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

Quote from: fliggs on August 31, 2016, 02:27:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2016, 02:23:18 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 31, 2016, 02:05:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2016, 01:30:33 AM

I won't call you stupid. I will call you gullible and extremely naive in SPADES.

Well, nobody is yet naive enough to believe a story about the north pole being a giant invisible mountain with a sun sized electrode shining through a magic crystal onto an invisible ice dome.  Not even you. 

But you are very willing to believe an oblate spheroid can just spin in a vacuum around a 870,000 mile diameter ball of burning nuclear fire that is 93 million miles away and believe a fictional force called gravity warps this vacuum and allows everything to spin around each other like balls going down a funnel  but not managing to fall into it.

I could go on and on and on about it all but you get my gist. the scary part is you would rather believe all that because people in white coats told you so.
You then jump up in a frenzy when you're told you're believing in crap and shout, " WE know the calculations and they're correct."
The truth is, you know what you've been coaxed into knowing, by those that want you to follow their path.

Anything else becomes lunacy to you.
If you're told by mainstream so called scientists that jupiter has turned out to be 12 inches in diameter, you people would accept it as well as all the fanny that goes along with it.

the difference is that WE PERSONALLY can verify most of these things by simply using telescopes. It isnt that hard if you have at least half a brain.

You can't verify anything using telescopes. You can verify what you're being told by parroting it and that's it.

You can observe lights and such and be told what and how they are. that's all you can go on because you have not a clue what they are, except to be told they are 100/1000/1000,000 light year stars and planets and such hogwash.

Seriously? Can you even do the math involved in using a checkbook without bouncing checks?

You cannot possibly be that stupid and still have the ability to feed yourself with anything sharper than a spoon

So about that car driving in a circle..... if it's turning left, objects inside end up at the right side, and you say it's pressure pushing them constantly, but which side of the interior has the higher pressure?

Based upon the observations made, I would say that Scepti's model would show higher pressure on the inside of the circle. Where this pressure comes from I have no idea

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 31, 2016, 02:05:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2016, 01:30:33 AM

I won't call you stupid. I will call you gullible and extremely naive in SPADES.

Well, nobody is yet naive enough to believe a story about the north pole being a giant invisible mountain with a sun sized electrode shining through a magic crystal onto an invisible ice dome.  Not even you. 

But you are very willing to believe an oblate spheroid can just spin in a vacuum around a 870,000 mile diameter ball of burning nuclear fire that is 93 million miles away and believe a fictional force called gravity warps this vacuum and allows everything to spin around each other like balls going down a funnel  but not managing to fall into it.

Yes, because mainstream science has several thousand years worth of observations, maths and experiments to refine our model of the solar system to a fairly elegant system.

You, on the other hand, don't even have a basic, workable formula to describe anything.

Sceptimatic,

You seem to think of mainstream science as a kind of religion.  There might be some truth to that but it's not a very useful lens in which to judge something.

Instead try thinking of science like a tool set, one that's built some pretty amazing things.  Now think of it from our perspective; you're telling us our tool set is "false", which from a utilitarian stand point is meaningless.  Next you insist you have a better tool set except the tool set is nearly empty and what's in their doesn't seem to do anything.  Can you see why that would be frustrating?

52 pages guys!  We're over half way there!

Sceptimatic,

You seem to think of mainstream science as a kind of religion.  There might be some truth to that but it's not a very useful lens in which to judge something.

Instead try thinking of science like a tool set, one that's built some pretty amazing things.  Now think of it from our perspective; you're telling us our tool set is "false", which from a utilitarian stand point is meaningless.  Next you insist you have a better tool set except the tool set is nearly empty and what's in their doesn't seem to do anything.  Can you see why that would be frustrating?

52 pages guys!  We're over half way there!

The mere fact that you understand there "might" be some truth to your adhered to model being some kind of religion is all that's required for you to question it.
I ask for nothing more than people question stuff.
Nobody has to follow my model in any shape or form. It's not a requirement nor is it a definite in all aspects. It's a hypothesis and is followed by me because I'm piecing it all together.

The fact that many don't understand how it works and the fact that many just resist delving in, yet feel compelled to basically write it off without understanding it, is entirely their prerogative but renders them a nothing in my book.

With genuine people we have a conflict of interests and mindsets.

The laughable thing is, I spent most of my life believing in that globe model and all the science behind almost everything. Why did I do that?
I did it because that's what I was told was the truth and what I was schooled into from every avenue.
Anyone outside of that avenue were classed as nut cases. End of the world is nigh, fruitcakes.

