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

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 03, 2016, 12:41:58 PM

Quote from: Jane on September 03, 2016, 12:35:33 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 03, 2016, 12:23:53 PM

I still don't know why air molecules are all pushed, or are pushing, down in his model either.

That much, at least, is simple. Think of it in terms of buoyancy

Why do bouyant objects go up?  Why not sideways?

I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.

In the past he's answered that it's the density part of it.  Denser objects just want to go towards the earth and less dense want to float up.  Everything has a natural level sort of thing.  His definition of density is different to reality based definitions.

Denser objects want to go down and less denser want to float up? At what point does the density changes from a 'downer' to an 'upper'?
Does that mean that an object at a certain density wants to go neither up or down and therefor floats?
At what density does that happen?
Care to show me this? I mean outside of a swimming pool where density indeed causes sinking, floating or suspension in the water?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 04, 2016, 03:39:54 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 03, 2016, 12:41:58 PM

Quote from: Jane on September 03, 2016, 12:35:33 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 03, 2016, 12:23:53 PM

I still don't know why air molecules are all pushed, or are pushing, down in his model either.

That much, at least, is simple. Think of it in terms of buoyancy

Why do bouyant objects go up?  Why not sideways?

I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.

In the past he's answered that it's the density part of it.  Denser objects just want to go towards the earth and less dense want to float up.  Everything has a natural level sort of thing.  His definition of density is different to reality based definitions.

Denser objects want to go down and less denser want to float up? At what point does the density changes from a 'downer' to an 'upper'?
Does that mean that an object at a certain density wants to go neither up or down and therefor floats?
At what density does that happen?
Care to show me this? I mean outside of a swimming pool where density indeed causes sinking, floating or suspension in the water?

Seems like you are being a bit dense again.

Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 03:53:07 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 04, 2016, 03:39:54 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 03, 2016, 12:41:58 PM

Quote from: Jane on September 03, 2016, 12:35:33 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 03, 2016, 12:23:53 PM

I still don't know why air molecules are all pushed, or are pushing, down in his model either.

That much, at least, is simple. Think of it in terms of buoyancy

Why do bouyant objects go up?  Why not sideways?

I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.

In the past he's answered that it's the density part of it.  Denser objects just want to go towards the earth and less dense want to float up.  Everything has a natural level sort of thing.  His definition of density is different to reality based definitions.

Denser objects want to go down and less denser want to float up? At what point does the density changes from a 'downer' to an 'upper'?
Does that mean that an object at a certain density wants to go neither up or down and therefor floats?
At what density does that happen?
Care to show me this? I mean outside of a swimming pool where density indeed causes sinking, floating or suspension in the water?

Seems like you are being a bit dense again.

Pardon? Did I misunderstand the statement?

Do you agree the lowest pressure in this system is at the operating pump?

At and near the pump, the pressure would typically be even in the vicinity of it. You'd have a lower pressure at the pump for a very short period of time.

>>Your objections are basically that it's not the typical model.

False.

Saying that doesn't make it true. You need objections of the form "This doesn't match the observation..." rather than "This doesn't match the explanation..."

I am a practical person.  Things have to be real.   Models have their uses.  I am asking you to focus on what is real primarily and not get lost in what a model attempts to describe.   In all cases reality must trump a construction of the mind.

You need to know what it is the model describes before you can even try to relate it to reality.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 04, 2016, 03:39:54 AM

I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.

In the past he's answered that it's the density part of it.  Denser objects just want to go towards the earth and less dense want to float up.  Everything has a natural level sort of thing.  His definition of density is different to reality based definitions.

Denser objects want to go down and less denser want to float up? At what point does the density changes from a 'downer' to an 'upper'?
Does that mean that an object at a certain density wants to go neither up or down and therefor floats?
At what density does that happen?
Care to show me this? I mean outside of a swimming pool where density indeed causes sinking, floating or suspension in the water?

His definition of density is a fair analogue given his alternative view of molecules . It is a part of the system, though not axiomatically. The reason denser objects would fall etc under his model relates ultimately to the buoyancy principle: amount of air displaced etc. Less dense objects are essentially porous, and have air inside them. Objects that displace more air have more of a counter-force placed upon them by the air.

Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 03:53:07 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 04, 2016, 03:39:54 AM

I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.

In the past he's answered that it's the density part of it.  Denser objects just want to go towards the earth and less dense want to float up.  Everything has a natural level sort of thing.  His definition of density is different to reality based definitions.

Denser objects want to go down and less denser want to float up? At what point does the density changes from a 'downer' to an 'upper'?
Does that mean that an object at a certain density wants to go neither up or down and therefor floats?
At what density does that happen?
Care to show me this? I mean outside of a swimming pool where density indeed causes sinking, floating or suspension in the water?

His definition of density is a fair analogue given his alternative view of molecules . It is a part of the system, though not axiomatically. The reason denser objects would fall etc under his model relates ultimately to the buoyancy principle: amount of air displaced etc. Less dense objects are essentially porous, and have air inside them. Objects that displace more air have more of a counter-force placed upon them by the air.

How can it be a fair analogue? This is supposed to be a model of the real world, right?

His model is actually yielding a testable prediction: if density is making objects either move towards the Earth or away from it, then there should be a density where the object floats.

If your response is: 'yeah but it is just his model, it doesn't matter if it is real or not', then this discussion is completely and utterly pointless. It would make more sense debating the rules of magic in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

How can it be a fair analogue? This is supposed to be a model of the real world, right?

Yes, but given that molecules are different trying to directly transfer one definition across from our model isn't going to work. The intuitive equivalent suffices though.

His model is actually yielding a testable prediction: if density is making objects either move towards the Earth or away from it, then there should be a density where the object floats.

Try the density of air.

If your response is: 'yeah but it is just his model, it doesn't matter if it is real or not', then this discussion is completely and utterly pointless. It would make more sense debating the rules of magic in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

People do that.

Quote from: Jane on August 04, 2016, 09:04:55 AM

Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.

That seems fair enough.

Scepti
 

Here you are
 
I quoted you being OK with this experiment

It was conducted

You were proven wrong

Any comments?

Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 06:09:43 AM

How can it be a fair analogue? This is supposed to be a model of the real world, right?

Yes, but given that molecules are different trying to directly transfer one definition across from our model isn't going to work. The intuitive equivalent suffices though.

Quote

His model is actually yielding a testable prediction: if density is making objects either move towards the Earth or away from it, then there should be a density where the object floats.

Try the density of air.

Ah wait, you mean 'a helium balloon floats because its density is lower than air'? Well yeah, that is true I suppose. The reason helium balloons float upward is the same reason a cork floats on water.

But that only works because of the relative densities.

If we remove the air and replace it with a gas with a lower density than helium, the balloon sinks to the bottom of the container.

If your response is: 'yeah but it is just his model, it doesn't matter if it is real or not', then this discussion is completely and utterly pointless. It would make more sense debating the rules of magic in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

People do that.
[/quote]

I know. It has no bearing on the physics of the real world, though.

Ah wait, you mean 'a helium balloon floats because its density is lower than air'? Well yeah, that is true I suppose. The reason helium balloons float upward is the same reason a cork floats on water.

But that only works because of the relative densities.

If we remove the air and replace it with a gas with a lower density than helium, the balloon sinks to the bottom of the container.

It is only about relative densities (well, density and volume: the two together determine how much air is displaced). That's the crux of the model.

I know. It has no bearing on the physics of the real world, though.

Just pointing out it's a discussion plenty of people enjoy.

Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 06:45:50 AM

Ah wait, you mean 'a helium balloon floats because its density is lower than air'? Well yeah, that is true I suppose. The reason helium balloons float upward is the same reason a cork floats on water.

But that only works because of the relative densities.

If we remove the air and replace it with a gas with a lower density than helium, the balloon sinks to the bottom of the container.

It is only about relative densities (well, density and volume: the two together determine how much air is displaced). That's the crux of the model.

Quote

I know. It has no bearing on the physics of the real world, though.

Just pointing out it's a discussion plenty of people enjoy.

The only reason the helium balloon floats upward is due to gravity. In a system without gravity, there would be no downward force at all. The less dense objects in the system would be forced outward in all directions, not just upward.

The only reason the helium balloon floats upward is due to gravity. In a system without gravity, there would be no downward force at all. The less dense objects in the system would be forced outward in all directions, not just upward.

