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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 824120 Views
?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1920 on: September 19, 2016, 01:48:23 AM »
So what are you trying to get at?
What are you trying to scupper?
I've just explained why the metals are not stuck together or blended but you seem to want to deviate away from what you professed to have learned earlier.
I'm trying to understand why we can press two metals together, and they won't start binding under your model. If we somehow managed to clean out the air between two pieces of metal, then they should stick, right (Assuming i have understood how solids work in your model)? Then why don't we observe this happening? It's a basic question about how we can have different objects, why not everything is stuck together as a single object. I am not deviating away, I am applying that knowledge. If you think I am applying it wrong, then maybe you didn't explain to me well enough, or maybe missed something.
Ok, observe what I say.
Let's clean out the air between the metals. How do we do this?
We expand the air. How?....We heat it up by friction. The more friction the more the expansion of the metal make up happens which pushes the air/gases out of the sandwiched metal and fuses them.
Now the metals are bonded but will still have trapped atmosphere within. How do we know this?
We know this because the metal expands and contracts and can only do this if it has atmosphere trapped within.

Let me know if you grasp it.
Yes, I have grasped that since you answered my first question on this topic. That is not what I was talking about.
Now, observe what I say.

Let's push the air out of the way by pushing the metals together, instead of heating them up. Now, why wouldn't they bond?

Notice that I am no longer asking how to fuse metals. I am asking why a particular way that should work according to your model, does not work.
You're either trying to wind me up or you have some kind of syndrome. Aspergers?
Okay, stop being so rude now. We are having a discussion, right? So please answer my question. If your model has any answers to it, just present them. I'd like to know.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Globetrotter

  • 181
  • +0/-0
  • Open-minded: receptive to arguments or ideas
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1921 on: September 19, 2016, 02:21:24 AM »
I'm curious, why do you, visitors on this forum, don't use available references, only try to explain problems on your own. There is lot of info on above subject.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=why%20two%20smooth%20surfaces%20stick%20together
"If you insist it is a spinning globe, then why are you here?" - Simple. To counter the misinformation you are spreading to uneducated, and gullible people. It is the duty of every thinking person to oppose those who would spread lies.

*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1922 on: September 19, 2016, 02:23:18 AM »
So what are you trying to get at?
What are you trying to scupper?
I've just explained why the metals are not stuck together or blended but you seem to want to deviate away from what you professed to have learned earlier.
I'm trying to understand why we can press two metals together, and they won't start binding under your model. If we somehow managed to clean out the air between two pieces of metal, then they should stick, right (Assuming i have understood how solids work in your model)? Then why don't we observe this happening? It's a basic question about how we can have different objects, why not everything is stuck together as a single object. I am not deviating away, I am applying that knowledge. If you think I am applying it wrong, then maybe you didn't explain to me well enough, or maybe missed something.
Ok, observe what I say.
Let's clean out the air between the metals. How do we do this?
We expand the air. How?....We heat it up by friction. The more friction the more the expansion of the metal make up happens which pushes the air/gases out of the sandwiched metal and fuses them.
Now the metals are bonded but will still have trapped atmosphere within. How do we know this?
We know this because the metal expands and contracts and can only do this if it has atmosphere trapped within.

Let me know if you grasp it.
Yes, I have grasped that since you answered my first question on this topic. That is not what I was talking about.
Now, observe what I say.

Let's push the air out of the way by pushing the metals together, instead of heating them up. Now, why wouldn't they bond?

Notice that I am no longer asking how to fuse metals. I am asking why a particular way that should work according to your model, does not work.
You're either trying to wind me up or you have some kind of syndrome. Aspergers?
Okay, stop being so rude now. We are having a discussion, right? So please answer my question. If your model has any answers to it, just present them. I'd like to know.

