Air Pressure vs Gravity

  • 1933 Replies
  • 345262 Views
?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #630 on: January 07, 2017, 07:23:17 AM »
in the absence of gravity or any other resistance , if I lay on my back and push a barbell it will float away.  Without some kind of resistance that object which I have just put in motion by pushing on it, will tend to stay in motion.  At least that's my understanding.
And it's the very reason why you'll never understand what's been talked about and the very reason why this is my very last post to this name you are using.
But where am I wrong?  If I am, say on a sheet of ice and my back is against something, and I push something else on the ice won't it just keep moving?  I'm really trying to understand your theory here but I don't see where what I just said was incorrect.

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #631 on: January 07, 2017, 10:56:39 AM »
Basically Scepti sulks and walks away when you point the (often glaring) holes in his pet theories.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

TheRealBillNye

  • 1224
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #632 on: January 07, 2017, 11:31:57 AM »
Then stop panicking about it and go and do your youtube experiments for the masses.

At least experiments supporting the theory of gravity actually exist. Can you detail 1 experiment that would verify denpressure?


I'm still assuming you are the real Bill Nye.

Another foolish assumption.

*

TheRealBillNye

  • 1224
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #633 on: January 07, 2017, 11:33:59 AM »
in the absence of gravity or any other resistance , if I lay on my back and push a barbell it will float away.  Without some kind of resistance that object which I have just put in motion by pushing on it, will tend to stay in motion.  At least that's my understanding.
And it's the very reason why you'll never understand what's been talked about and the very reason why this is my very last post to this name you are using.
But where am I wrong?  If I am, say on a sheet of ice and my back is against something, and I push something else on the ice won't it just keep moving?  I'm really trying to understand your theory here but I don't see where what I just said was incorrect.

Scepti could not begin to fathom a concept as complex as inertia. He claims it does not exist.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #634 on: January 07, 2017, 03:08:19 PM »
in the absence of gravity or any other resistance , if I lay on my back and push a barbell it will float away.  Without some kind of resistance that object which I have just put in motion by pushing on it, will tend to stay in motion.  At least that's my understanding.
And it's the very reason why you'll never understand what's been talked about and the very reason why this is my very last post to this name you are using.
But where am I wrong?  If I am, say on a sheet of ice and my back is against something, and I push something else on the ice won't it just keep moving?  I'm really trying to understand your theory here but I don't see where what I just said was incorrect.

Scepti could not begin to fathom a concept as complex as inertia. He claims it does not exist.
If it exists then tell me what it is.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #635 on: January 07, 2017, 03:38:17 PM »
in the absence of gravity or any other resistance , if I lay on my back and push a barbell it will float away.  Without some kind of resistance that object which I have just put in motion by pushing on it, will tend to stay in motion.  At least that's my understanding.
And it's the very reason why you'll never understand what's been talked about and the very reason why this is my very last post to this name you are using.
But where am I wrong?  If I am, say on a sheet of ice and my back is against something, and I push something else on the ice won't it just keep moving?  I'm really trying to understand your theory here but I don't see where what I just said was incorrect.

Scepti could not begin to fathom a concept as complex as inertia. He claims it does not exist.
If it exists then tell me what it is.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion.

I've lifted that from Wikipedia, but it's a pretty good summary. It fits in with our everyday experience that things don't move unless something makes them move and things don't stop moving unless something stops them.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #636 on: January 07, 2017, 03:43:44 PM »
in the absence of gravity or any other resistance , if I lay on my back and push a barbell it will float away.  Without some kind of resistance that object which I have just put in motion by pushing on it, will tend to stay in motion.  At least that's my understanding.
And it's the very reason why you'll never understand what's been talked about and the very reason why this is my very last post to this name you are using.
But where am I wrong?  If I am, say on a sheet of ice and my back is against something, and I push something else on the ice won't it just keep moving?  I'm really trying to understand your theory here but I don't see where what I just said was incorrect.

Scepti could not begin to fathom a concept as complex as inertia. He claims it does not exist.
If it exists then tell me what it is.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion.

I've lifted that from Wikipedia, but it's a pretty good summary. It fits in with our everyday experience that things don't move unless something makes them move and things don't stop moving unless something stops them.
So tell me exactly what that means in terms of any object and how this inertia works on an object for it to resist a change in motion.



*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #637 on: January 07, 2017, 03:47:55 PM »
Inertia doesn't work on an object. Inertia is a property of that object.

