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

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 25, 2016, 02:50:37 AM

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

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.

Deal.

So, what are all the basic structures an object is made up off?

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.

Before I answer you, can you prove anything of what you're saying or are you merely going off models and explanations from  books and/or college teachings.

You see, it's easy to say what you're saying but when I say what I'm about to say, mine will be merely hypothetical. Basically you should realise I do not have any direct physical proof.
Now if you want to argue that then I must equally argue against your model for your own direct physical proof. Note that I mention "your" physical proof.

It has been proven multiple times, but the problem is it uses actual science. you know, the stuff you refuse to accept?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 25, 2016, 03:26:44 PM

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?

Air, under normal conditions. The amount of air inside the feathers is dependant upon barometric pressure. Inside of an evacuation chamber, barometers measure air pressures to be very close to 0.

I still fail to see why the videos are lies and falsehoods.

You guys should really just give up and block him.

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.

Oh, very close to answering my question. Let me just make myself a bit clearer: Of course, everything is just made up of one type of stuff (it's the same in my model - elementary particles make up everything). What I'm asking for is if this most basic matter can form into some structure (in your case the jaw-breakers) and at what point you have the structures required to make an object.

As an analogy, let's say I wanted to make a painting. Let's assume that colors, wood, canvas and fur is the most basic stuff, that everything is made of. You can combine the fur with a small stick to make a brush. You can put wood together to make a stand, and canvas and wood to make a canvas frame. You then put the canvas on the frame, dip the brush in colors and apply them in nearly unlimited ways to make paintings. The paintings is everything we see around us, like trees, dirt, the computer you are using. The colors, wood, canvas and fur is the expanding and retracting matter, everything is made up of it. Without one of them, nothing would exist. The stand, canvas frame and brush is like the jaw breaker, without them nothing would still exist, at least not in the same way. So, I'm assuming that to make an object, what we need is a basic piece of matter, this matter that expands and retracts, then that matter can make these jaw breakers. And then, those jawbreakers combine to make trees and dirt and computers, if I understand you correctly?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Australian, you clown. And clearly you have never been thru a science course in your life or alternatively, your mental illness has screwed it all up.

Flat Earthers are all at least a tiny bit mentally ill.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Australian, you clown. And clearly you have never been thru a science course in your life or alternatively, your mental illness has screwed it all up.

Flat Earthers are all at least a tiny bit mentally ill.

Apparently it was Kepler who made up the word inertia.

Why when it is pointed out to you that words are made up and therefore our language evolves, do you begin to talk about your claim of my mental illness and some notion you have that I am a flat Earther?

I think it should be obvious that if you use a made up word to declare something cannot be denied, and that is all you do, then what you are saying is devoid of intelligent content in the context of a physics argument

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:41:07 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Australian, you clown. And clearly you have never been thru a science course in your life or alternatively, your mental illness has screwed it all up.

Flat Earthers are all at least a tiny bit mentally ill.

Apparently it was Kepler who made up the word inertia.

Why when it is pointed out to you that words are made up and therefore our language evolves, do you begin to talk about your claim of my mental illness and some notion you have that I am a flat Earther?

I think it should be obvious that if you use a made up word to declare something cannot be denied, and that is all you do, then what you are saying is devoid of intelligent content in the context of a physics argument

Tell me that you are not seriously making an argument around the initial use of a word to define a newly defined concept? Aare you really trying to make a case over the initial use of a WORD?

Pedantic and Pointless.

By the way EVERY SINGLE WORD IS 'MADE UP' at some point in time. Ergo, your argument is without any weight (or pressure or turtle shells or whatever you people use nowadays)

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:55:34 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:41:07 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Australian, you clown. And clearly you have never been thru a science course in your life or alternatively, your mental illness has screwed it all up.

Flat Earthers are all at least a tiny bit mentally ill.

Apparently it was Kepler who made up the word inertia.

Why when it is pointed out to you that words are made up and therefore our language evolves, do you begin to talk about your claim of my mental illness and some notion you have that I am a flat Earther?

I think it should be obvious that if you use a made up word to declare something cannot be denied, and that is all you do, then what you are saying is devoid of intelligent content in the context of a physics argument

Tell me that you are not seriously making an argument around the initial use of a word to define a newly defined concept? Aare you really trying to make a case over the initial use of a WORD?

Pedantic and Pointless.