This was how I was trained to think.
I went along with it all. Nobody was going to tell me any different and anyone walking up to me at that time telling me the world was anything but a globe and especially flat would have been met with a shake of the head and the scowling eyes, or the talk to the hand gesture.

Anyone attempting to sit me down and make me see things from a different perspective would have been told to come back later.
You see, I had too much to do at the time. I was too busy doing the things I wanted to do and had little time to actually think about Earth shapes and conspiracies, etc.

It takes time and patience to even get anywhere near having the mindset to turn everything you thought you knew, on its head.
It takes a special kind of inner strength to follow through with an alternative view when you are up against a volley of abuse or conflict or attempted ridicule in every conceivable way, to keep steady of the alternate track in one way without turning back.

So why did I abandon what the masses have down as the truth.
The simple answer is because I've looked at it all and it absolutely reeks to all hell of bullshit. It reeks. Stinks to all hell.

It makes no rational sense and shouldn't to anyone willing to actually use their rational common sense.
The issue is in getting to differentiate between stories told as fantasy and stories told as fact which are really just fantasy.
It's not easy for those that have spent their life knowing only one way.

I'm also not under any illusions about what I appear like or that what I say will be anything other than ridiculed by the masses.
I'm well versed in understanding that I'll be hit with screams of "show us all the formulas and equations for your model. If not then your model is crap and will stay crap until you place it among the peer review practices so it can be ridiculed more."

All I can say to people is,  they go along with what supposed scientists tell them about certain stuff. Stuff that cannot be proved in any way. Stuff that apparently was figured out 1000's/100's of years before and yet is still only a theory today.
People cannot see how the system works. People cannot see why theories are set out in the way they are.
It always leaves scope for change. the reason is so they have a get out clause in case it all comes crashing down.

Of course, it will never come crashing down to reality, because the human race is too set in their ways. Humans like many animals, are born to mimic. Humans can also be pacified with material things and also be herded by mere mental peer pressure, never mind physical hurt.

If rational people want to believe we walk about on a spinning ball in a vacuum with a large rock spinning around us as we both spin around a huge ball of fire that is close to 1 million miles in diameter, among other spinning balls of rock and gas as well as billions of balls of fire that are so far away they are measured in supposed light years....then be my guest. You stick to it. I once did, so who am I to start preaching.

All I'll say is, if you have enough thinking time and are not among irrational peers, then start using your brain for what it can produce other than mimicking. You just might surprise yourself.

  I feel that I just read a description of egomaniac. Nuff said.

You are welcome to your opinions, baseless though they are.

You will have a hard time convincing anybody else of your opinions. I doubt you have ever made a true convert.

I am not asking you for equations. I am asking you why you think there's a giant arc lamp over the north pole, and how this lamp is supposed to operate. You cannot (or maybe you refuse to) answer simple questions about how your sun and moon are supposed to work.

True knowledge of a topic comes when you can teach others of your knowledge effectively. If you don't know how the sun would work in your model, I suggest you alter your model (or better yet, abandon it entirely).

The fact that many don't understand how it works and the fact that many just resist delving in

1.  Nobody here understands how it works

2. Everybody here has made a very big effort to understand what the f*** you are talking about

I could not even get you to explain what is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' without you throwing a wobbler and refusing to talk to me.

My lounge and my office are two connected containers, why the f*** is the bigger lounge going to have something called 'more atmospheric pressure'

Do you agree that there is more atmospheric pressure inside a larger container?

Nice blog post btw.

Quote from: fliggs on August 30, 2016, 07:45:15 PM

Denpressure can only work if you imagine a completely different universe to the one we inhabit where the laws of physics are all completely different to ours and even the concept of 'physical laws' is different.

Your point? That's the fun part.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 08:07:47 PM

Janes comments that all moledules want to expand but molecules near a hole are not going to expand because of their own volition,

No, I said the opposite. They will expand. They just can't push themselves, and it takes other molecules to actually push them out through the hole. Yet again you're conflating two separate things even after I asked you not to. This might be why you're struggling to understand, well, anything: you've decided it's an affront against nature and are refusing to even read. I mean seriously, how do you read "The molecules adjacent to the hole expand into it," and conclude I'm saying they don't expand?!

Quote

On the face of it Jane is talking like sceptimatic and I am believing she walks like sceptimatic.     Then we get all the shit about us being gullible, brainwashed not wanting to have a hypothetical discussion blah blah blah.