Master_Evar,   Sceptimatic has no answers for you or anybody else.    You should know also he is an expert at wasting your time.    There is no explaining it.  It is just what is.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1923 on: September 19, 2016, 02:28:43 AM »
So what are you trying to get at?
What are you trying to scupper?
I've just explained why the metals are not stuck together or blended but you seem to want to deviate away from what you professed to have learned earlier.
I'm trying to understand why we can press two metals together, and they won't start binding under your model. If we somehow managed to clean out the air between two pieces of metal, then they should stick, right (Assuming i have understood how solids work in your model)? Then why don't we observe this happening? It's a basic question about how we can have different objects, why not everything is stuck together as a single object. I am not deviating away, I am applying that knowledge. If you think I am applying it wrong, then maybe you didn't explain to me well enough, or maybe missed something.
Ok, observe what I say.
Let's clean out the air between the metals. How do we do this?
We expand the air. How?....We heat it up by friction. The more friction the more the expansion of the metal make up happens which pushes the air/gases out of the sandwiched metal and fuses them.
Now the metals are bonded but will still have trapped atmosphere within. How do we know this?
We know this because the metal expands and contracts and can only do this if it has atmosphere trapped within.

Let me know if you grasp it.
Yes, I have grasped that since you answered my first question on this topic. That is not what I was talking about.
Now, observe what I say.

Let's push the air out of the way by pushing the metals together, instead of heating them up. Now, why wouldn't they bond?

Notice that I am no longer asking how to fuse metals. I am asking why a particular way that should work according to your model, does not work.
You're either trying to wind me up or you have some kind of syndrome. Aspergers?
Okay, stop being so rude now. We are having a discussion, right? So please answer my question. If your model has any answers to it, just present them. I'd like to know.
I answered.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1924 on: September 19, 2016, 02:31:15 AM »
So what are you trying to get at?
What are you trying to scupper?
I've just explained why the metals are not stuck together or blended but you seem to want to deviate away from what you professed to have learned earlier.
I'm trying to understand why we can press two metals together, and they won't start binding under your model. If we somehow managed to clean out the air between two pieces of metal, then they should stick, right (Assuming i have understood how solids work in your model)? Then why don't we observe this happening? It's a basic question about how we can have different objects, why not everything is stuck together as a single object. I am not deviating away, I am applying that knowledge. If you think I am applying it wrong, then maybe you didn't explain to me well enough, or maybe missed something.
Ok, observe what I say.
Let's clean out the air between the metals. How do we do this?
We expand the air. How?....We heat it up by friction. The more friction the more the expansion of the metal make up happens which pushes the air/gases out of the sandwiched metal and fuses them.
Now the metals are bonded but will still have trapped atmosphere within. How do we know this?
We know this because the metal expands and contracts and can only do this if it has atmosphere trapped within.

Let me know if you grasp it.
Yes, I have grasped that since you answered my first question on this topic. That is not what I was talking about.
Now, observe what I say.

Let's push the air out of the way by pushing the metals together, instead of heating them up. Now, why wouldn't they bond?

Notice that I am no longer asking how to fuse metals. I am asking why a particular way that should work according to your model, does not work.
You're either trying to wind me up or you have some kind of syndrome. Aspergers?
Okay, stop being so rude now. We are having a discussion, right? So please answer my question. If your model has any answers to it, just present them. I'd like to know.

