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

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 02:22:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 15, 2016, 07:07:56 AM

I have no opinion on that.

When you can get close to the energy source we call sunlight then come back to me. Until then, all you're doing is showing my graphs that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

So what do you think this energy source is? And how do you know its a carbon electrode if its not consistent with a carbon electrode?

Like I told you earlier: until you can get close to the source to look at it and work it out then come back to me.

You are going to have to tell us where the source is - you invented it, so nobody else knows.

Could you hightlight it on a map?

Quote from: SpJunk on September 15, 2016, 11:10:06 PM

I already asked about horizontal compression of molecules.
Scepti escaped that answer, angrily saying something like "learn my model".

Also: When you move object down, it also compresses molecules,
and those molecules do not expand back, pushing object back up.

LOL

Like I said before. Take the time to try and learn it and then you won't need to keep on doing this.

I see you still didn't learn even Archimedes Principle.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 16, 2016, 02:28:21 AM

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 02:22:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 15, 2016, 07:07:56 AM

I have no opinion on that.

When you can get close to the energy source we call sunlight then come back to me. Until then, all you're doing is showing my graphs that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

So what do you think this energy source is? And how do you know its a carbon electrode if its not consistent with a carbon electrode?

Like I told you earlier: until you can get close to the source to look at it and work it out then come back to me.

You are going to have to tell us where the source is - you invented it, so nobody else knows.

Could you hightlight it on a map?

It's not on any map that you know of. The maps that you know of are inaccurate by a long way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 16, 2016, 12:28:41 AM

Quote from: SpJunk on September 15, 2016, 11:10:06 PM

I already asked about horizontal compression of molecules.
Scepti escaped that answer, angrily saying something like "learn my model".

Also: When you move object down, it also compresses molecules,
and those molecules do not expand back, pushing object back up.

LOL

Like I said before. Take the time to try and learn it and then you won't need to keep on doing this.

I see you still didn't learn even Archimedes Principle.

Pay attention to the topic if you're interested. If not, then by all means just keep babbling on and receive nothing in return.

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 02:22:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 15, 2016, 07:07:56 AM

I have no opinion on that.

When you can get close to the energy source we call sunlight then come back to me. Until then, all you're doing is showing my graphs that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

So what do you think this energy source is? And how do you know its a carbon electrode if its not consistent with a carbon electrode?

Like I told you earlier: until you can get close to the source to look at it and work it out then come back to me.

If you want to keep pushing me on it then answer these two questions first and then I'll answer mine.

Question 1: what is gravity.
Question 2: How did the big bang start?

I'm not proposing any alternative, nor comparing your model to any other. I'm simply pointing out a piece of data, and asking you a simple question.
1. How do you know sunlight comes from a carbon eletrode?
2. Solar spectra do not coincide with carbon emmisivity spectra. Why, if you hypothesis is correct, does this happen?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 16, 2016, 02:28:21 AM

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 02:22:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 15, 2016, 07:07:56 AM

I have no opinion on that.

When you can get close to the energy source we call sunlight then come back to me. Until then, all you're doing is showing my graphs that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

So what do you think this energy source is? And how do you know its a carbon electrode if its not consistent with a carbon electrode?

Like I told you earlier: until you can get close to the source to look at it and work it out then come back to me.

If you want to keep pushing me on it then answer these two questions first and then I'll answer mine.

Question 1: what is gravity.
Question 2: How did the big bang start?

I'm not proposing any alternative, nor comparing your model to any other. I'm simply pointing out a piece of data, and asking you a simple question.
1. How do you know sunlight comes from a carbon eletrode?
2. Solar spectra do not coincide with carbon emmisivity spectra. Why, if you hypothesis is correct, does this happen?

If you want to keep pushing me on it then answer these two questions first and then I'll answer mine.

Question 1: what is gravity.
Question 2: How did the big bang start?

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 08:01:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 16, 2016, 02:28:21 AM

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 02:22:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 15, 2016, 07:07:56 AM

I have no opinion on that.