I never said any of that. I just think it's silly to come to a FE site and just repeat the same few things over and over and over when it doesn't achieve anything. May as well actually engage with what they have to say, and have a bit of fun in figuring out and comprehending their models.

OK perhaps we can try again?

1   So the pump pushes the air away, and right behind the pump the molecules want to expand towards the pump and the nearest molecules expand a little bit but they do not enter the pump until the molecules further from the pump have expanded and pushed the nearer molecules into the pump.

2. Molecules are 'connected' but they are not attached.   Molecules can be separated from the molecules in the container and pass out of the exhaust of the pump.

3. Fewer molecules are in the container as pumping proceeds and they all 'want to expand'?

4.  Although all molecules 'want to expand' as pumping proceeds it becomes harder to expand the molecules?  because

5.  When very few 'wanting to expand molecules' are in left in the container the pump requires an infinite amount of energy to operate for a reason that is obvious to you but not to me.

----------------------

OK so there is that part.

Then there is the idea a larger container has something called 'more atmospheric pressure' and Sceptimatic used the example of the difficulty of pulling apart the magdeberg hemispheres to illustrate the idea these containers have he said  'more pressure' and are a good example he said of a pump working harder to evacuate a larger container because larger containers have he said 'more pressure' or 'more atmospheric pressure'?

Are you able to explain what is being described when he says larger containers have 'more atmospheric pressure'

Thanks

Quote from: crutonius on August 31, 2016, 09:44:58 PM

Sceptimatic,

You seem to think of mainstream science as a kind of religion.  There might be some truth to that but it's not a very useful lens in which to judge something.

Instead try thinking of science like a tool set, one that's built some pretty amazing things.  Now think of it from our perspective; you're telling us our tool set is "false", which from a utilitarian stand point is meaningless.  Next you insist you have a better tool set except the tool set is nearly empty and what's in their doesn't seem to do anything.  Can you see why that would be frustrating?

52 pages guys!  We're over half way there!

The mere fact that you understand there "might" be some truth to your adhered to model being some kind of religion is all that's required for you to question it.
I ask for nothing more than people question stuff.
Nobody has to follow my model in any shape or form. It's not a requirement nor is it a definite in all aspects. It's a hypothesis and is followed by me because I'm piecing it all together.

The fact that many don't understand how it works and the fact that many just resist delving in, yet feel compelled to basically write it off without understanding it, is entirely their prerogative but renders them a nothing in my book.

With genuine people we have a conflict of interests and mindsets.

The laughable thing is, I spent most of my life believing in that globe model and all the science behind almost everything. Why did I do that?
I did it because that's what I was told was the truth and what I was schooled into from every avenue.
Anyone outside of that avenue were classed as nut cases. End of the world is nigh, fruitcakes.

This was how I was trained to think.
I went along with it all. Nobody was going to tell me any different and anyone walking up to me at that time telling me the world was anything but a globe and especially flat would have been met with a shake of the head and the scowling eyes, or the talk to the hand gesture.

Anyone attempting to sit me down and make me see things from a different perspective would have been told to come back later.
You see, I had too much to do at the time. I was too busy doing the things I wanted to do and had little time to actually think about Earth shapes and conspiracies, etc.

It takes time and patience to even get anywhere near having the mindset to turn everything you thought you knew, on its head.
It takes a special kind of inner strength to follow through with an alternative view when you are up against a volley of abuse or conflict or attempted ridicule in every conceivable way, to keep steady of the alternate track in one way without turning back.

So why did I abandon what the masses have down as the truth.
The simple answer is because I've looked at it all and it absolutely reeks to all hell of bullshit. It reeks. Stinks to all hell.

It makes no rational sense and shouldn't to anyone willing to actually use their rational common sense.
The issue is in getting to differentiate between stories told as fantasy and stories told as fact which are really just fantasy.
It's not easy for those that have spent their life knowing only one way.

I'm also not under any illusions about what I appear like or that what I say will be anything other than ridiculed by the masses.
I'm well versed in understanding that I'll be hit with screams of "show us all the formulas and equations for your model. If not then your model is crap and will stay crap until you place it among the peer review practices so it can be ridiculed more."

All I can say to people is,  they go along with what supposed scientists tell them about certain stuff. Stuff that cannot be proved in any way. Stuff that apparently was figured out 1000's/100's of years before and yet is still only a theory today.
People cannot see how the system works. People cannot see why theories are set out in the way they are.
It always leaves scope for change. the reason is so they have a get out clause in case it all comes crashing down.

