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

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2019, 02:24:31 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on February 13, 2019, 02:12:23 PM

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.

A barometer alone proves denpressure. The same barometer kills off gravity.

No it does not! A barometer fits perfectly with gravity and air pressure.

This is exactly what I mean by your mis-interpreting evidence.  So post your evidence!

Your problem is your reliance on the word " vacuum"....you actually believe it exists on Earth regardless of so called space.
You believe a mercury barometer has a vacuum inside the tube that allows the mercury to be pushed up that tube.
The whole reason it works is because of the small amount of atmosphere in that tube that gets compressed by the atmospheric pressure on the mercury dish. This compresses the trapped atmosphere inside the tube above the mercury.
Once the external atmospheric pressure lowers, the pressure on the mercury in the dish lowers but the mercury could never fall down that tube if there was no decompression of that small amount of trapped atmosphere.

That's the only thing that can push.
You can't even use fictional gravity for this because it would make no sense at all because the mercury is in the dish so it cannot be pulled down.

You need to do some thinking.

By all means come in but try to stop whining about it if you do.

Don't bother arguing this. Leave it at that because I'm not playing tit for tat with this. Use AR if you feel the need to have a good rant.

I'm not whinging. I'm telling you that so far you've presented nothing remotely believable.

Some unbelievable things turn out to be correct but they require very good supporting evidence and you have presented no good evidence!

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2019, 02:43:34 PM

By all means come in but try to stop whining about it if you do.

Don't bother arguing this. Leave it at that because I'm not playing tit for tat with this. Use AR if you feel the need to have a good rant.

I'm not whinging. I'm telling you that so far you've presented nothing remotely believable.

Some unbelievable things turn out to be correct but they require very good supporting evidence and you have presented no good evidence!

Well you certainly don't provide any good evidence, so the feeling is mutual.

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

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.

How doe's denpressure influence the motion of planets?
Or how do you explain the motion of planets.

Quote from: sceptimatic 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.

How doe's denpressure influence the motion of planets?
Or how do you explain the motion of planets.

Scepti thinks the planets are just a projection on the dome.

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

Quote from: sceptimatic 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.

How doe's denpressure influence the motion of planets?
Or how do you explain the motion of planets.

There are no planets in terms of us seeing them.
Whatever there is outside of what we know, we can only guess at.
My guess is cells just like our own all connected by an ice of whatever molecular form. Something probably not too far away from helium freeze but maybe less dense is my guess but not worth arguing here.

Quote from: MouseWalker on February 13, 2019, 05:27:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic 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.

How doe's denpressure influence the motion of planets?
Or how do you explain the motion of planets.

Scepti thinks the planets are just a projection on the dome.

Yep, whatever is in the centre of Earth is projected onto the dome in my theory.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 13, 2019, 05:18:14 PM

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

Except in your model density would have no effect.

You have already stated that the stack pushes downwards and does not push up at all. Therefore where is the mechanism that pushes the helium balloon upwards.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 13, 2019, 05:18:14 PM

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

What is the gobstopper layer analogy? A gobstopper is comprised of layers of colors so when you suck on them layers are dissolved away revealing the next layer down? How does that relate to denpressure?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2019, 11:11:57 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 13, 2019, 05:18:14 PM

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

Except in your model density would have no effect.

You have already stated that the stack pushes downwards and does not push up at all. Therefore where is the mechanism that pushes the helium balloon upwards.

Apparently something to do with gobstoppers. And apparently it's the same gobstopper technology that knows when a new "foundation" is desired and pushes things side to side versus up or down.

Gobstoppers somehow make this happen:

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2019, 11:11:57 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 13, 2019, 05:18:14 PM

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

Except in your model density would have no effect.

You have already stated that the stack pushes downwards and does not push up at all. Therefore where is the mechanism that pushes the helium balloon upwards.

The same mechanism that water does. It's a resistance or a crush.

You're just another that refuses to even bother to understand what I'm saying.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2019, 11:11:57 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 13, 2019, 05:18:14 PM

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

What is the gobstopper layer analogy? A gobstopper is comprised of layers of colors so when you suck on them layers are dissolved away revealing the next layer down? How does that relate to denpressure?

Now I'm 100% sure what your game is.
It takes time but I get there in the end.

