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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 101144 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3780 on: February 17, 2019, 11:41:18 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.
No I don't need to do anything. The fact that something cannot accelerate without force and the fact that something cannot stay in motion at the same velocity unless acted upon by a force is all I need to know to show the first law is nothing more than a fiction.
You can't explain it in real terms, you can only explain it in a hypothetical scenario.
For a law to be so it has to work in real life, physically.

This is nothing more and nothing less that sci-fi.
Accept it but feel free to carry on saying I accept it.

Quote from: JackBlack

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.

Of course it makes no sense to you. You don't seriously think I expect it to make sense to people like you, do you?
Most people take no notice of me, why do you?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3781 on: February 18, 2019, 12:42:33 AM »
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.
In what time do you live? Middle ages? You still think that air is not physical because we can see and move through it? Of course we want you to put your claims in reality and have physical evidence because other people have already advanced technology and can see atoms through electron microscopes and stack them as they wish and build nanomaterials literally atom by atom. But you go by your eye and same time make claims about things you can't see or demonstrate. Why should anyone take you seriously or believe anything you say when you can't demonstrate anything and can't even predict effects of your gobbledygook.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3782 on: February 18, 2019, 02:19:35 AM »
No I don't need to do anything.
You have 2 options.
You either stop saying the first law is wrong, or you accept the consequences of the first law being wrong, that objects will magically accelerate without cause.

The fact that something cannot accelerate without force
Shows the first law is correct.

the fact that something cannot stay in motion at the same velocity unless acted upon by a force
Is not a fact at all.
If you wish to claim it is, prove it.
Note, this requires showing there needs to be a net force on the object.

You can't explain it in real terms, you can only explain it in a hypothetical scenario.
I have, repeatedly; you ignored it, repeatedly.


Of course it makes no sense to you.
No. It makes no sense to any sane human being.
You are saying A causes B and B causes A.
That is entirely circular and doesn't make any sense as an explanation.

Now, can you explain how the atmosphere stacks?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3783 on: February 20, 2019, 06:30:53 AM »
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.
In what time do you live? Middle ages? You still think that air is not physical because we can see and move through it?
If you can see atoms through a microscope then you are seeing them through atmosphere. If you are seeing them through atmosphere then you can't see it but you can see through it. It's still physical but not discernible by eye.
However, having said that, I use atmos very loosely, only because people use them to argue without having a clue what they are, physically.
It's all about who takes in the stories as fact and rides with them as their life set of facts, which could be anything but.
No need to argue this, you know what I'm saying is on the mark.

Quote from: zork
Of course we want you to put your claims in reality and have physical evidence because other people have already advanced technology and can see atoms through electron microscopes and stack them as they wish and build nanomaterials literally atom by atom.
Nano materials eh?
You have no clue what these nano materials are other than (like I said) being told this that and the other.
We could be told a new breed of unicorn has been studied and people would simply believe it.
There's natural science and there's pseudoscience and blatant lies. Picking one or the other does not make them all correct unless you can verify them.
Only natural science will provide you with your answers and that requires you to do your own research or you can hypothesise or simply just go along with stories told and sold to you.

You're in no better scientific than I am and that goes for most.

Now as I say that I say it from the point of view of what you think you know, theoretically, not what you physically know. Two very different things.



Quote from: zork
But you go by your eye and same time make claims about things you can't see or demonstrate. Why should anyone take you seriously or believe anything you say when you can't demonstrate anything and can't even predict effects of your gobbledygook.
Nobody does take me seriously. I'm not interested whether you decide to take me seriously or not.
You reply, so you're either doing it because you're bored or doing it for fun or you are inquisitive and want to delve.

Take your pick but don't be under any impression that I care what you think about what I think.
Look over my stuff or don't...but if you do, do it for your own mind. If you don't want to then you have nobody  forcing you to give me even one of your words. Just save your energy for something you are interested in.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3784 on: February 20, 2019, 06:46:09 AM »
The fact that something cannot accelerate without force
Shows the first law is correct.
You have 2 options.
You either stop saying the first law is wrong, or you accept the consequences of the first law being wrong, that objects will magically accelerate without cause.
It's not even a law to be really called anything other than a sci-fi dream up..
You know 100% in your physical world that there isn't an object that you can think of legitimately that can accelerate without a force.
Everyone else knows this.
Anyone who denies it needs to show how it works.
If not then the law is a nothing.


