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

A line needs to be drawn between good and bad arguments.

Really?  Will you apply that to scepti as well?  Or will you just keep patronising him?

Scepti is proposing that steel, for example, is porous.  That's his claim, yet he can't provide any evidence (apart from pictures of a sponge or a pitted weld).

Quote from: Jane on August 26, 2016, 09:28:38 AM

A line needs to be drawn between good and bad arguments.

Really?  Will you apply that to scepti as well?  Or will you just keep patronising him?

Scepti is proposing that steel, for example, is porous.  That's his claim, yet he can't provide any evidence (apart from pictures of a sponge or a pitted weld).

You can view as much as you want.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=porous+steel&rlz=1C1PRFC_enGB627GB644&espv=2&biw=1152&bih=739&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi164nowd_OAhXMLcAKHWLsBXAQsAQIIg

Do crystalline structure float around? They won't have pours in them.

Why is a quilt very light on your body and yet a blanket is heavy?

Really?  Will you apply that to scepti as well?  Or will you just keep patronising him?

Scepti is proposing that steel, for example, is porous.  That's his claim, yet he can't provide any evidence (apart from pictures of a sponge or a pitted weld).

Not patronising, just using a different standard to you. I'm not ascertaining truth or accuracy, so I'm not concerned with the evidence for his claims. If I were going to accept it, then I would be asking a lot more questions, but i'm a long way from that. I'm just interested in figuring out what his model is.
I don't see what repeating the same two or three basic statements in various permutations achieves.

We're concerned with different questions, that's all. I'm interested in what he believes, most of you seem to be going after why he believes it.

Do crystalline structure float around? They won't have pours in them.

Show me your crystalline structure.

Why is a quilt very light on your body and yet a blanket is heavy?

Less mass.

So... Does salt float around or not?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:40:11 AM

Why is a quilt very light on your body and yet a blanket is heavy?

Less mass.

So... Does salt float around or not?

Explain why there is less mass.

As for your salt question. What's that supposed to show?

Quote from: sokarul on August 26, 2016, 09:43:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:40:11 AM

Why is a quilt very light on your body and yet a blanket is heavy?

Less mass.

So... Does salt float around or not?

Explain why there is less mass.

As for your salt question. What's that supposed to show?

Different materials along with different amounts of materials will lead to different masses.

Humans know the shapes of crystal structures. Take table salt. We know it doesn't have pores.

It's so easy to disprove this bullshit. How could one even come to such a ridiculous idea of a "denpressure". Like wtf.

Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:46:43 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 26, 2016, 09:43:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:40:11 AM

Why is a quilt very light on your body and yet a blanket is heavy?

Less mass.

So... Does salt float around or not?

Explain why there is less mass.

As for your salt question. What's that supposed to show?

Different materials along with different amounts of materials will lead to different masses.

Humans know the shapes of crystal structures. Take table salt. We know it doesn't have pores.

Let's leave it at that.

We're concerned with different questions, that's all. I'm interested in what he believes, most of you seem to be going after why he believes it.

I wish I knew more about his theories as well.

I wish I knew why he thinks videos of evacuation chambers are elaborate hoaxes.

I wish I knew more about how the sun, moon and stars are supposed to work under his model.

He refuses to answer these questions directly and in simple terms. This leads me to believe he is not entirely confident in his model.

It's so easy to disprove this bullshit. How could one even come to such a ridiculous idea of a "denpressure". Like wtf.

Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.

Show me the video of you on that mountain with your wood and scales, as opposed to the very same wood and scales you used before you climbed it.

Quote from: Jane on August 26, 2016, 09:40:45 AM

We're concerned with different questions, that's all. I'm interested in what he believes, most of you seem to be going after why he believes it.

I wish I knew more about his theories as well.

I wish I knew why he thinks videos of evacuation chambers are elaborate hoaxes.

I wish I knew more about how the sun, moon and stars are supposed to work under his model.

He refuses to answer these questions directly and in simple terms. This leads me to believe he is not entirely confident in his model.

Trying to explain it to people like you is not an easy task when your mind is saturated with the globe model and all that's been put into place to make it what it appears to be, to you.

