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

You have described the first cycle of the pump only.    The boundary goes to the right and air is expelled,  The valves close but then the boundary goes to the left again and at this in point in time nothing has changed in the container.

But it does not matter.  Although you are leaving parts out it is the same process by which a pump works in my universe.   The pump works by expanding the volume of the container.

As a quick note, the details of the rest of the pump's function seem basically irrelevant: whatever happens, a vacuum pump cannot work by letting more air inside. The moment there's a lower pressure air will expand and be pushed into it.

So to the rest of what you have said.

The molecules are not connected, they are touching.  They can be separated by the pump and some molecules can be left in the container and some can be spread around the World.

There is nothing in this model to stop a very low pressure from being created.    There is nothing in the model that says you cannot take out of the container another molecule.    The pump is easily able to separate the molecules.

Yes, more than one molecule can be taken out. It'd just take a lot more force to create a lower pressure, presumably becoming near-infinite when you try to take out the last few.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:39:01 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 28, 2016, 11:13:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:03:00 AM

Expansion.

Someone put up a good video earlier of a man and child doing evacuation experiments with a balloon. It showed something interesting that proves denpressure. Can you guess what it is?

I would guess that the balloon would expand until it pops as the low air pressure would not be squeezing upon the exterior of the balloon at the same rate, allowing expansion.

This does not apply to scales, because scales are not airtight. The evacuation chamber takes out all the air in a chamber, unless said air is inside smaller airtight container.

What part of this proves denpressure?

Can you remember the part in the video when the man sticks the balloon high up in the chamber so he didn't block the hole?
Did you notice how eventually the balloon covered the hole and stopped evacuation of pressure even when the balloon hadn't filled the chamber?

Have a good think as to why that happened and I'll give you some good insight if you don't manage to figure it out.

Like all the other air particles in the chamber, the balloon was drawn toward the pump. Think of a bathtub full of water and a rubber ducky on top. If you drain the tub, all the water (and the duck) starts moving toward the drain.

Still don't see how this proves denpressure. Maybe you would like to elaborate?

Because the balloon was NOT drawn to the pump. The balloon expanded against the molecules still left inside the chamber externally to the balloon and it is now acting  as a pressure plug for the hole.
It shows that a push on push is in effect.

Look, anyone with half a brain will tell you that if air pressure would be the cause of gravity, objects in a vacuum would float.

Denying the existence of vacuum when we can prove that we can create one and prove that beyond our atmosphere there is no air, is (I have no other word left) fucking bonkers.

I miss the old days of the Flat Earth hypothesis, when people argued the Earth accelerated upwards. That, at least, conforms to many of our observations.

It's still untrue (since the Earth is a globe following an orbit) but UA did not require the systematic breaking of all of Newton's laws.

There has to be a point, even in scepti's mind, where he realizes that for his one idea to work so many other known facts need to be discarded.

I though Zetetic reasoning meant you intuit a solution to a new phenomenon that fits previous knowledge?

This is of course the best way to learn nothing, but it has the advantage of, you know, NOT THROWING AWAY CENTURIES OF SCIENCE.

Yes, I am frustrated. Because if Flat Earthers don't even follow their own rules, then nothing can ever make sense!

"The Earth is flat and there is no intertia. Gravity is caused by... let's see... dandelions. A vacuum can only exist on Mondays that have 25 hours, and the grass is actually purple, Perspective changes that, you know. Oh and there is no Sun. We only see light because God said there would be."

Look, anyone with half a brain will tell you that if air pressure would be the cause of gravity, objects in a vacuum would float.

No it wouldn't.

Denying the existence of vacuum when we can prove that we can create one and prove that beyond our atmosphere there is no air, is (I have no other word left) fucking bonkers.

You can't prove you can create one. The best you can do is create a lower pressure in a chamber.

I miss the old days of the Flat Earth hypothesis, when people argued the Earth accelerated upwards. That, at least, conforms to many of our observations.

Then start up another topic on it or ressurrect one that peaked your interest.