When you can get close to the energy source we call sunlight then come back to me. Until then, all you're doing is showing my graphs that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

So what do you think this energy source is? And how do you know its a carbon electrode if its not consistent with a carbon electrode?

Like I told you earlier: until you can get close to the source to look at it and work it out then come back to me.

If you want to keep pushing me on it then answer these two questions first and then I'll answer mine.

Question 1: what is gravity.
Question 2: How did the big bang start?

I'm not proposing any alternative, nor comparing your model to any other. I'm simply pointing out a piece of data, and asking you a simple question.
1. How do you know sunlight comes from a carbon eletrode?
2. Solar spectra do not coincide with carbon emmisivity spectra. Why, if you hypothesis is correct, does this happen?

If you want to keep pushing me on it then answer these two questions first and then I'll answer mine.

Question 1: what is gravity.
Question 2: How did the big bang start?

This thread is about denpressure and your model.  Questions about RET are irrelevant and off topic.

DEFINTION:

Den Pressure:
Is the act of Air Pressure creating weight by pressing down on an object.  The density of an object determines how much air pressure affects how much force is transferred to the object to create weight.  For instance a less dense object would be affected less and in return would weight less.

WRONG !!!

Air is pressing on objects from all directions, not just from above.
Air pressure at higher elevations is lower, so any object will get pressed by air a bit harder from below than from above.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 07:01:13 AM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
...

We all know that for Cathode Ray Tubes to work, inside must be the highest vacuum achievable.
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) are made from glass. Glass maintains that vacuum for long tme.
Glass blocks ALL air around CRT from entering, and some still working CRT are decades old.

Yet, glass is much lighter than lead. And mercury is heavier than lead, gold heavier than mercury,
iridium heavier than gold, and osmium a bit heavier than iridium.

If glass blocks all air, then nothing is left.
How much of that nothing can be blocked by lead more?
And then by gold, and then by osmium?

50% of zero is still zero.
So, letting air in is not the reason why some materials get lighter.

As we saw, glass is letting none.

...
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.
...

The difference in weight caused by air inside the balloon is of much less influence, because of atmospheric push.
More air in balloon means bigger balloon. Bigger balloon means more external air displaced and more weight lost because of it.

If we assume compressed air inside balloon is 1.3 kg/m³ and external is 1.225 kg/m³,
then the difference is 75 grams per 1000 liters, or 75 milligrams per liter.
I'm not sure cheap commercial scales can detect that.
And I don't recommend wasting money on expensive laboratory scales just for this.

This is why was I talking about Archimedes Principle.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 16, 2016, 08:04:18 AM

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 08:01:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 16, 2016, 02:28:21 AM

Quote from: Conker on September 16, 2016, 02:22:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 15, 2016, 07:07:56 AM

I have no opinion on that.

When you can get close to the energy source we call sunlight then come back to me. Until then, all you're doing is showing my graphs that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

So what do you think this energy source is? And how do you know its a carbon electrode if its not consistent with a carbon electrode?

Like I told you earlier: until you can get close to the source to look at it and work it out then come back to me.

If you want to keep pushing me on it then answer these two questions first and then I'll answer mine.

Question 1: what is gravity.
Question 2: How did the big bang start?

I'm not proposing any alternative, nor comparing your model to any other. I'm simply pointing out a piece of data, and asking you a simple question.
1. How do you know sunlight comes from a carbon eletrode?
2. Solar spectra do not coincide with carbon emmisivity spectra. Why, if you hypothesis is correct, does this happen?

If you want to keep pushing me on it then answer these two questions first and then I'll answer mine.

Question 1: what is gravity.
Question 2: How did the big bang start?

This thread is about denpressure and your model.  Questions about RET are irrelevant and off topic.

Yep, it sure is, but when people come out with attitudes of shock about what I'm saying whilst accepting the silliness of the mainstream fed gravity/big bang, etc, theories without so much as a raised eye brow, then I'm going to revert back to it until they start waking up.

Back to square one.