Also I don't think all evacuation chambers are a hoax. I simply know which one's are a hoax by the way they're used. Brian Cox and his cronies are the clearest in being part of something that is not shown to us as a truth.

Trying to explain it to people like you is not an easy task when your mind is saturated with the globe model and all that's been put into place to make it what it appears to be, to you.

Also I don't think all evacuation chambers are a hoax. I simply know which one's are a hoax by the way they're used. Brian Cox and his cronies are the clearest in being part of something that is not shown to us as a truth.

Excellent grandstanding. All that text and you completely fail to address a single one of my points.

What about Brian Cox do you dislike? Who exactly are his "cronies"?

Continuously you fail to articulate anything regarding the sun. How does it work in your model?

I wish I knew more about how the sun, moon and stars are supposed to work under his model.

He refuses to answer these questions directly and in simple terms. This leads me to believe he is not entirely confident in his model.

On that point, it's likely as much due to how people react as it is the contents of the model. There isn't much point in going into detail on a topic if it's going to be derailed and rendered unreadable by how many people butt in, often with little more to say than "Ha ha! That's ridiculous! I think you're wrong because it's different!"
There might be good arguments to be made, and good points to respond to, but it's far from easy to sort them out.
As much as I'd like to hear the details, I do understand why he's wary.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 10:44:36 AM

Trying to explain it to people like you is not an easy task when your mind is saturated with the globe model and all that's been put into place to make it what it appears to be, to you.

Also I don't think all evacuation chambers are a hoax. I simply know which one's are a hoax by the way they're used. Brian Cox and his cronies are the clearest in being part of something that is not shown to us as a truth.

Excellent grandstanding. All that text and you completely fail to address a single one of my points.

What about Brian Cox do you dislike? Who exactly are his "cronies"?

Continuously you fail to articulate anything regarding the sun. How does it work in your model?

Brian Cox is just a scripted actor like a hell of a lot of others.
Anyway, the sun works in a similar way to a carbon arc.
Basically the sun is graphite and it consumes metals aided by atmospheric friction.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 26, 2016, 10:56:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 10:44:36 AM

Trying to explain it to people like you is not an easy task when your mind is saturated with the globe model and all that's been put into place to make it what it appears to be, to you.

Also I don't think all evacuation chambers are a hoax. I simply know which one's are a hoax by the way they're used. Brian Cox and his cronies are the clearest in being part of something that is not shown to us as a truth.

Excellent grandstanding. All that text and you completely fail to address a single one of my points.

What about Brian Cox do you dislike? Who exactly are his "cronies"?

Continuously you fail to articulate anything regarding the sun. How does it work in your model?

Brian Cox is just a scripted actor like a hell of a lot of others.
Anyway, the sun works in a similar way to a carbon arc.
Basically the sun is graphite and it consumes metals aided by atmospheric friction.

Never heard of Brian Cox so it sounds like time for another research project.

The theories and observations involved in the round earth model are so simple and so easily demonstrated the idea this person who apparently is involved in vacuum chambers is a paid actor just seems er....hard to say without just being rude about you.

Likewise inertia.  It is evident you know exactly what inertia describes and for reasons unknown you keep up this great song and dance about it.

You say you are a genuine person.   I am finding it hard to believe.  Time and time again you seem to be just wasting peoples time for no purpose at all.

Anyway to Brian Cox and wherever that leads me.

OK so he was the guy in the NASA vacuum chamber which you have claimed is an elaborate hoax.   You also claimed laboratory glassware cannot withstand a pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.   What on Earth motivates you to say something so silly is beyond me to understand.   

Brian Cox is just a scripted actor like a hell of a lot of others.

Still not a cogent argument. Bill Nye was a scripted actor, but he taught simple, repeatable experiments that proved various scientific concepts. I don't know why Brian Cox would be any different. You simply attack his character, calling him a fraud and a liar while showing nothing to support your claims. Why should I believe you over him if you have given me no justification for doing so?

Anyway, the sun works in a similar way to a carbon arc.
Basically the sun is graphite and it consumes metals aided by atmospheric friction.

This must be a pretty massive arc light. Where is it located?