Quote from: JackBlack
the fact that something cannot stay in motion at the same velocity unless acted upon by a force
Is not a fact at all.
If you wish to claim it is, prove it.
Note, this requires showing there needs to be a net force on the object.
There's nothing at all which disproves what I've said.
You cannot prove what's being said about the law.
Everything in motion is subject to friction/resistance which will slow it down at all times unless consistent energy is applied to it which means there has to be a push to start, which means there has to be a starting friction/resistance to accelerate the object in the first place.

The first law can be scrubbed.
Wanna deal with the second one?

Quote from: JackBlack
You can't explain it in real terms, you can only explain it in a hypothetical scenario.
I have, repeatedly; you ignored it, repeatedly.

No you haven't explained anything. You're pretending you have because you know you have no legitimate answer. Nobody does. Except a massive appeal to authority, of course.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3785 on: February 20, 2019, 12:15:05 PM »
You have no clue what these nano materials are other than (like I said) being told this that and the other.
Again, not everyone is as ignorant as you. Stop acting like they are and instead address the issues raised.

It's not even a law to be really called anything other than a sci-fi dream up..
Again, I don't give a damn if you don't want to call it a law, it is one as it is expressing something in a simple mathematical form, i.e. a=0 when F=0.
If you reject it you need to claim nonsense like things magically accelerating without cause.

You know 100% in your physical world that there isn't an object that you can think of legitimately that can accelerate without a force.
Everyone else knows this.
Anyone who denies it needs to show how it works.
Then get to showing how it works because you are the one denying it.

There's nothing at all which disproves what I've said.
There is plenty, which I have provided in your other thread.
Objects experiencing no net force are observed to continue in motion.

Everything in motion is subject to friction/resistance
Which is an external force, which can also be countered by applying another external force, bringing the net force to 0, or it can just be shielded from that by another object which will have the forces acting upon it instead.
So that doesn't help your case.

Like I said, if you want to dismiss the first law you need to claim that objects will magically accelerate without cause.

No you haven't explained anything.
I have. But again, this isn't the thread for it. If you want to discuss how the air stays stuck to the real Earth in reality, then go make a new thread on it.
This thread is for discussing your model. Stop trying to use other models as a pathetic distraction.

Can you explain why the air stacks YES OR NO?
If yes, explain it.
If no, stop pretending you can and stop lying by saying you have.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3786 on: February 20, 2019, 02:12:08 PM »
Possibly jackbs confusion can be cleaered up with a reasonable simple and basic diagram.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3787 on: February 21, 2019, 02:13:23 AM »
If you can see atoms through a microscope then you are seeing them through atmosphere. If you are seeing them through atmosphere then you can't see it but you can see through it. It's still physical but not discernible by eye.
There is no atmosphere inside electron microscope. They get air out from there so there is quite high-vacuum environment there. They could not use electron microscope when there is air or some gas between target and electron cannon. Electrons would bounce of from air/gas particles and they could not see anything correctly.

No need to argue this, you know what I'm saying is on the mark.
Knowing means that you can demonstrate it. You can't. So you are not on the mark but just speculate and make up whatever you want.

Nano materials eh?
You have no clue what these nano materials are other than (like I said) being told this that and the other.
I don't know why do you think that just denying things make them go away. Nanomaterials are real and in use. There is no arguing about that. You can deny them all you want but that is just you denying facts and others can just ignore you on this topic

You reply, so you're either doing it because you're bored or doing it for fun or you are inquisitive and want to delve.
I want you to go further from just making up things and talking. Its been what, some 3..4 years now and you only talk and make up things. Also no one can't delve anywhere because all your things are made up. No one can research anything. If you say that you KNOW something and it is not only just imagination in your head then you MUST be able to demonstrate it in actual and physical world in some way. So that some other person sees it, not only you. If it is only you then it is your personal hallucination.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3788 on: February 21, 2019, 03:49:18 AM »
There is no atmosphere inside electron microscope. They get air out from there so there is quite high-vacuum environment there. They could not use electron microscope when there is air or some gas between target and electron cannon. Electrons would bounce of from air/gas particles and they could not see anything correctly.
Technically this depends upon the quality. There are some low vacuum ones which have a considerable amount of air, but have significantly limited resolution.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3789 on: February 21, 2019, 10:09:29 AM »
If you can see atoms through a microscope then you are seeing them through atmosphere. If you are seeing them through atmosphere then you can't see it but you can see through it. It's still physical but not discernible by eye.
There is no atmosphere inside electron microscope. They get air out from there so there is quite high-vacuum environment there. They could not use electron microscope when there is air or some gas between target and electron cannon. Electrons would bounce of from air/gas particles and they could not see anything correctly.
Tell me what an electron microscope is and what it does to capture and magnify matter, because that's essentially what a microscope is.
So let's clarify the electron bit and how it works and how you are sure it works. Some proof from you would be ideal instead of the usual appeal to authority that you all do.

