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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 108788 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3750 on: February 15, 2019, 08:53:03 AM »
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.
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 donít understand it then.

Got it.
Nobody understands it in terms of placing it into some kind of reality.
You don't understand it but are more than happy to follow the narrative of what it pertains to be.

By all means tell me you do, but I know you don't.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3751 on: February 15, 2019, 12:18:45 PM »
The entire reason for people not grasping it is, they prefer not to
No, the entire reason seems to be that they do actually grasp it and realise it contradicts itself. You don't like that as it shows your model is wrong so you just pretend they don't grasp it so you can ignore the problems they point out.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, your nonsense works just as well for a spinning globe.
You are yet to show any problem with the mainstream explanations.
You are yet to provide consistent explanations from your model.

I've shown how you can experiment to destroy some of the stuff you believe.
No you haven't.
Your experiments have been consistent with the mainstream explanations.
What you have done is blatantly misrepresent what the mainstream model predicts to pretend that there is a problem with it.

To date the entire global Earth model falters but people are willing to accept magical reasons for why it supposedly works.
No, it doesn't. You are yet to show a single problem with it.

Now how about you stop with the pathetic distractions and start trying to defend your model?
Remember, this is a thread for discussing denpressure, not mainstream models. If you want to discuss mainstream models, make a new thread for it.

If you want to demand we understand the basics then start with that and don't go any further until people here have grasped it.
Explain why the atmosphere stacks. No appealing to stacks of physical objects which require things to be pulled/pushed down to stack, as that would make your argument circular.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3752 on: February 15, 2019, 12:35:07 PM »
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.
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 donít understand it then.

Got it.
Nobody understands it in terms of placing it into some kind of reality.
You don't understand it but are more than happy to follow the narrative of what it pertains to be.

By all means tell me you do, but I know you don't.

Matter attracts other matter. Pretty simple.
Objects remain at same velocity unless acted on by a force. Also pretty simple.
This is not difficult to understand.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Stash

  • 3488
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3753 on: February 15, 2019, 01:13:14 PM »
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.
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.

If memory serves,the title of the thread is: "Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)"

After all these years:
- In attempting to define denpressure you have failed to meet the expectations of reality
- You have yet to share the results of any experimentation

When added up, a complete failure. Pretty simple, really.

*

rabinoz

  • 22903
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3754 on: February 15, 2019, 02:23:21 PM »
No problem at all! Here's plenty for you to have fun ridiculing ;D!

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?

Why not?
All molecules are moving randomly and the velocity increases with temperature.
Near the surface, they are "so tightly packed" (so many in each cubic metre) that they cannot move far without colliding with other molecules.
But at hundreds of kilometres above the earth, there are so few molecules that they collided relatively infrequently.

So using the same altitudes as before and taking note that at the higher altitudes that values depend considerably on the current solar activity:
  • At sea level there are about 2.55 x 1025 molecules in each cubic metre and one molecule collides after travelling (on average) only about 6.6 x 10-08 m. 

  • But at 200 km about sea level the number of molecules in each cubic metre is reduced by a factor of about 3,550,000,000 and
         one molecule collides with another after travelling (on average) about 24 mm. 

  • Finally at 400 km about sea level the number of molecules in each cubic metre is reduced by a factor of about 2.4 x 1011 and
         one molecule collides after travelling (on average) about 16 km.
So even at 200 km, considering how small molecules are, travelling 24 mm between collisions, they are moving near enough to independently and
at 400 km, travelling 16 km between collisions, they might as well be "on there one".

Now, you might not believe that space like that can exists, well that's your prerogative.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
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.
Yes, just as spacecraft do, but instead of ridiculing how about giving some logical rebuttal - I guess that you can't, so all you can do is to resort to ridicule.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
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.
Yes, "Solar wind in a vacuum with independent molecules just flitting about here and there" but it is not quite a vacuum.
I never claimed it was a "vacuum" and I doubt I ever even used the word "vacuum".

Quote from: sceptimatic
Clearly you have zero chance of accepting logic. Zero.
Well, not what you call "logic" anyway, that's for sure! But how many others accept "what you call logic" - I guess I could them on the fingers of one hand.

And you have zero chance of what has been found by experimental investigation and what I call logic.
But I never for a moment thought you could reach the escape velocity needed to leave your fantasy world!