It's still untrue (since the Earth is a globe following an orbit) but UA did not require the systematic breaking of all of Newton's laws.

Then expend your time and energy arguing with those that follow that theory. You'll get more satisfaction, is seems.

There has to be a point, even in scepti's mind, where he realizes that for his one idea to work so many other known facts need to be discarded.

So many other known untruth's would have to be discarded and rightly so.

I though Zetetic reasoning meant you intuit a solution to a new phenomenon that fits previous knowledge?

That depends on who you want to argue/debate with.

This is of course the best way to learn nothing, but it has the advantage of, you know, NOT THROWING AWAY CENTURIES OF SCIENCE.

I don't think it's throwing away anything. I think it's actually questioning something that deserves to be questioned and argued against.

Yes, I am frustrated. Because if Flat Earthers don't even follow their own rules, then nothing can ever make sense!

Your globe and science that you follow makes no sense to me and many others but to you, you stick to it like glue, without question. Peer pressure.

"The Earth is flat and there is no intertia. Gravity is caused by... let's see... denpressure.

Correct.

A vacuum can only exist on Mondays that have 25 hours, and the grass is actually purple, Perspective changes that, you know. Oh and there is no Sun. We only see light because God said there would be."

It's up to you what you want to think, at the end of the day.

I think you are talking to the wrong person.  I showed only that a video claiming to demonstrate something could not have been using anything like a vacuum as claimed. 

As for gigantic heat source,  I am having a conversation about simple physics a child can understand which can be demonstrated to help the child understand for a few dollars.

I see. Sorry. See my PM to you.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 28, 2016, 11:41:30 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 28, 2016, 11:11:31 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 28, 2016, 11:04:17 AM

It seems to me that particles vibrate depending upon their temperature. The more they vibrate, the more energy is exerted in the form of heat. Some particles vibrate so wildly that they change form, like going from a solid form (low vibration) to a gas (high vibration). You seem to be saying that you can change hydrogen to iron by simply increasing or decreasing the frequency of vibration.

If I'm right, the layers of balls in a jawbreaker would affect the frequency: you can introduce heat, but that'll increase how all of them vibrate, the overall relationship between the frequencies of each layer would stay intact. I imagine that's how it's meant to work, at least.

Related question, though (and apologies to Scepti for adding to flood of queries):
What is it that would define gas/liquid/solid with these molecules? If you add heat, molecules would vibrate faster, and try to expand. If you add high pressure, their expansion would be halted.
Which makes it seem as though, to me, gases are more expanded molecules, solids are more closely packed.
My query is related to gases: if they're molecules under a lot of heat, able to expand, wouldn't some layers unpeel? In which case, would some states of elements technically be different elements, if we define an element by the number of layers?

What about when these layers peel off? What happens to those layers? Does this affect the vibrative relationship between layers?

Of course it does.

So when the outer layers "peel off" the molecule changes to a different element? This is all very convoluted and confusing. Your short, poorly elaborated responses are doing nothing for me.

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on August 28, 2016, 11:54:25 AM

Pardon me stirring up a slight derail. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:24:09 AM

Let me try and explain my mountain with the carbon arc inside.
You can climb a mountain using equipment to hook and crook your way up to certain heights.

My mountain ( if possible to walk to the summit) would be a gradient so mild that it appears almost as if you're walking a flat surface but as you progressed you would realise you were at a great height and yet still only scratching the gradient.

Does this imply that the true form of the arctic circle is much bigger or expanded out than we are commonly led to believe?

Absolutely.

Thanks!  That helps tie a lot of loose ends together. 

What do you think is the real size? 

How do you reckon the "globe" conceals the squeezed projection? 
I can see the clutter of northern Canadian islands being easy to misrepresent on maps but northern Asia is much more populated.  It would be tricky to misrepresent Asian maps. 

When your mind is on a global Earth then your mind is on your north pole and mountains, I'm betting.

You think that you can look over yonder and there's a glowing sun sticking out of a mountain.
It's not so but you can see the effects of it. They're known as the northern lights.

Let me try and explain my mountain with the carbon arc inside.
You can climb a mountain using equipment to hook and crook your way up to certain heights.

