# Air Pressure vs Gravity

• 1933 Replies
• 183679 Views

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #930 on: January 12, 2017, 07:41:43 AM »
Since in every situation you have observed there has been friction involved, how do you know this wouldn't happen in reality?
Common sense and logic.
Everything vibrates. This is really all you need to know to understand that friction is vibration. It's all about frequencies of it.
No vibration means no existence. It's as simple as that.

#### TheRealBillNye

• 1218
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #931 on: January 12, 2017, 07:43:39 AM »
Since in every situation you have observed there has been friction involved, how do you know this wouldn't happen in reality?
Common sense and logic.
Everything vibrates. This is really all you need to know to understand that friction is vibration. It's all about frequencies of it.
No vibration means no existence. It's as simple as that.

No vibration means no existence, yet you claim that particles in the dome can sometimes reach absolute zero. Contradicting yourself, are we?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #932 on: January 12, 2017, 07:46:53 AM »
If there are no forces acting on an object, then why should the object change it's motion?
If there are no forces acting on an object then the object becomes nothing because it does not exist. It becomes a fantasy as I've been trying to explain.

Newton's first law (inertia) is the beginning of motion study, not the end.  That's why he came up with his second (F=ma) and third (action/reaction) laws to describe how forces and objects interact with each other.  You need to take all 3 laws together to describe real world situations, not just get hung up on the first.
You can add a million more laws but the reality is what I've just explained.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #933 on: January 12, 2017, 07:56:00 AM »
You're finally getting it. Even in the deep vacuum of space, there will still be stray particles exerting friction. There is nowhere in the universe you can push a ball and it will keep moving forever in that same direction. That's why inertia is a concept. An idea. Abstract.
I've been trying to tell you all along that it was a fantasy.

The idea is, to change the velocity of a moving object, a force needs to be applied. Usually, that force is friction. On earth, to maintain a constant speed, you must apply a force equal to friction or you will slow down.

It's as simple as that. No gobbledygook required.

Tell me, what causes momentum in your model?
So are you happy that inertia is simply friction or are you going to revert back to the fantasy.

Energy causes momentum. The ability to create a low pressure by creating a high pressure compression to overcome the mass of an object and thus creating movement of that object in an equal action to reaction sequence.
Basically this replaces inertia, because this is more reality than fantasy.

DARBEA, which means displaced atmospheric resistance by energy applied.
Basically it takes energy to displace the atmospheric pressure upon any object...and the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 07:58:03 AM by sceptimatic »

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #934 on: January 12, 2017, 08:13:35 AM »
Scepti, do you believe in acceleration?

Does acceleration produce a force?

Could this force be commonly referred to as g-forces?
Yes acceleration produces a force. And yes you commonly call it a g-force.
Why do you call it a g-force?

Acceleration is typically measured in terms of fractions or multiples of g or gravity. E.g. A fighter pilot pulling a 5g turn.
So g-force requires change because gravity certainly does not exist.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #935 on: January 12, 2017, 08:18:20 AM »

Why do you call it a g-force?
Because 1g is approximately equal to the acceleration of an object under the effects of Earth's gravitational pull.

This rate of acceleration is usually 9.8 m/s/s but it can vary slightly.
Tell me about this magical gravity and how it exerts the force onto an accelerating object in a vertical upward acceleration.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #936 on: January 12, 2017, 08:23:58 AM »
Since in every situation you have observed there has been friction involved, how do you know this wouldn't happen in reality?
Common sense and logic.
Everything vibrates. This is really all you need to know to understand that friction is vibration. It's all about frequencies of it.
No vibration means no existence. It's as simple as that.

No vibration means no existence, yet you claim that particles in the dome can sometimes reach absolute zero. Contradicting yourself, are we?
Not really considering I'm talking about a outer ice skin against a vacuum which technically could not be viewed by us so technically it does not exist to us in terms of not being able to see it.

It's like being chained inside a box. You can see the internal wall and you have to accept that there is an external skin to that wall but you can never see it.