Maybe others might glean a little from this.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3755 on: February 15, 2019, 02:40:05 PM »
Hey mister rab the ''real earth believer''  ;D,.....if something is real you don't need to believe it....it is what it is....REAL and independent of opinion/believe.
Believe is needed to fill the gaps you don't know.
If something still has many gaps in order for you to believe it, it it's not real....''probably real'' in the best case scenario.

You are able to mess up a three word sentence so badly....and you wonder why i don't believe you ?  ::)
I would remove it asap....it makes you look dumb....on the other hand.....please leave it where it is mister '''real earth believer''  ;D ;D ;D.

*

rabinoz

  • 22903
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3756 on: February 15, 2019, 05:07:33 PM »
Hey mister rab the ''real earth believer''  ;D,.....if something is real you don't need to believe it....it is what it is....REAL and independent of opinion/believe.
Believe is needed to fill the gaps you don't know.
If something still has many gaps in order for you to believe it, it it's not real....''probably real'' in the best case scenario.

You are able to mess up a three word sentence so badly....and you wonder why i don't believe you ?  ::)
I would remove it asap....it makes you look dumb....on the other hand.....please leave it where it is mister '''real earth believer''  ;D ;D ;D.
For a start, "Real Earth Believer" is NOT a sentence so I could not "mess up a three word sentence" at all!
But there is absolutely nothing wrong with my claiming to be a"Real Earth Believer".

And one of the many things that "make you look dumb" is that somehow you think destroying NASA will destroy the Globe! What total garbage!
And another is that thinking a slip-up in wording in some unscripted interview really is some massive revelation.

But:
  • Your post is totally irrelevant and off-topic.

  • I wouldn't take any notice of what some who deduces that because the earth looks flat it must be flat ;D.

  • The ''real earth believer'' is a slight play on words based on those flat-earthers who claim to be "Flat Earth Believers".

  • I have not personally seen the earth from high enough to see first hand that it is really a Globe. I have seen photos that I believe are genuine.
    So I must base my belief in the shape of the earth from indirect observations such as:
            the appearance and distance to the horizon,
            the appearance and movement of the sun, moon and stars,
            the measured distances on earth, both mine and numerous others, simply do not fit any flat earth layout I have seen.
    The  confirmation from the numerous photos from space is a nice clincher, though quite unnecessary.

    So, while I believe that I have enough evidence that proves the Globe ďbeyond a reasonable doubtĒ I have been wrong before.
    Nevertheless I simply cannot see any possibility that the earth can be other than a Globe so, at times, I do say that I know the earth is a Globe!
    So there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my claiming to be a "Real Earth Believer".
So, Mr Dutchy, you can keep your pathetic, weak, ignorant attempt at a personal attack to yourself next time.
Either post something on the topic, "Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments", or butt out!
Bye.

PS Oops, sorry about the obligatory copy-n-paste ;D. I did manage a teensy-weensy one ;)!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3757 on: February 15, 2019, 05:54:02 PM »
I wouldn't be so sure mister 'real earth believer'.
Your Łber intelligent scientific masters increasingly gather in the open to marvel about the certainty that our 'real' earth is an advanced simulation of some sorts.
From Elon to Neil and many scientists claim the more we know about supersymmetry the more likely the whole code underneath the micro-macro cosmos indicates an advanced simulation.

And when you don't follow your masters you will become the 'flatearther' one day.
A person denying true science....o the irony...

So again your 'real earth believer' avatar nonsense looks outdated.
There is nothing real in this current world,.... your scientific masters will leed you in the simulation abyss sooner or later that dismisses anything you rabinoz consider for real as in 'reality as we know it for thousends of years'.

Please continue with your topic, but i'll keep an eye on you and hopefully one day you sincerely realise you follow the wrong people.

*

rabinoz

  • 22903
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3758 on: February 15, 2019, 07:37:24 PM »
<< Still empty headed drivel and nothing on the topic, "Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments" >>

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3759 on: February 16, 2019, 02:09:04 AM »

Explain why the atmosphere stacks. No appealing to stacks of physical objects which require things to be pulled/pushed down to stack, as that would make your argument circular.
I tried that. It seems you want physical evidence when you can clearly understand that atmosphere can be seen through which means it's impossible to physically show how that works.
What's not physically impossible to show, is more dense matter and how it stacks into layers of different densities when vibrated.
This is exactly what atmosphere is doing, so if you refuse to accept that then carry on with your own global spin keeping atmosphere on it....somehow and don;t waste another post asking me to prove a stack when I've explained many many times.