Quote from: Mainframes on February 14, 2019, 12:12:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2019, 11:11:57 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 13, 2019, 05:18:14 PM

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

Except in your model density would have no effect.

You have already stated that the stack pushes downwards and does not push up at all. Therefore where is the mechanism that pushes the helium balloon upwards.

Apparently something to do with gobstoppers. And apparently it's the same gobstopper technology that knows when a new "foundation" is desired and pushes things side to side versus up or down.

Gobstoppers somehow make this happen:

You're done.

Quote from: Stash on February 14, 2019, 12:35:32 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on February 14, 2019, 12:12:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2019, 11:11:57 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 13, 2019, 05:18:14 PM

If stacked atmosphere can push a person down to the ground, why can't it keep a ballon filled with Helium from floating up?

Because the helium molecules are less dense than the stack they are being held in. This is where people need to understand the gobstopper layer analogy. I don't just say it for fun. I say it so people can have a better potential of understanding why I say what I say.

Except in your model density would have no effect.

You have already stated that the stack pushes downwards and does not push up at all. Therefore where is the mechanism that pushes the helium balloon upwards.

Apparently something to do with gobstoppers. And apparently it's the same gobstopper technology that knows when a new "foundation" is desired and pushes things side to side versus up or down.

Gobstoppers somehow make this happen:

You're done.

Yep, pretty much b/c you can't explain it. Gobstopper analogies, whatever that means, don't work. Stacking doesn't explain the odd movement. Things press to a sideways 'foundation', as it were, then all of a sudden don't. All based upon what foundation I wish they would press to. Maybe I have a force?

I've seen it looking up your history across forums for years.

- No evidence ever presented
- Get super cagey when pressed for evidence and never do, even though been chided for years for not doing so.
- When presented with anything that you can't readily analogize, full stop, dead stick.
- No evidence ever presented, never anything from you or anyone else. Super sketchy.

It's odd. You're obviously a smart individual. Yet discount about 9/10's of the world that is around you. For the 1/10th you believe is true, though admirable in one way, you waste on a forum(s) where after all these years of trying, no one believes, buys or really even gives a shit about your notions other than it's kind of fun to look up stuff to so easily smack your notions down. It's basically sport at this point for everyone. Maybe this is sport to you as well.

Yep, pretty much b/c you can't explain it. Gobstopper analogies, whatever that means, don't work. Stacking doesn't explain the odd movement. Things press to a sideways 'foundation', as it were, then all of a sudden don't. All based upon what foundation I wish they would press to. Maybe I have a force?

I've seen it looking up your history across forums for years.

- No evidence ever presented
- Get super cagey when pressed for evidence and never do, even though been chided for years for not doing so.
- When presented with anything that you can't readily analogize, full stop, dead stick.
- No evidence ever presented, never anything from you or anyone else. Super sketchy.

It's odd. You're obviously a smart individual. Yet discount about 9/10's of the world that is around you. For the 1/10th you believe is true, though admirable in one way, you waste on a forum(s) where after all these years of trying, no one believes, buys or really even gives a shit about your notions other than it's kind of fun to look up stuff to so easily smack your notions down. It's basically sport at this point for everyone. Maybe this is sport to you as well.

You're scared to even try to understand it because you fear being attacked by the very people who you think have your back en-mass where you feel most comfortable knowing you have that backing.

You're a weakling and yes I'm attacking you. I think anyone like you who tries this scenario of pretending I don't explain anything is scared and weak.

You know, one person took the time to try and understand it. She done it so she had an idea as to where this cretin (me) was actually coming from.
She actually took the tedious time to dissect my explanations and put them into an order that started to explain my side to her.
She did not do this to believe in it and nor did I ask her to.
She did it to understand the basics and managed to do just that after a lot of sifting.

Does she believe in any of it?
Not one bit I don't think.
She probably thinks I'm an effing clown with a wild imagination but finds a model that can actually be painstakingly pieced together.

Jane is a global Earth believer with a mindset of wanting to understand all other theories.
Do you know what reward she gets for that?

She gets slaughtered by global Earth believers. You know this and you are petrified to dare to take the chance of even daring to just say you understand my thinking, because you know that's a massive red rag to the frenzied crew of people on here who are deliberate in their attacking antics.

