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

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:17:45 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:17:45 AM

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.

Ok. I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

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

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.

Can you imagine the designers of aircraft trying to use your ideas in calculating the lift and drag of an aircraft wing from all the variables involved?

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?

Nope, I don't wonder why you can't see logic in my ideas. I'm well versed in the way people like you work. Your aim is not to understand anything other than what you're programmed to understand.

So basically you can tell me as many times as you want to how denpressure doesn't work or is wrong, whilst magical made up bullshit like gravity and inertia, etc is right and I'll respond like this or not at all.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:17:45 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:17:45 AM

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.

Ok. I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

You have explained that expanding and retracting pieces of matter layer on top of each other in jawbreaker like structures. What I am asking for is how these jawbreakers then form stuff like trees, dirt and computers (generally, for example how do they make a solid block of iron?). Isn't that what you meant by your question:

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

i.e. how do they interact to be an object you can hold etc.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:18:55 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:17:45 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 09:17:45 AM

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.

Ok. I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

You have explained that expanding and retracting pieces of matter layer on top of each other in jawbreaker like structures. What I am asking for is how these jawbreakers then form stuff like trees, dirt and computers (generally, for example how do they make a solid block of iron?). Isn't that what you meant by your question:

Quote

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

i.e. how do they interact to be an object you can hold etc.

Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy.
I really should take the time out to do a few rough diagrams to show but I keep wondering if it's worth the small effort.

Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy.
I really should take the time out to do a few rough diagrams to show but I keep wondering if it's worth the small effort.

What do you mean by "like washing up bubbles"? What do the jaw breakers do to form a piece of something, like rock or metal?

Also, a diagram would be appreciated, thank you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:33:02 PM

Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy.
I really should take the time out to do a few rough diagrams to show but I keep wondering if it's worth the small effort.

What do you mean by "like washing up bubbles"? What do the jaw breakers do to form a piece of something, like rock or metal?

Also, a diagram would be appreciated, thank you.

Each jaw breaker would have various peeled layers clung to them forming an interlocking structure.
It's difficult to actually put into words.
Just think of it like the washing up bubbles in a sink.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:33:02 PM

Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy.
I really should take the time out to do a few rough diagrams to show but I keep wondering if it's worth the small effort.

What do you mean by "like washing up bubbles"? What do the jaw breakers do to form a piece of something, like rock or metal?

Also, a diagram would be appreciated, thank you.

Each jaw breaker would have various peeled layers clung to them forming an interlocking structure.
It's difficult to actually put into words.
Just think of it like the washing up bubbles in a sink.

So for the jawbreakers, the outermost layers can somewhat cover other jawbreakers (by I assume partially breaking, or peeling, off), and therefore binds them together?

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.

From the rest of Scepti's model, I assume you also have to account for the molecules in the vessel that now try to expand into the total lack of pressure inside the vessel. There's more than just the outwards force, the vessel itself is pushing inwards to try and fill the vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:40:15 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:33:02 PM

Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy.
I really should take the time out to do a few rough diagrams to show but I keep wondering if it's worth the small effort.

What do you mean by "like washing up bubbles"? What do the jaw breakers do to form a piece of something, like rock or metal?

Also, a diagram would be appreciated, thank you.

Each jaw breaker would have various peeled layers clung to them forming an interlocking structure.
It's difficult to actually put into words.
Just think of it like the washing up bubbles in a sink.

So for the jawbreakers, the outermost layers can somewhat cover other jawbreakers (by I assume partially breaking, or peeling, off), and therefore binds them together?

Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them.

It all depends on energy applied as to how those layers take place as well as how certain sized jaw breakers are part of one system of pressure.

Think of 100 balloons blown up but each balloon goes inside the other.
Now imagine the top layer popping but not releasing; just slipping down. It appears to vanish but that would be attached to the next balloon as a sort of dome buit equally would be sandwiched between other similar balloons in that same state.
It keeps them all attached and depending on how they are fixed, depends on what we perceive as a certain element/material/object or whatever.

Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them.

It all depends on energy applied as to how those layers take place as well as how certain sized jaw breakers are part of one system of pressure.