I understand your stance in trying to wear me down. It would work if I actually answered you all of teh time. There's a reason why I don't.
You are welcome to dissect my one post into 1000 pieces every time. It only wastes your time because I will either overlook it or simply pick out one piece if I think it's worth responding to.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3760 on: February 16, 2019, 02:13:48 AM »
Matter attracts other matter. Pretty simple.
Nahhh it's not pretty simple at all. In fact you cannot even understand why it happens. I try to tell you but you rely on a fictional force that you absolutely have no idea of.

Not pretty simple to you, is it?
What is pretty simply for you, is to hang onto what you're told and accept it without any proof and to use as an argument (in this instance) that mass attracts mass and believe that's some kind of legitimate answer.

Weak minded.

Quote from: Mainframes
Objects remain at same velocity unless acted on by a force. Also pretty simple.
This is not difficult to understand.
It's only pretty simple if you can have no force. Where do you know that can offer absolutely no force?


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3761 on: February 16, 2019, 02:48:52 AM »
Matter attracts other matter. Pretty simple.
Nahhh it's not pretty simple at all. In fact you cannot even understand why it happens. I try to tell you but you rely on a fictional force that you absolutely have no idea of.

Not pretty simple to you, is it?
What is pretty simply for you, is to hang onto what you're told and accept it without any proof and to use as an argument (in this instance) that mass attracts mass and believe that's some kind of legitimate answer.

Weak minded.

Quote from: Mainframes
Objects remain at same velocity unless acted on by a force. Also pretty simple.
This is not difficult to understand.
It's only pretty simple if you can have no force. Where do you know that can offer absolutely no force?

Do you deny that electrical charges of opposite charge are attracted to each other?
We donít know why that happens either but we know it happens and can measure it to extremely high levels of accuracy and predict its effects.

Attraction of matter to other matter is exactly the same. We donít know why but we do know how. And we can measure very accurately and repeatably.

These are fundamental universal forces.

I never said there was somewhere with absolutely no force but the law of motion still holds.
Letís say you roll a bill down a smooth slope. Are there any sideways forces on the ball? No. Thatís why it rolls in straight line. First law in action.

No stop being deliberately obtuse.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3762 on: February 16, 2019, 02:50:22 AM »
Matter attracts other matter. Pretty simple.
Nahhh it's not pretty simple at all. In fact you cannot even understand why it happens. I try to tell you but you rely on a fictional force that you absolutely have no idea of.

Not pretty simple to you, is it?
What is pretty simply for you, is to hang onto what you're told and accept it without any proof and to use as an argument (in this instance) that mass attracts mass and believe that's some kind of legitimate answer.

Weak minded.

Quote from: Mainframes
Objects remain at same velocity unless acted on by a force. Also pretty simple.
This is not difficult to understand.
It's only pretty simple if you can have no force. Where do you know that can offer absolutely no force?

Weak mind! No proof?

No proof, that just about describes denpressure. No proof.

While conventional physics rests firmly on a base of proven concepts which we witness on a daily basis in all the machines, mechanisms and products we all use, your idea on the other hand stands on nothing more than your say so.

Show me some peer reviewed experiments on your idea or some mechanism that operates on its principles.......or even some publication you have produced? Science has any number of books you can go to that would provide you with the proof you require...you on the other hand can offer zero proof, which makes your previous post a rather hollow excuse.

*

rabinoz

  • 22903
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3763 on: February 16, 2019, 03:40:17 AM »
I wouldn't be so sure mister 'real earth believer'.
Your Łber intelligent scientific masters increasingly gather in the open to marvel about the certainty that our 'real' earth is an advanced simulation of some sorts.
I do not have any "Łber intelligent scientific masters" so forget that!

Quote from: dutchy
From Elon to Neil and many scientists claim the more we know about supersymmetry the more likely the whole code underneath the micro-macro cosmos indicates an advanced simulation.
I certainly wouldn't regard Elon Musk as a "scientist"!
And none of "super-symmetry" particle physics is even slightly relevant to the shape of the earth or even to whether the Heliocentric Solar System is correct or not.
Both of those questions were settled centuries ago.

Quote from: dutchy
And when you don't follow your masters you will become the 'flatearther' one day.
A person denying true science....o the irony...
What a joke you are! I go by evidence, something you should try sometime.
I do believe what scientists say when it fits with my experience and am interested in their hypotheses about things too small or too far away to see.

