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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 101820 Views
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3390 on: January 23, 2019, 03:27:27 AM »
I agree with a lot you say, but I'm wondering if we also can come up against some of these problems in 'accepted' scientific views?  Take gravity for example, in a simple form one can describe it as an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  But as far as I know (admitting I am not up on much of the latest theoretical physics research), we still don't know why this occurs, and the current answer as to why two masses attract also boils down to "because they do". (someone please correct me if I am wrong here)
The fundamental difference is that gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature. Asking why objects attract one another is akin to asking why objects have mass in the first place, or like asking why charges interact. Ultimately you get to a point where there is simply no answer, this is because no matter how deep you go, you can always question it.
With the current model of warping space time, the question then becomes why does mass warp space time?

His stacking molecules is not a fundamental force. It is akin to saying things fall because they do.
The question then becomes if we accept this additional layer of complexity, i.e. do we accept things just fall because they do, or do we accept gravity (or something else) to explain why they fall? The primary factor for deciding that is if it can explain other things, which gravity can.

Even if he was to present it as a fundamental force there is the question of why the directionality?
All the forces of physics that we know of have no innate directionality. The only thing coming close to that is if like charges attract or repel.
The directionality from gravity comes from the direction to the object.
With lots of FE things (and his denpressure is no exception) there is no apparent justification for any directionality.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3391 on: January 23, 2019, 04:28:44 AM »
Agreed, the default position seems to be that if we can't understand it's b/c we are clouded by indoctrination. And I get that when a lot is a response to the hypothesis that "It doesn't work like that." So be it. But if one is to propose an entirely new system of physics, the responses are to be expected. And then one convicted to presenting this new set has to back them up.

The issue here I have is there is no 'backing up'. Just thought experiments, cool in their own right. But at the end of the day, resulting in, "Because I said so." No demonstration, no math, no nothing other than "it just works this way". Which I don't think holds up to any basic litmus test of science. It's a 'belief' system. Which is fine. How can one argue about that. But it's not science, it's belief.

So that is pretty much that. IMO, denpressure is a belief system, nothing more, nothing less. Until there is demonstration, math or some other seemingly agnostic scientific representation of the hypothesis, I don't see how 'denpressure' is any more suited to explaining why things fall down than someone saying, "because they do."

Hi Stash,

I agree with a lot you say, but I'm wondering if we also can come up against some of these problems in 'accepted' scientific views?  Take gravity for example, in a simple form one can describe it as an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  But as far as I know (admitting I am not up on much of the latest theoretical physics research), we still don't know why this occurs, and the current answer as to why two masses attract also boils down to "because they do". (someone please correct me if I am wrong here)

Is it worth asking and trying to understand why we can accept this type of rationale in one conceptual model of reality, and not in another?  Can one make a scientific model using arbitrary axioms, and what's our criteria for differentiating between a belief system and a scientific model, when both try to explain conceptually some observed phenomena?

Ha yes
Thats why i dont need to use gravity and instead switched to "predictable fall rate".
But in scpeits case his model is not matching reality amd measured results.
We know pressure is not directional the way he claims.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3392 on: January 23, 2019, 08:21:57 AM »
My model perfectly matches reality.
The only difference between my theory and the one we are all indoctrinated into is in the way reality has been swerved by usage of fictional forces in order to ensure space and a rotating globe, plus planets, etc are added into the fiction.

The reality of denpressure caters for everything we see as a reality. It requires no fictional forces.
The funniest part is in the massive attempts to scupper denpressure and its explanations in favour of something that people do not have the first clue about, except to follow a narrative.

Add in the rest of the mainstream shenanigans and the jigsaw is pieced together for the masses who simply accept them, even though those pieces in that jigsaw are largely wedged into place and do not actually give a genuine picture when looked at closely.


What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3393 on: January 23, 2019, 08:37:02 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.

Do it. Please!
We are all struggling to see how your system works, so a few simple diagrams (after 114 pages of text) must surely be the best option.
I donít agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3394 on: January 23, 2019, 08:38:45 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.

Do it. Please!
We are all struggling to see how your system works, so a few simple diagrams (after 114 pages of text) must surely be the best option.
Tell me something you're struggling with and I'll reply using a diagram.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3395 on: January 23, 2019, 08:40:43 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.