#### TheRealBillNye

• 1218
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #937 on: January 12, 2017, 08:32:42 AM »
You're finally getting it. Even in the deep vacuum of space, there will still be stray particles exerting friction. There is nowhere in the universe you can push a ball and it will keep moving forever in that same direction. That's why inertia is a concept. An idea. Abstract.
I've been trying to tell you all along that it was a fantasy.

In your mind abstract concepts equal fantasy?

So are you happy that inertia is simply friction or are you going to revert back to the fantasy.

No, friction is not inertia. Stop saying this, nobody is saying this except you. Inertia is the tendency of matter to continue moving in 1 direction unless outside forces act upon it.

Friction is that outside force.

Energy causes momentum. The ability to create a low pressure by creating a high pressure compression to overcome the mass of an object and thus creating movement of that object in an equal action to reaction sequence.
Basically this replaces inertia, because this is more reality than fantasy.

This explanation does not tell us why objects can continue to move after the force has been cut off. Why does a train keep moving forward even if the engines have been cut off?

DARBEA, which means displaced atmospheric resistance by energy applied.
Basically it takes energy to displace the atmospheric pressure upon any object...and the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.

Why is DARBEA more difficult to overcome in an upwards direction than side to side?

If the atmosphere pushes us equally from all directions, why is it easier to push a car than to lift one?

#### TheRealBillNye

• 1218
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #938 on: January 12, 2017, 08:35:43 AM »
Since in every situation you have observed there has been friction involved, how do you know this wouldn't happen in reality?
Common sense and logic.
Everything vibrates. This is really all you need to know to understand that friction is vibration. It's all about frequencies of it.
No vibration means no existence. It's as simple as that.

No vibration means no existence, yet you claim that particles in the dome can sometimes reach absolute zero. Contradicting yourself, are we?
Not really considering I'm talking about a outer ice skin against a vacuum which technically could not be viewed by us so technically it does not exist to us in terms of not being able to see it.

It's like being chained inside a box. You can see the internal wall and you have to accept that there is an external skin to that wall but you can never see it.

You have completely missed the point. Is the dome capable of achieving absolute zero or not?

If it is capable of reaching absolute zero, then it ceases to vibrate, and according to you it "cannot exist"

If the dome cannot reach absolute zero, then it cannot freeze, as hydrogen cannot freeze above absolute zero unless it is under immense pressure.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #939 on: January 12, 2017, 09:03:21 AM »
In your mind abstract concepts equal fantasy?
It is imaginary, right? It's an idea, right?

No, friction is not inertia. Stop saying this, nobody is saying this except you.
That's because you lot keep coming back to it. Stop using it if it has nothing to do with inertia.

Inertia is the tendency of matter to continue moving in 1 direction unless outside forces act upon it.

Friction is that outside force.

Well why do you keep saying friction is the force?

This explanation does not tell us why objects can continue to move after the force has been cut off. Why does a train keep moving forward even if the engines have been cut off?
Because it's mass displaces so much atmosphere that the atmosphere pushes right back in the equal reaction to the energetic action the train gave out.
The same as a motor boat would do on water.
Take a look at the massive wide displacement of water when a boat moves through it. All of that water still has to come right back to squeeze that boat forward and as it does, it propels the boat further through the water which creates a wide displacement again, only less and less if the power is cut.

A train does the exact same thing, as does everything else on the move.

Why is DARBEA more difficult to overcome in an upwards direction than side to side?
Stacking of atmosphere and the displacement of it by whatever object is in it.
If I was to tip you upside down and dip you in a swimming pool with a platform over your fett so your feet are pushed to the underside of the platform then asked you to jump down by using the underside of the platform to propel yourself, you would soon be pushed back up, right?
Now moving to the side you have the underside of the platform to walk along which you find easier.

Same thing happens in atmosphere, only right side up and walking the ground or using it as a springboard/leverage to push you into the stacked atmosphere that pushes/squeezes you back down.