Of course, it will never come crashing down to reality, because the human race is too set in their ways. Humans like many animals, are born to mimic. Humans can also be pacified with material things and also be herded by mere mental peer pressure, never mind physical hurt.

If rational people want to believe we walk about on a spinning ball in a vacuum with a large rock spinning around us as we both spin around a huge ball of fire that is close to 1 million miles in diameter, among other spinning balls of rock and gas as well as billions of balls of fire that are so far away they are measured in supposed light years....then be my guest. You stick to it. I once did, so who am I to start preaching.

All I'll say is, if you have enough thinking time and are not among irrational peers, then start using your brain for what it can produce other than mimicking. You just might surprise yourself.

Why do you think we HAVENT questioned the existing model of the universe? Most of us have and probably ALL have at some time. That's what independent thinking people do. But science has the answers to our questions. When we ask if the earth is flat or round, science has the answers and proof. When we ask if rockets can operate in a vacuum, again science has the answers. And the proof.

Your model answers nothing and proves even less.

We are not the mindless drones you think we are. That would be you instead, sitting there defending a model with zero proof and a million countering bits of evidence.

The mere fact that you understand there "might" be some truth to your adhered to model being some kind of religion is all that's required for you to question it.
I ask for nothing more than people question stuff.

Maybe I didn't communicate my point clearly.  I'm not at all religious.  I'm a very simple, straightforward person.  I'm not a philospher, I'm not even sure how to correctly define truth under philosophy.  I don't watch sports, the concept of rooting for a team is alien to me.

I just like to build things.  So believe me when I tell you I'm about as attached to mainstream science as I am a good set of power tools.  If you show me some science that works better then I'll start to use that.  I don't care.  It's not like I get royalties from science textbooks. 

The fact that you think that I'm so attached to gravity that I won't even listen to another theory is utterly baffling to me. 

We grow up learning Newtonian physics.  It's easy and its very useful.  Later on I learned Relativity.  Blew my mind.  It turned everything I knew on its head and I loved it.  I loved the idea that everything we intuitively understood about the way the universe moves is wrong in a subtle and bizarre way. 

And our understanding is far from complete.  I would love to learn something new about the world from you here.  There's just one formality we have to get out of the way.  You have to find a way to demonstrate that it actually describes reality.  If you can't find a way to demonstrate that you might have to consider you've got a few problems with your theory.

Quote from: Omega on August 31, 2016, 04:19:33 AM

Quote from: fliggs on August 31, 2016, 02:05:28 AM

In the meantime your approach to molecules sounds sadly reminiscent of the move the Langoliers.

Thanks for that! I was moved last night to rewatch the three-hour Langoliers movie.  Its a fabulous story but a fairly crappy movie other than Mr Toomey and his paper-tearing.

I wish they would remake it with a star cast and a budget to do it justice.

I loved the original novella. It was one of my favorites in the Four Past Midnight anthology.

And while the TV movie lacks, I did like Bronson Pinchot as mr Toomey.

Quote from: crutonius on August 31, 2016, 09:44:58 PM

Sceptimatic,

You seem to think of mainstream science as a kind of religion.  There might be some truth to that but it's not a very useful lens in which to judge something.

Instead try thinking of science like a tool set, one that's built some pretty amazing things.  Now think of it from our perspective; you're telling us our tool set is "false", which from a utilitarian stand point is meaningless.  Next you insist you have a better tool set except the tool set is nearly empty and what's in their doesn't seem to do anything.  Can you see why that would be frustrating?

52 pages guys!  We're over half way there!

The mere fact that you understand there "might" be some truth to your adhered to model being some kind of religion is all that's required for you to question it.
I ask for nothing more than people question stuff.
Nobody has to follow my model in any shape or form. It's not a requirement nor is it a definite in all aspects. It's a hypothesis and is followed by me because I'm piecing it all together.

The fact that many don't understand how it works and the fact that many just resist delving in, yet feel compelled to basically write it off without understanding it, is entirely their prerogative but renders them a nothing in my book.

With genuine people we have a conflict of interests and mindsets.

The laughable thing is, I spent most of my life believing in that globe model and all the science behind almost everything. Why did I do that?
I did it because that's what I was told was the truth and what I was schooled into from every avenue.
Anyone outside of that avenue were classed as nut cases. End of the world is nigh, fruitcakes.

This was how I was trained to think.
I went along with it all. Nobody was going to tell me any different and anyone walking up to me at that time telling me the world was anything but a globe and especially flat would have been met with a shake of the head and the scowling eyes, or the talk to the hand gesture.