You see, there's few people who I believe are deep down genuine on this forum. I try to figure out who is and who isn't. This includes what people think about me, also as whether I'm genuine.

But it doesn't matter what people think of me. What matters is what a person can glean from my mindset on my musing/hypothesis....for themselves.

So if people like you bother to take so much time corresponding to me then take the time and the effort to actually understand my side...not trying to do battle by using your tailor made schooling to try and scupper it before you even know what you're trying to scupper.
And believe me, just by what you've typed now, it shows me that you have took next to zero notice of what I've tried to convey.
That's a waste of your time whether you think or pretend it's just fun to try and play games with me.

You see, I'll explain in as many analogies and details that I can to anyone that shows they can grasp it.
Jane took the time to learn it for herself...for her.....for her. She then made a compendium from her own mind and time for the likes of people like you to peruse to give you ideas on the variation of theories.

You choose to not bother with that and instead, attack her and carry on pretending that no explanations have been given by me.


Look at this?
A long drawn out set of words just telling you how it is.

Mods/admin, feel free to break this off and put it in the AR section or wherever you feel it's best suited.

It's not hard to grasp denspressure, scepti.  All one has to do is imagine your world and not apply it to reality.

If a person lifts a weight and holds it above his/her head, the person can be said to be pushing that weight, right?

Yes, they are pushing it up.

Buy if you look at it you can say that the person is merely resisting that weight after pushing that weight up.

No. You might say they are holding it up, or stopping it falling, but not that they are merely resisting it.
They are holding it up.

Do you agree that the person is pushing up on the weight?

That is the key issue here. Are they pushing up or not?
No trying to reword it to avoid a push up from below.

If someone tried to push down on that weight you would have to resist that push, right?

By pushing up with even greater force, this requires a feedback mechanism.

By resisting that push you can stop the person pushing down that weight if you are strong enough to resist. Fair enough?
Now transfer that analogy to the stack.

How? Air doesn't function that way.
How does the air below magically push up more rather than merely getting pushed out of the way?

It will only push up if you push into it and displacing that stack which raises that stack up the sides

i.e. the paper should fall and the membrane example I provided earlier should have the membrane remain flat and a helium filled balloon will fall.

just like you would see water raise up the sides of a boat and friction grip it or crush it or resist that boats push into it.

It would be more akin to what happens if you drop an object into water. The water will resist the motion, and provide a force to push upwards, based upon pressure.

However, if you were to hold a glass with a card over the water in it whilst only having a tiny bit of atmosphere inside it, it's going to rest on the stack wherever your hand holds it.

This analogy is useless as it already does that in the air. No water below is needed here.

Your problem is your reliance on the word " vacuum"....you actually believe it exists on Earth regardless of so called space.

Because they do. Your problem is your hatred of the word because it means space is real.
A vacuum does not need to be a perfect vacuum in order to be a vacuum.

The whole reason it works is because of the small amount of atmosphere in that tube that gets compressed by the atmospheric pressure on the mercury dish. This compresses the trapped atmosphere inside the tube above the mercury.

Again, if this was the case it would work in any orientation, with the portion of the tube filled being based upon the pressure. It does not. Instead  it is the height that remains constant.

You can't even use fictional gravity for this because it would make no sense at all because the mercury is in the dish so it cannot be pulled down.

The mercury is in the dish and the tube. Why can't it be pulled down by gravity?
Sure, gravity can't pull it all the way down and through the dish, but it can establish a pressure gradient across it, which is the fundamental principle of operation.

The same mechanism that water does.

Water pushes objects up based upon the pressure gradient in it. If air does the same, everything would be pushed upwards.

It's a resistance

Resistance cannot generate relative motion. If it is resistance, it will simply be slowed.

or a crush.

A crush is inwards, not upwards.

It is a very simple question:
Does the atmosphere push up?

If yes, what determines the magnitude of this push up?
While we are at it, what determines the magnitude of the push down?

And again, if you think we need to go back to the basics, then stick to the basics, explain why the atmosphere stacks.

You're just another that refuses to even bother to understand what I'm saying.

No. He is just another that realises your claims are pure nonsense and cannot explain reality at all.
You rely upon no push up to explain why things fall, but then jump straight to a push up to explain why a helium filled balloon rises.
You resort to magically different physics because your model simply doesn't work.