Let me put it into perspective just to help you along.
Try and understand how your eyes work. They make sense of waves and frequencies, reflection and refraction.
This all requires a medium like atmosphere.
To not have any would render everything a nothing.
To take away the spectrum would be taking away the atmosphere.

However, to look through a microscope you know fine well that you have to see through atmosphere. Your eyes have to make sense of the matter on offer which is naturally more dense than what you're seeing it through.

So let's not pretend that you don't need atmosphere. And by atmosphere, I'm talking everything as a fluid to see more dense matter that is not recognised as being a fluid but rather, a solid.


Quote from: zork
Nano materials eh?
You have no clue what these nano materials are other than (like I said) being told this that and the other.
I don't know why do you think that just denying things make them go away. Nanomaterials are real and in use. There is no arguing about that. You can deny them all you want but that is just you denying facts and others can just ignore you on this topic
I question it. I can be sceptical and I can not believe. Nobody has produced anything that makes me believe in something I'm questioning. I'm still waiting for that.

As for me. I have my own musings. They aren't put out as fact. They are taken as fact because I argue my side in a staunch way.
That's the issue you people have. It's not my issue.
My issue is quite simple.
I question what I believe is not a whole truth and I muse over what I think could be the potential truth of a potential lie.

My own simple experiments show me there are issues. They do not show you there are issues, because you do not and will not see issues against what you've been schooled into believing.
I can't expect you or anyone else to waive away your indoctrinated belief's through schooling into what I believe are fictional explanations for your Earth and what and why things happen on it.
I can't expect you to be anything less than arrogant in your massive appeal to authority when trying to school me back into the trap I had set for me at an early age.

I'm a sort of " fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" type of person.

So....in a nutshell. I have my own thoughts. You can absolutely try your utmost to destroy them. You can absolutely try your best to try and get me to prove experiments to you and then spend as much time as you need to tell all and sundry that I can't do it and anything I do would be worthless.

Anything you feel you need to do to try and put a spanner in my thoughts, you'll no doubt try, along with your likeminded globalist friends. I accept that.

Just accept this. I'm going to keep explaining. I know I'm virtually on my own. I know I have no backing. It's not like I'm begging for anything.
People looking in and those who feel they may dare to try and look at it to understand it, legitimately will either do so in plain forum sight or they will sit back and do it quietly and try and work it out as and when they get snippets from me amid all the absolute gunk you people throw out, but gunk you're well entitled to throw because you know no better. At least the honest one's who are simply gullible.

What more can I add?

Quote from: zork
You reply, so you're either doing it because you're bored or doing it for fun or you are inquisitive and want to delve.
I want you to go further from just making up things and talking. Its been what, some 3..4 years now and you only talk and make up things. Also no one can't delve anywhere because all your things are made up. No one can research anything. If you say that you KNOW something and it is not only just imagination in your head then you MUST be able to demonstrate it in actual and physical world in some way. So that some other person sees it, not only you. If it is only you then it is your personal hallucination.
My stuff is made up. But why are they?
Did I just sir there one day and think " I know, I'll just make something up"......?

Not quite.
I formed my hypothesis based on how the simple things work as opposed to the magic trickery of how weare told they work.
I tried and better tried to explain something that most people simply take for granted as a simple vacuum without knowing what a vacuum is and why it happens to do what it apparently does.

I explain it and yet nobody explains their side from a global point of view that makes any rational sense, yet are happy to tell me that my theory is bordering on the wayward lunatic fringe.
Funny that.

Most people are scared to try and understand it so they mock it because it embarrasses them when they can't fathom simplicity yet are more than happy to reel off equations for silly stuff that were apparent musings of yesteryear characters who simply thought up stuff.....with no proof.

So there's no need to tell me about made up stuff when your whole adhered to global Earth rotation shenanigans are all the end product of magical mysteries to make it work in a manner that observations would appear to show from the mindset of those who believe they have physically mapped out the entire world on their own.

The reality is, you are sold a story for each issue and you store your stories into your reference library to peruse and reel off at any point in time that requires your input...or that you feel requires it to hopefully put right any person who either gets confused about the workings or becomes sceptical of them....or......actually discards them for their own theories.