If the atmosphere pushes us equally from all directions, why is it easier to push a car than to lift one?
You are pushing wheels against the flat ground, meaning the car has some buoyancy due to the tyres being pumped up and also creating a gap under it
This creates less friction.

Take off the wheels and try and push it. You will struggle as much as trying to lift it.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #940 on: January 12, 2017, 09:10:33 AM »
You have completely missed the point. Is the dome capable of achieving absolute zero or not?

If it is capable of reaching absolute zero, then it ceases to vibrate, and according to you it "cannot exist"

If the dome cannot reach absolute zero, then it cannot freeze, as hydrogen cannot freeze above absolute zero unless it is under immense pressure.

The very last molecules are under no pressure at the top. the very top. the scalp if you like. This is against a true vacuum.
Under this molecule it it being pushed against in an extremely weak way from the one underneath.
The molecule still has minor vibration and will alter as the Earth sun energy changes expansion of molecules further down, which naturally affect all matter in some way, large and small to minute.

Maybe as close to Absolute zero, inside as we can get but maybe not quite.
Outside of it maybe just that...who knows?

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42491
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #941 on: January 12, 2017, 09:55:39 AM »
If there are no forces acting on an object, then why should the object change it's motion?
If there are no forces acting on an object then the object becomes nothing because it does not exist. It becomes a fantasy as I've been trying to explain.
I'm not talking about the inter-molecular forces and vibrations that hold an object together.  That's getting into particle physics or quantum physics and don't really apply to Newton's laws of motion.

The forces that I'm talking about are the forces that push or pull an object as a whole.  I don't care about the forces that keep the molecules that make up a bowling ball from flying apart.  I care about the forces that push the ball down the lane and the friction that slows the ball down.

Newton's first law (inertia) is the beginning of motion study, not the end.  That's why he came up with his second (F=ma) and third (action/reaction) laws to describe how forces and objects interact with each other.  You need to take all 3 laws together to describe real world situations, not just get hung up on the first.
You can add a million more laws but the reality is what I've just explained.
Three laws are plenty enough to describe reality, if you understand them correctly.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

• 3268
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #942 on: January 12, 2017, 10:27:11 AM »

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you
I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

You keep dodging my question to you about you knowing gravity as a downward force.
Explain it and how it's so clear to you then we might be able to move forward.
It seems you're refusing to answer because you have no clue how to answer. It appears that you're following the normal trend of people who simply use mass opinion as a bargaining tool.

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'
Interesting, I was sort of thinking the same thing.  You claim to have a new theory, if you could explain it in an understandable manner, we could actually move forward.  But you keep dodging that question.
I don't refuse to grasp anything, I may be too dense to, but I don't refuse to.  I'm asking you honest questions about your theory.  Your insistence on me explaining gravity to you is simply a dodge.  I have seen others explain it to you here several times.  So your question to me is irrelevant to the discussion.
My questions to you are specifically about your theory.  You have failed to explain it in a way that others can u derstand it.  And that's all I'm trying to do, understand your theory.  If you have a paper, or blog somewhere that explains I would be happy to read it.  I can refer you to many concerning gravity if you like.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #943 on: January 12, 2017, 10:28:07 AM »
I'm not talking about the inter-molecular forces and vibrations that hold an object together.  That's getting into particle physics or quantum physics and don't really apply to Newton's laws of motion.
Neither am I.
The forces that I'm talking about are the forces that push or pull an object as a whole.
Yep, I am as well.

I don't care about the forces that keep the molecules that make up a bowling ball from flying apart.  I care about the forces that push the ball down the lane and the friction that slows the ball down.
No, we can leave them out.

Three laws are plenty enough to describe reality, if you understand them correctly.
Let's go through them to see where inertia comes in.

From NASA website.

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force.

The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:

F = m * a
For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.

The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects. The third law can be used to explain the generation of lift by a wing and the production of thrust by a jet engine.