By the way EVERY SINGLE WORD IS 'MADE UP' at some point in time. Ergo, your argument is without any weight (or pressure or turtle shells or whatever you people use nowadays)

Good you have conceded to reality and finally agreed these words are made up.  I can now see there is a possibility I can cross you off the list of deranged people posting on this forum.

Therefore, if you say Inertia is the reason why x happens, and it cannot be denied,  while somebody else has an alternative explanation of what happens, you are providing, more or less,  a content free argument that has no weight whatsoever in the discussion if that is all you contribute.

Quote from: fliggs on August 26, 2016, 12:02:50 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:55:34 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:41:07 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Australian, you clown. And clearly you have never been thru a science course in your life or alternatively, your mental illness has screwed it all up.

Flat Earthers are all at least a tiny bit mentally ill.

Apparently it was Kepler who made up the word inertia.

Why when it is pointed out to you that words are made up and therefore our language evolves, do you begin to talk about your claim of my mental illness and some notion you have that I am a flat Earther?

I think it should be obvious that if you use a made up word to declare something cannot be denied, and that is all you do, then what you are saying is devoid of intelligent content in the context of a physics argument

Tell me that you are not seriously making an argument around the initial use of a word to define a newly defined concept? Aare you really trying to make a case over the initial use of a WORD?

Pedantic and Pointless.

By the way EVERY SINGLE WORD IS 'MADE UP' at some point in time. Ergo, your argument is without any weight (or pressure or turtle shells or whatever you people use nowadays)

Good you have conceded to reality and finally agreed these words are made up.  I can now see there is a possibility I can cross you off the list of deranged people posting on this forum.

Therefore, if you say Inertia is the reason why x happens, and it cannot be denied,  while somebody else has an alternative explanation of what happens, you are providing, more or less,  a content free argument that has no weight whatsoever in the discussion if that is all you contribute.

So let me see if I get you right. Because inertia was not always a word and was 'invented' this in some way devalues the concept? And yet despite the fact that the entire english language - and all languages - are composed of 'made up words' you think this therefore has any relevance or meaning? By any logical extension of your argument, no word of any kind has meaning.

The rest of your argument is just as flawed.  Simply put, if someone claims inertia (or any word you choose to makeup if you want) does not exist as a concept then they have to prove it - not the other way around.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 12:08:06 AM

Quote from: fliggs on August 26, 2016, 12:02:50 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:55:34 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:41:07 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Australian, you clown. And clearly you have never been thru a science course in your life or alternatively, your mental illness has screwed it all up.

Flat Earthers are all at least a tiny bit mentally ill.

Apparently it was Kepler who made up the word inertia.

Why when it is pointed out to you that words are made up and therefore our language evolves, do you begin to talk about your claim of my mental illness and some notion you have that I am a flat Earther?

I think it should be obvious that if you use a made up word to declare something cannot be denied, and that is all you do, then what you are saying is devoid of intelligent content in the context of a physics argument

Tell me that you are not seriously making an argument around the initial use of a word to define a newly defined concept? Aare you really trying to make a case over the initial use of a WORD?

Pedantic and Pointless.

By the way EVERY SINGLE WORD IS 'MADE UP' at some point in time. Ergo, your argument is without any weight (or pressure or turtle shells or whatever you people use nowadays)

Good you have conceded to reality and finally agreed these words are made up.  I can now see there is a possibility I can cross you off the list of deranged people posting on this forum.

Therefore, if you say Inertia is the reason why x happens, and it cannot be denied,  while somebody else has an alternative explanation of what happens, you are providing, more or less,  a content free argument that has no weight whatsoever in the discussion if that is all you contribute.

So let me see if I get you right. Because inertia was not always a word and was 'invented' this in some way devalues the concept? And yet despite the fact that the entire english language - and all languages - are composed of 'made up words' you think this therefore has any relevance or meaning? By any logical extension of your argument, no word of any kind has meaning.

The rest of your argument is just as flawed.  Simply put, if someone claims inertia (or any word you choose to makeup if you want) does not exist as a concept then they have to prove it - not the other way around.

It seems to have escaped your attention that I have gone to a great deal of trouble to build a case for the existance of some property of matter, or at least an easily  observeable phenonema that is easily demonstrated, which causes objects to resist being accelerated.

Then along you come attacking and lashing out with your big hatchet job where you declare inertia is the reason for the force being required to cause the changes we observe.