Think of 100 balloons blown up but each balloon goes inside the other.
Now imagine the top layer popping but not releasing; just slipping down. It appears to vanish but that would be attached to the next balloon as a sort of dome buit equally would be sandwiched between other similar balloons in that same state.
It keeps them all attached and depending on how they are fixed, depends on what we perceive as a certain element/material/object or whatever.

So there are layers fot his expanding and retracting between the jaw breakers? And that is keeping them together?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:56:10 PM

Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them.

It all depends on energy applied as to how those layers take place as well as how certain sized jaw breakers are part of one system of pressure.

Think of 100 balloons blown up but each balloon goes inside the other.
Now imagine the top layer popping but not releasing; just slipping down. It appears to vanish but that would be attached to the next balloon as a sort of dome buit equally would be sandwiched between other similar balloons in that same state.
It keeps them all attached and depending on how they are fixed, depends on what we perceive as a certain element/material/object or whatever.

So there are layers fot his expanding and retracting between the jaw breakers? And that is keeping them together?

I've just explained it.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:56:10 PM

Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them.

It all depends on energy applied as to how those layers take place as well as how certain sized jaw breakers are part of one system of pressure.

Think of 100 balloons blown up but each balloon goes inside the other.
Now imagine the top layer popping but not releasing; just slipping down. It appears to vanish but that would be attached to the next balloon as a sort of dome buit equally would be sandwiched between other similar balloons in that same state.
It keeps them all attached and depending on how they are fixed, depends on what we perceive as a certain element/material/object or whatever.

So there are layers fot his expanding and retracting between the jaw breakers? And that is keeping them together?

I've just explained it.

And did I understand your explanation?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:03:15 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:56:10 PM

Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them.

It all depends on energy applied as to how those layers take place as well as how certain sized jaw breakers are part of one system of pressure.

Think of 100 balloons blown up but each balloon goes inside the other.
Now imagine the top layer popping but not releasing; just slipping down. It appears to vanish but that would be attached to the next balloon as a sort of dome buit equally would be sandwiched between other similar balloons in that same state.
It keeps them all attached and depending on how they are fixed, depends on what we perceive as a certain element/material/object or whatever.

So there are layers fot his expanding and retracting between the jaw breakers? And that is keeping them together?

I've just explained it.

And did I understand your explanation?

Tough if you didn't. You're not playing games with me for too long. Either get with it or take a back seat.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 04:04:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:03:15 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:56:10 PM

Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them.

It all depends on energy applied as to how those layers take place as well as how certain sized jaw breakers are part of one system of pressure.

Think of 100 balloons blown up but each balloon goes inside the other.
Now imagine the top layer popping but not releasing; just slipping down. It appears to vanish but that would be attached to the next balloon as a sort of dome buit equally would be sandwiched between other similar balloons in that same state.
It keeps them all attached and depending on how they are fixed, depends on what we perceive as a certain element/material/object or whatever.

So there are layers fot his expanding and retracting between the jaw breakers? And that is keeping them together?

I've just explained it.

And did I understand your explanation?

Tough if you didn't. You're not playing games with me for too long. Either get with it or take a back seat.

Playing games? I just asked if I understood. Is it true that the jawbreakers are packed with these peeled layers between them?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:07:20 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 04:04:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 04:03:15 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 26, 2016, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:56:10 PM

Not exactly. You have to look at them as jaw breakers of varying sizes among each other with peeled off layers filling the gaps between them.

It all depends on energy applied as to how those layers take place as well as how certain sized jaw breakers are part of one system of pressure.

Think of 100 balloons blown up but each balloon goes inside the other.
Now imagine the top layer popping but not releasing; just slipping down. It appears to vanish but that would be attached to the next balloon as a sort of dome buit equally would be sandwiched between other similar balloons in that same state.
It keeps them all attached and depending on how they are fixed, depends on what we perceive as a certain element/material/object or whatever.

So there are layers fot his expanding and retracting between the jaw breakers? And that is keeping them together?

I've just explained it.

And did I understand your explanation?

Tough if you didn't. You're not playing games with me for too long. Either get with it or take a back seat.

Playing games? I just asked if I understood. Is it true that the jawbreakers are packed with these peeled layers between them?