But I don't "don't follow any masters" so why would what Elon Musk, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye say make me become a 'flatearther' one day.
I don't base my belief on what "Elon Musk, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye say".

So who here is 'denying true science'? Not I!

Quote from: dutchy
So again your 'real earth believer' avatar nonsense looks outdated.
And you're still wrong!
Being a 'Real Earth Believer' is as relevant as ever and I explained why earlier.
It is, however, about time that you learned that "real science" is not about 'proof' because a real scientific theory should be falsifiable.
I would claim, however, that the Globe and the Heliocentric Solar System have so much supporting evidence that we could simply call those 'facts'.

By the way, 'Real Earth Believer' is not my 'avatar', it's my 'personal text'.

Quote from: dutchy
There is nothing real in this current world,.... your scientific masters will leed you in the simulation abyss sooner or later that dismisses anything you rabinoz consider for real as in 'reality as we know it for thousends of years'.
As I implied in my "short form" answer, you do post such puerile nonsense.
But since I have no 'scientific masters' no-one is likely to "lead me in the simulation abyss".
Where do your get all this assumed garbage about 'scientific masters' and what I will or will not do.
Do you naturally have a vivid fantasy life or have you  been enhancing you perception with some of those magic mushrooms?

Quote from: dutchy
Please continue with your topic, but i'll keep an eye on you and hopefully one day you sincerely realise you follow the wrong people.
You do that, but it'll be a waste of your time because I do not follow Elon Musk ;D (heaven forbid), Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye or any current scientist.

But don't let me inhibit your dream time stories they're so highly informative about the sort of person you are!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3764 on: February 16, 2019, 03:56:56 AM »
No problem at all! Here's plenty for you to have fun ridiculing ;D!

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?

Why not?
All molecules are moving randomly and the velocity increases with temperature.
Near the surface, they are "so tightly packed" (so many in each cubic metre) that they cannot move far without colliding with other molecules.
But at hundreds of kilometres above the earth, there are so few molecules that they collided relatively infrequently.

So using the same altitudes as before and taking note that at the higher altitudes that values depend considerably on the current solar activity:
  • At sea level there are about 2.55 x 1025 molecules in each cubic metre and one molecule collides after travelling (on average) only about 6.6 x 10-08 m. 

  • But at 200 km about sea level the number of molecules in each cubic metre is reduced by a factor of about 3,550,000,000 and
         one molecule collides with another after travelling (on average) about 24 mm. 

  • Finally at 400 km about sea level the number of molecules in each cubic metre is reduced by a factor of about 2.4 x 1011 and
         one molecule collides after travelling (on average) about 16 km.
So even at 200 km, considering how small molecules are, travelling 24 mm between collisions, they are moving near enough to independently and
at 400 km, travelling 16 km between collisions, they might as well be "on there one".

Now, you might not believe that space like that can exists, well that's your prerogative.

There's little I can do to convince people who believe in that nonsense you put out above. I know you're only copying it and accept that you accept it for what it is but I see it as clear cringeworthy idiocy.
I honestly fail to understand how skin and bone people who live where we know we live can think for one second we live among some magical space that is devoid of anything and yet can hold supposed big rocks in it just sautering along with no need for any molecular friction and yet they can still have a fiery tail looking like friction.

The magic of so called space where anything can happen in the imagination.

The sooner you understand how your life works and why it works and why there is light, sound and wind, etc, etc, the sooner you will come to realise how duped you've been about the nonsense of what you are told Earth is and how it works.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3765 on: February 16, 2019, 03:58:12 AM »


Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
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.
Yes, just as spacecraft do, but instead of ridiculing how about giving some logical rebuttal - I guess that you can't, so all you can do is to resort to ridicule.
A logical rebuttal is in the so called spacecraft itself but people will refuse to see it.

The so called spacecraft is apparently pressurised to 14.7 pounds per square inch.
That pressurisation is supposedly happening inside a skin that is so flimsy that it can be holed with little effort.
And yet that pressure is apparently pushing the walls of the so called spaceship out against a resistance of.....?......of?......NOTHING as far as you people are concerned, in your space.

I know I know. "but, but scepti, it's only 14.7 pounds per square inch, it's nothing, look at us living under it with no issue."
This is where I cringe. This is where I absolutely fail to grasp how supposed intelligent people can just reel off this stuff until I realise that, to actually tell the truth would be to actually tell the truth and kill it all off in one fell swoop.