The end result for you is back to the very same thing. It's not a knowledge that you're sure of as a physical fact, it's one that you're so sure of as a massive adherence and appeal to that authority.

I appeal to my own senses and I will sift through the stories and palce the potentials in the places that I think suit best. That way I can nibble away as time goes on to see where the potential real story goes...or ends.

The chances of me finding the whole truth is slim. The chances of me ever believing in a spinning globe with all its nonsense to make it work?.............ZERO

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3790 on: February 21, 2019, 12:14:21 PM »
So youíre basically saying youíll ignore all evidence that you donít agree with and push your own agenda without a shred of your own evidence to back it up.

And you have the audacity to criticise us.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3791 on: February 21, 2019, 12:29:11 PM »
Tell me what an electron microscope is and what it does to capture and magnify matter, because that's essentially what a microscope is.
Again with the pathetic distractions.
How about you start trying to focus on your model?
You continually resort to distractions and demands for explanations which you simply dismiss, all so you can avoid having to justify your model.

This all requires a medium like atmosphere.
No it doesn't.
Stop living in the past.
Some ways require a physical medium like the atmosphere.
Electromagnetic waves do not. Their "medium" is the electromagnetic field.

However, to look through a microscope you know fine well that you have to see through atmosphere.
No, sane people do not know that, in fact no one does, as it is pure fiction.

So let's not pretend that you don't need atmosphere.
No, lets not pretend that you do, as you are yet to justify that in any way.

Nobody has produced anything that makes me believe in something I'm questioning. I'm still waiting for that.
Stop lying. You aren't waiting for anything. You will dismiss everything that shows you to be wrong or shows reality to be right (unless it agrees with you). You have no interest in the truth or actually producing model which matches reality.

They aren't put out as fact.
You are stating them as facts, so they are being put out as facts.

My own simple experiments show me there are issues.
Yet you are unable to provide any experiments which show any issues, while plenty of experiments have been discusses which show massive issues with your nonsense.

What more can I add?
What has already been requested.
Actual explanations, which are not circular and which are consistent, rather than magically different physics for different situations.
Experiments which are capable of distinguishing between your nonsense and mainstream models and show your nonsense to be correct, i.e. evidence of your model.

So far you are yet to provide either.
The closest you have to an explanation is things fall because the atmosphere stacks and the atmosphere stacks because things fall.
Except the things which don't fall, which are magically pushed up by the stack instead, even though the stack doesn't push up, except when it magically does.

People not accepting your claims has nothing to do with indoctrination and is entirely to do with your completely inability to rationally defend your model in any way.

I formed my hypothesis based on how the simple things work as opposed to the magic trickery of how weare told they work.
And that is the problem. You weren't trying to find the truth, you were trying to reject the accepted models and explanation.
As such, you needed things which directly contradicted them, which you then just accepted with absolutely no justification.

I explain it and yet nobody explains their side from a global point of view that makes any rational sense
It has been explained to you repeatedly, but again, if you want these, do it in another thread.
And again, the globe has nothing to do with it as your denpressure nonsense just as well for a globe.

Most people are scared to try and understand it
Who? I am yet to see a single example?
Instead plenty of people have understood it and realise it is pure nonsense which contradicts itself.

Now, can you start explaining the basics, like how the atmosphere stacks?
I don't just want evidence that it does, I want an explanation as to why it does.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3792 on: February 22, 2019, 02:18:43 AM »
If you can see atoms through a microscope then you are seeing them through atmosphere. If you are seeing them through atmosphere then you can't see it but you can see through it. It's still physical but not discernible by eye.
There is no atmosphere inside electron microscope. They get air out from there so there is quite high-vacuum environment there. They could not use electron microscope when there is air or some gas between target and electron cannon. Electrons would bounce of from air/gas particles and they could not see anything correctly.
Tell me what an electron microscope is and what it does to capture and magnify matter, because that's essentially what a microscope is.

  Go and read wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope . You are talking about building blocks of universe and yuo don't know what electronic microscope is. And don't start that it is som magix device which ordinary people can't get hands on and use it. From Applied Science channel for example -

Try and understand how your eyes work. They make sense of waves and frequencies, reflection and refraction.
This all requires a medium like atmosphere.
I know how eyes work. Seems that you don't know and are making up things again. Light does not need other medium than space for propagation like any other electromagnetic radiation.