Denpressure is what indoctrinates think of as gravity because they were duped into that.

Denpressure is any object of any density that is pushed by force/energy into/against atmospheric pressure and displaces that atmospheric pressure by compressing it away by the dense objects very own mass/make up.

People cannot or will not grasp this very simple thing and it's costing them the opportunity to understand the rest of it all.

Many people on here have no intention of understanding as they are here for nothing other than a ridicule fest, or they think they are. Those people are sheep. Those people are extremely naive and even backward in many cases.

People are questioning it because experimental evidence does not support your hypothesis.

They are not having trouble understanding it.  It is actually a rather simple concept and not hard to grasp.  Basically it is just air pushes down on stuff.  Less dense stuff allows air to pass through resulting in less weight.

Your hypothesis fails to answer questions in a satisfactory manner. 

Here is a question:

I have a 1x1 meter box and suck what ever amount of air I can out of it under your model. I know you say a vacuum can not be achieved, how much do the atoms expand in the box?

People are questioning it because experimental evidence does not support your hypothesis.

They are not having trouble understanding it.  It is actually a rather simple concept and not hard to grasp.  Basically it is just air pushes down on stuff.  Less dense stuff allows air to pass through resulting in less weight.

Your hypothesis fails to answer questions in a satisfactory manner. 

Here is a question:

I have a 1x1 meter box and suck what ever amount of air I can out of it under your model. I know you say a vacuum can not be achieved, how much do the atoms expand in the box?

I can't see them to know how much they expand. It's about theorising.

Your indoctrinated model is built entirely on assumptions and blatant fictional story telling, so you seriously cannot expect me to tell you how much something expands that cannot be seen, can you?

You say you know what's being said and say it's simple. It should be but you honestly do not grasp it. You think you do but you do not.

You do not even know how pressure is evacuated. You people mention particles just randomly bouncing about and exiting. This shocks me and also makes me laugh at the same time. The naivety is horrendous.

Quote from: Woody on September 17, 2016, 02:22:52 AM

People are questioning it because experimental evidence does not support your hypothesis.

They are not having trouble understanding it.  It is actually a rather simple concept and not hard to grasp.  Basically it is just air pushes down on stuff.  Less dense stuff allows air to pass through resulting in less weight.

Your hypothesis fails to answer questions in a satisfactory manner. 

Here is a question:

I have a 1x1 meter box and suck what ever amount of air I can out of it under your model. I know you say a vacuum can not be achieved, how much do the atoms expand in the box?

I can't see them to know how much they expand. It's about theorising.

Your indoctrinated model is built entirely on assumptions and blatant fictional story telling, so you seriously cannot expect me to tell you how much something expands that cannot be seen, can you?

You say you know what's being said and say it's simple. It should be but you honestly do not grasp it. You think you do but you do not.

You do not even know how pressure is evacuated. You people mention particles just randomly bouncing about and exiting. This shocks me and also makes me laugh at the same time. The naivety is horrendous.

Still waiting for your formula to calculate rate of fall of an object.

Back to square one.

Denpressure is what indoctrinates think of as gravity because they were duped into that.
...

This is how gravity "doesn't exist" LOL





Denpressure is just another failed attempt to avoid "that evil gravity".

I think by now that any rational and sensible person that possesses enough common sense will see just how all this mainstream nonsense is spewed out throughout time and on a daily basis.
Gravity absolutely does not exist. It is made up to cater for the absolute garbage that each and every person is expected to swallow each minute of every day for their entire lives.

Denpressure is the reality of all things happening inside this Earth cell and it caters perfectly well for what we actually do see and perceive with our very own senses.

All the space junk and one hell of a lot of old historical supposed scientists who are pushed upon us as being ahead of their time and knowing all about so called planets and space, plus fictional gravity and silly warped space times and Higgs boson rubbish...etc...etc...etc, is an insult to our intelligence, because it's all nonsense.