My mountain ( if possible to walk to the summit) would be a gradient so mild that it appears almost as if you're walking a flat surface but as you progressed you would realise you were at a great height and yet still only scratching the gradient.

Condensed down to a manageable size, you have a kind of Earth like I showed earlier on in this topic.

Why would we be unable to visit the north pole?

 

Because the balloon was NOT drawn to the pump. The balloon expanded against the molecules still left inside the chamber externally to the balloon and it is now acting  as a pressure plug for the hole.
It shows that a push on push is in effect.

I don't see the balloon covering the hole. All I see is the remaining air inside the balloon expanding under the decreased pressure inside the chamber. I see no proof of denpressure in this video.

Further regarding evacuation chambers, I still don't understand why objects weigh the same in low pressure systems.

The last time I asked, you gave me a one-word answer.

"Expansion"

Do you think air is trapped inside the scale, giving a false measurement?

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 25, 2016, 05:35:21 PM

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.

If that slosh doesn't last very long, and I'm driving a car in a circle (let's say turning to the left), and as long as I do this, objects inside will tend to move toward the right side of the car, then how is that slosh lasting so long?

Liquids "slosh" because of inertia.

Liquids "slosh" because of inertia.

And she knows exactly what we mean by inertia.

And so the performance will continue until you are exhausted and another victory will be claimed

There is no winning or losing. He has made up his mind. Any attempt to get him to see reality is futile, because he refuses to see the world any way but his own. He will mock and ridicule anything that stands contrary to his narrow mindview.

There is no winning or losing. He has made up his mind. Any attempt to get him to see reality is futile, because he refuses to see the world any way but his own. He will mock and ridicule anything that stands contrary to his narrow mindview.

If you believe what you say how does it benefit you to continue?

I was just thinking you are at 624 replies and I am at 584.  Perhaps I can win at this game?    Perhaps there are some other rules that are hidden from us?    For example Jroa is certainly not a flat earther and only has one purpose and that is to frustrate and annoy.

These guys could be running a book with some serious real money at stake.

Without a shadow of a doubt sceptimatic knows exactly what inertia is, and yet reply after reply, and page after page,  nonsense is produced and there must be some reason for that because on the face of it that person is not insane when they clearly can understand what inertia is and yet produces pages and pages of replies to hide that reality which is clearly known to them.    It is not an out of touch with reality condition to do something like that.    It is done by design and with purpose.

However even with the psychological angle,   the game has almost totally lost any interest for me.     Seems to me that once you can see it is a game they refuse to play

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 12:00:58 PM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on August 28, 2016, 11:54:25 AM

Pardon me stirring up a slight derail. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:24:09 AM

Let me try and explain my mountain with the carbon arc inside.
You can climb a mountain using equipment to hook and crook your way up to certain heights.

My mountain ( if possible to walk to the summit) would be a gradient so mild that it appears almost as if you're walking a flat surface but as you progressed you would realise you were at a great height and yet still only scratching the gradient.

Does this imply that the true form of the arctic circle is much bigger or expanded out than we are commonly led to believe?

Absolutely.

Thanks!  That helps tie a lot of loose ends together. 

What do you think is the real size? 

How do you reckon the "globe" conceals the squeezed projection? 
I can see the clutter of northern Canadian islands being easy to misrepresent on maps but northern Asia is much more populated.  It would be tricky to misrepresent Asian maps.

I think the real size, as far as our existence goes, is double what we're told.
I think we live around the inner ring and one side is being used as the north pole whilst the other side is being told as the south pole.

To put it into a more simpler thought. Just imagine living on an estate and looking out of your window to see a hill. You walk around the hill and see another estate that was blocked from your view.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:24:09 AM

When your mind is on a global Earth then your mind is on your north pole and mountains, I'm betting.

You think that you can look over yonder and there's a glowing sun sticking out of a mountain.
It's not so but you can see the effects of it. They're known as the northern lights.

Let me try and explain my mountain with the carbon arc inside.
You can climb a mountain using equipment to hook and crook your way up to certain heights.