We understand, we just realise it is wrong.
Either you don't understand the problem or are choosing to ignore it.

You're scared to even try to understand it because you fear being attacked by the very people who you think have your back en-mass where you feel most comfortable knowing you have that backing.

You're a weakling and yes I'm attacking you. I think anyone like you who tries this scenario of pretending I don't explain anything is scared and weak.

You are the one pretending here. You are the one who is weak and completely unable to defend your position.

You know, one person took the time to try and understand it. She done it so she had an idea as to where this cretin (me) was actually coming from.

Do you know the fundamental difference between her and us?
She didn't care if your explanations actually made sense.
She didn't care if you repeatedly contradicted yourself.
She just wanted to listen to what you said without bothering to think about it or see the problems with it.
She just wanted to know what you thought.
She had no interest in seeing if your model would apply to reality.
She had no interest in collecting evidence for your model.

We are not like that.
We are interested in a consistent model that is capable of explaining reality.

That is the fundamental difference.
If you pull an idea from no where, we will want an explanation of why and/or evidence of that.
If you provide an "explanation" which clearly indicates one result should occur, but a different result occurs in reality, we will point that out and want an answer for why this happens.
If you contradict yourself, such as by first saying there is no push up, but then relying upon a push up, we will point out that contradiction.

It's not hard to grasp denspressure, scepti.  All one has to do is imagine your world and not apply it to reality.

The entire reason for people not grasping it is, they prefer not to, because it actually does show reality as opposed to the fictional...and clear fictional bull that's spewed out to cater for a supposed spinning globe that is so nonsensical it actually beggars belief when you actually take any time to look through the blatant trickery of it all.

It's embarrassing to think I used to actually believe this global Earth nonsense, but then again, mass saturation, peer pressure and severe indoctrination didn't give me much of a chance to think outside of that box.

A spinning globe just holding together all the atmospheric pressure with no foundation to hold it to and yet it somehow manages to stay put against a so called vacuum but yet also manages to lose a little helium into this vacuum but not enough to cause any trouble.

What an absolute joke.

Mass saturation, peer pressure and indoctrination.....?

Imagine you were stood in a field and I gathered a crowd of people to stand in a group in front of you.

I then told you that there were 100 people there and I showed you how to count to 100. I then allowed you to test for yourself that I had indeed put 100 people in front of you. 

Am I indoctrinating you? No.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 14, 2019, 08:17:50 AM

It's not hard to grasp denspressure, scepti.  All one has to do is imagine your world and not apply it to reality.

The entire reason for people not grasping it is, they prefer not to, because it actually does show reality as opposed to the fictional...and clear fictional bull that's spewed out to cater for a supposed spinning globe that is so nonsensical it actually beggars belief when you actually take any time to look through the blatant trickery of it all.

It's embarrassing to think I used to actually believe this global Earth nonsense, but then again, mass saturation, peer pressure and severe indoctrination didn't give me much of a chance to think outside of that box.

A spinning globe just holding together all the atmospheric pressure with no foundation to hold it to and yet it somehow manages to stay put against a so called vacuum but yet also manages to lose a little helium into this vacuum but not enough to cause any trouble.

What an absolute joke.

It just gets better. An appeal to "mass saturation, peer pressure, severe indoctrination." (Personal favorite is "mass saturation").

The problem everyone has been pointing out for years with evidence/demonstration/maths, you know, the things you never provide, is that denpressure doesn't cover off on reality. Pretty much the basic benchmark for just about anything. Denpressure is not hard to understand in the abstract - What's hard to understand is how it applies to reality, b/c it just doesn't.

You claim that's some sort of unwillingness of the indoctrinated to think outside the box we have been indoctrinated into. Nope, that's not the case. The issue is, denpressure just doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of reality. How shit moves, or doesn't, as basic as that.

So yeah, we get it. Match denpressure to reality? I'd like to, but it doesn't even meet the edges.

Until you cover off on reality, again, it's just the musings of an individual. If you have some experiment of yours or of others that back up your musings, lay them on us. In the mean time, as has always been the case, it's really just your musings.