I think by now that any rational and sensible person that possesses enough common sense will see just how all this mainstream nonsense is spewed out throughout time and on a daily basis.
Gravity absolutely does not exist. It is made up to cater for the absolute garbage that each and every person is expected to swallow each minute of every day for their entire lives.

Denpressure is the reality of all things happening inside this Earth cell and it caters perfectly well for what we actually do see and perceive with our very own senses.

All the space junk and one hell of a lot of old historical supposed scientists who are pushed upon us as being ahead of their time and knowing all about so called planets and space, plus fictional gravity and silly warped space times and Higgs boson rubbish...etc...etc...etc, is an insult to our intelligence, because it's all nonsense.

Formula for rate of faĺl please.

I think by now that any rational and sensible person that possesses enough common sense will see just how all this mainstream nonsense is spewed out throughout time and on a daily basis.
Gravity absolutely does not exist. It is made up to cater for the absolute garbage that each and every person is expected to swallow each minute of every day for their entire lives.

Denpressure is the reality of all things happening inside this Earth cell and it caters perfectly well for what we actually do see and perceive with our very own senses.

All the space junk and one hell of a lot of old historical supposed scientists who are pushed upon us as being ahead of their time and knowing all about so called planets and space, plus fictional gravity and silly warped space times and Higgs boson rubbish...etc...etc...etc, is an insult to our intelligence, because it's all nonsense.

If denpressure is the reality why do you refuse to test it with experiments?

I think by now that any rational and sensible person that possesses enough common sense will see just how all this mainstream nonsense is spewed out throughout time and on a daily basis.
Gravity absolutely does not exist. It is made up to cater for the absolute garbage that each and every person is expected to swallow each minute of every day for their entire lives.

Denpressure is the reality of all things happening inside this Earth cell and it caters perfectly well for what we actually do see and perceive with our very own senses.

All the space junk and one hell of a lot of old historical supposed scientists who are pushed upon us as being ahead of their time and knowing all about so called planets and space, plus fictional gravity and silly warped space times and Higgs boson rubbish...etc...etc...etc, is an insult to our intelligence, because it's all nonsense.

Awesome. I'm on board. There's just one thing though. I'm going to need some experimental evidence. It's just a technicality to differentiate fact from fiction, you understand.

Just detail some experiments which demonstrate the veracity of your claims and we can consider this matter settled.

I think by now that any rational and sensible person that possesses enough common sense will see just how all this mainstream nonsense is spewed out throughout time and on a daily basis.
Gravity absolutely does not exist. It is made up to cater for the absolute garbage that each and every person is expected to swallow each minute of every day for their entire lives.

Denpressure is the reality of all things happening inside this Earth cell and it caters perfectly well for what we actually do see and perceive with our very own senses.

All the space junk and one hell of a lot of old historical supposed scientists who are pushed upon us as being ahead of their time and knowing all about so called planets and space, plus fictional gravity and silly warped space times and Higgs boson rubbish...etc...etc...etc, is an insult to our intelligence, because it's all nonsense.

Nice blog post, but you lack any supporting data. Not even Jane can understand how the sun is supposed to work in your model. Everything you espouse is unsubstantiated fluff.

I think by now that any rational and sensible person that possesses enough common sense will see just how all this mainstream nonsense is spewed out throughout time and on a daily basis.
Gravity absolutely does not exist. It is made up to cater for the absolute garbage that each and every person is expected to swallow each minute of every day for their entire lives.

Denpressure is the reality of all things happening inside this Earth cell and it caters perfectly well for what we actually do see and perceive with our very own senses.

All the space junk and one hell of a lot of old historical supposed scientists who are pushed upon us as being ahead of their time and knowing all about so called planets and space, plus fictional gravity and silly warped space times and Higgs boson rubbish...etc...etc...etc, is an insult to our intelligence, because it's all nonsense.

Have you seen the links?

What attracts those weights at the ends of beams to the weights on floor?

How "rational" one has to be to deny it.