My mountain ( if possible to walk to the summit) would be a gradient so mild that it appears almost as if you're walking a flat surface but as you progressed you would realise you were at a great height and yet still only scratching the gradient.

Condensed down to a manageable size, you have a kind of Earth like I showed earlier on in this topic.

Why would we be unable to visit the north pole?

Because your body would disintegrate by what we know as magnetic forces.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 12:04:32 PM

Because the balloon was NOT drawn to the pump. The balloon expanded against the molecules still left inside the chamber externally to the balloon and it is now acting  as a pressure plug for the hole.
It shows that a push on push is in effect.

I don't see the balloon covering the hole. All I see is the remaining air inside the balloon expanding under the decreased pressure inside the chamber. I see no proof of denpressure in this video.

Further regarding evacuation chambers, I still don't understand why objects weigh the same in low pressure systems.

The last time I asked, you gave me a one-word answer.

"Expansion"

Do you think air is trapped inside the scale, giving a false measurement?

Why have you put up an different video?
You've put up another video whilst arguing about not seeing a balloon blocking the hole in the other video. Why?
You're not being very honest, are you. You are trying your best to sidestep it.

If that slosh doesn't last very long, and I'm driving a car in a circle (let's say turning to the left), and as long as I do this, objects inside will tend to move toward the right side of the car, then how is that slosh lasting so long?

It's not a slosh effect when you're driving a car in a circle. It's a constant pressure effect upon your body.
The slosh effect will only kick in once you decelerate.

Liquids "slosh" because of inertia.

Liquids slosh because of atmospheric pressure upon them.

There is no winning or losing. He has made up his mind. Any attempt to get him to see reality is futile, because he refuses to see the world any way but his own. He will mock and ridicule anything that stands contrary to his narrow mindview.

The only mocking and ridicule I see is coming from the side you are arguing for.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 28, 2016, 09:06:47 PM

There is no winning or losing. He has made up his mind. Any attempt to get him to see reality is futile, because he refuses to see the world any way but his own. He will mock and ridicule anything that stands contrary to his narrow mindview.

If you believe what you say how does it benefit you to continue?

I was just thinking you are at 624 replies and I am at 584.  Perhaps I can win at this game?    Perhaps there are some other rules that are hidden from us?    For example Jroa is certainly not a flat earther and only has one purpose and that is to frustrate and annoy.

These guys could be running a book with some serious real money at stake.

Without a shadow of a doubt sceptimatic knows exactly what inertia is, and yet reply after reply, and page after page,  nonsense is produced and there must be some reason for that because on the face of it that person is not insane when they clearly can understand what inertia is and yet produces pages and pages of replies to hide that reality which is clearly known to them.    It is not an out of touch with reality condition to do something like that.    It is done by design and with purpose.

However even with the psychological angle,   the game has almost totally lost any interest for me.     Seems to me that once you can see it is a game they refuse to play

If I could see  what inertia is in reality I'd accept it. I do not see it and neither do you.
You argue for it because you were mind trained to do so but will fiercely deny you are brainwashed and instead substitute it for being scientifically educated.

I've asked time and time again what inertia is and nobody has answered.
I done the same with gravity and the same thing.
It happens with many so called science concepts/theories.
I get told what all these things do but never what they are.
I get told that nobody knows what they are but they just happen to work and be used for this and that.

Peer pressure and indoctrination/brainwashing/hypnotism are very powerful tools used by powerful people.
Once trapped in that process it's hard to disengage from it because it's like a comfort blanket.

Deny it by all means but that's what I see.

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on August 28, 2016, 02:10:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 12:00:58 PM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on August 28, 2016, 11:54:25 AM

Pardon me stirring up a slight derail. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:24:09 AM

Let me try and explain my mountain with the carbon arc inside.
You can climb a mountain using equipment to hook and crook your way up to certain heights.

My mountain ( if possible to walk to the summit) would be a gradient so mild that it appears almost as if you're walking a flat surface but as you progressed you would realise you were at a great height and yet still only scratching the gradient.

