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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 99013 Views
*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 4959
  • Scurrilous
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3810 on: February 24, 2019, 08:17:19 AM »
Still haven't seen an answer on how magnetism works with denspressure, particularly how magnetism requires atmosphere to work.  I would like to see this.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3811 on: February 24, 2019, 09:26:09 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.

Again
Nice double standard scepti.

Lets see your experietn.
Post it to youtube.
Diagram

Thanks

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3812 on: February 24, 2019, 09:27:57 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.
  If you rotate some object attached to the string and attached to the rotating motor then no, gravity is not centripetal force here. The string/wire/whatever with which you attach object to the rotating motor is exerting centripetal force onto the object. And it behaves in same way with atmosphere and without atmosphere.
I also did not admit anything here. But you just admitted that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
 
It kills your space and fictional gravity.
It does not kill anything. As I said, you looking at experiment and then making up some irrelevant stuff is really fucked up way to do something.
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 #3813 on: February 24, 2019, 01:33:18 PM »
Of course you have.
Yes, just like lots of other people have done experiments which show your model to be wrong.

Now, as you are unwilling to provide experiments which refute the mainstream model, why not try explaining the basics of your model which are yet to do?
Why does the air stack?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 4959
  • Scurrilous
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3814 on: February 25, 2019, 10:10:01 AM »
Scepti,

Can you explain how blown soap bubbles work within denspressure?  I'm specifically interested in the compression and expansion of stacked atmosphere in regards to them.

Once the bubble is blown, wouldn't the atmosphere around it equalize and hold it in placed.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3815 on: February 26, 2019, 01:03:56 AM »
Still haven't seen an answer on how magnetism works with denspressure, particularly how magnetism requires atmosphere to work.  I would like to see this.
To understand how magnetism works you have to understand how the atmosphere works with objects.
For me to even try and explain it would be a total waste. It would go down like a lead balloon and be laughed at.

I expect that mind you, just as I expect everything I say to the contrary of a global system and how we are told certain things work.
I mean, you have to admit that the so called experts don't even know what gravity is or magnetism...right?

Once you accept this then I may explain a little what it actually is...but be prepared to giggle at the simplicity of it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3816 on: February 26, 2019, 01:09:49 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.
  If you rotate some object attached to the string and attached to the rotating motor then no, gravity is not centripetal force here. The string/wire/whatever with which you attach object to the rotating motor is exerting centripetal force onto the object. And it behaves in same way with atmosphere and without atmosphere.
I also did not admit anything here. But you just admitted that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
 
It kills your space and fictional gravity.
It does not kill anything. As I said, you looking at experiment and then making up some irrelevant stuff is really fucked up way to do something.
Ok here's a question. Answer it honestly.
Are you under the impression that a ball on a string in a swinging motion is independent of atmosphere in order for this to happen?

Are you under the impression that a ball or beads or any object would hug the inner lip of a dish on a fast or reasonably fast turntable and the reason for it is not down to atmosphere.

Just answer these questions so I know you can snake out of them.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3817 on: February 26, 2019, 01:11:27 AM »
Of course you have.
Yes, just like lots of other people have done experiments which show your model to be wrong.

Now, as you are unwilling to provide experiments which refute the mainstream model, why not try explaining the basics of your model which are yet to do?
Why does the air stack?
If you ever start to wonder why I generally ignore you it's because of the way you quote, as if you're actually quoting something.
Carry on though, I'll just carry on picking out the snippets or anything worthwhile. This wasn't one but you can have this reply on the house.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3818 on: February 26, 2019, 01:16:11 AM »
Scepti,

Can you explain how blown soap bubbles work within denspressure?  I'm specifically interested in the compression and expansion of stacked atmosphere in regards to them.

Once the bubble is blown, wouldn't the atmosphere around it equalize and hold it in placed.
Soap bubbles are just a denser analogy of what's what, because we can see what's going on so we can mind picture what's going on, on a smaller scale, because we cannot see that.