A spinning globe just holding together all the atmospheric pressure with no foundation to hold it to and yet it somehow manages to stay put against a so called vacuum but yet also manages to lose a little helium into this vacuum but not enough to cause any trouble.

No problem at all! Here's plenty for you to have fun ridiculing !

Up in space, the air density has dropped so low that the molecules move almost independently.
For a molecule of air to escape, its velocity must exceed the escape velocity from earth at that height - almost as if each were a sub-microscopic "space-craft".

At an altitude of say 200 km there is virtually no air and the air density is only about 2.9 x 10^-10 kg/m³.
What little air there is at a temperature of about 930K and each molecule has an average velocity of about 1040 m/s.
Now at that altitude of 200 km the escape velocity is about 11,000 m/s.

If you go up to 400 km, where the ISS orbits, that air density is only about 1.75 x 10^-10 kg/m³, the average velocity of about 1244 m/s.
And even up that high, the escape velocity is still about 10,852 m/s.

So only a small fraction of the few molecules up that high are travelling fast enough to escape the gravity of the earth.

Some does escape but the earth also captures gases from the solar wind and dust from meteors.
But don't worry it would take many times the longest estimate of the age of the Universe to lose a significant amount .

If I could tease this all out into a rational string, I think JB summed it up. (As many have before him)

We are interested in a consistent model that is capable of explaining reality.

That is the fundamental difference.
If you pull an idea from no where, we will want an explanation of why and/or evidence of that.
If you provide an "explanation" which clearly indicates one result should occur, but a different result occurs in reality, we will point that out and want an answer for why this happens.

To date your 'explanations' falter, not in reality. We want evidence. Provide evidence. Otherwise, nada.

Mass saturation, peer pressure and indoctrination.....?

Imagine you were stood in a field and I gathered a crowd of people to stand in a group in front of you.

I then told you that there were 100 people there and I showed you how to count to 100. I then allowed you to test for yourself that I had indeed put 100 people in front of you. 

Am I indoctrinating you? No.

No you're not. You're allowing the the chance to physically count what I can see. It's called proof with knowledge.

If you tell me there's 100 people in that field and there are zero apart from me and you, but you are adamant there's 100, I will tell you you're making it up. If you tell me that a scientist has told you there's 100, I will call you naive for accepting the word of someone who must have some kind of agenda or is simply following a narrative/protocol.
This is you lot with your gravity nonsense. Not your fault mind you, it's the indoctrination by saturation of the masses. It's a hard thing to let go.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 14, 2019, 11:42:11 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 14, 2019, 08:17:50 AM

It's not hard to grasp denspressure, scepti.  All one has to do is imagine your world and not apply it to reality.

The entire reason for people not grasping it is, they prefer not to, because it actually does show reality as opposed to the fictional...and clear fictional bull that's spewed out to cater for a supposed spinning globe that is so nonsensical it actually beggars belief when you actually take any time to look through the blatant trickery of it all.

It's embarrassing to think I used to actually believe this global Earth nonsense, but then again, mass saturation, peer pressure and severe indoctrination didn't give me much of a chance to think outside of that box.

A spinning globe just holding together all the atmospheric pressure with no foundation to hold it to and yet it somehow manages to stay put against a so called vacuum but yet also manages to lose a little helium into this vacuum but not enough to cause any trouble.

What an absolute joke.

It just gets better. An appeal to "mass saturation, peer pressure, severe indoctrination." (Personal favorite is "mass saturation").

The problem everyone has been pointing out for years with evidence/demonstration/maths, you know, the things you never provide, is that denpressure doesn't cover off on reality. Pretty much the basic benchmark for just about anything. Denpressure is not hard to understand in the abstract - What's hard to understand is how it applies to reality, b/c it just doesn't.

You claim that's some sort of unwillingness of the indoctrinated to think outside the box we have been indoctrinated into. Nope, that's not the case. The issue is, denpressure just doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of reality. How shit moves, or doesn't, as basic as that.

So yeah, we get it. Match denpressure to reality? I'd like to, but it doesn't even meet the edges.

Until you cover off on reality, again, it's just the musings of an individual. If you have some experiment of yours or of others that back up your musings, lay them on us. In the mean time, as has always been the case, it's really just your musings.