I told you I did not think you were being very helpful by using a made up word to declare something cannot be denied where it seems to me you are not thinking about the difficulties involved in talking to a person who behaves like Sceptimatic.

Your attitude at the moment is not helpful.    More or less you are ranting and raving.   You were even ranting and raving at me claiming I was mentally ill and had no science background or my mental illness had destroyed whatever i knew. 

It seems fairly clear you mind is not in a calm clear state.  Perhaps you need a break from this forum?  Go for a walk or something?

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Quote from: fliggs on August 26, 2016, 12:13:20 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 12:08:06 AM

Quote from: fliggs on August 26, 2016, 12:02:50 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:55:34 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:41:07 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 11:35:11 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 10:50:35 PM

Quote from: fliggs on August 25, 2016, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 04:56:50 PM

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.

You are not helping this conversation by so strongly insisting a made up word, more or less pulled out of Newtons arse,  is the reason why something is a basic rule of physics which cannot be denied.

You dont appear to have been anywhere near a science course at even the high school level with the nonsense you sprout.  Inertia is a fact of life in the physical universe as understood by almost everyone. It is the reason cars have engines. It is the reason why Olympic sprinters dont suddenly zoom to top speed out of the blocks even though they apply maximum force right from the start. The entire concept of acceleration is based on overcoming inertia. It has nothing to do with friction which is of course why space vehicles also have to overcome inertia to accelerate.

It is in fact rather gobsmacking that anyone can be quite so ignorant and stupid as to deny the existence of inertia. And as another poster pointed out, the word applies to a lot of other concepts and disciplines but in every one of them it is still the force require to move an object that has INERTIA.

Frankly, anyone who denies the existence of inertia is a moron. And yes, I am talking about you and scepti-moron here. Ive eaten vegetables with a higher IQ than some of you.

Evidently science education is not what it used to be.  Are you American?

Australian, you clown. And clearly you have never been thru a science course in your life or alternatively, your mental illness has screwed it all up.

Flat Earthers are all at least a tiny bit mentally ill.

Apparently it was Kepler who made up the word inertia.

Why when it is pointed out to you that words are made up and therefore our language evolves, do you begin to talk about your claim of my mental illness and some notion you have that I am a flat Earther?

I think it should be obvious that if you use a made up word to declare something cannot be denied, and that is all you do, then what you are saying is devoid of intelligent content in the context of a physics argument

Tell me that you are not seriously making an argument around the initial use of a word to define a newly defined concept? Aare you really trying to make a case over the initial use of a WORD?

Pedantic and Pointless.

By the way EVERY SINGLE WORD IS 'MADE UP' at some point in time. Ergo, your argument is without any weight (or pressure or turtle shells or whatever you people use nowadays)

Good you have conceded to reality and finally agreed these words are made up.  I can now see there is a possibility I can cross you off the list of deranged people posting on this forum.

Therefore, if you say Inertia is the reason why x happens, and it cannot be denied,  while somebody else has an alternative explanation of what happens, you are providing, more or less,  a content free argument that has no weight whatsoever in the discussion if that is all you contribute.

So let me see if I get you right. Because inertia was not always a word and was 'invented' this in some way devalues the concept? And yet despite the fact that the entire english language - and all languages - are composed of 'made up words' you think this therefore has any relevance or meaning? By any logical extension of your argument, no word of any kind has meaning.

The rest of your argument is just as flawed.  Simply put, if someone claims inertia (or any word you choose to makeup if you want) does not exist as a concept then they have to prove it - not the other way around.

It seems to have escaped your attention that I have gone to a great deal of trouble to build a case for the existance of some property of matter, or at least an easily  observeable phenonema that is easily demonstrated, which causes objects to resist being accelerated.

Then along you come attacking and lashing out with your big hatchet job where you declare inertia is the reason for the force being required to cause the changes we observe.

I told you I did not think you were being very helpful by using a made up word to declare something cannot be denied where it seems to me you are not thinking about the difficulties involved in talking to a person who behaves like Sceptimatic.

Your attitude at the moment is not helpful.    More or less you are ranting and raving.   You were even ranting and raving at me claiming I was mentally ill and had no science background or my mental illness had destroyed whatever i knew. 

It seems fairly clear you mind is not in a calm clear state.  Perhaps you need a break from this forum?  Go for a walk or something?