Do it. Please!
We are all struggling to see how your system works, so a few simple diagrams (after 114 pages of text) must surely be the best option.
Tell me something you're struggling with and I'll reply using a diagram.
How does the atmosphere stack and force objects 'down'?

p.s. What happens when the wind blows above an object?
I donít agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3396 on: January 23, 2019, 08:51:17 AM »
Hahahha
Ya scepti... pretty sure youve been asked for diagrams and math before.

Set up a youtube channel and get a chaulk/ whitebaord

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3397 on: January 23, 2019, 09:06:45 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.

Do it. Please!
We are all struggling to see how your system works, so a few simple diagrams (after 114 pages of text) must surely be the best option.
Tell me something you're struggling with and I'll reply using a diagram.
How does the atmosphere stack and force objects 'down'?

p.s. What happens when the wind blows above an object?
Let's deal with this below and we can go from this point.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3398 on: January 23, 2019, 09:14:22 AM »
But in scpeits case his model is not matching reality amd measured results.
And it was never going to, but that's not the game.  You don't go to watch a superhero movie and complain that "it doesn't match reality". However you do want it it to be logically consistent and stick to it's own, invented, rules.

The real problem is that it's not even vaguely internally consistent and, as you have seen, scepti often contradicts himself.  Not only that he constantly changes definitions, or makes up completely circular ones, on the fly.  He then complains that, after several hundred pages of this, that nobody is trying to understand and they need to go "back to basics", even though the basics are the real issue.

I'm never quite sure what the point of all this, as he's never managed to convince a single person (and this isn't the only forum he's tried it on).   I suspect it's more about the destination than the journey.
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.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3399 on: January 23, 2019, 09:16:09 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Waste your time?  Lol.  You've typed up literally hundreds of pages, including monster replies, yet you can't do a diagram?

You did claim to have built a scale model of the dome and it's workings, what happened to that?
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
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3400 on: January 23, 2019, 09:31:45 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Waste your time?  Lol.  You've typed up literally hundreds of pages, including monster replies, yet you can't do a diagram?

You did claim to have built a scale model of the dome and it's workings, what happened to that?
The thing is Jimmy, you've spent 5 years and nearly 7,000 posts doing this stuff.
It's as if you have no thought process except to jump in and stand side by side with whatever globalist is arguing a point, without backing the point up.

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3401 on: January 23, 2019, 09:37:23 AM »
Wahwahwa
wheres your diagram?

I saw an old post by scepti that made me laugh.
He said "maybe i should draw it out".
Hahah
5yrs later...
No wonder when it took him 13pg to get to his non point anout weight.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3402 on: January 23, 2019, 11:52:42 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Waste your time?  Lol.  You've typed up literally hundreds of pages, including monster replies, yet you can't do a diagram?

You did claim to have built a scale model of the dome and it's workings, what happened to that?
The thing is Jimmy, you've spent 5 years and nearly 7,000 posts doing this stuff.
It's as if you have no thought process except to jump in and stand side by side with whatever globalist is arguing a point, without backing the point up.

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.
And after over 21,000 posts you still haven't managed to get a single believer, let along produced your promised scale model or even a diagram. 

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.
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.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3403 on: January 23, 2019, 12:14:22 PM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.

Do it. Please!
We are all struggling to see how your system works, so a few simple diagrams (after 114 pages of text) must surely be the best option.
Tell me something you're struggling with and I'll reply using a diagram.
How does the atmosphere stack and force objects 'down'?

p.s. What happens when the wind blows above an object?
Let's deal with this below and we can go from this point.



So why is the atmosphere compressable above an object but not below?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3404 on: January 23, 2019, 12:44:36 PM »
My model perfectly matches reality.
It doesn't match in the slightest.
Every explanation you have provided directly contradicts reality as soon as we take it away from the exact situation you were trying to explain.

That means your model does not match reality.
You are unable to provide any rational justification for your model or an explanation which stands to even simple scrutiny.

The only difference between my theory and the one we are all indoctrinated into is in the way reality has been swerved by usage of fictional forces in order to ensure space and a rotating globe, plus planets, etc are added into the fiction.
No, the difference between the model which has been developed by scientists to explain reality and your delusional garbage is that the scientists model was developed without trying to force things to work in a particular way or exclude particular things. They made explanations based upon evidence and when these explanations where shown to be flawed or incorrect they were discarded or improved upon if they were found to be approximations. This generated a coherent model which actually matches and can explain reality. You generated a model based upon rejecting reality to try and make it work in a delusional flat land to try and pretend you were smarter than all the indoctrinated fools who accept Earth is round. You repeatedly contradict yourself and are contradicted by experiment but do not care.
You rely upon pure fiction which is not backed up by anything except your own assertions.