My musings?
I've shown how you can experiment to destroy some of the stuff you believe.
Will you do it?....No.
Why?
Because you prefer to follow the narrative you were handed by mainstream.
You'd rather pretend an experiment shows nothing rather than it showing some of what you believed was a truth, to be wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 14, 2019, 11:42:11 PM

A spinning globe just holding together all the atmospheric pressure with no foundation to hold it to and yet it somehow manages to stay put against a so called vacuum but yet also manages to lose a little helium into this vacuum but not enough to cause any trouble.

No problem at all! Here's plenty for you to have fun ridiculing !

Up in space, the air density has dropped so low that the molecules move almost independently.

Almost independently?

Tell me how a molecule can just move independently.
How can it just move in your space...in your vacuum?

For a molecule of air to escape, its velocity must exceed the escape velocity from earth at that height - almost as if each were a sub-microscopic "space-craft".

At an altitude of say 200 km there is virtually no air and the air density is only about 2.9 x 10^-10 kg/m³.
What little air there is at a temperature of about 930K and each molecule has an average velocity of about 1040 m/s.
Now at that altitude of 200 km the escape velocity is about 11,000 m/s.

If you go up to 400 km, where the ISS orbits, that air density is only about 1.75 x 10^-10 kg/m³, the average velocity of about 1244 m/s.
And even up that high, the escape velocity is still about 10,852 m/s.

So only a small fraction of the few molecules up that high are travelling fast enough to escape the gravity of the earth.

So your molecules just before your space have to travel so fast to break into space?
This stuff is so sickening it's not even funny...well, it is sort of funny but it's more sickening how people actually fall for this clear and utter nonsense.

Some does escape but the earth also captures gases from the solar wind and dust from meteors.
But don't worry it would take many times the longest estimate of the age of the Universe to lose a significant amount .

Solar wind in a vacuum with independent molecules just flitting about here and there....amid dust no less from meteors that move about in nothing.
Clearly you have zero chance of accepting logic. Zero.

If I could tease this all out into a rational string, I think JB summed it up. (As many have before him)

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2019, 01:28:29 PM

We are interested in a consistent model that is capable of explaining reality.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2019, 01:28:29 PM

That is the fundamental difference.
If you pull an idea from no where, we will want an explanation of why and/or evidence of that.
If you provide an "explanation" which clearly indicates one result should occur, but a different result occurs in reality, we will point that out and want an answer for why this happens.

To date your 'explanations' falter, not in reality. We want evidence. Provide evidence. Otherwise, nada.

To date the entire global Earth model falters but people are willing to accept magical reasons for why it supposedly works.
Provide some physical proof yourself instead of asking for my physical proof.
Because all you people have, are hollywood type videos and silly magical explanations for things handed to you by people who are put on a so called scientific pedestal to reel off this utter utter bull. Einstein and Hawking, plus the showbiz like DeGrasse Tyson journalist pretending to be a scientist and a musician turned professor Brian Cox. What utter drivel.
And you people fall for it because nobody wants to understand simplicity and logic of what Earth really is and why things work as we actually see them work...not as we are told they do.

Quote from: Stash on February 15, 2019, 02:27:03 AM

If I could tease this all out into a rational string, I think JB summed it up. (As many have before him)

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2019, 01:28:29 PM

We are interested in a consistent model that is capable of explaining reality.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2019, 01:28:29 PM

That is the fundamental difference.
If you pull an idea from no where, we will want an explanation of why and/or evidence of that.
If you provide an "explanation" which clearly indicates one result should occur, but a different result occurs in reality, we will point that out and want an answer for why this happens.

To date your 'explanations' falter, not in reality. We want evidence. Provide evidence. Otherwise, nada.

To date the entire global Earth model falters but people are willing to accept magical reasons for why it supposedly works.
Provide some physical proof yourself instead of asking for my physical proof.
Because all you people have, are hollywood type videos and silly magical explanations for things handed to you by people who are put on a so called scientific pedestal to reel off this utter utter bull. Einstein and Hawking, plus the showbiz like DeGrasse Tyson journalist pretending to be a scientist and a musician turned professor Brian Cox. What utter drivel.
And you people fall for it because nobody wants to understand simplicity and logic of what Earth really is and why things work as we actually see them work...not as we are told they do.

So you don’t understand it then.

Got it.