I question it. I can be sceptical and I can not believe. Nobody has produced anything that makes me believe in something I'm questioning. I'm still waiting for that.
No, no, no. You don't question it. You just deny it and refuse to research anything. There is nothing to do if you are deliberately and willfully ignorant.


My stuff is made up. But why are they?
Did I just sir there one day and think " I know, I'll just make something up"......?

Not quite.
I formed my hypothesis based on how the simple things work as opposed to the magic trickery of how weare told they work.
I tried and better tried to explain something that most people simply take for granted as a simple vacuum without knowing what a vacuum is and why it happens to do what it apparently does.

I explain it and yet nobody explains their side from a global point of view that makes any rational sense, yet are happy to tell me that my theory is bordering on the wayward lunatic fringe.
Funny that.
...

I appeal to my own senses and I will sift through the stories and palce the potentials in the places that I think suit best.
You contradict yourself here. First of all you acknowledge that your stuff is made up. Then you say you formed hypothesis. Hypothesis is usually based on evidence, something real that everyone can observe and test. Seems that you don't have anything like that and you just dreamed up your hypothesis and it does not base on reality. Then you talk that you "tried and tried to explain..". No, you just tell other people your dreams and say that even when they can't verify anything they must accpet it without any evidence whatsoever. Then you are saying you have theory when you even don't have hypothesis yet but only speculations that quite exactly are bordering on the wayward lunatic fringe. And then you say that you appeal to your own senses but what senses? Your hallucinations inside your brain? Because no one can verify or sense or see or detect with their senses or with any apparataus these things you claim to be sensing. Only you. And then you wonder why others don't understand or accept anything when you literally talk about your dreams/hallucinations.
 And for last, we are not told how things work. We are taught how things work and explained with real demonstrations, examples, observations, hands on experiments and so on. Math and physics to predict and back up all of that. You don't have anything like that and your "explanations" are just talk, made up fantasies. I guess everyone should have a hobby but don't expext that anyone should listen to you when you can't demonstrate absolutely anything you say. Give even one actual demonstration which anyone can do in real life and you have something to stand on.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3793 on: February 22, 2019, 06:56:08 AM »
So youíre basically saying youíll ignore all evidence that you donít agree with and push your own agenda without a shred of your own evidence to back it up.

And you have the audacity to criticise us.
Not quite. I'll question something which pretends to have evidence by asking for it and then go from there to get a feel for what appears to be closer to a truth, or not.

And I criticise the model you adhere to, not you personally. If you want to take it that way then carry on.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3794 on: February 22, 2019, 07:17:28 AM »
Go and read wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope . You are talking about building blocks of universe and yuo don't know what electronic microscope is. And don't start that it is som magix device which ordinary people can't get hands on and use it. From Applied Science channel for example -
So what are you looking at?
A 2 mm drill bit magnified?
Graphs?
Tell me how this electron microscope works in simple terms to see these so called atoms and what not...and even arrange them like was mentioned.


Quote from: zork
I know how eyes work. Seems that you don't know and are making up things again. Light does not need other medium than space for propagation like any other electromagnetic radiation.
Good luck standing in a windowless room with no means of illumination and then tell me your eyes can see perfectly well with no medium.
In the room you have a medium but you have nothing to reflect light from to your eyes and back.

You are blinded by sci-fi but think it's a clear sunny day.


Quote from: zork
No, no, no. You don't question it. You just deny it and refuse to research anything. There is nothing to do if you are deliberately and willfully ignorant.
It depends on who is being willfully ignorant to sci-fi or facts as opposed to someone being ignorant to looking for the potential truth's of potential lies.

Quote from: zork
And for last, we are not told how things work. We are taught how things work and explained with real demonstrations, examples, observations, hands on experiments and so on.
You are taught how to relay theories back. Not by physical proof but by word of mouth, books and video, plus rigged up models apparently predicting a reality without any hope of physically showing it.

Unless you can give me an experiment that 100% proves something that I'm arguing against, which you can verify to be that truth.
Quote from: zork
Math and physics to predict and back up all of that.
Ok then give me something that backs up what I'm arguing against but make sure what you back up you physically back up. Don't just sling out your math and physics for something if you have no hands on proof of it.
Appealing to authority is not evidence to me.
Quote from: zork
Give even one actual demonstration which anyone can do in real life and you have something to stand on.
I have a few experiments that you can do but you're not really into that, just like the rest.
Why?
It's obvious why. The truth is not what you want. You want to hang onto the sci-fi as your truth.