Depending on the structure you see would depend on how the jaw breakers are sized and layered.

The peeled layers between them would be tiny jaw breakers with much less layers of make up.
It all depends on where in the Earth they are and under what force of pressure or energy force of expansion.

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.

Stop being completely ridiculous! Standard atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi (near enough to  15 psi) and that is the pressure the laboratory glassware would have to withstand even if it were  a perfect vacuum  (not possible I know) inside.

There is nothing magic about a vacuum, and even on earth extreme vacuum chambers are not that far from "outer space".
On earth the limit is usually set by the "out-gassing" of the chamber and anything in it.

The only reason you claim that the Brian Cox vacuum drop test is a fake is that it disproves your ideas, no other reason.

You claim that anything that you can't understand is a fake.

Get used to it!

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

                          - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

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

You are saying that anybody who is part of a scientific educational program is a liar? They are somehow all part of a vast conspiracy? You still have not explained how these men have deceived us. Why are all videos of evacuation chambers con jobs?

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.

How do you know any of this to be true? Have you spoken with them? I'd like to know which of Bill Nye's episodes you think contain misleading information.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 26, 2016, 11:55:05 AM

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.

In the center of the earth? Do you mean it resides under the north pole, or some other location? Where does the light break through the ground? Is this a place we can visit?

Arc lights generate light by slowly vaporizing the fuel, in this case I imagine the fuel would be 2 gigantic pieces of graphite. In man made arc lights, a mechanism is needed to push the carbon together as the fuel is consumed. What mechanism is pushing the natural graphite together to ensure constant heat and light?

Like washing up bubbles, as an analogy.

How do multi-layer jawbreakers act like washing up bubbles?

I really should take the time out to do a few rough diagrams to show but I keep wondering if it's worth the small effort.

Well, I suppose that depends on how clear your diagrams are.

Quote from: Omega on August 26, 2016, 04:06:23 AM

The edge of a knife under a microscope. Where are the holes?

Easy answers: it's not zoomed in enough, or the various specks and imperfections visible are holes. To be fair, small holes wouldn't be easy to see in any case.



There's a sponge. Kick yourself a little way from your screen and try to spot the holes.

A line needs to be drawn between good and bad arguments. There might be good responses, but there's no need to defend the dodgy ones.

Sorry for vanishing from this thread for a few days, i wasn't getting notifications.

Jane, you are actually like a troll. All you are doing is enabling scepti-moron's stupidity.  There are no 'holes' as he imagines and it is proven very convincingly. It is one thing to support him.  it is another thing to join in on his delusions and lie for him - which is what you are doing.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 26, 2016, 09:35:40 AM

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.

I'll help you along.  His model can be summed up in just one equation:

1+1=banana

There you go. Feel free to support that all you want.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 26, 2016, 10:39:15 AM

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.

How exactly are you supposed to seriously discuss and truly dumb idea that is 100% debunked?  There is nothing to support in it - not one thing.

I was going to make an analogy but of course when people think of massively stupid ideas they automatically think of the analogy of... A Flat Earth believer.

Get it?

Flat Earthers are in fact a model themselves - of idiocy.

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?


magical made up bullshit like ..... inertia,

I explained to you in easily understood terms, which even a small child can understand, what humans understand by the word inertia:

A steel wheel is harder to turn than an otherwise identical aluminium wheel

If you accelerate a bearing held in a blind bearing holder and stop the bearing holder the bearing comes flying out of the bearing holder.

So you agree there is nothing magical about what is understood by inertia.

Why are you lying?   You know what is meant by inertia.  Even a child can understand what is meant by inertia

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.

Another lie.   You would not even allow steel to be used to hold back a 'vacuum'.    You produced a steel tanker to prevent progress in the discussion so I mentioned laboratory glass (and steel) and you replied:

"That depends on what is construed as the best vacuums."

FALSE.    The difference between a poor vacuum and the best available is 1 pound per square inch.

It would be just an admission of your derailing and time wasting to now claim you meant your comment was relevant if there was a difference in thousands of pounds on the glassware, something that has almost nothing to do with the low pressure inside the glass which is only what your answer has focused on.