Master_Evar,   Sceptimatic has no answers for you or anybody else.    You should know also he is an expert at wasting your time.    There is no explaining it.  It is just what is.
You can only waste your own time. I can't waste it for you, unless you want it that way.
You waste your own time by your stubborn refusal to even try to understand alternate theories to the one that was brainwashed into you.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1925 on: September 19, 2016, 02:37:45 AM »
I answered.
If you are so sure you have answered my question, then please cite your answer and I'll read through it thoroughly again, and ask you if I don't understand. Remember, my question is why metals don't fuse when you press them together to the point where their surfaces are in contact.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1926 on: September 19, 2016, 02:47:47 AM »
I answered.
If you are so sure you have answered my question, then please cite your answer and I'll read through it thoroughly again, and ask you if I don't understand. Remember, my question is why metals don't fuse when you press them together to the point where their surfaces are in contact.
They do fuse together if you compress  them hard enough.
However, in the context in which you appear to be putting it in, it appears that you are asking the question of just resting one block of metal onto another.
And like I explained before, you have gas/air/atmospheric molecules between the dense materials which can only weld by friction.
This can be done by hot or cold welding.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1927 on: September 19, 2016, 02:54:44 AM »
I answered.
If you are so sure you have answered my question, then please cite your answer and I'll read through it thoroughly again, and ask you if I don't understand. Remember, my question is why metals don't fuse when you press them together to the point where their surfaces are in contact.
They do fuse together if you compress  them hard enough.
However, in the context in which you appear to be putting it in, it appears that you are asking the question of just resting one block of metal onto another.
And like I explained before, you have gas/air/atmospheric molecules between the dense materials which can only weld by friction.
This can be done by hot or cold welding.
Okay, but cold welding requires such great pressure that the metal surfaces are actually "split" open and pressed out to the sides, so that the insides of both metals can stick together. You don't need that much pressure to press only the air out the sides. So why can't cold welding happen at lower pressures?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1928 on: September 19, 2016, 02:59:01 AM »
I answered.
If you are so sure you have answered my question, then please cite your answer and I'll read through it thoroughly again, and ask you if I don't understand. Remember, my question is why metals don't fuse when you press them together to the point where their surfaces are in contact.
They do fuse together if you compress  them hard enough.
However, in the context in which you appear to be putting it in, it appears that you are asking the question of just resting one block of metal onto another.
And like I explained before, you have gas/air/atmospheric molecules between the dense materials which can only weld by friction.
This can be done by hot or cold welding.
Okay, but cold welding requires such great pressure that the metal surfaces are actually "split" open and pressed out to the sides, so that the insides of both metals can stick together. You don't need that much pressure to press only the air out the sides. So why can't cold welding happen at lower pressures?
Cold welding does happen at low pressures.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1929 on: September 19, 2016, 03:05:08 AM »
I answered.
If you are so sure you have answered my question, then please cite your answer and I'll read through it thoroughly again, and ask you if I don't understand. Remember, my question is why metals don't fuse when you press them together to the point where their surfaces are in contact.
They do fuse together if you compress  them hard enough.
However, in the context in which you appear to be putting it in, it appears that you are asking the question of just resting one block of metal onto another.
And like I explained before, you have gas/air/atmospheric molecules between the dense materials which can only weld by friction.
This can be done by hot or cold welding.
Okay, but cold welding requires such great pressure that the metal surfaces are actually "split" open and pressed out to the sides, so that the insides of both metals can stick together. You don't need that much pressure to press only the air out the sides. So why can't cold welding happen at lower pressures?
Cold welding does happen at low pressures.
Really? So I can press two metals together with my hands and they'll weld? Or stand on two blocks of metal? Or put a car on two blocks of metal? And they'll weld before the metal surfaces are pressed out the sides?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1930 on: September 19, 2016, 03:08:18 AM »
I answered.
If you are so sure you have answered my question, then please cite your answer and I'll read through it thoroughly again, and ask you if I don't understand. Remember, my question is why metals don't fuse when you press them together to the point where their surfaces are in contact.
They do fuse together if you compress  them hard enough.
However, in the context in which you appear to be putting it in, it appears that you are asking the question of just resting one block of metal onto another.
And like I explained before, you have gas/air/atmospheric molecules between the dense materials which can only weld by friction.
This can be done by hot or cold welding.
Okay, but cold welding requires such great pressure that the metal surfaces are actually "split" open and pressed out to the sides, so that the insides of both metals can stick together. You don't need that much pressure to press only the air out the sides. So why can't cold welding happen at lower pressures?
Cold welding does happen at low pressures.
Really? So I can press two metals together with my hands and they'll weld? Or stand on two blocks of metal? Or put a car on two blocks of metal? And they'll weld before the metal surfaces are pressed out the sides?
I gave you a chance and a fair chance at that. You choose to try to take the piss or you really do have Aspergers syndrome. It's hard to tell which but regardless, don't bother with me from this point on because I'm not wasting another second on you.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1931 on: September 19, 2016, 03:16:00 AM »
Really? So I can press two metals together with my hands and they'll weld? Or stand on two blocks of metal? Or put a car on two blocks of metal? And they'll weld before the metal surfaces are pressed out the sides?
I gave you a chance and a fair chance at that. You choose to try to take the piss or you really do have Aspergers syndrome. It's hard to tell which but regardless, don't bother with me from this point on because I'm not wasting another second on you.
You claimed that cold welding happens at low pressures. I'm asking you if cold welding happens in these low-pressure situations. Of course, "low" is subjective. But then, this can serve as a way to settle what we mean by low. What I mean by low pressures are the pressures you get in these situations.