Just in case you want to, go and look up the centripetal force in a low pressure chamber. I explained what you need and how to do it in atmosphere and then in low pressure.

This small thing alone scuppers the globe and with it, space. It basically shuts it all down in one simple experiment.

I know I know. You can't find it and when you do you will argue it.
You can't argue it with honesty but you can without it.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3795 on: February 22, 2019, 08:11:07 AM »
Tell me how this electron microscope works in simple terms to see these so called atoms and what not...and even arrange them like was mentioned.
Now you are just demonstrating here your willful ignorance. I gave you wikipedia link and if you have any ability to comprehend the text you read then you can do search with your preferred search engine and read up. Asking me here to explain just shows that you don't want to understand anything. Just deflect and derail topic.

Good luck standing in a windowless room with no means of illumination and then tell me your eyes can see perfectly well with no medium.
  I really don't know how to react to this. You think that light is a medium? If I stand in a windowless room then it does not mean that there is no medium. It only means there is no visible light. And if I use some night goggles or any other device which enables to see infrared or other wavelengths then I can see quite well. Visible light is no requirement for "seeing" something. You can also use sound or any other radiation/whatever which reflects back from surroundings and if you have device which detects waves which reflect back and interprets them then you can "see" quite well.

It depends on who is being willfully ignorant to sci-fi or facts as opposed to someone being ignorant to looking for the potential truth's of potential lies.
You are willfully ignorant and honestly... you are telling lies here. You haven't presented among your speculations anything that can be called "fact" here.

Unless you can give me an experiment that 100% proves something that I'm arguing against, which you can verify to be that truth.
You are arguing against everything. Go get elementary level physics and chemistry books and start with simple experiments. You can also be specific and aks something. If not me then others can recommend experiments to you but you have to at first understand the basics and have a budget if yuo are going to ask for example to see or measure elementary particles.

Ok then give me something that backs up what I'm arguing against but make sure what you back up you physically back up. Don't just sling out your math and physics for something if you have no hands on proof of it.
Appealing to authority is not evidence to me.
Why you are always asking others to provide when you don't provide anything and you always appeal to yourself as authority?

Quote from: zork
Give even one actual demonstration which anyone can do in real life and you have something to stand on.
I have a few experiments that you can do but you're not really into that, just like the rest.
Why?
It's obvious why. The truth is not what you want. You want to hang onto the sci-fi as your truth.

Just in case you want to, go and look up the centripetal force in a low pressure chamber. I explained what you need and how to do it in atmosphere and then in low pressure.

This small thing alone scuppers the globe and with it, space. It basically shuts it all down in one simple experiment.
So, you can't give any real experiments which somehow support your speculations. Thought so. Also, just doing and experiment, looking at it and starting to make up things randomly and making baseless assertions is not a way to go. I don't know what you have dreamed up but your "small thing" has nothing to do with the space and the shape of the earth.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3796 on: February 22, 2019, 09:51:12 AM »
So youíre basically saying youíll ignore all evidence that you donít agree with and push your own agenda without a shred of your own evidence to back it up.

And you have the audacity to criticise us.
Not quite. I'll question something which pretends to have evidence by asking for it and then go from there to get a feel for what appears to be closer to a truth, or not.

And I criticise the model you adhere to, not you personally. If you want to take it that way then carry on.

Kind of hard to not take it personally when you cal us "gullible fools", you ignorant tinfoil fedora wearing moron.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3797 on: February 22, 2019, 09:56:25 AM »
Scepti:

"I have a few experiments that you can do but you're not really into that, just like the rest."

Ok
Lets have them.
Lets do them.
Pretty sure weve been asking for them.
Theres 127pg here of poeple asking for them.
What part of "show us your experiements" did you not understand?

Please
Show
Us
Your
Experiements.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3798 on: February 22, 2019, 12:16:41 PM »
Not quite. I'll question something which pretends to have evidence by asking for it and then go from there
Stop lying.
You "question" (which really means dismiss and make pathetic, dishonest demands) things which show you to be wrong, and demand evidence for them, only to dismiss that evidence when it is provided, with no justification at all.

And I criticise the model you adhere to, not you personally. If you want to take it that way then carry on.
No, you repeatedly criticise people. You call them brainwashed and indoctrinated and repeatedly act like they are far too stupid to understand even allegedly simple things.

Tell me how this electron microscope works in simple terms to see these so called atoms and what not
How many times must it be said?
This is a topic for discussing your delusional nonsense, not for you to make pathetic demands about reality.