I mentioned laboratory glassware and steel because you came up with this:

Now then, if you do that with a glass cylinder container with a strong enough pump, you will see that cylinder shatter........... .

Take a metal container and put a strong enough pump on it. It will eventually be crushed........

So days later and you are still lying and cheating and wasting peoples time.


You are claiming it is not possible for humans with very large budgets to create large scale vacuum chambers, which have a pressure difference between inside and out of 15 pounds per square inch.

So you are claiming you believe 15 pounds per square inch pressure difference, between inside and outside, for a large building, is beyond the resources of NASA??

And it seems when you are asked why you believe that, you think you can squat down, produce a pile of shit, and expect somebody to take you seriously.

Why are you doing this??

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 02:51:35 PM

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

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.

Can you imagine the designers of aircraft trying to use your ideas in calculating the lift and drag of an aircraft wing from all the variables involved?

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?

Nope, I don't wonder why you can't see logic in my ideas. I'm well versed in the way people like you work. Your aim is not to understand anything other than what you're programmed to understand.

So basically you can tell me as many times as you want to how denpressure doesn't work or is wrong, whilst magical made up bullshit like gravity and inertia, etc is right and I'll respond like this or not at all.

Clearly you have never done anything that required actual calculations. Well I have and your airy-fairy ideas just don't cut it in the real world.
As I said before however could aircraft be designed if the designers didn't use equations (yes, the ones from the kinetic theory of gases, etc) to calculate lift and drag.

Just explain how your denspressure ideas can be used to determine the lift and drag coefficients of a Clark-Y airfoil (one of the oldest) as a function of angle of attack.

Designers in the real have much more complex calculations than that to do when they get onto supersonic and hypersonic flow.

You just bury you head in the sand and pretend these things don't exist.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:22:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 02:51:35 PM

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

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.

Can you imagine the designers of aircraft trying to use your ideas in calculating the lift and drag of an aircraft wing from all the variables involved?

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?

Nope, I don't wonder why you can't see logic in my ideas. I'm well versed in the way people like you work. Your aim is not to understand anything other than what you're programmed to understand.

So basically you can tell me as many times as you want to how denpressure doesn't work or is wrong, whilst magical made up bullshit like gravity and inertia, etc is right and I'll respond like this or not at all.

Clearly you have never done anything that required actual calculations. Well I have and your airy-fairy ideas just don't cut it in the real world.
As I said before however could aircraft be designed if the designers didn't use equations (yes, the ones from the kinetic theory of gases, etc) to calculate lift and drag.

Just explain how your denspressure ideas can be used to determine the lift and drag coefficients of a Clark-Y airfoil (one of the oldest) as a function of angle of attack.

Designers in the real have much more complex calculations than that to do when they get onto supersonic and hypersonic flow.

You just bury you head in the sand and pretend these things don't exist.

Rabinoz, I appreciate your efforts here but I think it is best to focus energy on his claim what we call inertia is a made up magical fairy thing.

talking about denpressure is going to go nowhere at all when it can be shown he is blatantly lying about his claim he does not know the meaning of the word inertia.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 27, 2016, 12:27:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:22:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 02:51:35 PM

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

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.

Can you imagine the designers of aircraft trying to use your ideas in calculating the lift and drag of an aircraft wing from all the variables involved?

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?

Nope, I don't wonder why you can't see logic in my ideas. I'm well versed in the way people like you work. Your aim is not to understand anything other than what you're programmed to understand.

So basically you can tell me as many times as you want to how denpressure doesn't work or is wrong, whilst magical made up bullshit like gravity and inertia, etc is right and I'll respond like this or not at all.

Clearly you have never done anything that required actual calculations. Well I have and your airy-fairy ideas just don't cut it in the real world.
As I said before however could aircraft be designed if the designers didn't use equations (yes, the ones from the kinetic theory of gases, etc) to calculate lift and drag.

Just explain how your denspressure ideas can be used to determine the lift and drag coefficients of a Clark-Y airfoil (one of the oldest) as a function of angle of attack.

Designers in the real have much more complex calculations than that to do when they get onto supersonic and hypersonic flow.

You just bury you head in the sand and pretend these things don't exist.