"But scepti you've seen scuba tanks and big pressure tanks, they don't explode or rupture."

The arguments are many and desperate.

The only way I can explain something to people about the power of denpressure is to rob Peter to pay Paul kind of thing.
It's so easy to do and so easy to see why this supposed free space nonsense is what it is (fiction).

Grab a bottle. A small glass bottle will do. Something that will not buckle.
Now just using your own mouth, evacuate some air from that bottle.

Do you understand what you did to enable your lips/tongue to now be jammed into that bottle top?
Do you understand what you did for this to happen?


Here's what people think.
They think you sucked air from the bottle and the air left in is pulling your tongue into the bottle.

This is absolutely not what happens but is easy to see why people think it.

People like Rab will understand that a pressure differential has been created and your mouth has actually pushed away the air by crushing it back into your mouth to allow the evacuation of some of the air from the bottle.
Seems weird, right?
But that's what happens.
So what about the reaction?

The reaction is you've now created a bigger pressure in your mouth by allowing that evacuated pressure to naturally EXPAND out of that bottle.
But you also notice how hard it is to evacuate air from a glass bottle, right?

Now this is just one simple little attempt at allowing evacuation or one small suck as some people would think. I'm serious when I say this. People need to learn what this evacuation of atmosphere is and they will definitely understand denpressure, or at least the crux of the simplicity of it against the nonsense of a so called vacuum or near vacuum like we are all told.

So now you feel your tongue being supposedly sucked into the bottle neck but understand now that suck does not exist. It's a pressure squeeze of atmosphere you compressed pushing back against the lower pressure you created which cannot readily resist with the same force like it did before you put your mouth on it and allowed some out.

Can anyone see what I'm saying?
People will certainly jump in and shout " we know how a bottle with air works scepti." The thing is, most actually don't. They think they do and that's why people fall flat when they are told about evacuation chambers and why they do not do what people think and also why so called space cannot work with a globe and why so called spaceships cannot exist in a so called near vacuum of random flying particles in a nothingness.


Come on people put some effort in and try and understand this. Not you Rab. I'm doing this through your post. People would best serve themselves by thinking for themselves and stop looking at the nonsense spewed out by mainstream.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3766 on: February 16, 2019, 04:26:45 AM »




Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
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.
Yes, "Solar wind in a vacuum with independent molecules just flitting about here and there" but it is not quite a vacuum.
I never claimed it was a "vacuum" and I doubt I ever even used the word "vacuum".
You claim close enough in your words. You go on as if nothing is a thing. That to me reeks of a fictional vacuum, so you actually do advocate it in a roundabout way..


Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Clearly you have zero chance of accepting logic. Zero.
Well, not what you call "logic" anyway, that's for sure! But how many others accept "what you call logic" - I guess I could them on the fingers of one hand.
It would take a long time before people will believe me. I'm the nut among the masses. I'm under no illusions about that.
Mainstream ideals ensures the masses see me as nothing more than a clown, uneducated, loner, basement dweller and all of the rest of it. Who would dare to try and see it from my side apart from a few that take their time to actually say "hang on a minute, let's look at what he's saying and try to do it without the distractions."....?
Very few, because very few will ever dare to go against the quilted comfort of mass peer pressured opinion.
Only a few on here will do it but it's no surprise when you consider the site is saturated with globalists that outnumber alternative thinkers by about 100/1 or more. I'm being conservative most likely.
In life it's millions to 1.

It's hard to catch a front running hurdler with removed hurdles whilst those hurdles are added into the path of the chasing pack.
That's where your favour stands, Rab. You are in that comfort zone with everything at your fingertips.

I'm seriously under no illusions about how difficult it is for me to explain anything. I'm also well versed in the tactics used to try to damp down my enthusiasm in continually putting my points across in ever changing ways in order for them to be better grasped.

I don't expect much change but a nice surprise would be genuine people trying to understand my side of the fence. Not for me bu8t for them, because only then will people see the massive nonsense we've been duped into.

It's sickening to be fair but that's the nature of the beast.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3767 on: February 16, 2019, 04:27:47 AM »


Quote from: rabinoz
And you have zero chance of what has been found by experimental investigation and what I call logic.
But I never for a moment thought you could reach the escape velocity needed to leave your fantasy world!