And to make it even more pathetic, your nonsense still works with a spinning globe and space and other planets.

So all it ends up being is a pathetic attempt to pretend you are better than everyone else.

If it was able to explain reality you wouldn't be repeatedly asserting it could and instead would be providing the explanations that have been asked for.

The funniest part is in the massive attempts to scupper denpressure and its explanations in favour of something that people do not have the first clue about, except to follow a narrative.
It almost seemed like you would have a point, but then you just went off on a tangent making your sentence make no sense. Great job.


What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Go ahead and try making your diagrams, but remember, you really need an explanation, not just a pretty picture.

Tell me something you're struggling with and I'll reply using a diagram.
You are the one struggling, not us.

I would say the most basic things to try to explain are why the atmosphere stacks, and how the atmosphere presses on objects.
Not just a pretty picture showing the atmosphere stacking or magically having it move down, an actual explanation of why, or a basic interaction between the air and a portion of the object.

Let's deal with this below and we can go from this point.
And you are just back to the same problem. Your picture doesn't help at all.
Why is it magically only the stack above that is pushing down?
Why isn't the stack below pushing up?
If this was the case, everything would go down.
This includes helium filled balloons, and the card covering up the glass from before.
The only way out is to assert that the stack below is capable of resisting the push fro above, meaning that nothing should fall.

So yet again your model, even if accepted without explanation, still doesn't match reality. Instead it contradicts reality.

The thing is Jimmy, you've spent 5 years and nearly 7,000 posts doing this stuff.
And you have spent how long and how many posts trying to do this, and still don't even have an explanation for the basics of your model?

Now again, pick which one is most basic, Why do things fall or why is the atmosphere stacked.
Then explain the most basic.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3406 on: January 23, 2019, 02:51:21 PM »
I agree with a lot you say, but I'm wondering if we also can come up against some of these problems in 'accepted' scientific views?  Take gravity for example, in a simple form one can describe it as an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  But as far as I know (admitting I am not up on much of the latest theoretical physics research), we still don't know why this occurs, and the current answer as to why two masses attract also boils down to "because they do". (someone please correct me if I am wrong here)
The fundamental difference is that gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature. Asking why objects attract one another is akin to asking why objects have mass in the first place, or like asking why charges interact. Ultimately you get to a point where there is simply no answer, this is because no matter how deep you go, you can always question it.
With the current model of warping space time, the question then becomes why does mass warp space time?

His stacking molecules is not a fundamental force. It is akin to saying things fall because they do.
The question then becomes if we accept this additional layer of complexity, i.e. do we accept things just fall because they do, or do we accept gravity (or something else) to explain why they fall? The primary factor for deciding that is if it can explain other things, which gravity can.

Even if he was to present it as a fundamental force there is the question of why the directionality?
All the forces of physics that we know of have no innate directionality. The only thing coming close to that is if like charges attract or repel.
The directionality from gravity comes from the direction to the object.
With lots of FE things (and his denpressure is no exception) there is no apparent justification for any directionality.

Hi Jackblack. 

Thanks for the response. I would agree, added complexity that does not add any additional explanatory power is a fairly good reason to choose a simpler model.  It reminds me of the epicycles added to the Ptolemic model of the solar system, which allowed wonderful matching of data, just as good as the model of Copernicus, but at a much greater  complexity.

Maybe we canít avoid unexplainable phenomena in our conceptual models of the world but need to try to limit them?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3407 on: January 23, 2019, 02:54:49 PM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Waste your time?  Lol.  You've typed up literally hundreds of pages, including monster replies, yet you can't do a diagram?

You did claim to have built a scale model of the dome and it's workings, what happened to that?
The thing is Jimmy, you've spent 5 years and nearly 7,000 posts doing this stuff.
It's as if you have no thought process except to jump in and stand side by side with whatever globalist is arguing a point, without backing the point up.

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.
And after over 21,000 posts you still haven't managed to get a single believer, let along produced your promised scale model or even a diagram. 

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.

Wow. This has been going on for a long time.  Has the model evolved at all through this or has it stayed fairly static? 