Quote from: User324 on August 26, 2016, 10:34:28 AM

It's so easy to disprove this bullshit. How could one even come to such a ridiculous idea of a "denpressure". Like wtf.

Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.

Show me the video of you on that mountain with your wood and scales, as opposed to the very same wood and scales you used before you climbed it.

You totally overestimate how much I care about some internet bullshit 

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 10:40:31 AM

Quote from: User324 on August 26, 2016, 10:34:28 AM

It's so easy to disprove this bullshit. How could one even come to such a ridiculous idea of a "denpressure". Like wtf.

Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.

Show me the video of you on that mountain with your wood and scales, as opposed to the very same wood and scales you used before you climbed it.

You totally overestimate how much I care about some internet bullshit 

Are you saying you know what denpressure is so you know how to test it?

Can you enlighten me please?  What is denpressure?

Are you saying you know what denpressure is so you know how to test it?

Can you enlighten me please?  What is denpressure?

Is the act of Air Pressure creating weight by pressing down on an object.  The density of an object determines how much air pressure affects how much force is transferred to the object to create weight.  For instance a less dense object would be affected less and in return would weight less.


So shortly: It is bullshit

Nobody has to see a subtance called inertia, or be able to smell inertia.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with useage of that word.

Inertia is not a substance.  Saying that inertia is a property of an object is like saying that wetness is a property of liquid water.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 07:17:19 AM

Nobody has to see a subtance called inertia, or be able to smell inertia.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with useage of that word.

Inertia is not a substance.  Saying that inertia is a property of an object is like saying that wetness is a property of liquid water.

I said that.  I was getting tired of hearing him say what is inertia?   And of course I was not saying inertia is a substance.

Mass is a property of an object and so is density, so for example two identical looking objects can have different masses because they have different densities.    A steel wheel is harder to rotate than an apparently identical aluminium wheel.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 08:55:38 AM

So basically, in other words, if two of these lumps of matter are pushed really hard against each other one expands and swallows the other lump of matter which retracts? And this is how they become jawbreakers?

Sort of yes.
There's a hell of a lot more to it but it would take too long, so it's about simply nibbling away at it until it becomes clearer to people.

Ok, thanks.

Ok fair enough with that but how do they actually interact to be anything at all?

That is what I thought we were going to start discuss now. So, I know how jaw breakers exist, and you know how atoms exist. So my question now is, how do the jawbreakers bunch together to form objects?

For my model, we have the atoms as explained earlier. They are made up of these groups of colored balls, and surrounded by lonely colorless balls. I'll call the bunch of groups of 3 colored balls for gatherings. The gatherings feel a bit sorry for the lone colorless balls, but they are also a bit disturbed by them. So if they think there are too many colorless balls around, they will chase them away. But if there are not too many, their sorrow for these colorless balls has them trying to draw more colorless balls in. But the colorless balls don't always let themselves get chased away. Therefore, some gatherings consult with each other and agree to stay close to each other, so that they can share the burden of having those "disturbing" colorless balls around. This is how molecules (and for simplicity's sake, ions too) are formed. Now, let's call them communes. So the communes consists of a gathering of balls, that all hang out in smaller groups and communicates with each other. The average attitude of a gathering is optimistic. Around these gatherings are lone, pessimistic colorless balls that are regulated by the gatherings. Now when the gatherings combine to form communes, some of the gatherings are still a lot more attractive to the lone balls than others, so the lone balls will all move a bit closer to one of the attractive ones and a bit further away from a less attractive gathering. This means that the lone balls are not all standing randomly around, but are gathering around a certain area in the commune. When two communes meet, the part of a commune that has less lone balls will attract lone balls from a part of the other commune that has a lot of lone balls, and this draws both the communes closer together. Sometimes, as the lone balls scuffle around they will randomly realize that they happened to have gathered at a certain part of a commune, and this will create the same effect. This is how molecules attract each other. There are also some communes that agree to stay together and allow some of their lone balls to travel freely between the communes, which strengthens the attraction between the communes. As more and more communes clump together in these different ways, they eventually form trees, rocks and the computer you are using.

Now tell me what this means.
Nobody has to see a substance called inertia, or be able to smell inertia.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with usage of that word.
What properties?