Anyone attempting to sit me down and make me see things from a different perspective would have been told to come back later.
You see, I had too much to do at the time. I was too busy doing the things I wanted to do and had little time to actually think about Earth shapes and conspiracies, etc.

It takes time and patience to even get anywhere near having the mindset to turn everything you thought you knew, on its head.
It takes a special kind of inner strength to follow through with an alternative view when you are up against a volley of abuse or conflict or attempted ridicule in every conceivable way, to keep steady of the alternate track in one way without turning back.

So why did I abandon what the masses have down as the truth.
The simple answer is because I've looked at it all and it absolutely reeks to all hell of bullshit. It reeks. Stinks to all hell.

It makes no rational sense and shouldn't to anyone willing to actually use their rational common sense.
The issue is in getting to differentiate between stories told as fantasy and stories told as fact which are really just fantasy.
It's not easy for those that have spent their life knowing only one way.

I'm also not under any illusions about what I appear like or that what I say will be anything other than ridiculed by the masses.
I'm well versed in understanding that I'll be hit with screams of "show us all the formulas and equations for your model. If not then your model is crap and will stay crap until you place it among the peer review practices so it can be ridiculed more."

All I can say to people is,  they go along with what supposed scientists tell them about certain stuff. Stuff that cannot be proved in any way. Stuff that apparently was figured out 1000's/100's of years before and yet is still only a theory today.
People cannot see how the system works. People cannot see why theories are set out in the way they are.
It always leaves scope for change. the reason is so they have a get out clause in case it all comes crashing down.

Of course, it will never come crashing down to reality, because the human race is too set in their ways. Humans like many animals, are born to mimic. Humans can also be pacified with material things and also be herded by mere mental peer pressure, never mind physical hurt.

If rational people want to believe we walk about on a spinning ball in a vacuum with a large rock spinning around us as we both spin around a huge ball of fire that is close to 1 million miles in diameter, among other spinning balls of rock and gas as well as billions of balls of fire that are so far away they are measured in supposed light years....then be my guest. You stick to it. I once did, so who am I to start preaching.

All I'll say is, if you have enough thinking time and are not among irrational peers, then start using your brain for what it can produce other than mimicking. You just might surprise yourself.

TL:DR

Sceptimatic doesn't understand how real physics and chemistry works

TL:DR

Sceptimatic doesn't understand how real physics and chemistry works

No shit.

TL:DR

Sceptimatic doesn't understand how real physics and chemistry works

No, and he can't be bothered to learn.  So he invents a new system, which is the Way, the Truth and the Light. 

No evidence required, as it's completely faith based and he's the prophet.  He is the martyr, ridiculed by the masses for spreading the Word.

It might make a good religion, just for the fact that he hasn't managed to get a single follower.

OK perhaps we can try again?

1   So the pump pushes the air away, and right behind the pump the molecules want to expand towards the pump and the nearest molecules expand a little bit but they do not enter the pump until the molecules further from the pump have expanded and pushed the nearer molecules into the pump.

2. Molecules are 'connected' but they are not attached.   Molecules can be separated from the molecules in the container and pass out of the exhaust of the pump.

3. Fewer molecules are in the container as pumping proceeds and they all 'want to expand'?

All molecules want to expand in all directions. The pump simply gives a direction that it's possible to expand in. The molecules near it would expand into the pump, but at the same point in time the molecules near those molecules would be expanding and pushing them out. My only point with the expansion/push distinction was that expansion alone can't make something occupy a different point in space.
You seem to have the gist, though.

4.  Although all molecules 'want to expand' as pumping proceeds it becomes harder to expand the molecules?  because

5.  When very few 'wanting to expand molecules' are in left in the container the pump requires an infinite amount of energy to operate for a reason that is obvious to you but not to me.

The molecules on the inside can only exert so much force when pushing. When you have all the molecules on the inside, the force they exert is the same as the pressure exerted against them. When you have fewer molecules inside, they can't exert as much force outwards: you'd need a stronger pump to ensure they can still get out. When you have fewer molecules left in the chamber, the net energy in the chamber has shrunk considerably.
As a perfect vacuum can't be created, there is still a smaller inwards force caused by the pump. It's just overpowered by the outwards force within the chamber. Once the force in the chamber decreases...

Then there is the idea a larger container has something called 'more atmospheric pressure' and Sceptimatic used the example of the difficulty of pulling apart the magdeberg hemispheres to illustrate the idea these containers have he said  'more pressure' and are a good example he said of a pump working harder to evacuate a larger container because larger containers have he said 'more pressure' or 'more atmospheric pressure'?