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3408 on: January 23, 2019, 02:55:59 PM »

p.s. What happens when the wind blows above an object?

Seconded!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3409 on: January 23, 2019, 11:14:56 PM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Waste your time?  Lol.  You've typed up literally hundreds of pages, including monster replies, yet you can't do a diagram?

You did claim to have built a scale model of the dome and it's workings, what happened to that?
The thing is Jimmy, you've spent 5 years and nearly 7,000 posts doing this stuff.
It's as if you have no thought process except to jump in and stand side by side with whatever globalist is arguing a point, without backing the point up.

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.
And after over 21,000 posts you still haven't managed to get a single believer, let along produced your promised scale model or even a diagram. 

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.

Wow. This has been going on for a long time.  Has the model evolved at all through this or has it stayed fairly static?
The model has evolved but not for those that try their best to scupper it.
That's the difference.
Whether deliberate or inability to understand what I'm conveying is down to each individual.
It does not stop me explaining from my point of view, regardless of people saying it doesn't fit or explain anything.

It works for me because I can see exactly how and why it works.
Some people will not go past the basics and I keep mentioning the basics because it's the basics that people seem to have major issues with.

They think they grasp it but then go into immediate denial because gravity doesn't fit or another fictional concept, so immediately it's cast aside.

Others are simply scared of the simplicity. They prefer to deal in complicated fiction that leads nowhere or prefer to want to deal in equations that explain nothing and add nothing to the model of mine.

You can spend all day every day attemping to put the model down in any way possible. You can tell me 1 million times I'm not explaining it properly.
I class that as your issue...not mine.

If you people can argue in favour of impossible to prove theoretical so called physics about Earth and so called planets/stars/milky way and such, plus fictional add ons to supposedly make them work, in terms of gravity and what not, then go into raptures when someone asks you to explain it all and how you know, only to be told that you do know because it's in books....then you're not really taxing your own minds. All you're doing is parroting immediate reference or the better storage brains among you are merely parroting what is committed to that memory from simple indoctrination.

It seems reality and the potential altering of the fiction, is frowned upon and this is where we are.

If you want to understand the model then put the effort in. If you want to spend your time back patting each other in your attempts to put the model down without knowing why, then carry on.

To understand the model you really do have to start right at the basics and grasp reality of what we live under instead of placing a global spinning piece of nonsense and all it's nonsense atmospheric workings into the mix by adding in fictional forces in order for it to work in the favour of the space sci-fi buffs.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3410 on: January 23, 2019, 11:16:49 PM »

p.s. What happens when the wind blows above an object?

Seconded!
Wind is pressure change. Simple as that.
High and low pressure.
It will change the measurement of an object within it if a scale is present.

Unless you're asking something else.
Make it clear what you're asking.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3411 on: January 24, 2019, 12:04:57 AM »


Aah
The glass is structurally sound eh?
So any atmosphere above it would not push it down as your stacked model attempts to predicts.
No, it can't push it down if the structure creates a barrier to that push.
Simple enough if you take the time and I'm surprised this is being argued. Surely you know this?

So again how does an object get pushed down when in a sealed container ?

It's under pressure by displacing the trapped atmosphere inside the container.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3412 on: January 24, 2019, 12:14:19 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Waste your time?  Lol.  You've typed up literally hundreds of pages, including monster replies, yet you can't do a diagram?

You did claim to have built a scale model of the dome and it's workings, what happened to that?
The thing is Jimmy, you've spent 5 years and nearly 7,000 posts doing this stuff.
It's as if you have no thought process except to jump in and stand side by side with whatever globalist is arguing a point, without backing the point up.

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.
And after over 21,000 posts you still haven't managed to get a single believer, let along produced your promised scale model or even a diagram. 

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.

Wow. This has been going on for a long time.  Has the model evolved at all through this or has it stayed fairly static?
The model has evolved but not for those that try their best to scupper it.
That's the difference.
Whether deliberate or inability to understand what I'm conveying is down to each individual.
It does not stop me explaining from my point of view, regardless of people saying it doesn't fit or explain anything.

It works for me because I can see exactly how and why it works.
Some people will not go past the basics and I keep mentioning the basics because it's the basics that people seem to have major issues with.

They think they grasp it but then go into immediate denial because gravity doesn't fit or another fictional concept, so immediately it's cast aside.