Good luck standing in a windowless room with no means of illumination
Where did he say anything like that?
Why don't you try responding honestly for once?

It depends on who is being willfully ignorant
That would be you.

Unless you can give me an experiment that 100% proves something that I'm arguing against, which you can verify to be that truth.
Plenty have been provided, where you then go and contradict yourself and pretend there is no problem.

I have a few experiments that you can do
But you don't bother providing them.
Why?
Is it because you don't actually have any experiments that show the mainstream model to be wrong and your model to be correct?

Just in case you want to, go and look up the centripetal force in a low pressure chamber.
We have already been over this, your experiment is consistent with mainstream explanations. It in no way shows you only magically have inertia in air.
What you needed is to have your beads sit on the disk and spin with it without flying to the edge or bouncing around.

This small thing alone scuppers
Just your claims regarding inertia in a vacuum.


Now, are you going to explain why the atmosphere stacks? Or is that an impossible topic for you?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3799 on: February 22, 2019, 12:17:22 PM »
So, you can't give any real experiments which somehow support your speculations. Thought so. Also, just doing and experiment, looking at it and starting to make up things randomly and making baseless assertions is not a way to go. I don't know what you have dreamed up but your "small thing" has nothing to do with the space and the shape of the earth.
Really?
Because things are supposed to be orbiting Earth and don't fly into so called space because they're on a hypothetical string where they don't fly into so called space because so called gravity is holding onto that string.
Centripetal force we are told.

So this should be the case inside a chamber with pressure evacuated, right?
A small bead tied to a string on a small fan motor should swing like a helicopter blade, right?

A bead should stay inside jammed against a lipped lid which is glued to the shaft of the motor and under spin in atmosphere and then also stay the same under evacuation.

Why don't you go and try this out and see if it works.
I've done it so I know the answer.
Let's see how you get on.
Or are you going to make excuses for why you can't perform this?

« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 12:23:38 PM by sceptimatic »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3800 on: February 22, 2019, 12:22:49 PM »
Because things are supposed to be orbiting Earth and don't fly into so called space because they're on a hypothetical string where they don't fly into so called space because so called gravity is holding onto that string.
In that pathetic analogy gravity would be the string, not holding onto it.

So this should be the case inside a chamber with pressure evacuated, right?
A small bead tied to a string on a small fan motor should swing like a helicopter blade, right?
Yet you didn't do that, or anything like it, even though people requested you do.
I wonder why?

A bead should stay inside jammed against a lipped lid which is glued to the shaft of the motor and under spin in atmosphere and then also stay the same under evacuation.
Again, that isn't what you tried. You have beads sitting on your lid, which clearly wasn't flat, and had the beads bounce out. That is still 100% consistent with mainstream explanations and inertia still working in a vacuum.

Again, what you need to show it is wrong is to have the beads magically sit on the lid, not in the lip, and have them move around with the lid. But they didn't.

So people don't need to rush out and perform the experiment. Your results are still 100% consistent with the mainstream models and explanations.
Your experiment doesn't refute anything.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3801 on: February 22, 2019, 12:23:14 PM »

We have already been over this, your experiment is consistent with mainstream explanations. It in no way shows you only magically have inertia in air.
What you needed is to have your beads sit on the disk and spin with it without flying to the edge or bouncing around.


No it's not.
Mainstream explanations for so called Earth orbiting is to use gravity and the imaginary string effect to stop a whizzing object around so called global Earth from flying into so called space.
You people even used a swing ball or swinging a ball on a string around your head.
You said in space you do not need the string because gravity pulls on the object.


Is this still the explanation or has it changed.
Let's be clear....if you can.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3802 on: February 22, 2019, 12:31:15 PM »
Because things are supposed to be orbiting Earth and don't fly into so called space because they're on a hypothetical string where they don't fly into so called space because so called gravity is holding onto that string.
In that pathetic analogy gravity would be the string, not holding onto it.
So it's not a pathetic analogy, is it if the string is gravity, as you say and as I've clearly stated.

Quote from: JackBlack
So this should be the case inside a chamber with pressure evacuated, right?
A small bead tied to a string on a small fan motor should swing like a helicopter blade, right?
Yet you didn't do that, or anything like it, even though people requested you do.
I wonder why?
Ohhh but I did do that. Once someone asked me about it I done it.
Do you want to know what happened?
In fact how about you tell me what happened in this scenario of spinning the bead on the string without evacuation and then evacuating atmosphere from the chamber.