Rabinoz, I appreciate your efforts here but I think it is best to focus energy on his claim what we call inertia is a made up magical fairy thing.

talking about denpressure is going to go nowhere at all when it can be shown he is blatantly lying about his claim he does not know the meaning of the word inertia.

Technically, he may not be lying. Lying implies intent. It also implies a degree of rationality. I know you think I am harsh, but he is a paranoid schizophrenic to whom all his idiotic ideas and inconsistencies actually make a form of 'sense'. He probably both understands and doesnt understand inertia all at the same time. Mental illness defies logic.

Given a psychiatric examination, I predict he would be diagnosed as above or something similar. He certainly would not get a clean bill of health.

Stop being completely ridiculous! Standard atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi (near enough to  15 psi) and that is the pressure the laboratory glassware would have to withstand even if it were  a perfect vacuum  (not possible I know) inside.

It never will withstand it enirely.
I'll try and make this a bit more simple.
Tell me what would happen if the worlds strongest pump was attached to that glassware?

There is nothing magic about a vacuum, and even on earth extreme vacuum chambers are not that far from "outer space".

Well a vacuum cannot be created so there has to be something magical about it when explained as a "something" when clearly it is not a reality to our eyes.

On earth the limit is usually set by the "out-gassing" of the chamber and anything in it.

How does this out gassing work then?

The only reason you claim that the Brian Cox vacuum drop test is a fake is that it disproves your ideas, no other reason.

No, it doesn't disprove my ideas. It's just a big numb nonsense pretend test. They even add in the shaking pipes to make it a bit more believable that pressure is being evacuated.
The scary part is none of those people even know how an evacuation chamber works. They are just working from scripts and doing the shocked faces routine as if they've never seen anything like it in their lives and yet these people are supposed to be experts.

It's beyond silly but people buy into it.

You claim that anything that you can't understand is a fake.

No I don't claim that. I claim that anything that appears fake requires deep questioning  and observation. From that point it's down to basic common sense to see through what is clearly bullshit and keep questioning what potentially could be a half truth or even a full truth.

All of what I'm calling bullshit on, I have my reasons. All of what I'm questioning also have my suspicions.
It's as simple as that and no amount of attempted ridicule by you people will change that.

I spent an hour online last night going through microscopic pictures of metal. I have not found a single one that is porous. No matter how far you zoom in.

I would say that either you produce a picture of steel with tiny holes or your theory is busted.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 12:33:39 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 27, 2016, 12:27:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 26, 2016, 03:22:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 02:51:35 PM

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

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.

Can you imagine the designers of aircraft trying to use your ideas in calculating the lift and drag of an aircraft wing from all the variables involved?

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?

Nope, I don't wonder why you can't see logic in my ideas. I'm well versed in the way people like you work. Your aim is not to understand anything other than what you're programmed to understand.

So basically you can tell me as many times as you want to how denpressure doesn't work or is wrong, whilst magical made up bullshit like gravity and inertia, etc is right and I'll respond like this or not at all.

Clearly you have never done anything that required actual calculations. Well I have and your airy-fairy ideas just don't cut it in the real world.
As I said before however could aircraft be designed if the designers didn't use equations (yes, the ones from the kinetic theory of gases, etc) to calculate lift and drag.

Just explain how your denspressure ideas can be used to determine the lift and drag coefficients of a Clark-Y airfoil (one of the oldest) as a function of angle of attack.

Designers in the real have much more complex calculations than that to do when they get onto supersonic and hypersonic flow.

You just bury you head in the sand and pretend these things don't exist.

Rabinoz, I appreciate your efforts here but I think it is best to focus energy on his claim what we call inertia is a made up magical fairy thing.

talking about denpressure is going to go nowhere at all when it can be shown he is blatantly lying about his claim he does not know the meaning of the word inertia.

Technically, he may not be lying. Lying implies intent. It also implies a degree of rationality. I know you think I am harsh, but he is a paranoid schizophrenic to whom all his idiotic ideas and inconsistencies actually make a form of 'sense'. He probably both understands and doesnt understand inertia all at the same time. Mental illness defies logic.

Given a psychiatric examination, I predict he would be diagnosed as above or something similar. He certainly would not get a clean bill of health.