So let me try and understand this. the concept we call 'inertia' is real, but somehow you think we shouldn't use the word because it was invented? Isnt that perhaps as pointless and counter-productive as it gets?

You are starting to remind me a bit of Jane who went out of her way before finally giving up in tolerating scepti's madness. And I mean that literally. Everything about denpressure is patently absurd. It is deeply self-contradictory as well as denying basically every bit of science we know and all of our observations.

Scepti is a paranoid schizophrenic. It is appallingly obvious. Trying to debate with him is a waste of time. By agreeing with his 'made-up word' nonsense, all you do is pander to his delusions. that clown went on for pages denying the existance of inertia and still does. as he denies gravity.. and molecules and atoms and vacuum and space travel and galaxies and basically everything.

BTW I apologist for my comment on your mental health. I had incorrectly assumed that you were siding with sceptis refusal to acknowledge inertia rather than your pointlessly pedantic approach to a word. But I repeat: you are not helping him by siding with his delusions. His ability to communicate indicates he is not stupid, but he IS crazy.

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

THANK YOU!!!  I didnt think it was possible for anyone to get confused on this!

I would also point to attributes of certain particles called 'strangeness' and 'colour'. And guess what... they have nothing to do with how weird they are or what colour they look like. They are simply words given to a certain attribute.  A bit like 'inertia'.

My experience with this forum is that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that you can assume will not be debunked by the crazies. It is new and exciting every day!

Sometimes I read this forum to my dog so he can feel happier about the fact he has the IQ of a houseplant and yet still brighter than some posters on here.

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Baloney.  It is not derailment to ask posters to be aware that merely uttering a word that was made up does not create a compelling argument for something that is, they are insisting in the same sentence, undeniable.

The phrase posted by Friggs had no content at all other than his assistance Inertia could not be denied.    In reply to that I said he was not being very helpful.

Likewise if you want to claim objects move at the same speed when it is obvious they are not moving at the same speed it is not semantics to attempt to get you to use language correctly and talk scientifically rather than in vague terms where your insistance you are right somehow becomes the deciding factor of reality.

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?

The more passengers there are the more mass there is pushing against the atmosphere and in turn levering against the ground, which in this case is levering against a levitating train which is put under much more resistance to atmospheric pressure upon more dense mass.

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?

As above. The energy put into the more dense wheel can resist atmospheric pressure more easily.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 25, 2016, 01:47:57 AM

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?

Not long at all. You see a slosh can only act upon a pressure build up. You get that by moving against atmospheric pressure, whether inside an enclosed container or outside against normal atmosphere. The difference is obviously in the rush called wind where outside is concerned, so you're getting the rush directly against your running resistance which is deflected behind you.
In a container (car for instance) your pressure builds up without you actually really noticing.
That pressure is pushing into you more horizontally. As long as that container is on the move it contains built up atmospheric against you. It will only slosh if there is a change in movement, either in acceleration or deceleration.

There's a reason why your face distorts when going at super speed and it's got nothing to do with fictional forces like gravitational pulls or whatever is bestowed upon it.

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:33:19 AM

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Baloney.  It is not derailment to ask posters to be aware that merely uttering a word that was made up does not create a compelling argument for something that is, they are insisting in the same sentence, undeniable.

The phrase posted by Friggs had no content at all other than his assistance Inertia could not be denied.    In reply to that I said he was not being very helpful.

Likewise if you want to claim objects move at the same speed when it is obvious they are not moving at the same speed it is not semantics to attempt to get you to use language correctly and talk scientifically rather than in vague terms where your insistance you are right somehow becomes the deciding factor of reality.

If you doubt inertia exits, get in a car. Don't wear your seat belt. Drive 100Mph. Slam the breaks.

I can link you twenty videos that show objects in vacuum fall at the same speed regardless of mass.

Are all those videos faked?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 05:06:40 PM

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?

The more passengers there are the more mass there is pushing against the atmosphere and in turn levering against the ground, which in this case is levering against a levitating train which is put under much more resistance to atmospheric pressure upon more dense mass.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 25, 2016, 05:06:40 PM

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?

As above. The energy put into the more dense wheel can resist atmospheric pressure more easily.

These responses are making no sense to me at all. 

I pointed out to you earlier if you were a genuine person it would be easy to demonstrate the round earthers were only talking about very simple ideas that anybody can understand.

