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

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, 08:50:58 AM

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.

Quote

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.

Like I said, i am tired of talking to someone who clearly isn't reading anything I say. I've told you I'm done talking to you. Pay attention.

Quote from: Jane on September 04, 2016, 10:34:35 AM

Like I said, i am tired of talking to someone who clearly isn't reading anything I say. I've told you I'm done talking to you. Pay attention.

You must have told me that now about 3 times.

You should listen to yourself more often.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 10:38:00 AM

Quote from: Jane on September 04, 2016, 10:34:35 AM

Like I said, i am tired of talking to someone who clearly isn't reading anything I say. I've told you I'm done talking to you. Pay attention.

You must have told me that now about 3 times.

You should listen to yourself more often.

You're the one that's trying to continue the discussion.

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 04, 2016, 09:35:28 AM

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?

The sun

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 04, 2016, 09:35:28 AM

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?

The sun

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 04, 2016, 11:10:32 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 04, 2016, 09:35:28 AM

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?

The sun

How does the sun function in the denpressure model?

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 04, 2016, 11:10:32 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 04, 2016, 09:35:28 AM

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?

The sun

The sun is a graphite electrode on top of a  giant invisible mountain on the north pole.  So that doesn't work.

Sceptimatic,

I can see why you would be apprehensive about sharing your ideas regarding the motions of celestial bodies in your model. You feared ridicule and abject rejection. You are right to fear these things. The idea that a naturally occurring graphite arc light shining through a rapidly spinning crystal on top of a mountain with such a slight gradient that nobody can climb it ( ) could possibly result in the observations we make using telescopes is simply absurd.

You are a self-proclaimed genius who simply does not know anything about the physical properties of the world around you (least of all arc lights). You should abandon your fever dreams of establishing an alternate physical description of your surroundings.

I am supposing we are not going to see him here again.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on September 04, 2016, 08:05:53 PM

Sceptimatic,

I can see why you would be apprehensive about sharing your ideas regarding the motions of celestial bodies in your model. You feared ridicule and abject rejection. You are right to fear these things. The idea that a naturally occurring graphite arc light shining through a rapidly spinning crystal on top of a mountain with such a slight gradient that nobody can climb it ( ) could possibly result in the observations we make using telescopes is simply absurd.

You are a self-proclaimed genius who simply does not know anything about the physical properties of the world around you (least of all arc lights). You should abandon your fever dreams of establishing an alternate physical description of your surroundings.

I am supposing we are not going to see him here again.

Even Jane has no clue what he is talking about.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 09:12:20 AM

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: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 09:29:34 PM

I am supposing we are not going to see him here again.

One can only hope.

When did we stop talking about the experiment that disproves gravity,

Who said we kicked Scepti off this site? He left of his own accord. Either that or he simply stopped posting for a few days.

Who cares either way? Anybody who reads this thread will see his thinking is flawed and his theories are full of holes.

If you want to see each experiment performed in detail, simply read the thread. I don't have time to spoofed you past discussions.

Quote from: 29silhouette on September 04, 2016, 09:35:28 AM

So if there is no gravity, what is pushing/pulling the top most layer of air molecules 'down' against the layer below?

The sun

I have no intention to read this thread, so forgive me if this point has been raised before. I'm very interested in actual reviewing of FE hypotheses. If this "arc electrode" hypothesis is an actual FE'er one, I'm happy to share my thoughts on it.


This is the spectra of the sun taken at diferent locations.



This is a comparison between carbon arc and solar groundlevel spectra. This includes the source. Carbon arc vs sunshine spectra is aparently a well researched area of study, as carbon arc electrodes are used in solar weathering testing apparatuses.

Its plainly obvious to anyone this two spectra do NOT match. Is this accounted by in your hypothesis (scepti?, iWitness?)?

I have no intention to read this thread, so forgive me if this point has been raised before. I'm very interested in actual reviewing of FE hypotheses. If this "arc electrode" hypothesis is an actual FE'er one, I'm happy to share my thoughts on it.
...
Its plainly obvious to anyone this two spectra do NOT match. Is this accounted by in your hypothesis (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.

There is an explanation for that much under denpressure, you just never pay any attention to them, and will you please shut up about that already?

There is no explanation for why things go down in denpressure.  Denpressure relies on things going up for things to go down.

Last thing I'll say to you, blocked and good riddance. Seriously. A discussion was over, you resurrected it in an unrelated thread for no actual reason, and now you're insisting on getting the last word despite the fact your questions were answered several times, and you'd rather ignore everything I actually say just to make yourself look better. That's ridiculous.

Quote from: Conker on September 06, 2016, 03:39:16 AM

I have no intention to read this thread, so forgive me if this point has been raised before. I'm very interested in actual reviewing of FE hypotheses. If this "arc electrode" hypothesis is an actual FE'er one, I'm happy to share my thoughts on it.
...
Its plainly obvious to anyone this two spectra do NOT match. Is this accounted by in your hypothesis (scepti?, iWitness?)?

I imagine the response would be, if the science is accepted, that it isn't a directly light from the carbon electrode, so the spectra might not be directly applicable. Some would be absorbed by the ice dome (which I believe would be formed primarily of hydrogen and helium, if you want to try and take that into account), and maybe you'd even get wavelengths altered. Light seems to have a more intimate relationship with heat under the model, from the little I've gathered, so it isn't easy to figure out exactly how it'd behave at the cold temperatures up there.
Mind you, this is just my guess from my understanding of the model, not necessarily Scepti's answer. It does seem as though light is slightly different as well, if my understanding of the illusion he's explained is right.

Frozen helium? You and I both agree it can only exist at absolute zero (which cannot exist anywhere in the universe)

How does heat reflect off of a surface that is at absolute zero?

there's the possibility helium would turn back into hydrogen at very low pressures.

Quote from: Jane on September 12, 2016, 04:04:11 AM

there's the possibility helium would turn back into hydrogen at very low pressures.

Yes because everybody knows nuclear fission occurs at incredibly low temperatures 

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on September 12, 2016, 06:30:49 AM

Quote from: Jane on September 12, 2016, 04:04:11 AM

there's the possibility helium would turn back into hydrogen at very low pressures.

Yes because everybody knows nuclear fission occurs at incredibly low temperatures 

If you view molecules as the compressed jawbreakers of Scepti's model, splitting apart when there's no force to keep them compressed, it makes sense.