Maybe others might glean a little from this.
Weirdly the very reason we can't reach escape velocity for molecules and for rockets, is quite simple. Really simple.
It's that very stack I mentioned.
It's the change in molecular make up of matter that continually loses resistive pressure due to expansion the more that matter sits higher on that stack as opposed to the larger pressure and subsequent crushing of the molecules below by the continued stacking by the crushing up of the more compressed molecules against the more dense matter that's continually breaking down underground to create that energy push against resistance to it.

All the way to the top the stack loses compression and layers and becomes less by area and so on as they are consistently vibrating by friction as they take their place.
By the time those molecules are finished, or close to finished expanding they take up their stack area with less and less amount and eventually have so little resistance to the below and above, they are almost frozen like glass unless energy agitated by the inner Earth sun which creates a massive push up of agitated matter that slightly compresses into them which creates a bit more friction.

However, the stack in this instance has spread out from the centre and created a dome by compressed to expanded area as far as the energy of the sun can reach both horizontally and vertically which is why we have a dome in the first place.

This is important to understand because it shows there's no space as we are told, in the way we are told.
There will be a space but not something we can see into. We do not see out of this Earth, only what's in it. And ultimately we cannot get out of it, which means there are no extreme achievable heights for man made masses, which means no space ships.

The pressure at Everest alone is a killer.
The mere fact that helicopters struggle at heights as low as this gives an indication that better propelled craft would not fare much better on any vertical too much outside of this.

A helium balloon of immense material strength may gain enough height to sit atop a stack equal to it if the internal pressure did not break down the material but as anyone knows with just nitrogen alone as one element and what it can do to metal, you can understand why the molecules in the material of a helium balloon would become so dormant as to basically be breached and blown apart by the internal helium expansion which would then expand some more to take its place among it's equal expansion of molecules at whatever height.


Understanding why this happens is to understand what we, as humans can do with something as simple as an escape of atmosphere from a container by compressing external atmosphere to allo that escape.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3768 on: February 16, 2019, 04:56:33 AM »

Do you deny that electrical charges of opposite charge are attracted to each other?
We donít know why that happens either but we know it happens and can measure it to extremely high levels of accuracy and predict its effects.
I believe I know why electrical charges work. I believe it is all to do with atmospheric changes in pressures.
It's there in your face. You understand atmospheric charges happen. They key is in the word "atmospheric."

Nothing works without the stack changes in it and it comes down to applied energy that changes the pressures of the stack to create everything we know and see and hear and feel.

Quote from: Mainframes
Attraction of matter to other matter is exactly the same. We donít know why but we do know how. And we can measure very accurately and repeatably.

These are fundamental universal forces.
But I do know why. I've repeatedly explained why and yet you lot cannot explain why.
There's something seriously wrong if so called scientists cannot to this day explain something that was supposedly sussed out hundreds of years ago.
But such is the strong arm of mainstream indoctrination, people just accept any answer they're given, because it's just easier to learn and mimic than to actually think outside of that box.
 
Quote from: Mainframes
I never said there was somewhere with absolutely no force but the law of motion still holds.
If there is force then the first law is not a law at all.
Surely you can see that.
All the law states is a fiction. A saying in a magical world that IF there was no force on an object it wouldn't move....and IF there was movement (which would imply a force applied) then it would take a force to change that movement or it would continue at that velocity forever.
The problem with that is, it requires a force to move and to have a force to move means the force has to be around the object continually as a friction to allow that movement. It can't just appear out of nothing.


And if it is nothing then nothing is what everything would be, which is nothing. Silly isn't it because it means that everything isn't anything so nothing can't be anything either which also means that there cannot be an everything for anything to work in a nothing.

It's a mind thing.

There were 4 people named everybody somebody anybody and nobody and there was an important job to be done.
Everybody was sure somebody would do it, anybody could have done it but nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was clearly everybody's job.
Everybody thought anybody could do it but nobody realised that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It turned out that everybody blamed somebody when nobody did what anybody could have done.


This is what mainstream have at their disposal.
It's a pass the buck game by not pinning anything down to anyone or anything in particular.
This way they can manipulate anything when people try to make logic out of the deliberate buch passing when their theories are questioned and nudged at.

Quote from: Mainframes
Letís say you roll a bill down a smooth slope. Are there any sideways forces on the ball? No. Thatís why it rolls in straight line. First law in action.