As I said, I want to understand your model. But if your model directly contradicts reality, there is just no way I can accept it, no matter how well it explains other situations.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1932 on: September 19, 2016, 03:31:10 AM »
Really? So I can press two metals together with my hands and they'll weld? Or stand on two blocks of metal? Or put a car on two blocks of metal? And they'll weld before the metal surfaces are pressed out the sides?
I gave you a chance and a fair chance at that. You choose to try to take the piss or you really do have Aspergers syndrome. It's hard to tell which but regardless, don't bother with me from this point on because I'm not wasting another second on you.
You claimed that cold welding happens at low pressures. I'm asking you if cold welding happens in these low-pressure situations. Of course, "low" is subjective. But then, this can serve as a way to settle what we mean by low. What I mean by low pressures are the pressures you get in these situations.

As I said, I want to understand your model. But if your model directly contradicts reality, there is just no way I can accept it, no matter how well it explains other situations.
If you seriously want to understand my model then you need to go right back to square one because all you're doing here is muddying the waters, badly.
You're fishing for answers for something you are not sure about.

Learn the extreme basics of my theory before you go too far out of your depth.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1933 on: September 19, 2016, 04:12:31 AM »
Really? So I can press two metals together with my hands and they'll weld? Or stand on two blocks of metal? Or put a car on two blocks of metal? And they'll weld before the metal surfaces are pressed out the sides?
I gave you a chance and a fair chance at that. You choose to try to take the piss or you really do have Aspergers syndrome. It's hard to tell which but regardless, don't bother with me from this point on because I'm not wasting another second on you.
You claimed that cold welding happens at low pressures. I'm asking you if cold welding happens in these low-pressure situations. Of course, "low" is subjective. But then, this can serve as a way to settle what we mean by low. What I mean by low pressures are the pressures you get in these situations.

As I said, I want to understand your model. But if your model directly contradicts reality, there is just no way I can accept it, no matter how well it explains other situations.
If you seriously want to understand my model then you need to go right back to square one because all you're doing here is muddying the waters, badly.
You're fishing for answers for something you are not sure about.

Learn the extreme basics of my theory before you go too far out of your depth.
I am learning the extreme basics right now, that's why I am asking these questions. If I didn't ask them, and you didn't answer them, how would I learn anything?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45133
  • +92/-135
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1934 on: September 19, 2016, 05:38:41 AM »
First of all, weight is just a man made name for the measurement of atmospheric pressure resisting any dense object PUSHED within it.
No.  Weight is the force that a mass pushes down with due to gravity or acceleration.  Please do not redefine words that already have well established definitions.

As for your gravity measurement. I've been told time and time again that buildings and bridges etc, can't be built unless engineers and what not use gravity calculations.
Engineers use gravity in their calculations.  To be a little more precise, engineers use gravity to calculate the weight loads of structures.

I'm pretty sure they don't test materials out inside so called vacuum chambers...
I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at.  Why would engineers test materials inside a vacuum chamber if it isn't designed to work in a vacuum?

...so seeing as you appear to know everything about everything, how about you explain what they physically use to calculate these building structure strengths with.
First of all, I never claimed to know everything about everything.  However, I have taken enough physics and technical mechanics courses to have a vague idea of what I'm talking about.

Physically calculate?  I'm not sure, but that sounds like a contradiction in terms.  Materials engineers have various ways of testing various properties of materials, including strength and density.  Engineers will use the density and volume of a material, along with the average value of 9.8 m/s2, to calculate the weight of a structure.

I've heard of a gravimeter, so explain the physical use of it in an engineers hand. Over to you or anyone else that can answer without doing a massive side-step.
Well, I suppose that depends on what sort of engineer you're talking about.  A gravimeter is a fairly specific tool that not many engineers would actually use.  However, fields like natural resource surveyors have been known to use gravimeters to map the variations in density below the earth's surface to look for various things like oil and gas.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 05:40:55 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1935 on: September 19, 2016, 06:31:03 AM »

No.  Weight is the force that a mass pushes down with due to gravity or acceleration.  Please do not redefine words that already have well established definitions.
No, weight is not a force. Weight is a man made measurement for the force of atmospheric pressure upon any dense matter.
Weight does not exist unless you can scale measure dense mass resisting atmospheric pressure.


Engineers use gravity in their calculations.  To be a little more precise, engineers use gravity to calculate the weight loads of structures.
So tell me how they manage this. What do they actually use as a tool do do this?