So what I can deduce from all of that is an object in motion will stay in motion in a straight line if no external force is applied to arrest that motion.
Basically speaking it's telling me that an object will float forever unless something gets in its way.
This can never happen so it becomes a nonsense saying.

That's the first law.

Second law sounds like a more in depth nonsense of the first law which equates to the same thing. Fantasy.

The third law makes perfect sense in a real world scenario.
For every action (a force) there is an equal and opposite reaction (resistance to force) and that resistance to the force is dependent on the mass of the object being overcome against it's own displacement of atmospheric pressure to determine the acceleration of that mass.

It all works fine in atmosphere but goes directly into the fantasy books when talked about in terms of zero friction/resistance.

All the laws would work if they were applied to atmospheric pressure upon mass and totally wipe out gravity and inertia as being anything.
Banish the words because they are meaningless and do not fit any real terms, at all.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 10:30:28 AM by sceptimatic »

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #944 on: January 12, 2017, 10:32:09 AM »

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you
I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

You keep dodging my question to you about you knowing gravity as a downward force.
Explain it and how it's so clear to you then we might be able to move forward.
It seems you're refusing to answer because you have no clue how to answer. It appears that you're following the normal trend of people who simply use mass opinion as a bargaining tool.

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'
Interesting, I was sort of thinking the same thing.  You claim to have a new theory, if you could explain it in an understandable manner, we could actually move forward.  But you keep dodging that question.
I don't refuse to grasp anything, I may be too dense to, but I don't refuse to.  I'm asking you honest questions about your theory.  Your insistence on me explaining gravity to you is simply a dodge.  I have seen others explain it to you here several times.  So your question to me is irrelevant to the discussion.
My questions to you are specifically about your theory.  You have failed to explain it in a way that others can u derstand it.  And that's all I'm trying to do, understand your theory.  If you have a paper, or blog somewhere that explains I would be happy to read it.  I can refer you to many concerning gravity if you like.
I've explained plenty and I only see you telling me I haven't explained anything.
Your game playing will get you nowhere.
Be serious and you might get somewhere.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42491
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #945 on: January 12, 2017, 01:30:58 PM »
So what I can deduce from all of that is an object in motion will stay in motion in a straight line if no external force is applied to arrest that motion.
Basically speaking it's telling me that an object will float forever unless something gets in its way.
This can never happen so it becomes a nonsense saying.
I'm not really sure why you're so hung up on that.  So what if you can never physically remove every force acting on an object?  If all of the forces acting on an object are perfectly balanced, then they cancel each other out and it's as if there are no forces at all.

Even if you can't have an object free of all forces in the real world, you can have one in a mathematical model.

Second law sounds like a more in depth nonsense of the first law which equates to the same thing. Fantasy.
A force is required to change the movement of an object.  Why is that so unbelievable?

The third law makes perfect sense in a real world scenario.
For every action (a force) there is an equal and opposite reaction (resistance to force) and that resistance to the force is dependent on the mass of the object being overcome against it's own displacement of atmospheric pressure to determine the acceleration of that mass.
Sorry, but Newton's third law says nothing about displacement.  You're also invoking Newton's second law there (force, mass and acceleration).

It all works fine in atmosphere but goes directly into the fantasy books when talked about in terms of zero friction/resistance.

All the laws would work if they were applied to atmospheric pressure upon mass and totally wipe out gravity and inertia as being anything.
Banish the words because they are meaningless and do not fit any real terms, at all.
Oh?  You really think so?  Then you shouldn't have any problem providing the relevant formulas describing the precise relationships between atmospheric pressure, density, volume and weight.  How about a formula that tells us how much force is required to accelerate a 1 kg object from rest to 10 m/s?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 06:02:34 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### Life Is Easy

• 232
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #946 on: January 12, 2017, 04:04:08 PM »
I am still sceptical about the official globalist indoctrination.