As I said before:
"Think of it like a swimming pool (albeit inverted). The force is always upwards, rather than left or right, no matter how you move around under there. By this model that's because you entered it from above.
So as we come into existence from the ground (and because the ground is essentially the only 'surface,' air continues on in each other direction until it freezes) we're pushed back down to it."

You're relying on things that aren't the case under Scepti's model.

Then riddle me this, Batman,

Why does atmospheric pressure exist? Why is it higher at sea level than on mountains? What would cause air to push down on us?

Then riddle me this, Batman,

Why does atmospheric pressure exist? Why is it higher at sea level than on mountains? What would cause air to push down on us?

I literally just gave the answer to that.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on September 04, 2016, 07:06:06 AM

The only reason the helium balloon floats upward is due to gravity. In a system without gravity, there would be no downward force at all. The less dense objects in the system would be forced outward in all directions, not just upward.

As I said before:
"Think of it like a swimming pool (albeit inverted). The force is always upwards, rather than left or right, no matter how you move around under there. By this model that's because you entered it from above.
So as we come into existence from the ground (and because the ground is essentially the only 'surface,' air continues on in each other direction until it freezes) we're pushed back down to it."

You're relying on things that aren't the case under Scepti's model.

And we have shown that Scepti's model does not reflect reality. The only reason you are being pushed upwards in that pool is because the water particles surrounding you are being drawn downwards at a greater rate due to the force of gravity. If gravity did not exist, you would not experience buoyancy at all.

And we have shown that Scepti's model does not reflect reality. The only reason you are being pushed upwards in that pool is because the water particles surrounding you are being drawn downwards at a greater rate due to the force of gravity. If gravity did not exist, you would not experience buoyancy at all.

That's not the reason why it works under Scepti's model, like I said. He's saying it would happen for any force that pushes you into the pool, and in turn causes you to exert a force on the molecules.
There's a different between 'doesn't reflect reality' and 'doesn't reflect the current explanation.' It takes a bit more work to establish the former.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 03, 2016, 07:54:34 PM

Do you agree the lowest pressure in this system is at the operating pump?

At and near the pump, the pressure would typically be even in the vicinity of it. You'd have a lower pressure at the pump for a very short period of time.

The model must conform to reality.

If the pump boundary is moving away from the molecules, and the molecules are expanding to remain in contact with the pump boundary. the lowest pressure in the system must be at the pump boundary.

A gas can only flow from high pressure to low pressure.  There must be a pressure difference for a flow to exist.   

If you are claiming the flow is being interrupted or it is sticky it simply means the pump creates closer to 0.001bar and mysteriously the molecules in the container do not want to expand.

If you have specific objections to what i am telling you then you should write them out very clearly so that experimental evidence can be provided to help you understand how gas flow behaves.

We are talking about very basic gas behaviour which has been studied extensively for hundreds of years.   What i am saying has nothing to do with some esoteric theory, it is simply what is observed when gases flow along pipes.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 03:56:41 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 03:53:07 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 04, 2016, 03:39:54 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 03, 2016, 12:41:58 PM

Quote from: Jane on September 03, 2016, 12:35:33 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 03, 2016, 12:23:53 PM

I still don't know why air molecules are all pushed, or are pushing, down in his model either.

That much, at least, is simple. Think of it in terms of buoyancy

Why do bouyant objects go up?  Why not sideways?

I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.

In the past he's answered that it's the density part of it.  Denser objects just want to go towards the earth and less dense want to float up.  Everything has a natural level sort of thing.  His definition of density is different to reality based definitions.

Denser objects want to go down and less denser want to float up? At what point does the density changes from a 'downer' to an 'upper'?
Does that mean that an object at a certain density wants to go neither up or down and therefor floats?
At what density does that happen?
Care to show me this? I mean outside of a swimming pool where density indeed causes sinking, floating or suspension in the water?

Seems like you are being a bit dense again.

Pardon? Did I misunderstand the statement?

What actually are you getting at?  if you recognise suspension in the water then you recognise what you appear to be calling floating?

>>Does that mean that an object at a certain density wants to go neither up or down and therefor floats?
At what density does that happen?