In its most basic terms the more massive an object is the more effort is required to change its velocity.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #638 on: January 08, 2017, 12:03:19 AM »
Scepti could not begin to fathom a concept as complex as inertia. He claims it does not exist.
If it exists then tell me what it is.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion.

I've lifted that from Wikipedia, but it's a pretty good summary. It fits in with our everyday experience that things don't move unless something makes them move and things don't stop moving unless something stops them.
So tell me exactly what that means in terms of any object and how this inertia works on an object for it to resist a change in motion.

It means that if you want to make stuff move you have to push it or pull it in some way. Likewise if you want to stop something moving you have to apply a push or pull in the opposite direction.

Is this not what you find?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #639 on: January 08, 2017, 12:04:16 AM »
Inertia doesn't work on an object. Inertia is a property of that object.

In its most basic terms the more massive an object is the more effort is required to change its velocity.
Yeah I've heard all that and the concept of something more massive taking more effort to move it, is valid but I need you to explain what inertia is in terms of that.

It's ok saying inertia is the reason for this and that and when pressed on it, saying, "well it's a property of that object."
What property?
What is inertia in itself?

I'd rather you simply tell me that inertia actually means nothing and be honest about it and instead just simply use "resistance" because that's basically what we deal with when we deal with objects.

Let's face it. When you people mention space and so called zero gravity or micro gravity or whatever bullshit is decided at the time; one minute it's easy to move objects because of zero/micro gravity...even to the point of some bozo pretending to lift really heavy weights in space as easily as lifting paper but then use inertia where things don't quite work out.

So here's the reality.

Inertia does not exist as any meaningful word.
It needs a new word for this meaningless word, inertia.
Something that can be explained in simple terms as to what the word actually means.

Something like. 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.

DARBEA is the new word for a nonsense word called inertia.

If what I say is silly to you people, then explain inertia and explain why DARBEA is not realistic.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #640 on: January 08, 2017, 12:06:40 AM »
Scepti could not begin to fathom a concept as complex as inertia. He claims it does not exist.
If it exists then tell me what it is.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion.

I've lifted that from Wikipedia, but it's a pretty good summary. It fits in with our everyday experience that things don't move unless something makes them move and things don't stop moving unless something stops them.
So tell me exactly what that means in terms of any object and how this inertia works on an object for it to resist a change in motion.

It means that if you want to make stuff move you have to push it or pull it in some way. Likewise if you want to stop something moving you have to apply a push or pull in the opposite direction.

Is this not what you find?
It is but I want the reason why. I've explained my reasons for my new name for it. If you can explain to me the reasons for inertia then great, I'm ready to observe your answers.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #641 on: January 08, 2017, 12:27:05 AM »
Scepti could not begin to fathom a concept as complex as inertia. He claims it does not exist.
If it exists then tell me what it is.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion.

I've lifted that from Wikipedia, but it's a pretty good summary. It fits in with our everyday experience that things don't move unless something makes them move and things don't stop moving unless something stops them.
So tell me exactly what that means in terms of any object and how this inertia works on an object for it to resist a change in motion.

It means that if you want to make stuff move you have to push it or pull it in some way. Likewise if you want to stop something moving you have to apply a push or pull in the opposite direction.

Is this not what you find?
It is but I want the reason why. I've explained my reasons for my new name for it. If you can explain to me the reasons for inertia then great, I'm ready to observe your answers.

Well I could say it's because stuff has mass, but then you would probably ask why stuff has mass...

You're missing the point. That objects resist changes in velocity is an observable phenomenon. You seem to have acknowledged this. Physicists call this property inertia. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but that won't really help communication.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #642 on: January 08, 2017, 12:50:59 AM »
Well I could say it's because stuff has mass, but then you would probably ask why stuff has mass...
No, it's not a case of why stuff has mass. We're talking about an act upon that mass to change that masses motion.
You're missing the point. That objects resist changes in velocity is an observable phenomenon. You seem to have acknowledged this.
Yes it's observable but what is the cause of the observation?
Mainstream scientists call it inertia but if inertia effects a change then it has to be something other than just a name.