Dare you to do it yourself.
But bear in mind that anyone else can do it and know if you are telling the truth.

~~~~~

Also, about molecules, I suggest you learn what is
Avogadro's Number,
and Avogadro's Law.

Another thing: molecules always move. Molecular movement is giving temperature to substances.
To make molecules stop moving you need temperature of absolute zero, which is 0 Kelvin, or -273.16 Celsius, or -459.67 Fahrenheit.
Just as absolute vacuum, people got really close to it, but it is for now impossible to reach exactly.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 17, 2016, 05:39:19 AM

I think by now that any rational and sensible person that possesses enough common sense will see just how all this mainstream nonsense is spewed out throughout time and on a daily basis.
Gravity absolutely does not exist. It is made up to cater for the absolute garbage that each and every person is expected to swallow each minute of every day for their entire lives.

Denpressure is the reality of all things happening inside this Earth cell and it caters perfectly well for what we actually do see and perceive with our very own senses.

All the space junk and one hell of a lot of old historical supposed scientists who are pushed upon us as being ahead of their time and knowing all about so called planets and space, plus fictional gravity and silly warped space times and Higgs boson rubbish...etc...etc...etc, is an insult to our intelligence, because it's all nonsense.

Have you seen the links?

What attracts those weights at the ends of beams to the weights on floor?

How "rational" one has to be to deny it.

Dare you to do it yourself.
But bear in mind that anyone else can do it and know if you are telling the truth.

~~~~~

Also, about molecules, I suggest you learn what is
Avogadro's Number,
and Avogadro's Law.

Another thing: molecules always move. Molecular movement is giving temperature to substances.
To make molecules stop moving you need temperature of absolute zero, which is 0 Kelvin, or -273.16 Celsius, or -459.67 Fahrenheit.
Just as absolute vacuum, people got really close to it, but it is for now impossible to reach exactly.

Absolute zero is hard to reach. It's hard to reach because it's just another made up number that adds to the rest of the bullshit we are fed.

Also your molecular movement giving temperature to substances is also bullshit in how it's said to work.
Random atoms just bouncing about is crap.
I've told you about molecules and your atoms etc, all being attached with absolutely no  space between, yet you people still hang onto space between matter which would constitute a vacuum and yet you know fine well a vacuum cannot be created inside this cell.

Gravity is a very real phenomenon, rather it be from mass or some other force. Just one very simple example, if gravity were "fake" every sky scraper on the planet would collapse or topple over. So this phenomenon can not be called fake....it is very real despite the actual cause.

Same for a vacuum....they are very real. You also don't have to be a PhD in anything to attest to this fact.

Gravity is a very real phenomenon, rather it be from mass or some other force. Just one very simple example, if gravity were "fake" every sky scraper on the planet would collapse or topple over. So this phenomenon can not be called fake....it is very real despite the actual cause.

Same for a vacuum....they are very real. You also don't have to be a PhD in anything to attest to this fact.

Someone told you that a skyscraper would fall over if not for gravity and you naively swallowed it like you have with everything in your global mind.

Skyscrapers don't usually topple over because they are build on solid FLAT ground and are built of strong structures at the base that is all clamped by atmospheric pressure the more the structure pushes into it.

No gravity involved, so no bullshit needed by you or anyone else.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 18, 2016, 12:50:22 AM

Gravity is a very real phenomenon, rather it be from mass or some other force. Just one very simple example, if gravity were "fake" every sky scraper on the planet would collapse or topple over. So this phenomenon can not be called fake....it is very real despite the actual cause.

Same for a vacuum....they are very real. You also don't have to be a PhD in anything to attest to this fact.

Someone told you that a skyscraper would fall over if not for gravity and you naively swallowed it like you have with everything in your global mind.

Skyscrapers don't usually topple over because they are build on solid FLAT ground and are built of strong structures at the base that is all clamped by atmospheric pressure the more the structure pushes into it.

No gravity involved, so no bullshit needed by you or anyone else.

This shows how misinformed or willingly ignorant you are.