Just understand that the bubbles we can see are all made up of smaller bubbles and inside those bubbles are smaller bubbles and layers of bubbles depending on the matter they are made up of.

It's not just a case of one bubble against atmosphere.
The bubble itself is atmosphere.

The fact that they are attached like they are should give you a clue as to the very basics of what we live in, meaning everything being attached with absolutely no free space.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 01:18:25 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3819 on: February 26, 2019, 03:32:21 AM »
For me to even try and explain it would be a total waste.
i.e. you have no explanation and instead just want to assert nonsense. That will not convince any sane person.

Are you under the impression that a ball on a string in a swinging motion is independent of atmosphere in order for this to happen?
Independent in the sense that atmosphere isn't needed. However the atmosphere will interact and result in drag/energy loss.

Are you under the impression that a ball or beads or any object would hug the inner lip of a dish on a fast or reasonably fast turntable and the reason for it is not down to atmosphere.
It would depend on the geometry of the dish. Some would allow the beads to fly out.
What you wont have is the beads just sitting on the dish rotating with it.

If you ever start to wonder why I generally ignore you
I know why. It is because I continually ask simple questions which you are completely unable to answer which shows your model to be nonsense.

It's not just a case of one bubble against atmosphere.
The bubble itself is atmosphere.
If the bubble was atmosphere, we wouldn't see it as a bubble. We know what it is. A soap bubble is a thin layer consisting of water and surfactant.

Now, care to explain why the atmosphere stacks, or admit you have no explanation?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3820 on: February 26, 2019, 03:40:01 AM »
A soap bubble is a thin layer consisting of water and surfactant.


You need to understand what the thin layer is made up of and what's inside of the bubble.
This is all key to understanding what's going on.
You see, the trouble with people like yourself is, you think a bubble is just that with free space. This is why you'll never get any further forward.

Maybe try and think for yourself instead of looking up stuff and just typing out what it says, like  some kind of robot.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3821 on: February 26, 2019, 09:50:39 AM »
Are you under the impression that a ball on a string in a swinging motion is independent of atmosphere in order for this to happen?

 You are going somewhere else now. Talk was about the object tied to the string and connected to rotating motor. If motor rotates then object rotates same with atmosphere and without atmosphere. There is only negligible effect from air drag. Nothing more.
If you are talking about pendulum then again, only difference is air resistance and drag. It is demonstrated here for example



Are you under the impression that a ball or beads or any object would hug the inner lip of a dish on a fast or reasonably fast turntable and the reason for it is not down to atmosphere.
  Atmosphere has negligible effect through resistance and drag. So the result is same with or without atmosphere.
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 #3822 on: February 26, 2019, 12:54:37 PM »
You need to understand what the thin layer is made up of and what's inside of the bubble.
I do.
The bubble itself is a layer of water with surfactant on either side.
This surfactant allows the water to obtain the shape of the bubble and remain relatively stable. However the water evaporates which eventually causes the bubble to pop.
Inside the bubble you have atmosphere, at a slightly higher pressure than outside.
As it is a gas, it will have lots of free space.

You see, the trouble with people like yourself is, you think a bubble is just that with free space. This is why you'll never get any further forward.
No, the trouble with people like me is that I actually want explanations which work, with the laws of physics which are consistent.

Maybe try and think for yourself instead of looking up stuff and just typing out what it says, like  some kind of robot.
Why don't you try asking for what you really want? For me to not think and instead just accept your BS?
I do think for myself. That is why I don't accept your nonsense, because I realise it is nonsense which contradicts itself and reality, with you being completely unable to provide consistent explanations, or provide evidence for any of your baseless claims.

Rather than discussing something as complex as soap bubbles (which all rational thought would lead to a conclusion similar to what I have said, as to make them you need to get water, put in some soap (or some other surfactant), and then blow air into them), why don't we stick to the basics, and stay there until the issue is solved.

Why does the atmosphere stack? Can you explain that? If not, can you admit you have no explanation?