I really dont give a shit if you are trolling, because in the end you are making people think for themselves, and think outside the box. And that can't be a bad thing.
Well, I believe that I'm closer to a truth on many thoughts. There's a lot that needs tweaking and I'm actually relying on people like you to keep that open mind in the hope than some of you grasp bits of it and think "ahhhh, I see what he's saying" and then add to it. This way we get closer to a potential reality, or at least closer to putting this globe nonsense to bed, because it is nonsense.

I'm 100% sure about that and I was indoctrinated just like everyone else at one stage in life.
ahhhh I see what you're saying

?

• 3268
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #947 on: January 12, 2017, 06:35:27 PM »

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you
I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

You keep dodging my question to you about you knowing gravity as a downward force.
Explain it and how it's so clear to you then we might be able to move forward.
It seems you're refusing to answer because you have no clue how to answer. It appears that you're following the normal trend of people who simply use mass opinion as a bargaining tool.

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'
Interesting, I was sort of thinking the same thing.  You claim to have a new theory, if you could explain it in an understandable manner, we could actually move forward.  But you keep dodging that question.
I don't refuse to grasp anything, I may be too dense to, but I don't refuse to.  I'm asking you honest questions about your theory.  Your insistence on me explaining gravity to you is simply a dodge.  I have seen others explain it to you here several times.  So your question to me is irrelevant to the discussion.
My questions to you are specifically about your theory.  You have failed to explain it in a way that others can u derstand it.  And that's all I'm trying to do, understand your theory.  If you have a paper, or blog somewhere that explains I would be happy to read it.  I can refer you to many concerning gravity if you like.
I've explained plenty and I only see you telling me I haven't explained anything.
Your game playing will get you nowhere.
Be serious and you might get somewhere.
I am being serious.  I have asked you serious questions regarding your theory.  Question I have yet to see an answer to that I can make sense out of.
It seems your theory depends on stacking.  Without something else like that, simple pressure doesn't work to hold things down.  Pressure applies equally from all sides.
So stacking seems to be the part of the puzzle I am missing.  How does that work in relation to your theory?

?

• 3268
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #948 on: January 12, 2017, 06:43:43 PM »
You're finally getting it. Even in the deep vacuum of space, there will still be stray particles exerting friction. There is nowhere in the universe you can push a ball and it will keep moving forever in that same direction. That's why inertia is a concept. An idea. Abstract.
I've been trying to tell you all along that it was a fantasy.

The idea is, to change the velocity of a moving object, a force needs to be applied. Usually, that force is friction. On earth, to maintain a constant speed, you must apply a force equal to friction or you will slow down.

It's as simple as that. No gobbledygook required.

Tell me, what causes momentum in your model?
So are you happy that inertia is simply friction or are you going to revert back to the fantasy.

Energy causes momentum. The ability to create a low pressure by creating a high pressure compression to overcome the mass of an object and thus creating movement of that object in an equal action to reaction sequence.
Basically this replaces inertia, because this is more reality than fantasy.

DARBEA, which means displaced atmospheric resistance by energy applied.
Basically it takes energy to displace the atmospheric pressure upon any object...and the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.
Actually is that correct?.  Isn't it  volume, not density that displaces atmosphere.  If I have one cubic meter of aluminum, it will displace exactly the same amount of  atmosphere as one cubic meter of lead wont it?  It will be much lighter, but displace the same amount of atmosphere.

#### TheRealBillNye

• 1218
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #949 on: January 12, 2017, 07:20:47 PM »
Inertia and friction are not related. Friction is a common force that slows objects down, but it has nothing to do with Newton's first law.

Inertia is more related to momentum than anything else.

Hopefully this helps.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #950 on: January 12, 2017, 10:17:21 PM »

I'm not really sure why you're so hung up on that.  So what if you can never physically remove every force acting on an object?  If all of the forces acting on an object are perfectly balanced, then they cancel each other out and it's as if there are no forces at all.