I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at.  Why would engineers test materials inside a vacuum chamber if it isn't designed to work in a vacuum?
I don't know. I keep getting told that all this gravity crap is tested inside a vacuum, so you tell me.

First of all, I never claimed to know everything about everything.  However, I have taken enough physics and technical mechanics courses to have a vague idea of what I'm talking about.
It appears that you seem to think you do because you enter into any and every topic no matter what. You're either a natural worldly super genius or you simply look up whatever you feel you want to argue.
Which is it?

Physically calculate?  I'm not sure, but that sounds like a contradiction in terms.  Materials engineers have various ways of testing various properties of materials, including strength and density.  Engineers will use the density and volume of a material, along with the average value of 9.8 m/s2, to calculate the weight of a structure.

How exactly do they achieve this. They must use a tool/s, so what and how do they do this?


Well, I suppose that depends on what sort of engineer you're talking about.  A gravimeter is a fairly specific tool that not many engineers would actually use.
A fairly specific tool? It's a gravimeter that apparently engineers use for buildings and bridges and such, isn't it?
So tell me how it works.
Let's say Joe Bloggs is about to build a sky scraper. He arrives on site and starts his test for gravity forces. Tell me from this point what happens?
If you can't then can any of your global friends?

  However, fields like natural resource surveyors have been known to use gravimeters to map the variations in density below the earth's surface to look for various things like oil and gas.
Well we'll leave this bit for now. Let's concentrate on above ground where we can all see what's going on....hopefully.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1936 on: September 19, 2016, 06:53:48 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1937 on: September 19, 2016, 06:56:48 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
Yes, do you?

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1938 on: September 19, 2016, 07:08:21 AM »

Weight does not exist unless you can scale measure dense mass resisting atmospheric pressure.

You are descending into gibberish.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1939 on: September 19, 2016, 07:10:44 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
Yes, do you?
Please explain.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1940 on: September 19, 2016, 07:12:00 AM »

Weight does not exist unless you can scale measure dense mass resisting atmospheric pressure.

You are descending into gibberish.
No, I'm descending into truth. What you people believe, is gibberish but you accept it because you accept all things global and universal. That's gibberish.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1941 on: September 19, 2016, 07:14:07 AM »

Weight does not exist unless you can scale measure dense mass resisting atmospheric pressure.

You are descending into gibberish.
No, I'm descending into truth. What you people believe, is gibberish but you accept it because you accept all things global and universal. That's gibberish.
Those words do not make sense, please explain.

We still need your formula for calculating the rate of fall of an object not involving g.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1942 on: September 19, 2016, 07:28:57 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
Yes, do you?
Yes. I can see a column of mercury change day to day. My scales do not change day to day.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45133
  • +92/-135
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1943 on: September 19, 2016, 07:36:51 AM »

No.  Weight is the force that a mass pushes down with due to gravity or acceleration.  Please do not redefine words that already have well established definitions.
No, weight is not a force. Weight is a man made measurement for the force of atmospheric pressure upon any dense matter.
Weight does not exist unless you can scale measure dense mass resisting atmospheric pressure.
If that was true, then weight would change with changes in atmospheric pressure.  Would you care to show us an example of an object's weight changing with a change in atmospheric pressure?


Engineers use gravity in their calculations.  To be a little more precise, engineers use gravity to calculate the weight loads of structures.
So tell me how they manage this. What do they actually use as a tool do do this?
For most calculations, they use the generally accepted value of 9.8 m/s2.  Why measure something that has already been measured countless times before?

I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at.  Why would engineers test materials inside a vacuum chamber if it isn't designed to work in a vacuum?
I don't know. I keep getting told that all this gravity crap is tested inside a vacuum, so you tell me.
Still not sure what you're getting at.  Some gravimeters will time how long it takes for an object to fall in a vacuum.  Is that what you're talking about?

First of all, I never claimed to know everything about everything.  However, I have taken enough physics and technical mechanics courses to have a vague idea of what I'm talking about.
It appears that you seem to think you do because you enter into any and every topic no matter what. You're either a natural worldly super genius or you simply look up whatever you feel you want to argue.
Which is it?
First of all, no, I don't go into "any and every topic no matter what".  I've gotten much more selective as to which discussions I get into.