Others are simply scared of the simplicity. They prefer to deal in complicated fiction that leads nowhere or prefer to want to deal in equations that explain nothing and add nothing to the model of mine.

You can spend all day every day attemping to put the model down in any way possible. You can tell me 1 million times I'm not explaining it properly.
I class that as your issue...not mine.

If you people can argue in favour of impossible to prove theoretical so called physics about Earth and so called planets/stars/milky way and such, plus fictional add ons to supposedly make them work, in terms of gravity and what not, then go into raptures when someone asks you to explain it all and how you know, only to be told that you do know because it's in books....then you're not really taxing your own minds. All you're doing is parroting immediate reference or the better storage brains among you are merely parroting what is committed to that memory from simple indoctrination.

It seems reality and the potential altering of the fiction, is frowned upon and this is where we are.

If you want to understand the model then put the effort in. If you want to spend your time back patting each other in your attempts to put the model down without knowing why, then carry on.

To understand the model you really do have to start right at the basics and grasp reality of what we live under instead of placing a global spinning piece of nonsense and all it's nonsense atmospheric workings into the mix by adding in fictional forces in order for it to work in the favour of the space sci-fi buffs.

Fair enough, we thankfully live in a free world, and  you can believe whatever you want and pursue your passions how you see best.  Good luck with it all.   I'm not sure why anyone though would change their mind based on the things you have said so far - you paint a strange, fanciful world that you have not demonstrated at all, posit alternative fundamental forces that seeming offer no differential predictive power over existing theories, and massively complicate entire fields of knowledge that presently work and provide everyday function and power to our world.  Maybe we are just blindly stumbling on, controlled by higher powers who know what is going on and feed us lies to hide the truth. But if so, the fact is that the lies they feed us fit into an amazingly well spun tapestry that simply works at an incredible number of levels, and we use these lies daily to build the world around us.  FFS, do you even know the amount of theory derived from basic physics that is required to build all the technology that is presently allowing us to communicate instantly around across entire earth?   

If you are right, you are up against something nearly godlike in its ability to spin a working web of consistent lies.  Its actually quite the opposite of what you think, and if you open your eyes to our modern understanding of the world, you find it is very, very, very deep, and very, very, very powerful.  If it is all a lie, we should be very scared about the controlling force behind it. 

If you are right, this is what you are up against, and if your goal is truly to change minds, you might want to rethink your approach to this all. From what I can see here, most people on this thread see what you are proposing as just a belief system wrapped in a thin veneer of scientism.  Something like that is a hard thing to sell, Sceptimatic, really hard, especially compared to what you are up against.      That is just my opinion, but many years and tens of thousands of posts without being able to reach anyone should also be telling you that.

If not, if this is just a path of personal discovery and you are enjoying the interactions you are having with the people here, then great, simply carry on.  Im sure many others are here simply for personal reasons (myself included), and in my opinion people would be disappointed if you stopped. 

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3413 on: January 24, 2019, 12:18:56 AM »


Aah
The glass is structurally sound eh?
So any atmosphere above it would not push it down as your stacked model attempts to predicts.
No, it can't push it down if the structure creates a barrier to that push.
Simple enough if you take the time and I'm surprised this is being argued. Surely you know this?

So again how does an object get pushed down when in a sealed container ?

It's under pressure by displacing the trapped atmosphere inside the container.

So again...for the 114pg time, if we add atmosphere to said container does the thing get heavier and vice versa removed?
Answer?
Is No

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3414 on: January 24, 2019, 12:21:53 AM »
What I should do is put out a few little diagrams showing the basics but I have to try and convince myself to waste my time doing it, as simple and basic as they may be.
Waste your time?  Lol.  You've typed up literally hundreds of pages, including monster replies, yet you can't do a diagram?

You did claim to have built a scale model of the dome and it's workings, what happened to that?
The thing is Jimmy, you've spent 5 years and nearly 7,000 posts doing this stuff.
It's as if you have no thought process except to jump in and stand side by side with whatever globalist is arguing a point, without backing the point up.

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.
And after over 21,000 posts you still haven't managed to get a single believer, let along produced your promised scale model or even a diagram. 

By all means carry on, I'm just saying.

Wow. This has been going on for a long time.  Has the model evolved at all through this or has it stayed fairly static?
The model has evolved but not for those that try their best to scupper it.
That's the difference.
Whether deliberate or inability to understand what I'm conveying is down to each individual.
It does not stop me explaining from my point of view, regardless of people saying it doesn't fit or explain anything.