If you take two identically looking painted wheels where one is made of aluminium and the other is made of steel, how can atmospheric pressure cause one wheel to be more difficult to turn?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 12:43:57 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:33:19 AM

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Baloney.  It is not derailment to ask posters to be aware that merely uttering a word that was made up does not create a compelling argument for something that is, they are insisting in the same sentence, undeniable.

The phrase posted by Friggs had no content at all other than his assistance Inertia could not be denied.    In reply to that I said he was not being very helpful.

Likewise if you want to claim objects move at the same speed when it is obvious they are not moving at the same speed it is not semantics to attempt to get you to use language correctly and talk scientifically rather than in vague terms where your insistance you are right somehow becomes the deciding factor of reality.

If you doubt inertia exits, get in a car. Don't wear your seat belt. Drive 100Mph. Slam the breaks.

I can link you twenty videos that show objects in vacuum fall at the same speed regardless of mass.

Are all those videos faked?

You appear to be just blinded by belief.  Evidently you are not in the slightest bit reading and reflecting upon what I am writing in this thread.

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:33:19 AM

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Baloney.  It is not derailment to ask posters to be aware that merely uttering a word that was made up does not create a compelling argument for something that is, they are insisting in the same sentence, undeniable.

The phrase posted by Friggs had no content at all other than his assistance Inertia could not be denied.    In reply to that I said he was not being very helpful.

Likewise if you want to claim objects move at the same speed when it is obvious they are not moving at the same speed it is not semantics to attempt to get you to use language correctly and talk scientifically rather than in vague terms where your insistance you are right somehow becomes the deciding factor of reality.

You are getting more and more anal and semantic. Inertia is a PROVEN concept. Using the word is valid and reasonable. However disputing that, is not.

This is how flat-earthers confuse people like you. The refuse and deny EVERYTHING and then ask you to prove it. It is like the idiotic thread that asks if there is ANY evidence for a round earth.

We have every right as intelligent and sane people to accept irrefutable proof as irrefutable. It isnt really asking much to accept that a few components of our physical universe are irrefutable. Once you acquiesce on this point, they are off and claiming all kinds of rubbish like the notion that inertia does not exist because it is a made-up word.

Do not pander to their stupidity. They will no reward you for it and you will look foolish doing so. Denpressure is 100% rubbish.

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:58:30 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 12:43:57 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:33:19 AM

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Baloney.  It is not derailment to ask posters to be aware that merely uttering a word that was made up does not create a compelling argument for something that is, they are insisting in the same sentence, undeniable.

The phrase posted by Friggs had no content at all other than his assistance Inertia could not be denied.    In reply to that I said he was not being very helpful.

Likewise if you want to claim objects move at the same speed when it is obvious they are not moving at the same speed it is not semantics to attempt to get you to use language correctly and talk scientifically rather than in vague terms where your insistance you are right somehow becomes the deciding factor of reality.

If you doubt inertia exits, get in a car. Don't wear your seat belt. Drive 100Mph. Slam the breaks.

I can link you twenty videos that show objects in vacuum fall at the same speed regardless of mass.

Are all those videos faked?

You appear to be just blinded by belief.  Evidently you are not in the slightest bit reading and reflecting upon what I am writing in this thread.

And now the penny drops.

Given them an inch and they will take a light-year... which in their thinking is probably only a few hundred miles anyhow:)

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

The issue isn't about the word being made up, it's about the word being used to describe absolutely nothing.
It's similar to gravity is that it appears to describe something until you delve into what it is.
When people are asked to describe it, they simply can't. All they do is describe what it does.

In a case of inertia it has not been explained in any real manner as to be anything at all.
People say it takes such and such to move and that's inertia. It's resistance top atmospheric pressure upon any dense object.
Then it gets used in a context of something in motion will stay in motion and not slow down unless an outside force acts on it.
Basically inertia is now without resistance.
It's gobbledygook for a reason. The reason is, it's just another part of bullshit so called science.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 12:43:57 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:33:19 AM

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Baloney.  It is not derailment to ask posters to be aware that merely uttering a word that was made up does not create a compelling argument for something that is, they are insisting in the same sentence, undeniable.

The phrase posted by Friggs had no content at all other than his assistance Inertia could not be denied.    In reply to that I said he was not being very helpful.