Does this imply that the true form of the arctic circle is much bigger or expanded out than we are commonly led to believe?

Absolutely.

Thanks!  That helps tie a lot of loose ends together. 

What do you think is the real size? 

How do you reckon the "globe" conceals the squeezed projection? 
I can see the clutter of northern Canadian islands being easy to misrepresent on maps but northern Asia is much more populated.  It would be tricky to misrepresent Asian maps.

I think the real size, as far as our existence goes, is double what we're told.
I think we live around the inner ring and one side is being used as the north pole whilst the other side is being told as the south pole.

To put it into a more simpler thought. Just imagine living on an estate and looking out of your window to see a hill. You walk around the hill and see another estate that was blocked from your view.

The size and shape of the earth is known and proven.

What you 'think' does not matter.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 28, 2016, 09:53:51 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 28, 2016, 09:06:47 PM

There is no winning or losing. He has made up his mind. Any attempt to get him to see reality is futile, because he refuses to see the world any way but his own. He will mock and ridicule anything that stands contrary to his narrow mindview.

If you believe what you say how does it benefit you to continue?

I was just thinking you are at 624 replies and I am at 584.  Perhaps I can win at this game?    Perhaps there are some other rules that are hidden from us?    For example Jroa is certainly not a flat earther and only has one purpose and that is to frustrate and annoy.

These guys could be running a book with some serious real money at stake.

Without a shadow of a doubt sceptimatic knows exactly what inertia is, and yet reply after reply, and page after page,  nonsense is produced and there must be some reason for that because on the face of it that person is not insane when they clearly can understand what inertia is and yet produces pages and pages of replies to hide that reality which is clearly known to them.    It is not an out of touch with reality condition to do something like that.    It is done by design and with purpose.

However even with the psychological angle,   the game has almost totally lost any interest for me.     Seems to me that once you can see it is a game they refuse to play

If I could see  what inertia is in reality I'd accept it. I do not see it and neither do you.
You argue for it because you were mind trained to do so but will fiercely deny you are brainwashed and instead substitute it for being scientifically educated.

I've asked time and time again what inertia is and nobody has answered.
I done the same with gravity and the same thing.
It happens with many so called science concepts/theories.
I get told what all these things do but never what they are.
I get told that nobody knows what they are but they just happen to work and be used for this and that.

Peer pressure and indoctrination/brainwashing/hypnotism are very powerful tools used by powerful people.
Once trapped in that process it's hard to disengage from it because it's like a comfort blanket.

Deny it by all means but that's what I see.

Are you saying things at rest staying that way or something in motion staying in motion unless something acts on it can not be observed?

It is really simple to observe.  Find any object sitting somewhere and give a push.

Objects resist change and it is observable from where you, me and everyone around the world are right now.

I have seen you deny certain things, but this takes the cake.

Are you saying things at rest staying that way or something in motion staying in motion unless something acts on it can not be observed?

It is really simple to observe.  Find any object sitting somewhere and give a push.

Objects resist change and it is observable from where you, me and everyone around the world are right now.

I have seen you deny certain things, but this takes the cake.

Nothing is ever at rest.

Nothing ever stays in motion without a force acting on it.

So tell me where inertia fits in?

It's a word that has no real meaning, at all.
The only time it has meaning is for fantasy. It's for this staying in motion unless something acts on an object.
It's basically saying that if you push an object it resists the push. I ask if the resistance to push is inertia and get told that it's not exactly that.
I ask what it is.
I get told that when an object is in motion it stays in motion and resists change to that motion.
I then ask if inertia is resistance and get told no.
I ask what inertia actually is and get told that it isn't actually anything.

Don't pretend it's simple when it can't  even be explained.

Quote from: Woody on August 29, 2016, 12:22:22 AM

Are you saying things at rest staying that way or something in motion staying in motion unless something acts on it can not be observed?

It is really simple to observe.  Find any object sitting somewhere and give a push.

Objects resist change and it is observable from where you, me and everyone around the world are right now.

I have seen you deny certain things, but this takes the cake.