It works for me because I can see exactly how and why it works.
Some people will not go past the basics and I keep mentioning the basics because it's the basics that people seem to have major issues with.

They think they grasp it but then go into immediate denial because gravity doesn't fit or another fictional concept, so immediately it's cast aside.

Others are simply scared of the simplicity. They prefer to deal in complicated fiction that leads nowhere or prefer to want to deal in equations that explain nothing and add nothing to the model of mine.

You can spend all day every day attemping to put the model down in any way possible. You can tell me 1 million times I'm not explaining it properly.
I class that as your issue...not mine.

If you people can argue in favour of impossible to prove theoretical so called physics about Earth and so called planets/stars/milky way and such, plus fictional add ons to supposedly make them work, in terms of gravity and what not, then go into raptures when someone asks you to explain it all and how you know, only to be told that you do know because it's in books....then you're not really taxing your own minds. All you're doing is parroting immediate reference or the better storage brains among you are merely parroting what is committed to that memory from simple indoctrination.

It seems reality and the potential altering of the fiction, is frowned upon and this is where we are.

If you want to understand the model then put the effort in. If you want to spend your time back patting each other in your attempts to put the model down without knowing why, then carry on.

To understand the model you really do have to start right at the basics and grasp reality of what we live under instead of placing a global spinning piece of nonsense and all it's nonsense atmospheric workings into the mix by adding in fictional forces in order for it to work in the favour of the space sci-fi buffs.

Fair enough, we thankfully live in a free world, and  you can believe whatever you want and pursue your passions how you see best.  Good luck with it all.   I'm not sure why anyone though would change their mind based on the things you have said so far - you paint a strange, fanciful world that you have not demonstrated at all, posit alternative fundamental forces that seeming offer no differential predictive power over existing theories, and massively complicate entire fields of knowledge that presently work and provide everyday function and power to our world.  Maybe we are just blindly stumbling on, controlled by higher powers who know what is going on and feed us lies to hide the truth. But if so, the fact is that the lies they feed us fit into an amazingly well spun tapestry that simply works at an incredible number of levels, and we use these lies daily to build the world around us.  FFS, do you even know the amount of theory derived from basic physics that is required to build all the technology that is presently allowing us to communicate instantly around across entire earth?   

If you are right, you are up against something nearly godlike in its ability to spin a working web of consistent lies.  Its actually quite the opposite of what you think, and if you open your eyes to our modern understanding of the world, you find it is very, very, very deep, and very, very, very powerful.  If it is all a lie, we should be very scared about the controlling force behind it. 

If you are right, this is what you are up against, and if your goal is truly to change minds, you might want to rethink your approach to this all. From what I can see here, most people on this thread see what you are proposing as just a belief system wrapped in a thin veneer of scientism.  Something like that is a hard thing to sell, Sceptimatic, really hard, especially compared to what you are up against.      That is just my opinion, but many years and tens of thousands of posts without being able to reach anyone should also be telling you that.

If not, if this is just a path of personal discovery and you are enjoying the interactions you are having with the people here, then great, simply carry on.  Im sure many others are here simply for personal reasons (myself included), and in my opinion people would be disappointed if you stopped.

Surprised you didnt recommend seeking professional mental health.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3415 on: January 24, 2019, 12:25:00 AM »

p.s. What happens when the wind blows above an object?

Seconded!
Wind is pressure change. Simple as that.
High and low pressure.
It will change the measurement of an object within it if a scale is present.

Unless you're asking something else.
Make it clear what you're asking.

Hi Sceptimatic,

You don't understand Psychomech's implication of air movement within your model?  Surprising, but okay. 

I asked you a clear question stemming from your model description previously, but you did not seem interested or able to talk about them.  Thats fine of course, your model doesn't have to have answers for situations, no matter how simple, but Im now not sure it is worth clarifying questions that just get ignored, so I will let Psychomech follow up on this if he is interested.   

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3416 on: January 24, 2019, 12:39:12 AM »
Surprised you didnt recommend seeking professional mental health.

Ouch, way too harsh?

I like his passion a lot, and I even like his conceptual model.  I also admire his desire to think outside of common conventions. 

That said, a greater awareness of mental health is not a bad thing to strive for.  Goes for all of us. 