Likewise if you want to claim objects move at the same speed when it is obvious they are not moving at the same speed it is not semantics to attempt to get you to use language correctly and talk scientifically rather than in vague terms where your insistance you are right somehow becomes the deciding factor of reality.

You are getting more and more anal and semantic. Inertia is a PROVEN concept. Using the word is valid and reasonable. However disputing that, is not.

This is how flat-earthers confuse people like you. The refuse and deny EVERYTHING and then ask you to prove it. It is like the idiotic thread that asks if there is ANY evidence for a round earth.

We have every right as intelligent and sane people to accept irrefutable proof as irrefutable. It isnt really asking much to accept that a few components of our physical universe are irrefutable. Once you acquiesce on this point, they are off and claiming all kinds of rubbish like the notion that inertia does not exist because it is a made-up word.

Do not pander to their stupidity. They will no reward you for it and you will look foolish doing so. Denpressure is 100% rubbish.

Despite my best efforts you are still attempting to denigrate my ability to think scientifically and denigrate my scientific knowledge.

I have done my best to attempt to explain to you that if you type out a sentence which only has a made up word in it and then declare this made up word is undeniable proof of what you believe to be true then you are typing out a content free response that has zero weight in an argument.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 01:01:38 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:58:30 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 12:43:57 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 12:33:19 AM

The semantics argument is pure derailment.

If I say there exists a property of matter called 'slowocity', and I describe it as: 'the property of matter to stay at rest or in motion unless a force is applied to it', you can say the word is made up. And you are right. But the property is not made up by me.

I can show you its existence. You actually experience it every day of your life.

So it does not matter the word inertia is made up. The word 'apple' is made up. Hell, the word 'word' is made up.

Objects with a higher mass have higher inertia. That is why it is easier to stop a bike than a fully laden truck. But both the bike and the truck require energy to stop. Because of inertia.

Baloney.  It is not derailment to ask posters to be aware that merely uttering a word that was made up does not create a compelling argument for something that is, they are insisting in the same sentence, undeniable.

The phrase posted by Friggs had no content at all other than his assistance Inertia could not be denied.    In reply to that I said he was not being very helpful.

Likewise if you want to claim objects move at the same speed when it is obvious they are not moving at the same speed it is not semantics to attempt to get you to use language correctly and talk scientifically rather than in vague terms where your insistance you are right somehow becomes the deciding factor of reality.

If you doubt inertia exits, get in a car. Don't wear your seat belt. Drive 100Mph. Slam the breaks.

I can link you twenty videos that show objects in vacuum fall at the same speed regardless of mass.

Are all those videos faked?

You appear to be just blinded by belief.  Evidently you are not in the slightest bit reading and reflecting upon what I am writing in this thread.

And now the penny drops.

Given them an inch and they will take a light-year... which in their thinking is probably only a few hundred miles anyhow:)

I get the impression you do not realise that was a reply to omega.  It was not a reply given to Sceptimatic

The issue isn't about the word being made up, it's about the word being used to describe absolutely nothing.

False.  The steel wheel is harder to turn than the aluminium wheel.

The steel wheel is harder to stop than the aluminum wheel.

it's about the word being used to describe absolutely nothing.

It should be obvious that something real is being described.   It should be obvious that what you have said is false.

The steel wheel is harder to turn.  That is not absolutely nothing.

Look, the alternative to inertia you FEers are proposing is the 'sloshing of the atmosphere', right? What is sloshing then, if not the continued motion of a liquid or gas when the containing open container slows down?

These responses are making no sense to me at all. 

I pointed out to you earlier if you were a genuine person it would be easy to demonstrate the round earthers were only talking about very simple ideas that anybody can understand.

If you take two identically looking painted wheels where one is made of aluminium and the other is made of steel, how can atmospheric pressure cause one wheel to be more difficult to turn?

If you'd have taken notice of the explanations much earlier in this topic you wouldn't or shouldn't need to ask this.
However, I'll give you the benefit of an answer to save you mooching. If you fail to grasp this then I suggest you do mooch and take your time doing so, if you're interested.

Ok steel is more dense than aluminium and does not have anywhere near the amount of trapped atmosphere in it's pores, so basically it displaces much more atmospheric pressure upon in and around it than aluminium.
This means that it takes more energy to push steel than it does to push aluminium, which means the atmospheric grip upon them is much different. It means that the steel can resist the pressure trying to squeeze it because it absorbs less atmosphere and therefore friction of it.