Plenty of people get killed because they dive into deep water and hit a submerged 'floating' log.    What about fish?

Not sure what you are getting at.

If the pump boundary is moving away from the molecules, and the molecules are expanding to remain in contact with the pump boundary. the lowest pressure in the system must be at the pump boundary.

But not exclusively so. The unique lowest pressure any point in the system takes would form at the pump, but like I said only for a short period of time. Generally speaking, the lowest pressure in the system (given that calling it one system indicates interaction is occurring) at any moment in time would be at the pump as well as the vicinity of the pump, given that gas is flowing/expanding/being pushed/whatever terminology you want.

If you are claiming the flow is being interrupted or it is sticky it simply means the pump creates closer to 0.001bar and mysteriously the molecules in the container do not want to expand.

That doesn't make sense.

If you have specific objections to what i am telling you then you should write them out very clearly so that experimental evidence can be provided to help you understand how gas flow behaves.

We are talking about very basic gas behaviour which has been studied extensively for hundreds of years.   What i am saying has nothing to do with some esoteric theory, it is simply what is observed when gases flow along pipes.

Like I've said to you several times now, I'm purely concerned about explaining the model. Stop insisting I'm trying to answer different questions, I am solely and exclusively explaining how the model works.
Again, there are two steps to what you're trying to do. i'm explaining the first step: how the model works. You're constantly insisting that's irrelevant because you're only interested in the disproving stage. You can't do that if you don't understand the model. I'm only concerned with the first step, I have said this several times, for once actually pay attention to what I'm writing.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on September 04, 2016, 07:06:06 AM

The only reason the helium balloon floats upward is due to gravity. In a system without gravity, there would be no downward force at all. The less dense objects in the system would be forced outward in all directions, not just upward.

As I said before:
"Think of it like a swimming pool (albeit inverted). The force is always upwards, rather than left or right, no matter how you move around under there. By this model that's because you entered it from above.
So as we come into existence from the ground (and because the ground is essentially the only 'surface,' air continues on in each other direction until it freezes) we're pushed back down to it."

You're relying on things that aren't the case under Scepti's model.

There is no point asking us to consider a swimming pool where in our reality gravity exists as if what you are claiming is true in the scepti model is easy to explain or understand.

You have rather strangely said the scepti model was simply explained by bouyancy.

I am going to ask you again how come the bouyant force is upwards in sceptis universe?  Why not sideways?

Come on.  Are you even thinking about what you are saying at all??

Please explain in detail how the bouyant force works in sceptimatics model.   No hand waving please.   Tell us something which can fit reality.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 08:36:32 AM

If the pump boundary is moving away from the molecules, and the molecules are expanding to remain in contact with the pump boundary. the lowest pressure in the system must be at the pump boundary.

But not exclusively so. The unique lowest pressure any point in the system takes would form at the pump, but like I said only for a short period of time. Generally speaking, the lowest pressure in the system (given that calling it one system indicates interaction is occurring) at any moment in time would be at the pump as well as the vicinity of the pump, given that gas is flowing/expanding/being pushed/whatever terminology you want.

Quote

If you are claiming the flow is being interrupted or it is sticky it simply means the pump creates closer to 0.001bar and mysteriously the molecules in the container do not want to expand.

That doesn't make sense.

Quote

If you have specific objections to what i am telling you then you should write them out very clearly so that experimental evidence can be provided to help you understand how gas flow behaves.

We are talking about very basic gas behaviour which has been studied extensively for hundreds of years.   What i am saying has nothing to do with some esoteric theory, it is simply what is observed when gases flow along pipes.

Like I've said to you several times now, I'm purely concerned about explaining the model. Stop insisting I'm trying to answer different questions, I am solely and exclusively explaining how the model works.
Again, there are two steps to what you're trying to do. i'm explaining the first step: how the model works. You're constantly insisting that's irrelevant because you're only interested in the disproving stage. You can't do that if you don't understand the model. I'm only concerned with the first step, I have said this several times, for once actually pay attention to what I'm writing.

Sigh.   If the pump is capable of producing 0.001 bar then eventually  if there is no gas flow, and yet there is connection within the system, everywhere in the system will be at 0.001 bar.