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3417 on: January 24, 2019, 01:13:56 AM »
Surprised you didnt recommend seeking professional mental health.

Ouch, way too harsh?

I like his passion a lot, and I even like his conceptual model.  I also admire his desire to think outside of common conventions. 

That said, a greater awareness of mental health is not a bad thing to strive for.  Goes for all of us.

Yes a bit harsh.
But i never tell someone to go kill themselves.
That is not good.

Youre very polite in your responses.
I was surpised you ket loose a "ffs".
Haha.
I tried to work with scepti a bit like you did but his use of patronising language annoyed me.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3418 on: January 24, 2019, 01:26:09 AM »
The model has evolved but not for those that try their best to scupper it.
I'm not trying to scupper it. That is just a result of it being fundamentally flawed.

It works for me because I can see exactly how and why it works.
Only because you are deluding yourself.
You are yet to provide an explanation which doesn't contradict a simple experiment.

You waste so much time insulting people rather than providing what should be a simple explanation if your model was correct.

Again, pick which is the most basic and explain it, providing a justification rather than just a baseless assertion.
Why does the atmosphere stack in a particular direction (and at all)?
Why do things fall?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3419 on: January 24, 2019, 01:30:23 AM »
Fair enough, we thankfully live in a free world, and  you can believe whatever you want and pursue your passions how you see best.
I certainly do not believe for a moment we live in a free world.
The issue though is, what does a free world actually mean for each individual?
We are free if you compare us to a caged animal/bird, but only by the size of the cage we are allowed to move about in.

Anyway I could go on and on with this piece and it would need its own thread.
Basically we are not free.

Quote from: sobchak
  Good luck with it all.   I'm not sure why anyone though would change their mind based on the things you have said so far - you paint a strange, fanciful world that you have not demonstrated at all, posit alternative fundamental forces that seeming offer no differential predictive power over existing theories, and massively complicate entire fields of knowledge that presently work and provide everyday function and power to our world.
Nobody has to change their minds. That's the beauty of it all.
It's about a willingness to understand a different concept without attempting to hinder themselves by using another concept as a barrier to that understanding.


Quote from: sobchak
  Maybe we are just blindly stumbling on, controlled by higher powers who know what is going on and feed us lies to hide the truth.
All we can do is stumble on. We are not in  charge, we are merely given the idea that we are the owners of our own movement and ideas. We simply aren't when you stand back and view the bigger picture.


Quote from: sobchak
But if so, the fact is that the lies they feed us fit into an amazingly well spun tapestry that simply works at an incredible number of levels, and we use these lies daily to build the world around us.
Of course it's well spun.
You cannot control the masses unless you reward and punish in percentage measures, as well as create physical truth's and lies that are hidden behind a shroud that has the words, hidden truths on a need to know basis.


Quote from: sobchak
  FFS, do you even know the amount of theory derived from basic physics that is required to build all the technology that is presently allowing us to communicate instantly around across entire earth?
Yep. You know all about the sun and stars and planets and cosmic dust, plus black holes and galaxies, plus a whole host of theoretical? Hypothetical? Fictional?....stuff.
They are so complex as to be knowable but equally unknowable with equations to match.
All you need now is a quiz master to test out how much you can commit to memory to gain you a higher standing that the other average bear.

Your knowledge is the markings of your quiz sheet. Your memory filing cabinet and the ability of you to be able to neatly store your info in order to relay back what was handed to you to put away.

But what do you know?
What's your truth?
What direct physical proof do you or any amount of people that's committed that same stuff to memory, have?

Transfer all of that to every other tutored/schooled theory or hypothesis and ask yourself if the tutor is merely following a protocol/curriculum and able to do so based on that tutors ability to commit to memory whatever was placed into it.

Parroting without a knowing reality.

 
Quote from: sobchak
If you are right, you are up against something nearly godlike in its ability to spin a working web of consistent lies.  Its actually quite the opposite of what you think, and if you open your eyes to our modern understanding of the world, you find it is very, very, very deep, and very, very, very powerful.
Your early part of life can be defined by a few gods. Your parents.
You may end up following a path they took of which you adhere to as your belief out of nothing other than conditional love and inability to go against that indoctrination.
They are your official authority.
Go out into the wider world and you can choose your next gods, whether it's a church or a school, to college or university...or even some perceived smart person who takes you under their wing and teaches you their theories.
What are you actually learning if you don't actually discover a truth but instead rely on a theory you are told is the truth?