Even if you can't have an object free of all forces in the real world, you can have one in a mathematical model.
You can have anything in a made up mathematical model. Look at the space nonsense.
The point I'm making is exactly that. It's a name attached to a thought process that has no bearing on reality when broken down to it's true meaning.

A force is required to change the movement of an object.  Why is that so unbelievable?
There's nothing wrong with that but that is not quite inertia in it's true form, as it is portrayed overall.

Sorry, but Newton's third law says nothing about displacement.  You're also invoking Newton's second law there (force, mass and acceleration).
Newtons law is not a law at all when pertaining to inertia and gravity.
They do not exist.
What does exist is the displacement of atmospheric pressure by a mass and is what Newton's law would make sense with.

Oh?  You really think so?  Then you shouldn't have any problem providing the relevant formulas describing the precise relationships between atmospheric pressure, density, volume and weight.  How about a formula that tells us how much force is required to accelerate a 1 kg object from rest to 10 m/?
It can be messed around with but there's no point in it. You can make it yourself and so can anyone else.
You know what's involved.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #951 on: January 12, 2017, 10:18:32 PM »

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you
I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

You keep dodging my question to you about you knowing gravity as a downward force.
Explain it and how it's so clear to you then we might be able to move forward.
It seems you're refusing to answer because you have no clue how to answer. It appears that you're following the normal trend of people who simply use mass opinion as a bargaining tool.

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'
Interesting, I was sort of thinking the same thing.  You claim to have a new theory, if you could explain it in an understandable manner, we could actually move forward.  But you keep dodging that question.
I don't refuse to grasp anything, I may be too dense to, but I don't refuse to.  I'm asking you honest questions about your theory.  Your insistence on me explaining gravity to you is simply a dodge.  I have seen others explain it to you here several times.  So your question to me is irrelevant to the discussion.
My questions to you are specifically about your theory.  You have failed to explain it in a way that others can u derstand it.  And that's all I'm trying to do, understand your theory.  If you have a paper, or blog somewhere that explains I would be happy to read it.  I can refer you to many concerning gravity if you like.
I've explained plenty and I only see you telling me I haven't explained anything.
Your game playing will get you nowhere.
Be serious and you might get somewhere.
I am being serious.  I have asked you serious questions regarding your theory.  Question I have yet to see an answer to that I can make sense out of.
It seems your theory depends on stacking.  Without something else like that, simple pressure doesn't work to hold things down.  Pressure applies equally from all sides.
So stacking seems to be the part of the puzzle I am missing.  How does that work in relation to your theory?
Of course it depends on stacking. This is why I know you're not paying attention.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #952 on: January 12, 2017, 10:20:22 PM »
You're finally getting it. Even in the deep vacuum of space, there will still be stray particles exerting friction. There is nowhere in the universe you can push a ball and it will keep moving forever in that same direction. That's why inertia is a concept. An idea. Abstract.
I've been trying to tell you all along that it was a fantasy.

The idea is, to change the velocity of a moving object, a force needs to be applied. Usually, that force is friction. On earth, to maintain a constant speed, you must apply a force equal to friction or you will slow down.

It's as simple as that. No gobbledygook required.

Tell me, what causes momentum in your model?
So are you happy that inertia is simply friction or are you going to revert back to the fantasy.

Energy causes momentum. The ability to create a low pressure by creating a high pressure compression to overcome the mass of an object and thus creating movement of that object in an equal action to reaction sequence.
Basically this replaces inertia, because this is more reality than fantasy.

DARBEA, which means displaced atmospheric resistance by energy applied.
Basically it takes energy to displace the atmospheric pressure upon any object...and the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.
Actually is that correct?.  Isn't it  volume, not density that displaces atmosphere.  If I have one cubic meter of aluminum, it will displace exactly the same amount of  atmosphere as one cubic meter of lead wont it?  It will be much lighter, but displace the same amount of atmosphere.
This verifies that you are not reading into anything that's been said. If you were, you wouldn't have come out with this.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #953 on: January 12, 2017, 10:28:25 PM »
Inertia and friction are not related. Friction is a common force that slows objects down, but it has nothing to do with Newton's first law.