No stop being deliberately obtuse.
A smooth slope is a slope of friction.
The forces on that friction come from above and all around the ball.
There is no point at any time where there is no friction.
So your point is pointless in trying to explain a law that has to rely on nothing to stay still but equally nothing to move and stay in motion until a something happens to create a resistance.

It's silly.
The law is a fiction. It's sci-fi and only good for a thought process, not a reality.

It's like having a fictional spaceship in a fictional vacuum. It just moves along forever and can somehow accelerate forever until a speed of light in the dark can overcome it and render it unable to surpass it.

It's all gobbledygook passed off as a reality but is clearly only worthy of a sci-fi musing.

Of course, hypothetical scientists can muse it and make it appear to be a something among their like-minded peers ...and that's absolutely fine as long as it's not cast out as a reality without physical proof.

This is what we are up against and you are one that adheres to what's said for no other reasons than you find it interesting and also easy to side with en-masse against a minority counterargument.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3769 on: February 16, 2019, 05:01:05 AM »


Weak mind! No proof?

No proof, that just about describes denpressure. No proof.

While conventional physics rests firmly on a base of proven concepts which we witness on a daily basis in all the machines, mechanisms and products we all use, your idea on the other hand stands on nothing more than your say so.

Show me some peer reviewed experiments on your idea or some mechanism that operates on its principles.......or even some publication you have produced? Science has any number of books you can go to that would provide you with the proof you require...you on the other hand can offer zero proof, which makes your previous post a rather hollow excuse.
Don't come at me with weak arguments about peer review for my thoughts in order to somehow validate what you adhere to.
Also try not to use weak arguments by using the words conventional physics as though I'm arguing against them.
How about you explain something with the machines in your conventional physics and how and why they work and we will deal with that...or is it just easier to mention me arguing against conventional physics because it makes me appear like I'm arguing that a machine won't work...because?

Weak minded. Step it up.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3770 on: February 16, 2019, 10:06:34 AM »
All of Newtonís laws are based upon first principles.

You then apply these principles to real life situations in order to reduce complex situations into a series of simple ones.

Hence use of first law to apply a series of forces on an object at work out what would actually happen.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

rabinoz

  • 22903
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3771 on: February 16, 2019, 01:00:14 PM »


Quote from: rabinoz
And you have zero chance of what has been found by experimental investigation and what I call logic.
But I never for a moment thought you could reach the escape velocity needed to leave your fantasy world!

Maybe others might glean a little from this.
Weirdly the very reason we can't reach escape velocity for molecules and for rockets, is quite simple. Really simple.
It's that very stack I mentioned.
But, in the real world, some air molecules do escape velocity and many rockets do reach escape velocity, so I won't bother with the rest of your "explanations".

You have never proven nor even given evidence for your hypotheses, so until you do, I and most others here chose to accept "conventional science" developed over the centuries from real experiments.

Until you provide better real evidence, your ideas are no more than fairy stories - get my drift?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3772 on: February 16, 2019, 03:09:20 PM »
Hey mister rab the ''real earth believer''  ;D,.....if something is real you don't need to believe it....it is what it is....REAL and independent of opinion/believe.
Believe is needed to fill the gaps you don't know.
Before trying to correct someone, make sure you know what you are talking about.
You are right that something being real remains that way regardless of belief.

But something being real doesn't mean people don't believe in it.
Believing in something (in this context) means accepting it as true.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Now do you have anything to address the current topic?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3773 on: February 16, 2019, 03:19:31 PM »
I tried that.
Yes, that is the problem. You tried THAT.
Instead of explaining why the atmosphere stacks, you instead appealed to physical objects (bricks if I recall correctly) stacking, based upon them being pulled/pushed down.
As you want to use the stack to explain why things fall that makes it an entirely circular argument.

You are saying things stack because they fall and they fall because they stack. That isn't an explanation.
Are you really surprised that I wont accept that circular reasoning as an explanation?

It seems you want physical evidence when you can clearly understand that atmosphere can be seen through which means it's impossible to physically show how that works.
No, for this I want an explanation.
It is quite easy to show what the pressure/density of the atmosphere is which at least superficially matches your "stacking" idea.
The problem is that all the explanations for this appeal to things being pulled/pushed down, and result in objects in the fluid being pushed up.

Also, sight is not the only way to gain evidence.

So can you provide an explanation which doesn't appeal to thing falling down?
If not, you can't use the stacking to explain why things fall.

carry on with your own global spin keeping atmosphere on it....somehow
Why say crap like that?
You know the globe has an explanation. It isn't just "somehow".
You also know that your nonsense works just as well for a globe.