Secondly, what's wrong with looking stuff up on the internet?  Sharing information is pretty much the reason that the internet was invented.  Don't forget that the world wide web was invented by a computer engineer at CERN in order to share their data.

And yes, I do believe that there is nothing like good argument once in a while.  Sadly, this thread is nothing like a good argument.

Physically calculate?  I'm not sure, but that sounds like a contradiction in terms.  Materials engineers have various ways of testing various properties of materials, including strength and density.  Engineers will use the density and volume of a material, along with the average value of 9.8 m/s2, to calculate the weight of a structure.

How exactly do they achieve this. They must use a tool/s, so what and how do they do this?
How does anyone measure anything?  I would think that the primary tools would be a pencil and paper.  Or, more likely, a decent CAD program used in designing every component of the structure.

Well, I suppose that depends on what sort of engineer you're talking about.  A gravimeter is a fairly specific tool that not many engineers would actually use.
A fairly specific tool? It's a gravimeter that apparently engineers use for buildings and bridges and such, isn't it?
So tell me how it works.
Let's say Joe Bloggs is about to build a sky scraper. He arrives on site and starts his test for gravity forces. Tell me from this point what happens?
If you can't then can any of your global friends?
Joe Bloggs doesn't need to go on site to test for gravity forces to build his skyscraper.  He just uses the already established value of 9.8 m/s2, which has not been shown to vary significantly anywhere around the world.

  However, fields like natural resource surveyors have been known to use gravimeters to map the variations in density below the earth's surface to look for various things like oil and gas.
Well we'll leave this bit for now. Let's concentrate on above ground where we can all see what's going on....hopefully.
Why?  Being able to use gravity to help find valuable natural resources deep underground sounds quite handy to me.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1944 on: September 19, 2016, 08:17:54 AM »
You waste your own time by your stubborn refusal to even try to understand alternate theories to the one that was brainwashed into you.

Nobody brainwashed me.  A large amount of US oil was found in the 1920's and 30's using horizontal gravity meters.  Currently the most advanced gravity testing in the world is using horizontal gravity measurements.

Obviously atmospheric pressure cannot create a downwards force, the idea is totally silly.

You ideas are so obviously wrong,  I am assuming you have a history of severe mental illness and quite possibly you do all of your typing inside a secure unit, or alternately you are a particulary tenacious troll.    You being a troll makes more sense because you avoid any form of testing of your idea.   Then again who knows?   Whatever you are doing it is insane one way or another.




*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1945 on: September 19, 2016, 08:30:19 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
Yes, do you?
Yes. I can see a column of mercury change day to day. My scales do not change day to day.
Ask yourself why they don't appear to.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1946 on: September 19, 2016, 08:35:31 AM »
You waste your own time by your stubborn refusal to even try to understand alternate theories to the one that was brainwashed into you.

Nobody brainwashed me.  A large amount of US oil was found in the 1920's and 30's using horizontal gravity meters.  Currently the most advanced gravity testing in the world is using horizontal gravity measurements.

Obviously atmospheric pressure cannot create a downwards force, the idea is totally silly.

You ideas are so obviously wrong,  I am assuming you have a history of severe mental illness and quite possibly you do all of your typing inside a secure unit, or alternately you are a particulary tenacious troll.    You being a troll makes more sense because you avoid any form of testing of your idea.   Then again who knows?   Whatever you are doing it is insane one way or another.
Sounds like you're going into frenzy mode. What's wrong?
When things start to get real, people like you start to get, ODD.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1947 on: September 19, 2016, 08:43:38 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
Yes, do you?
Yes. I can see a column of mercury change day to day. My scales do not change day to day.
Ask yourself why they don't appear to.
Because gravity didn't change.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1948 on: September 19, 2016, 08:55:41 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
Yes, do you?
Yes. I can see a column of mercury change day to day. My scales do not change day to day.
Ask yourself why they don't appear to.
Because Jesus loves us?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1949 on: September 19, 2016, 08:56:25 AM »
Strange, none of my scales pick up atmospheric pressure. Do you know the difference between a scale and a barometer?
Yes, do you?
Yes. I can see a column of mercury change day to day. My scales do not change day to day.
Ask yourself why they don't appear to.
Because gravity didn't change.
Bad guess. Try again.