Nothing is ever at rest.

Nothing ever stays in motion without a force acting on it.

So tell me where inertia fits in?

It's a word that has no real meaning, at all.
The only time it has meaning is for fantasy. It's for this staying in motion unless something acts on an object.
It's basically saying that if you push an object it resists the push. I ask if the resistance to push is inertia and get told that it's not exactly that.
I ask what it is.
I get told that when an object is in motion it stays in motion and resists change to that motion.
I then ask if inertia is resistance and get told no.
I ask what inertia actually is and get told that it isn't actually anything.

Don't pretend it's simple when it can't  even be explained.

You have decided innertia does not exist and close your eyes and ears for everything that does not fit that notion.

After elaborate explanations and the description of experiments you can do yourself with some marbles, you keep saying 'nobody can explain it.lalalalalala!'

Have you lost your marbles?

Quote from: Woody on August 29, 2016, 12:22:22 AM

Are you saying things at rest staying that way or something in motion staying in motion unless something acts on it can not be observed?

It is really simple to observe.  Find any object sitting somewhere and give a push.

Objects resist change and it is observable from where you, me and everyone around the world are right now.

I have seen you deny certain things, but this takes the cake.

Nothing is ever at rest.

Nothing ever stays in motion without a force acting on it.

So tell me where inertia fits in?

It's a word that has no real meaning, at all.
The only time it has meaning is for fantasy. It's for this staying in motion unless something acts on an object.
It's basically saying that if you push an object it resists the push. I ask if the resistance to push is inertia and get told that it's not exactly that.
I ask what it is.
I get told that when an object is in motion it stays in motion and resists change to that motion.
I then ask if inertia is resistance and get told no.
I ask what inertia actually is and get told that it isn't actually anything.

Don't pretend it's simple when it can't  even be explained.

You are asking the wrong people.  Look it up.

So tell me where inertia fits in?

You ask this time and time again and you ignore the answers.

But I'll try again very simply and briefly:

If you start a heavy flywheel spinning the remove the drive. It keeps spinning for a long time.

Inertia is what keeps it spinning even though there is some friction (and drag) slowing it down.

Inertia is a measure of how hard it is to change velocity, friction (plus drag) is the resistance simply against moving at that velocity.

If you can't see that, it's your loss, not ours!

I wish both flat Earthers and round Earthers would stop using feminine pronouns in order to attempt to degrade each other.  We all know that there are no women on the internet.  Case closed. 

I wish both flat Earthers and round Earthers would stop using feminine pronouns in order to attempt to degrade each other.  We all know that there are no women on the internet.  Case closed.

Stay on topic. Innertia. Den pressure. Your preconceptions ('using feminine pronouns are a put-down') are not important.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 28, 2016, 09:53:51 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 28, 2016, 09:06:47 PM

There is no winning or losing. He has made up his mind. Any attempt to get him to see reality is futile, because he refuses to see the world any way but his own. He will mock and ridicule anything that stands contrary to his narrow mindview.

If you believe what you say how does it benefit you to continue?

I was just thinking you are at 624 replies and I am at 584.  Perhaps I can win at this game?    Perhaps there are some other rules that are hidden from us?    For example Jroa is certainly not a flat earther and only has one purpose and that is to frustrate and annoy.

These guys could be running a book with some serious real money at stake.

Without a shadow of a doubt sceptimatic knows exactly what inertia is, and yet reply after reply, and page after page,  nonsense is produced and there must be some reason for that because on the face of it that person is not insane when they clearly can understand what inertia is and yet produces pages and pages of replies to hide that reality which is clearly known to them.    It is not an out of touch with reality condition to do something like that.    It is done by design and with purpose.

However even with the psychological angle,   the game has almost totally lost any interest for me.     Seems to me that once you can see it is a game they refuse to play

If I could see  what inertia is in reality I'd accept it. I do not see it and neither do you.
You argue for it

Funny guy.  I already told you cannot taste it and i might as well add you cannot see it.

There is nothing to argue about.    You know what the word means in real practical terms.