Are you able to explain what is being described when he says larger containers have 'more atmospheric pressure'

Thanks

He might be talking about more energy contained within (as all molecules contain potential energy: the need to expand), the more molecules means the more energy. It's always going to be dangerous trying to directly transfer terms across from model to model, or insist on only using scientifically accurate terms, because Scepti's model is so different from what you're used to you're bound to end up with confusion. I can't be sure without knowing the context of the discussion, though.
Like I said, it's both easier and more fun if you treat it as a puzzle: don't assume it's wrong and point out every conceivable flaw, that doesn't achieve anything, take the time to figure out how it could work, or how what he says could make sense.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 01, 2016, 12:40:42 AM

OK perhaps we can try again?

1   So the pump pushes the air away, and right behind the pump the molecules want to expand towards the pump and the nearest molecules expand a little bit but they do not enter the pump until the molecules further from the pump have expanded and pushed the nearer molecules into the pump.

2. Molecules are 'connected' but they are not attached.   Molecules can be separated from the molecules in the container and pass out of the exhaust of the pump.

3. Fewer molecules are in the container as pumping proceeds and they all 'want to expand'?

All molecules want to expand in all directions. The pump simply gives a direction that it's possible to expand in. The molecules near it would expand into the pump, but at the same point in time the molecules near those molecules would be expanding and pushing them out. My only point with the expansion/push distinction was that expansion alone can't make something occupy a different point in space.
You seem to have the gist, though.

Quote

4.  Although all molecules 'want to expand' as pumping proceeds it becomes harder to expand the molecules?  because

5.  When very few 'wanting to expand molecules' are in left in the container the pump requires an infinite amount of energy to operate for a reason that is obvious to you but not to me.

The molecules on the inside can only exert so much force when pushing. When you have all the molecules on the inside, the force they exert is the same as the pressure exerted against them. When you have fewer molecules inside, they can't exert as much force outwards: you'd need a stronger pump to ensure they can still get out. When you have fewer molecules left in the chamber, the net energy in the chamber has shrunk considerably.
As a perfect vacuum can't be created, there is still a smaller inwards force caused by the pump. It's just overpowered by the outwards force within the chamber. Once the force in the chamber decreases...

Quote

Then there is the idea a larger container has something called 'more atmospheric pressure' and Sceptimatic used the example of the difficulty of pulling apart the magdeberg hemispheres to illustrate the idea these containers have he said  'more pressure' and are a good example he said of a pump working harder to evacuate a larger container because larger containers have he said 'more pressure' or 'more atmospheric pressure'?

Are you able to explain what is being described when he says larger containers have 'more atmospheric pressure'

Thanks

He might be talking about more energy contained within (as all molecules contain potential energy: the need to expand), the more molecules means the more energy. It's always going to be dangerous trying to directly transfer terms across from model to model, or insist on only using scientifically accurate terms, because Scepti's model is so different from what you're used to you're bound to end up with confusion. I can't be sure without knowing the context of the discussion, though.
Like I said, it's both easier and more fun if you treat it as a puzzle: don't assume it's wrong and point out every conceivable flaw, that doesn't achieve anything, take the time to figure out how it could work, or how what he says could make sense.

I am not understanding why the pump needs a vastly greater amount of power as the container becomes emptied.   All molecules want to expand.   What force causes a weak pump to stop working?   The outside force is very small at only 14.7 pounds per square inch.

>>When you have fewer molecules inside, they can't exert as much force outwards: you'd need a stronger pump to ensure they can still get out.

I am not particularly interested in getting all of the molecules out using a small pump.  I am just wondering why the small pump cannot get molecules to move towards the exit if all molecules want to expand?.

1.  What is the mechanism that prevents expansion of all molecules remaining when 'all molecules want to expand'?

2.  What is the mechanism that prevents the pump barrier from moving away from the molecules 'that want to expand' so that a vacuum cannot be formed between the molecules and the pump?

Going back to your earlier comment:

>All molecules want to expand in all directions. The pump simply gives a direction that it's possible to expand in. The molecules near it would expand into the pump, but at >the same point in time the molecules near those molecules would be expanding and pushing them out. My only point with the expansion/push distinction was that >expansion alone can't make something occupy a different point in space.
>You seem to have the gist, though.