If you are claiming there is some process that interrupts the gas flow then the pump will eventually create 0.001 bar and elsewhere in the system beyond the blockage there will be a higher pressure.

You have already explained the model as far as I can see.    It is a simple model.

>>The unique lowest pressure any point in the system takes would form at the pump, but like I said only for a short period of time. Generally speaking, the lowest pressure in the system (given that calling it one system indicates interaction is occurring) at any moment in time would be at the pump as well as the vicinity of the pump, given that gas is flowing/expanding/being pushed/whatever terminology you want.

Please write that paragraph out so i can understand it.   Why are you claiming the low pressure at the pump will be temporary??.  If you are agreeing with me the whole system is at 0.001bar then fine. 

Please write that paragraph out in such a manner i know exactly what you are describing.

>>  AAK  If you are claiming the flow is being interrupted or it is sticky it simply means the pump creates closer to 0.001bar and mysteriously the molecules in the container do not want to expand.

>Jane That doesn't make sense.

What part of it makes no sense??    The pump connected to the system is capable of producing 0.001 bar.  if there is no flow into the pump then the pump pressure will eventually be 0.001 bar.  if there is a slight flow into the pump then the pressure will be slightly above 0.001 bar.  And so forth.

So..........

If you are claiming the flow is being interrupted or it is sticky (so that the gas flow is reduced into the pump) it simply means the pump creates closer to 0.001bar (than would be the case if the flow was higher into the pump) and (yet even though the pump is now creating a lower pressure) mysteriously the molecules in the container do not want to expand (and flow into the pump).

It makes perfect sense to me. What you are saying about reality does not.

I am going to ask you again how come the bouyant force is upwards in sceptis universe?  Why not sideways?

I answered that, you're not giving any objections to the answer. You're just saying his description of buoyancy is wrong with no actual reason.

Please explain in detail how the bouyant force works in sceptimatics model.   No hand waving please.   Tell us something which can fit reality.

Which is impossible by your standards as you're equating reality and the RE model, rather than reality with observations. Which, sure, I agree, but it's a stupid way to compare with another model.

You have already explained the model as far as I can see.    It is a simple model.

I've been trying to explain the model, you've been consistently ignoring it, consider that maybe there's a reason I'm emphasising that step rather than constantly thinking you can do no wrong.

Please write that paragraph out so i can understand it.   Why are you claiming the low pressure at the pump will be temporary??.  If you are agreeing with me the whole system is at 0.001bar then fine. 

How? You never seem to understand anything even if I state it explicitly. Gas is flowing, the pressure will vary, like I said, I sincerely hope that's clear. Given that the exhaust is not perfect, and cannot be perfect under this model, then the low pressure created at the pump initially is not the same as the low pressure that results after expelling air.

What part of it makes no sense??    The pump connected to the system is capable of producing 0.001 bar.  if there is no flow into the pump then the pump pressure will eventually be 0.001 bar.  if there is a slight flow into the pump then the pressure will be slightly above 0.001 bar.  And so forth.

So..........

If you are claiming the flow is being interrupted or it is sticky (so that the gas flow is reduced into the pump) it simply means the pump creates closer to 0.001bar (than would be the case if the flow was higher into the pump) and (yet even though the pump is now creating a lower pressure) mysteriously the molecules in the container do not want to expand (and flow into the pump).

It makes perfect sense to me. What you are saying about reality does not.

Yet again, I am not saying this about reality. For crying out loud, how many times do I need to repeat a point for you to ever acknowledge it?!
I'm done. goodbye. Seriously, I have had so much better conversations with flat earthers. You aren't paying attention to a word I say. What is the point in explaining a model if you aren't even paying attention to the simplest parts of my post?!
Stop posting constantly if you're not interested in discussing. Discussion required back-and-forth, not you constantly repeating the same things over and over even after being corrected.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on September 04, 2016, 07:50:08 AM

And we have shown that Scepti's model does not reflect reality. The only reason you are being pushed upwards in that pool is because the water particles surrounding you are being drawn downwards at a greater rate due to the force of gravity. If gravity did not exist, you would not experience buoyancy at all.