I could just as accurately say:
"Nobody has to see a substance called pressure, or be able to smell pressure.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with usage of that word."
or
"Nobody has to see a substance called velocity, or be able to smell velocity.   They just need to read about the properties of objects which are associated with usage of that word."

Inertia is a measure of the effort that must be put to change the velocity of an object, that is its acceleration.

For an object moving in a straight line, Inertia is just the mass  (symbol m) of the object.

For a rotating object (like a flywheel), Inertia is a measure of the effort that must be put to change the angular velocity of the object,
and this rotational inertia is called the moment of inertia (symbol I).

If you weren't allergic to equations or maths, I could refer you to: Rotational-Linear Parallels,
where you would find that, in the absence of other forces (such as friction)
          force = mass x acceleration and
          torque = (moment of inertia) x (angular acceleration),
but since you have this aversion to anything involving calculation, I won't bother!

You know you have a totally impractical view of the world. Your job might let you ignore equations and mathematics but many people cannot do that.


No, in the real world, calculations and equations are quite necessary, and your denspressure ideas just do not work!

Do you wonder that I can't see any logic in your ideas?

Never heard of Brian Cox so it sounds like time for another research project.

The theories and observations involved in the round earth model are so simple and so easily demonstrated the idea this person who apparently is involved in vacuum chambers is a paid actor just seems er....hard to say without just being rude about you.

Be as rude as you want to me. Feel free to do what you wish.

Likewise inertia.  It is evident you know exactly what inertia describes and for reasons unknown you keep up this great song and dance about it.

Not a song and dance. It's a simple explanation required from you or whoever as to what inertia actually is. Nobody has answered it.

You say you are a genuine person.   I am finding it hard to believe.  Time and time again you seem to be just wasting peoples time for no purpose at all.

I can only waste the time of people who care to have their time wasted if what I say is not to their liking. It's not my fault if they keep coming back for more.
I use my time to explain my thoughts. My time is worth something to me. Your time is worth something to you.
I am not forced upon you just as you are not forced upon me. We decide that issue and it seems clear to me that we obviously feel it's worth expending time.

Anyway to Brian Cox and wherever that leads me.

OK so he was the guy in the NASA vacuum chamber which you have claimed is an elaborate hoax.

Absolutely.

  You also claimed laboratory glassware cannot withstand a pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.   What on Earth motivates you to say something so silly is beyond me to understand.   

No I didn't.
I claimed that it could not withstand a full evacuation of pressure internally whilst externally the pressure is severely unequal.
A massive difference.

Still not a cogent argument. Bill Nye was a scripted actor, but he taught simple, repeatable experiments that proved various scientific concepts. I don't know why Brian Cox would be any different.

He is no different. He just parrots what's required. He's just a puppet like the rest.

You simply attack his character, calling him a fraud and a liar while showing nothing to support your claims. Why should I believe you over him if you have given me no justification for doing so?

He's simply working from scripts. He probably has no clue what the hell he's talking about for most part, except the part he was trained to parrot.

This must be a pretty massive arc light. Where is it located?

Yep it will be quite big and it's located in the centre of Earth.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 26, 2016, 11:48:50 AM

  You also claimed laboratory glassware cannot withstand a pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.   What on Earth motivates you to say something so silly is beyond me to understand.   

No I didn't.
I claimed that it could not withstand a full evacuation of pressure internally whilst externally the pressure is severely unequal.
A massive difference.

If the pressure inside an evacuated vessel is zero and the pressure outside the vessel is 15 pounds per square inch, then the difference in pressure is 15 psi.  15 psi doesn't sound terribly severe to me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 10:40:31 AM

Quote from: User324 on August 26, 2016, 10:34:28 AM

It's so easy to disprove this bullshit. How could one even come to such a ridiculous idea of a "denpressure". Like wtf.

Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.

Show me the video of you on that mountain with your wood and scales, as opposed to the very same wood and scales you used before you climbed it.

You totally overestimate how much I care about some internet bullshit 

Not really. I thought you might be a scale carrying mountaineer that came across this topic and decided to teach me a lesson.
Obviously I was wrong. It does happen.

Never mind.