I didn't even say what caused "gravity" I was speaking of the effect, I left that open in the air. If you deny the measured "effect" of gravity I suppose there is no hope for you. This can be measured in 100s of thousands of examples, from the basic kindergarten level to the multiple doctorate level. The measured effect, is about as close to an absolute fact as possible, again I am not speaking in terms of what causes this effect, just speaking of the effect itself.

As for "gravity" having no place in the success of a sky scraper, this again shows your lack of understanding of even some basic principles. Sure, I am not a structural engineer, however, the first few years of mechanical engineering has a lot of broad "engineering" aspects involved as many people change course early on before committing to a major.

Distribution of mass in the core, compression, and upper load CG is vital to the surviving of a tower. Some towers even have sliding blocks that covers a floor or two that slides to needed areas for the buildings CG. Without these absolute, 100 percent mandatory aspects, we would not be able to achieve past 5-7 floors without collapse.

Since you enjoy metaphors, view it as a giant bowie "floating" in the dirt. I have dealt with the strongest metals known to man, and none is even remotely strong enough to hold even a 20th of a sky scraper together with out the aspects I mentioned above.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 18, 2016, 01:09:28 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 18, 2016, 12:50:22 AM

Gravity is a very real phenomenon, rather it be from mass or some other force. Just one very simple example, if gravity were "fake" every sky scraper on the planet would collapse or topple over. So this phenomenon can not be called fake....it is very real despite the actual cause.

Same for a vacuum....they are very real. You also don't have to be a PhD in anything to attest to this fact.

Someone told you that a skyscraper would fall over if not for gravity and you naively swallowed it like you have with everything in your global mind.

Skyscrapers don't usually topple over because they are build on solid FLAT ground and are built of strong structures at the base that is all clamped by atmospheric pressure the more the structure pushes into it.

No gravity involved, so no bullshit needed by you or anyone else.

This shows how misinformed or willingly ignorant you are.

I didn't even say what caused "gravity" I was speaking of the effect, I left that open in the air. If you deny the measured "effect" of gravity I suppose there is no hope for you. This can be measured in 100s of thousands of examples, from the basic kindergarten level to the multiple doctorate level. The measured effect, is about as close to an absolute fact as possible, again I am not speaking in terms of what causes this effect, just speaking of the effect itself.

As for "gravity" having no place in the success of a sky scraper, this again shows your lack of understanding of even some basic principles. Sure, I am not a structural engineer, however, the first few years of mechanical engineering has a lot of broad "engineering" aspects involved as many people change course early on before committing to a major.

Distribution of mass in the core, compression, and upper load CG is vital to the surviving of a tower. Some towers even have sliding blocks that covers a floor or two that slides to needed areas for the buildings CG. Without these absolute, 100 percent mandatory aspects, we would not be able to achieve past 5-7 floors without collapse.

Since you enjoy metaphors, view it as a giant bowie "floating" in the dirt. I have dealt with the strongest metals known to man, and none is even remotely strong enough to hold even a 20th of a sky scraper together with out the aspects I mentioned above.

Ok let's go right down to the basics seeing as you supposedly know what's going on.

Tell me how they use gravity . Tell me how they measure for these buildings that use plain as day gravity measurements.

Ok let's go right down to the basics seeing as you supposedly know what's going on.

Tell me how they use gravity . Tell me how they measure for these buildings that use plain as day gravity measurements.

As I keep saying, I am only using the term "gravity" as a way of explaining an effect. Just like the wind, say I don't believe anything about molecules, fronts, etc etc. There is one they I can say for a fact...when I am on my motorcycle going triple digits, I am faced with resistance from some force at these speeds. This is a empirical fact, so I could still call this effect "wind" without agreeing with any theory of its cause.

This is the same I am saying about "gravity", maybe it is caused by mass of a planet warping space time, maybe by aether, maybe by denspresure, maybe by a swarm of flatulating invisible fairies. That does not change the fact it is a proven effect, just like consciousness is a proven outcome, even though it cannot be proven where it comes from, and implies our brain's total outcome is more than the sum of its parts.