I am not convinced he is so mentally ill, and I do not see examples of him being paranoid, he seems to have a quite healthy ability to withstand being attacked.  In any case whether he lies consciously or unconsciously the same sort of route to his treatment is going to be used.    I know there are theories that say many forms of mental illness cannot be treated but i regard them only as theories, where it is clear there are many practicing pyschotherapists who are prepared to take on schizophrenics for a very long term treatment program and apparently there are many successful outcomes, at least in terms of the client being able to better adjust to reality than they could before the treatment began.  Schizophrenia might be a learnt behaviour where the person has experienced very difficult to solve situations where rather than confronting the mixed messages being imposed upon them, they find it easier to escape into a private reality world.   Sceptimatic seems grounded in reality in some of the areas that create most difficulty for this forum.  For example it is totally obvious he understands what inertia means but he just lies he does not.     So that is saying something about sado masochism before it says anything about being out of touch with reality.

Sceptimatic behaves in a very child like manner.  Like a child he thinks he can say anything at all and the adults around him are not going to realise what he is up to.   That kind of behaviour is not really what is called mental illness but is just missed developmental stages creating difficulties in what chronologically are his adult years.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 04:45:33 PM

Stop being completely ridiculous! Standard atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi (near enough to  15 psi) and that is the pressure the laboratory glassware would have to withstand even if it were  a perfect vacuum  (not possible I know) inside.

It never will withstand it enirely.
I'll try and make this a bit more simple.
Tell me what would happen if the worlds strongest pump was attached to that glassware?

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 04:45:33 PM

There is nothing magic about a vacuum, and even on earth extreme vacuum chambers are not that far from "outer space".

Well a vacuum cannot be created so there has to be something magical about it when explained as a "something" when clearly it is not a reality to our eyes.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 04:45:33 PM

On earth the limit is usually set by the "out-gassing" of the chamber and anything in it.

How does this out gassing work then?

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 04:45:33 PM

The only reason you claim that the Brian Cox vacuum drop test is a fake is that it disproves your ideas, no other reason.

No, it doesn't disprove my ideas. It's just a big numb nonsense pretend test. They even add in the shaking pipes to make it a bit more believable that pressure is being evacuated.
The scary part is none of those people even know how an evacuation chamber works. They are just working from scripts and doing the shocked faces routine as if they've never seen anything like it in their lives and yet these people are supposed to be experts.

It's beyond silly but people buy into it.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 04:45:33 PM

You claim that anything that you can't understand is a fake.

No I don't claim that. I claim that anything that appears fake requires deep questioning  and observation. From that point it's down to basic common sense to see through what is clearly bullshit and keep questioning what potentially could be a half truth or even a full truth.

All of what I'm calling bullshit on, I have my reasons. All of what I'm questioning also have my suspicions.
It's as simple as that and no amount of attempted ridicule by you people will change that.

It may be news to you, but personal incredulity is not a scientific test. You prove it or disprove it or you are unable to do either. There are no other options, including your conspiracy/hoax/aliens theory.

You are saying that anybody who is part of a scientific educational program is a liar? They are somehow all part of a vast conspiracy?

Nope. Those are words that you people constantly try to attribute to me or any other person questioning mainstream science.

You still have not explained how these men have deceived us. Why are all videos of evacuation chambers con jobs?

I never said they were. I mentioned one or two. You know this.

How do you know any of this to be true? Have you spoken with them? I'd like to know which of Bill Nye's episodes you think contain misleading information.

I've never mentioned Bill Nye.

In the center of the earth? Do you mean it resides under the north pole, or some other location? Where does the light break through the ground? Is this a place we can visit?

Merely asking of you can visit it has just killed off your chances of getting answers.

Arc lights generate light by slowly vaporizing the fuel, in this case I imagine the fuel would be 2 gigantic pieces of graphite. In man made arc lights, a mechanism is needed to push the carbon together as the fuel is consumed. What mechanism is pushing the natural graphite together to ensure constant heat and light?

You decide what you want to decide from this point on.
Here's a tip for you. Try to do this for yourself. Don't do it whilst smirking and internet nudging the other like-minded game players.