Let's see what you would expect.
By all means try and duck out of this because this puts the ball firmly in your court and the court of others who are duped by this nonsense centripetal force in a so called vacuum of space.

Quote from: JackBlack
A bead should stay inside jammed against a lipped lid which is glued to the shaft of the motor and under spin in atmosphere and then also stay the same under evacuation.
Again, that isn't what you tried. You have beads sitting on your lid, which clearly wasn't flat, and had the beads bounce out. That is still 100% consistent with mainstream explanations and inertia still working in a vacuum.

Again, what you need to show it is wrong is to have the beads magically sit on the lid, not in the lip, and have them move around with the lid. But they didn't.

So people don't need to rush out and perform the experiment. Your results are still 100% consistent with the mainstream models and explanations.
Your experiment doesn't refute anything.
Unable or unwilling to do the experiments?
I'd say you are unwilling because you know fine well what the outcome is and it's not good for your global orbits, is it?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3803 on: February 22, 2019, 01:05:33 PM »
So, you can't give any real experiments which somehow support your speculations. Thought so. Also, just doing and experiment, looking at it and starting to make up things randomly and making baseless assertions is not a way to go. I don't know what you have dreamed up but your "small thing" has nothing to do with the space and the shape of the earth.
Really?
Because things are supposed to be orbiting Earth and don't fly into so called space because they're on a hypothetical string where they don't fly into so called space because so called gravity is holding onto that string.
Centripetal force we are told.

So this should be the case inside a chamber with pressure evacuated, right?
Are you deliberately trying to show yourself as stupid? Chamber with pressure evacuated sitting on the massive sphere is not same as massive sphere inside vacuum. Your chamber is inside the earth gravitation field and that affects everything you do. So no, it definitely is not same with the massive earth and with tiny vacuum chamber which sits on the earth.

A small bead tied to a string on a small fan motor should swing like a helicopter blade, right?

A bead should stay inside jammed against a lipped lid which is glued to the shaft of the motor and under spin in atmosphere and then also stay the same under evacuation.

Why don't you go and try this out and see if it works.
I've done it so I know the answer.
Let's see how you get on.
Or are you going to make excuses for why you can't perform this?
  No, I am not going to make excuses. I am just not going to do it. If you got some result then you got some result. What comes after that is what I am talking about. You look at that experiment and then just make up some stuff which has absolutely no relevance to the experiment. That is what is really fucked up.
 
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3804 on: February 22, 2019, 02:17:34 PM »
No it's not.
You sure love asserting that, but you are yet to present any justification as to why.

gravity
Your experiment had nothing to do with gravity so it is irrelevant to bring it up.

Ohhh but I did do that. Once someone asked me about it I done it.
Really, then why did you tell people you wouldn't as you have already performed your experiment and didn't care about others?

Unable or unwilling to do the experiments?
Not needing to. What part of that don't you understand?
The results you provided are consistent with the mainstream explanation. What more is needed?
Why do we need to do an experiment when the results are already consistent with the mainstream?

I have carried out my own experiments, using completely different apparatus and found nothing to indicate that inertia doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Now going to explain why air stacks?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3805 on: February 22, 2019, 09:43:14 PM »
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.

Where is the whole, that is it protected from, and what about the lens where is it located? A projection needs a lens for proper focus.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3806 on: February 23, 2019, 11:17:59 AM »
Are you deliberately trying to show yourself as stupid? Chamber with pressure evacuated sitting on the massive sphere is not same as massive sphere inside vacuum. Your chamber is inside the earth gravitation field and that affects everything you do. So no, it definitely is not same with the massive earth and with tiny vacuum chamber which sits on the earth.
Ahhhhh, ok. So now centripetal force is not your gravity reliance then. So it is atmospheric pressure and resistance that ensures the bead rotates outwardly, like I said.
I just wanted to make sure you admitted it.
 

It kills your space and fictional gravity.
Well done for admitting it.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3807 on: February 23, 2019, 12:10:23 PM »
Hahha oh sceptusscepti scepti... keep showing off your stupidity.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3808 on: February 24, 2019, 07:01:56 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.

Where is the whole, that is it protected from, and what about the lens where is it located? A projection needs a lens for proper focus.
Hole you mean?
If so, then the centre of the Earth amid it's own crystal lenses, but that's for another topic.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3809 on: February 24, 2019, 07:03:32 AM »


I have carried out my own experiments, using completely different apparatus and found nothing to indicate that inertia doesn't exist in a vacuum.


Of course you have.