something just for the hell of it.
In bold: Tell me what you mean by that?
You say that objects have that property. What property? Do you mean objects have instant acceleration and if so, how?
I could be wrong here. I'm just puzzled by what you said.

I wrote "it cannot be instantly accelerated" and you have focused on "Do you mean objects have instant acceleration"

I am assuming you misread something.

Please clarify your reply

Yes you wrote that but you also wrote this.

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason, objects have that property.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

For some reason we know an object cannot be instantly accelerated.    So we know that is something that happens to or is 'possessed' by an object.

So somehow we have to associate this behaviour with the object.   Where the object itself has this behaviour.     So by convention we say it has this particular property where it is difficult to accelerate this object.

So we say it has that property of that peculiar behaviour that we know about

Ok and the reason why an object cannot instantly accelerate is due to friction/resistance due to atmospheric pressure.
No need for inertia.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:48:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:36:53 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:32:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:22:34 PM

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

I'm genuine and I'm also not a person who just accepts something just for the hell of it.
In bold: Tell me what you mean by that?
You say that objects have that property. What property? Do you mean objects have instant acceleration and if so, how?
I could be wrong here. I'm just puzzled by what you said.

I wrote "it cannot be instantly accelerated" and you have focused on "Do you mean objects have instant acceleration"

I am assuming you misread something.

Please clarify your reply

Yes you wrote that but you also wrote this.

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason, objects have that property.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

For some reason we know an object cannot be instantly accelerated.    So we know that is something that happens to or is 'possessed' by an object.

So somehow we have to associate this behaviour with the object.   Where the object itself has this behaviour.     So by convention we say it has this particular property where it is difficult to accelerate this object.

So we say it has that property of that peculiar behaviour that we know about

Ok and the reason why an object cannot instantly accelerate is due to friction/resistance due to atmospheric pressure.
No need for inertia.

Why does a magnetic levitation train accelerate more slowly when it has more passengers? why does it take longer to stop when it has more passengers?

Why is when I take the road wheel off my car and spin the hub the wheel bolts to, the small hub stops in a fraction of a second, whereas when I put the heavy road wheel back on again and spin the hub with the wheel attached to it the combination spins for a longer time?

Because in the car you are under compression inside whilst your car is pushing through resistance outside. Stopping suddenly creates the atmospheric slosh effect, just like if your car was filled with water.
The fact that the water was pushed back by the energy of the forward moving car means you inside of it sit under a bigger push of compressed force upon you. Once that force is abruptly stopped, the slosh effect kicks in and hits the back of you and forces you forward.

How long can that slosh last?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 03:52:31 PM

The very best I can offer you with some of the videos is that a feather would obviously encounter much less resistance to it's mass, especially in arrow mode.
There's still resistance and always will be, but different masses will all fall at different rates of speed.
The major issue with these experiments are the small distances used to try to prove a point.
It's a classic con job to somehow try to convince people that a vacuum has no bias on any dense object. It's complete crap and should be seen for what it is.

Once again we're back at personal incredulity.  Yelling bullshit is not an argument.

That's his entire argument. He doesnt understand something and therefore it is BS. It is the sign of a very small mind.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:48:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:36:53 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:32:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 04:22:34 PM

If you are a genuine person then it should be simple to demonstrate to you that the simple laws of physics and words used like inertia are only talking about commonplace ordinary everyday events.

Inertia for example.  It is common experience it takes a car some seconds to go from zero to top speed and common place we cannot stop it instantly using the brakes no matter how good the onboard regular braking system used is.     

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason,  objects have that property.

If you are a genuine person then you should be able to discuss this without the sort of behaviour that typifies you where nobody can get you to focus on what is being explained to you.

I'm genuine and I'm also not a person who just accepts something just for the hell of it.
In bold: Tell me what you mean by that?
You say that objects have that property. What property? Do you mean objects have instant acceleration and if so, how?
I could be wrong here. I'm just puzzled by what you said.

I wrote "it cannot be instantly accelerated" and you have focused on "Do you mean objects have instant acceleration"

I am assuming you misread something.

Please clarify your reply

Yes you wrote that but you also wrote this.

So if we think about an object and we consider why it cannot be instantly accelerated we really have no answer for that and yet we know,   for some reason, objects have that property.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

For some reason we know an object cannot be instantly accelerated.    So we know that is something that happens to or is 'possessed' by an object.

So somehow we have to associate this behaviour with the object.   Where the object itself has this behaviour.     So by convention we say it has this particular property where it is difficult to accelerate this object.

So we say it has that property of that peculiar behaviour that we know about

Ok and the reason why an object cannot instantly accelerate is due to friction/resistance due to atmospheric pressure.
No need for inertia.

Complete garbage. INertia is why a force is require to accelerate ANYTHING. It is in fact a basic and observable rule of physics which naturally you deny because you dont understand it - or anything much at all.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 25, 2016, 09:50:20 AM

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.

Welcome back int time to the science of around 1000BC. So you dont actually believe in molecules or atoms at all.

Idiot.

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 02:40:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:38:38 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 25, 2016, 02:33:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:26:25 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 25, 2016, 02:21:52 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 24, 2016, 09:50:07 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 24, 2016, 08:21:24 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 24, 2016, 01:24:52 AM

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.

@sceptimatic, could you please provide your explanation?

I am ready to have a proper discussion with you and try to understand your model of atoms/matter, if you would just like to explain it to me clearly.

No you're not.. You are ready to go into attempted ridicule mode as soon as you get a few explanations. You'll do this because you will follow the masses.

What if I swear that I not throw the slightest insult your way, and I will not make any negative and/or deconstructive comments?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 02:26:25 AM

I won't waste my time trying to explain to you. I already know that you have no intention of trying to comprehend it, so stick to your normal stance like most of the rest and just try and mock me or my thoughts, because that's all you people are worth to me.

If someone who repeatedly seeks themselves into a discussion with you to wrangle out information from you to understand your model so that they can try to falsify it not because it is incomplete or because of how it sounds, but because of the logic of the model doesn't want to comprehend it, then who else?

Ask specific questions.

With every question you ask me of my model, tell me how it works in your model that was handed to you on a plate.
Just simple terms will suffice.
Let's see how far we get before you go into silly mode.

Easy: what are atoms and molecules in your model?

Let me just answer to this post because I feel a bit sorry for you having to spend as much time as you have attempting to ridicule and dig at me.
Make this your last post to me because you'll only get frustrated when I don't answer. If you think you won't then there's absolutely no need to let me know that as it's just wasting more of your time gaining absolutely nothing.

The next name you use to try and get me to talk, make sure you're a bit more sensible and calmer.

Everytime you want to describe the structure of matter you use terms like 'jawbreaker' as if that wouldnt instantly draw ridicule. Is that seriously the best you can do? I am serious in that the year 1000BC  you would still look stupid - not for your hypothesis - but for the way in which you reject any and all evidence, including visible, repeatable debunking evidence. That just makes you look like an idiot.