I also am confused on how you cannot see the roll "gravity" plays in such things my post above spoke about, nor the Bowie metaphor.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 18, 2016, 02:54:17 AM

Ok let's go right down to the basics seeing as you supposedly know what's going on.

Tell me how they use gravity . Tell me how they measure for these buildings that use plain as day gravity measurements.

As I keep saying, I am only using the term "gravity" as a way of explaining an effect. Just like the wind, say I don't believe anything about molecules, fronts, etc etc. There is one they I can say for a fact...when I am on my motorcycle going triple digits, I am faced with resistance from some force at these speeds. This is a empirical fact, so I could still call this effect "wind" without agreeing with any theory of its cause.

This is the same I am saying about "gravity", maybe it is caused by mass of a planet warping space time, maybe by aether, maybe by denspresure, maybe by a swarm of flatulating invisible fairies. That does not change the fact it is a proven effect, just like consciousness is a proven outcome, even though it cannot be proven where it comes from, and implies our brain's total outcome is more than the sum of its parts.

I also am confused on how you cannot see the roll "gravity" plays in such things my post above spoke about, nor the Bowie metaphor.

You're just the same as the people peddling this crap. You're telling me about this gravity and you do not have a clue how it it measured for someone to actually see it is what it is.
You say you feel the wind in your face and it could be something like any of the things. Of course. You can measure this with pressure gauges. Denpressure is an exact reason. Gravity is bullshit and you cannot explain it. You cannot even tell me how it's measured.

You're no different to the rest that try and peddle garbage.

You say you feel the wind in your face and it could be something like any of the things. Of course. You can measure this with pressure gauges. Denpressure is an exact reason. Gravity is bullshit and you cannot explain it. You cannot even tell me how it's measured.

How exactly do you measure denpressure?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 18, 2016, 03:25:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 18, 2016, 02:54:17 AM

Ok let's go right down to the basics seeing as you supposedly know what's going on.

Tell me how they use gravity . Tell me how they measure for these buildings that use plain as day gravity measurements.

As I keep saying, I am only using the term "gravity" as a way of explaining an effect. Just like the wind, say I don't believe anything about molecules, fronts, etc etc. There is one they I can say for a fact...when I am on my motorcycle going triple digits, I am faced with resistance from some force at these speeds. This is a empirical fact, so I could still call this effect "wind" without agreeing with any theory of its cause.

This is the same I am saying about "gravity", maybe it is caused by mass of a planet warping space time, maybe by aether, maybe by denspresure, maybe by a swarm of flatulating invisible fairies. That does not change the fact it is a proven effect, just like consciousness is a proven outcome, even though it cannot be proven where it comes from, and implies our brain's total outcome is more than the sum of its parts.

I also am confused on how you cannot see the roll "gravity" plays in such things my post above spoke about, nor the Bowie metaphor.

You're just the same as the people peddling this crap. You're telling me about this gravity and you do not have a clue how it it measured for someone to actually see it is what it is.
You say you feel the wind in your face and it could be something like any of the things. Of course. You can measure this with pressure gauges. Denpressure is an exact reason. Gravity is bullshit and you cannot explain it. You cannot even tell me how it's measured.

You're no different to the rest that try and peddle garbage.

What causes gravimeters to measure differences of the gravity field depending on the subsurface materials?

Gravity meters are reliably used in searching for mineral deposits and used by companies looking to exploit those resources.

Under your model the differences would likely result from differing air pressure.  With the gravity model it is based on the amount of mass nearby.

You're just the same as the people peddling this crap. You're telling me about this gravity and you do not have a clue how it it measured for someone to actually see it is what it is.
You say you feel the wind in your face and it could be something like any of the things. Of course. You can measure this with pressure gauges. Denpressure is an exact reason. Gravity is bullshit and you cannot explain it. You cannot even tell me how it's measured.

You're no different to the rest that try and peddle garbage.

Ok, please explain how your denpressure knows which way is down when it's isolated from the rest of the atmosphere. For example a sealed bottle or a spirit level.
Tip any one of those and the bubble is always uppermost.