I had mentioned that the outer molecules expand but cannot get 'through the hole', but they do move into it a little bit, but they need a push from the molecules behind.      You seem to be overlooking that part of the explanation to tell me 'I have the gist of it', while telling me the outer molecules do not require the push from the inner molecules to move into the pump.  Instead the push from the inner molecules is just happening at the same time but is not an essential part of the process?

Either way, we are missing something here.   What stops the low power pump moving away from the molecules when it only has to overcome an outside pressure of a low 14.7 pounds per square inch.   Sceptimatics model is saying the pump is not physically able to move away from the molecules to create a space between the molecules and the pump and the low powered pump is prevented from moving by some forcing coming from inside the container.

>>He might be talking about more energy contained within (as all molecules contain potential energy: the need to expand), the more molecules means the more energy. It's always going to be dangerous trying to directly transfer terms across from model to model, or insist on only using scientifically accurate terms, because Scepti's model is so different from what you're used to you're bound to end up with confusion. I can't be sure without knowing the context of the discussion, though.

The context of his suggestion that a larger container has more atmospheric pressure, was me asking why a small pump cannot evacuate a large container which is exactly the same problem I have already been discussing here and earlier with you.   

Based upon the observations made, I would say that Scepti's model would show higher pressure on the inside of the circle. Where this pressure comes from I have no idea

This is a very interesting point. Scepti explained innertia as a sloshing effect of his 'magical pressure field (MPF)', but says that only his MPF is susceptible to innertia. Because it is the only thing sloshing, but drags everything else with it.

But if pressure is built up on the inside of the circle, the MPF must be accumulating on the inside of the circle. That means the MPF must be moving from the outside of the circle inwards, and since scepti claims the sloshing of the MPF drags everything with it, everything should be pulled toward the inside of the circle.

The concept of the experiment seems, on its face, to be one conducted in an environment independent of the rest of the universe, and not as part of it.

A gas does expand, when it has a place to expand to. The pump intake, serves as the low pressure area for the molecules to expand to, much the same as a hole in a tire gives a place for the air inside the tire a place to go. Th weight of the vehicle doesn't give more weight or mass to the air in the tire, all  it does is provide more pressure within the tire itself.

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?
 

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 06:55:45 AM

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

A kid playing on the phone? 

I am not understanding why the pump needs a vastly greater amount of power as the container becomes emptied.   All molecules want to expand.   What force causes a weak pump to stop working?   The outside force is very small at only 14.7 pounds per square inch.

Which is the same force that the inside has. Equal concentrations of air acting on the same surface area, neither's more powerful than the other. When the pressure inside is reduced, the air can only escape if the pressure on the outside is less.

1.  What is the mechanism that prevents expansion of all molecules remaining when 'all molecules want to expand'?

2.  What is the mechanism that prevents the pump barrier from moving away from the molecules 'that want to expand' so that a vacuum cannot be formed between the molecules and the pump?

1. The presence of other molecules in the way. Remember that there is no empty space in this model: all molecules are touching other molecules. They can't expand any more because there are other molecules in the way.
2. Not entirely clear on the question, but I will say that the reason vacuums can't form in this model is because molecules will always expand to fill them.

I had mentioned that the outer molecules expand but cannot get 'through the hole', but they do move into it a little bit, but they need a push from the molecules behind.      You seem to be overlooking that part of the explanation to tell me 'I have the gist of it', while telling me the outer molecules do not require the push from the inner molecules to move into the pump.  Instead the push from the inner molecules is just happening at the same time but is not an essential part of the process?

It depends what process you're talking about. Expansion gets molecules into the hole, the push is what gets them through. Like I've said several times now, don't conflate the two. It's basic Newton, though: any object, like a molecule, isn't going to move from its current location/velocity unless another force acts on it.
When it expands, those forces are balanced: the same force acts in all directions from the molecule, it just so happens that in some directions it's countered. Nothing can move just by expanding though, it'll always occupy the same point it used it, it'll just start occupying more space as well. It needs a push to actually move completely through a hole.
I cannot believe how much I need to labour this point.

Expansion: one molecule occupying more space.
Push: a force from one object on another that allows the objects' velocities (so, assuming they're at rest, their position) to change.

Don't think of this as adding any new force. All the component parts would exist before a hole's opened (if we take the simpler case of a chamber with a door to a lower pressure area in). When the door's closed, all the molecules are still trying to expand, and still exerting forces on one another. The ones by the boundary exert it on the walls of the chamber, the ones further inside exert the force on the other molecules around them. That's always happening. When the door opens, all that does is reduce in one direction the force that used to counter the motion, so the pre-existing force in that direction now achieves something and becomes more than mere potential.