That's not the reason why it works under Scepti's model, like I said. He's saying it would happen for any force that pushes you into the pool, and in turn causes you to exert a force on the molecules.
There's a different between 'doesn't reflect reality' and 'doesn't reflect the current explanation.' It takes a bit more work to establish the former.

Here is what I've gotten from scepti, 'air pressures pushes down on stuff because the air molecules are stacked'.  His analogy, 'A line of people all pushing in one direction' and we get the combined pressure at ground level.

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?  If nothing is pushing the top layer down, then there is no push on the layer below, and so on, all the way down, what would cause higher air pressure at one end than the other?

He even said "nothing" pushes on the top layer, and then went on to say 'because they're stacked' (I would have to find the quotes...if he hasn't deleted them)

Yet again, I am not saying this about reality

I thought you were telling me something that can fit reality.

Here is what I've gotten from scepti, 'air pressures pushes down on stuff because the air molecules are stacked'.  His analogy, 'A line of people all pushing in one direction' and we get the combined pressure at ground level.

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?  If nothing is pushing the top layer down, then there is no push on the layer below, and so on, all the way down, what would cause higher air pressure at one end than the other?

He even said "nothing" pushes on the top layer, and then went on to say 'because they're stacked' (I would have to find the quotes...if he hasn't deleted them)

It's because the ground's the only place air can push. According to him, the top layer, being further away from the Sun and so the only source of heat, freezes: this is what creates his dome. There's no real pressure at that height.

For fucks sake.

So the last week has just been a fantasy novel?

I thought you were telling me something that can fit reality.

Scepti claims it can, like I have said to you on countless occasions I'm just interested in the hypothetical situations. Maybe if you ever read a word the other person says in conversations, this wouldn't happen. Seriously, you've only got yourself to blame.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 09:38:37 AM

I thought you were telling me something that can fit reality.

Scepti claims it can, like I have said to you on countless occasions I'm just interested in the hypothetical situations. Maybe if you ever read a word the other person says in conversations, this wouldn't happen. Seriously, you've only got yourself to blame.

All you had to say was 'yes i agree this cannot work in reality'

Instead you have constantly tried to mock my reading ability.    I made it clear at the beginning i was not interested in fantasies.  I am a practical person.

All you had to say was 'yes i agree this cannot work in reality'

Instead you have constantly tried to mock my reading ability.    I made it clear at the beginning i was not interested in fantasies.  I am a practical person.

I did. Multiple times. I criticised your reading ability when you blatantly ignored what I actually said, as you clearly must have done here too. Do you really not see the problem yet? I made it clear I was only interested in explaining what the model states, which seemed to be what you needed given that it's required for any kind of disproof which you seemed to be after.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 09:47:48 AM

All you had to say was 'yes i agree this cannot work in reality'

Instead you have constantly tried to mock my reading ability.    I made it clear at the beginning i was not interested in fantasies.  I am a practical person.

I did. Multiple times. I criticised your reading ability when you blatantly ignored what I actually said, as you clearly must have done here too. Do you really not see the problem yet? I made it clear I was only interested in explaining what the model states, which seemed to be what you needed given that it's required for any kind of disproof which you seemed to be after.

Bullshit you have just been messing around

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

Pushing to the right cannot create low pressure.  What is happening on the right is irrelevant.

I'm not the one who isn't thinking here. It's irrelevant under your model, not Scepti's.

It had nothing to do with my model

I was talking about reality, and a reality so simple a school child can understand it.

All you had to say his model does not fit reality.   Instead you have demanded I listen to you as if anything is ever going to change.

Right from the beginning you were talking strangely saying 'right behind the pump' and claiming the pump can work by only pushing on air.

Page after page you have been just playing around.

Bullshit you have just been messing around

Go ahead and think that, you've made it all too clear you think you're above reproach.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 10:03:21 AM

Bullshit you have just been messing around

Go ahead and think that, you've made it all too clear you think you're above reproach.

You are just a liar.

You made out I was deranged when i asked you what caused bouyant objects to go up.

And now you are claiming that all along you had no idea why i was protesting what you were explaining to me made no sense.

All you have done this whole conversation is fuck with me.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 10:03:21 AM

Bullshit you have just been messing around

Go ahead and think that, you've made it all too clear you think you're above reproach.

Kids, kids, don't fight. That's what NASA wants you to do...