It's all about pushing your own boundaries that you have set for you and creating enough space within to actually think outside of the box you were happily (at first) trapped inside of.

Quote from: sobchak
If it is all a lie, we should be very scared about the controlling force behind it.
We are conditioned to be scared. That's how we are controlled.
What is there to be scared of that we don't already deal with?
The unknown...right?
Think about that, because in life your theories are about that, because they are not truth's, no matter what.
If they were truth's we would not be arguing like we all do in debates, etc.
To keep us in control in life we must be accountable for our actions should we stop out of line and be rewarded for being good and sticking to whatever rules were laid out.
The fear or the afterlife, or the embracement of what is in that afterlife, depending.

A truth?
A theory?
A hypothesis?
A musing?
A religion?

What is the truth?
Start with the basics and don't over complicate something that you have the ability to physically test and go from those points.

 
Quote from: sobchak
If you are right, this is what you are up against, and if your goal is truly to change minds, you might want to rethink your approach to this all.
My goal is to live my life until I die. In between doing that I will try to do something that interests me and enables me to find solutions to problems, among many other things.
As for changing minds.... I leave that up to each individual.
All I ask for is for every person to use their own brains outside of what was handed to them on a platter. To think outside of the box.
To actually sit back and think " hang on a minute, what makes theoretical scientists any more smart than I?"
Is it the ability to tell/sell a story from their own minds?
Is it the ability to tell/sell a story handed to them?

You see, physical scientists who theorise and find solutions to problems, are the smart one's. These are the people who help create what we have.

There's a massive difference between a physical scientific genius and a theoretical muser who merely postulates and turns that postulation into a long drawn out story that is impossible to ever be verified yet can be told in such detail as to even have its own equations and such.
It can look amazing and be incalculable in its intricacies and yet can be idolised by many who feel just to commit some of it to memory, stands them out as smarter than the average bear.

The smartest people are those that have the ability to take the intricate theories and break them down into the basic...or potential basic...or to simply break them down into the nothing that they represent.

Getting there is the hard part.
It's like trying to find the ingredient for a fictional recipe for a made up name that nobody will physically show.
This is what we are dealing with with a lot of so called science.

Quote from: sobchak
From what I can see here, most people on this thread see what you are proposing as just a belief system wrapped in a thin veneer of scientism.  Something like that is a hard thing to sell, Sceptimatic, really hard, especially compared to what you are up against.
That's it ever will be unless people start to think and do the simple experiments that wake them up to the potentials.
I'm serious.

Quote from: sobchak
     That is just my opinion, but many years and tens of thousands of posts without being able to reach anyone should also be telling you that.
No, not at all.
It tells me that people will stick to something which is all set out for them and who feel comfortable arguing from the side of mass peer pressuring, rather than being against that pressuring and cast off as some lunatic for having the audacity to have their own theories.


Like I said before, go to church and pray to god...any god of whatever church and you are a pillar of society. A revered person among peers of that same religion.
Go to bed and carry that on, praying to your god for a safe day the following day and to look after whoever for you.
Then to sit at the table and thank the god for the meal you're having, that the god provided.

Many people will say Amen.

If I decide to talk to a god. My god. A god that I took on as my companion...although invisible to people. If I talk to my god before bed and thank my god for my meals and such, but I do not provide anyone in authority the identity of my god...I'm cast off as a lunatic...unstable and possibly incarcerated...and yet that can happen to me for no other reason than people cannot see my god and my god is not their god.

If I decide to call those people lunatics for talking to their invisible god, I'd be set upon, en-masse or banished from the community. Cast out as a troublemaker....etc.

Quote from: sobchak
If not, if this is just a path of personal discovery and you are enjoying the interactions you are having with the people here, then great, simply carry on.
If I didn't enjoy interaction then I certainly would not be here.

Quote from: sobchak
Im sure many others are here simply for personal reasons (myself included), and in my opinion people would be disappointed if you stopped.
Whatever reasons they are, they are your reasons, like you say.

The major issue on forums is in the inability for most of us to TRUST in one another.
It's either take a side in dodgeball but the side you take against the enemy, make sure that you avoid the ball and also ensure you are the last one standing on your own team.
It takes away the purpose of "team" and becomes a personal crusade, yet still cast off as being part of a group of people all with a similar badge.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 01:51:02 AM by sceptimatic »