You are the one that can't explain how the atmosphere stays "stacked"

don;t waste another post asking me to prove a stack when I've explained many many times.
Where have I asked you to prove a stack? I have asked you to explain it, and you are yet to do that.


There's a reason why I don't.
Yes. I know. It is because you have no answer. So you need to avoid the issues to pretend your model is fine.

Now can you quit with all the pathetic distractions and either explain why the atmosphere stacks, or stop claiming you can and stop using it as an explanation for why things fall.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3774 on: February 17, 2019, 02:55:15 PM »
All of Newtonís laws are based upon first principles.

You then apply these principles to real life situations in order to reduce complex situations into a series of simple ones.

Hence use of first law to apply a series of forces on an object at work out what would actually happen.
You cannot use the first law on anything because it's a nonsense made up fictional law.

Give me an example how the first law supposedly works. Remember to use the first law and explain why it works in real time.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3775 on: February 17, 2019, 02:56:28 PM »


Quote from: rabinoz
And you have zero chance of what has been found by experimental investigation and what I call logic.
But I never for a moment thought you could reach the escape velocity needed to leave your fantasy world!

Maybe others might glean a little from this.
Weirdly the very reason we can't reach escape velocity for molecules and for rockets, is quite simple. Really simple.
It's that very stack I mentioned.
But, in the real world, some air molecules do escape velocity and many rockets do reach escape velocity, so I won't bother with the rest of your "explanations".

You have never proven nor even given evidence for your hypotheses, so until you do, I and most others here chose to accept "conventional science" developed over the centuries from real experiments.

Until you provide better real evidence, your ideas are no more than fairy stories - get my drift?
Tell me how these air molecules happen to escape your Earth. Nice and simple.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3776 on: February 17, 2019, 03:03:56 PM »
You know the globe has an explanation. It isn't just "somehow".
You also know that your nonsense works just as well for a globe.

You are the one that can't explain how the atmosphere stays "stacked"

I easily explain it.
You cannot rationally explain why the atmosphere stacks though, in your model that you adhere to because it's a fictional spinning globe that has no foundation for the atmosphere to stack upon. It somehow envelopes this supposed ball and somehow loses a little bit of helium or whatever into so called space but just happens to be a gas against a nothing when we can clearly see in our Earth that this is absolutely not the case with gases and fluids under severe low pressure or the vacuum you adhere to for your space.

This is why gravity has to be used because it's something that explains the happenings without any rational proof required. It just does what it does, because. And you don't even have to know what it is as a force because...well...it's mainstream scripted so why not just accept it even though you have absolutely no clue about it.

*

rabinoz

  • 22903
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3777 on: February 17, 2019, 07:10:21 PM »
You have never proven nor even given evidence for your hypotheses, so until you do, I and most others here chose to accept "conventional science" developed over the centuries from real experiments.

Until you provide better real evidence, your ideas are no more than fairy stories - get my drift?
Tell me how these air molecules happen to escape your Earth. Nice and simple.
Why should I bother with any explanations, simple though they are, until you post your evidence?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3778 on: February 17, 2019, 08:04:18 PM »
You cannot use the first law on anything because it's a nonsense made up fictional law.
You have already accepted the first law.
Remember, in order to reject it you need to assert that things can magically accelerate without any application of force.

I easily explain it.
You cannot rationally explain why the atmosphere stacks though
Stop projecting.
The closest you have come to an explanation is an analogy appealing to things falling.
But as you try and use this stack to explain why things fall, that makes no sense.
If you could easily explain it, you would.

Meanwhile, I have explained it several times, with you being completely unable to refute it. If you want an explanation, go start a new topic asking for that. This topic is for discussing your model.

Now then are you going to explain why air stacks, or don't you have an explanation?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3779 on: February 17, 2019, 11:31:03 PM »
You have never proven nor even given evidence for your hypotheses, so until you do, I and most others here chose to accept "conventional science" developed over the centuries from real experiments.

Until you provide better real evidence, your ideas are no more than fairy stories - get my drift?
Tell me how these air molecules happen to escape your Earth. Nice and simple.
Why should I bother with any explanations, simple though they are, until you post your evidence?
You don't need to bother. You don't even need to respond, Rab. I'm happy for you to never respond.
I asked you to explain and you refuse. No issue from me.