Inertia is more related to momentum than anything else.

Hopefully this helps.
Inertia is either friction or it does not exist as a force in any way at all. This also means that inertia is a made up word that literally describes nothing in reality.

It's quite simple to grasp.
If inertia is resistance of a mass to move then the mass must be up against resistance, which means it is under friction that has to have a force to move it.
This is the so called at rest explanation, which as you can see, inertia plays no real part of the reality of it.

The next is putting the mass into immediate motion and expecting that mass to continue the motion in a constant state regardless of no more energy applied.
This motion then requires a force to alter it but if no force is there to alter it, it just carries on forever.
This is not reality. It does not happen and is imaginary. It's a fantasy thought that pertains more to a fantasy floating forever in space concept that is sold to people as a reality.

It has no bearing on reality in how it's told.

#### TheRealBillNye

• 1218
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #954 on: January 12, 2017, 11:08:30 PM »
...the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.
No, volume causes displacement, not mass.

When you measure water displacement, you are measuring volume not mass.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #955 on: January 12, 2017, 11:12:13 PM »
...the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.
No, volume causes displacement, not mass.

When you measure water displacement, you are measuring volume not mass.
No you're not. It atmospheric pressure upon mass.
Denpressure speaks for itself.

#### TheRealBillNye

• 1218
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #956 on: January 12, 2017, 11:15:00 PM »
...the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.
No, volume causes displacement, not mass.

When you measure water displacement, you are measuring volume not mass.
No you're not. It atmospheric pressure upon mass.
Denpressure speaks for itself.

So when a recipe calls for 1 cup of crisco, I fill a measuring cup to the brim with water and place it in a pan. I then put in enough crisco so that 1 cup of water has been displaced out of the measuring cup.

Did I just measure volume or mass?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #957 on: January 12, 2017, 11:22:24 PM »
...the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.
No, volume causes displacement, not mass.

When you measure water displacement, you are measuring volume not mass.
No you're not. It atmospheric pressure upon mass.
Denpressure speaks for itself.

So when a recipe calls for 1 cup of crisco, I fill a measuring cup to the brim with water and place it in a pan. I then put in enough crisco so that 1 cup of water has been displaced out of the measuring cup.

Did I just measure volume or mass?
Mass against atmospheric pressure, that's all that needs to be understood. Enjoy your crisco, whatever that is but I'm not interested in that.

#### Copper Knickers

• 891
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #958 on: January 12, 2017, 11:40:05 PM »
Inertia is either friction or it does not exist as a force in any way at all.

That's correct, inertia is not friction nor does it exist as a force.

Inertia is the name given to the resistance of mass to changes in velocity, which leads us to...

If inertia is resistance of a mass to move then the mass must be up against resistance, which means it is under friction that has to have a force to move it.

No. Friction is not the source of the resistance. Inertia is a property of mass itself. That's why a greater mass requires a greater force to produce an equal change in velocity.

The friction associated with an object's situation may add to the resistance, but the resistance due to inertia is separate to that.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 29271
##### Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #959 on: January 12, 2017, 11:49:20 PM »
Inertia is either friction or it does not exist as a force in any way at all.

That's correct, inertia is not friction nor does it exist as a force.

Inertia is the name given to the resistance of mass to changes in velocity, which leads us to...

If inertia is resistance of a mass to move then the mass must be up against resistance, which means it is under friction that has to have a force to move it.

No. Friction is not the source of the resistance. Inertia is a property of mass itself. That's why a greater mass requires a greater force to produce an equal change in velocity.

The friction associated with an object's situation may add to the resistance, but the resistance due to inertia is separate to that.
It makes no rational sense for very good reason. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense.

You people use resistance and friction in every answer and then discard it to leave a mass just acting independently of any force whatsoever. Your own rational mind should see this as garbage but for some reason it's the same thing. It's a fear of going against the grain.