The push from the inner molecules is always going to happen, because it is always happening. It is not required for a molecule to expand through a hole, it is required for the molecule to move through the hole. Those are two distinct things, stop conflating them. If you place a balloon by a hole and blow it up, you'll see part of the balloon will bulge through: that's expansion. If, instead, you put the balloon by the hole and try pushing it, the whole thing will go through. They're different.

The context of his suggestion that a larger container has more atmospheric pressure, was me asking why a small pump cannot evacuate a large container which is exactly the same problem I have already been discussing here and earlier with you.

Then, yes, it seems to come down to the energy that can be exerted. At a basic level, to create a vacuum, you would need a vacuum already. Even just one molecule existing in the pump would exert a force back into the chamber.

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 06:55:45 AM

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

There is that. This is simple grade school stuff. A balloon blown up and then left go. A water hose with a thumb held over the end. ALL covered by 4th grade. but here we have more than 50 pages and still no understanding by the true believers in FET. How sad is that?

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 07:08:43 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 06:55:45 AM

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

There is that. This is simple grade school stuff. A balloon blown up and then left go. A water hose with a thumb held over the end. ALL covered by 4th grade. but here we have more than 50 pages and still no understanding by the true believers in FET. How sad is that?

Your inability to understand is not the fault of the FES. 

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 07:47:34 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 07:08:43 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 06:55:45 AM

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

There is that. This is simple grade school stuff. A balloon blown up and then left go. A water hose with a thumb held over the end. ALL covered by 4th grade. but here we have more than 50 pages and still no understanding by the true believers in FET. How sad is that?

Your inability to understand is not the fault of the FES.

Tail chasing "logic." Is that the best you can do? Nothing in FET makes sense. NOTHING. And NOTHING supports it.

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 07:47:34 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 07:08:43 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 06:55:45 AM

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

There is that. This is simple grade school stuff. A balloon blown up and then left go. A water hose with a thumb held over the end. ALL covered by 4th grade. but here we have more than 50 pages and still no understanding by the true believers in FET. How sad is that?

Your inability to understand is not the fault of the FES.

Your inablity to explain is not the fault of the other people.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 05:57:06 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 30, 2016, 05:52:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 04:55:19 AM

Another analogy coming.

A small ball of putty. You squeeze it and roll it and it becomes pliable.
You've peeled the layers of the strateria and separated them into smaller version of less layers. Keep doing this and you get more pliable and more pliable until you eventually break it down enough to becomes liquid. You basically release all elements eventually.

But, when you liquefy something it is still the same material. But earlier I'm sure you said that the number of layers in a strateria defines what material it is. If what you are saying is correct, then wouldn't whatever you liquefy start turning into other elements?

It's all the same material. Everything on Earth is the same material. The only difference to us is in how it's all connected in the almost infinite ways.

Have a good think about it.

When I say material, I obviously (I hope it's obvious) use the common definition of it, for example ice, steel, wood, concrete etc are all different materials (although they are made up of the same stuff. On our macroscopic levels, it doesn't make sense to say that wood and concrete is the same stuff if you are going to build something out of them). Let's take melting iron for example. If I heat it up, according to your model the strateria would start peeling off layers. But in your model the number of layers tells us what material it is. Let's say for example that iron has 6 layers and ice has 5 layers. Then, if the iron strateria peeled of one layer because someone is trying to melt it, it would become ice. Or did I miss something?

Quote

In which case, would some states of elements technically be different elements, if we define an element by the number of layers? <-> Yes they would.

Thanks Jane for linking to that response. So a material is not defined by a single number of layers, but a range of layers. Then I understand. And I assume that the reason the strateria is not strictly bound by each other anymore is because micateria that is not part of a strateria floats in between them, giving them the ability to swirl freely in the liquid (and gas, for gases)? And when you freeze a liquid, the free micatera is layered back onto the strateria.

@sceptimatic can you confirm if I got it right?

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:03:51 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 07:47:34 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 07:08:43 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 06:55:45 AM

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

There is that. This is simple grade school stuff. A balloon blown up and then left go. A water hose with a thumb held over the end. ALL covered by 4th grade. but here we have more than 50 pages and still no understanding by the true believers in FET. How sad is that?

Your inability to understand is not the fault of the FES.

Tail chasing "logic." Is that the best you can do? Nothing in FET makes sense. NOTHING. And NOTHING supports it.

Wow, can you make up any more words?  Perhaps you could just type random letters on your keyboard, like other RE'ers do?