Physicists call this property inertia. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but that won't really help communication.
I have called it something else and I've explained why. All I want is an explanation for inertia in terms of what inertia is.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #643 on: January 08, 2017, 01:14:53 AM »
Well I could say it's because stuff has mass, but then you would probably ask why stuff has mass...
No, it's not a case of why stuff has mass. We're talking about an act upon that mass to change that masses motion.
You're missing the point. That objects resist changes in velocity is an observable phenomenon. You seem to have acknowledged this.
Yes it's observable but what is the cause of the observation?
Mainstream scientists call it inertia but if inertia effects a change then it has to be something other than just a name.

Inertia doesn't effect a change (assuming you didn't mean 'affect'). Inertia is the name given to objects' tendency to resist change.

Quote
Physicists call this property inertia. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but that won't really help communication.
I have called it something else and I've explained why. All I want is an explanation for inertia in terms of what inertia is.

As I said, call it what you like. The tendency of objects to resist change is an observable property that won't change however it is named.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." Romeo and Juliet.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #644 on: January 08, 2017, 01:23:01 AM »
Well I could say it's because stuff has mass, but then you would probably ask why stuff has mass...
No, it's not a case of why stuff has mass. We're talking about an act upon that mass to change that masses motion.
You're missing the point. That objects resist changes in velocity is an observable phenomenon. You seem to have acknowledged this.
Yes it's observable but what is the cause of the observation?
Mainstream scientists call it inertia but if inertia effects a change then it has to be something other than just a name.

Inertia doesn't effect a change (assuming you didn't mean 'affect'). Inertia is the name given to objects' tendency to resist change.

Quote
Physicists call this property inertia. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but that won't really help communication.
I have called it something else and I've explained why. All I want is an explanation for inertia in terms of what inertia is.

As I said, call it what you like. The tendency of objects to resist change is an observable property that won't change however it is named.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." Romeo and Juliet.
There has to be a reason for inertia.
There has to be a reason for the tendency to resist change, so what is that tendency to resists change.


?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #645 on: January 08, 2017, 01:50:54 AM »
Why does water run downhill?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #646 on: January 08, 2017, 01:57:16 AM »
Why does water run downhill?
Because it was squeezed UP by atmospheric pressure upon expansion of the liquid. Once the expansion has squeezed back together due to force of number after the suns energy has waned, then the water is squeezed back down to the ground.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #647 on: January 08, 2017, 01:59:15 AM »
There has to be a reason for inertia.
There has to be a reason for the tendency to resist change, so what is that tendency to resists change.

Ok, as before I could try and explain it as objects having mass, but I'll admit that the definitions of mass and inertia are pretty much intertwined so that's not a very satisfactory explanation.

So for me, I'll say I don't know why things have inertia. Particle physicists probably have lots of ideas but I don't know much about particle physics.

Regardless, it is something that is observed.

I understand that you claim that you have a model which explains why things resist change in velocity and that mainstream science doesn't. But that doesn't make your model correct. In order to properly assess your model you really need to come up with some ways it predicts stuff that can then be tested out. (In my opinion.)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 02:02:08 AM by Copper Knickers »

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #648 on: January 08, 2017, 02:03:06 AM »
Well I could say it's because stuff has mass, but then you would probably ask why stuff has mass...
No, it's not a case of why stuff has mass. We're talking about an act upon that mass to change that masses motion.
You're missing the point. That objects resist changes in velocity is an observable phenomenon. You seem to have acknowledged this.
Yes it's observable but what is the cause of the observation?
Mainstream scientists call it inertia but if inertia effects a change then it has to be something other than just a name.

Inertia doesn't effect a change (assuming you didn't mean 'affect'). Inertia is the name given to objects' tendency to resist change.

Quote
Physicists call this property inertia. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but that won't really help communication.
I have called it something else and I've explained why. All I want is an explanation for inertia in terms of what inertia is.

As I said, call it what you like. The tendency of objects to resist change is an observable property that won't change however it is named.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." Romeo and Juliet.
There has to be a reason for inertia.
There has to be a reason for the tendency to resist change, so what is that tendency to resists change.

F=ma

Mass requires a force to change its velocity. That's as simple as it gets.

The product of mass and velocity is momentum or inertia.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #649 on: January 08, 2017, 02:17:57 AM »
There has to be a reason for inertia.
There has to be a reason for the tendency to resist change, so what is that tendency to resists change.

Ok, as before I could try and explain it as objects having mass, but I'll admit that the definitions of mass and inertia are pretty much intertwined so that's not a very satisfactory explanation.

So for me, I'll say I don't know why things have inertia. Particle physicists probably have lots of ideas but I don't know much about particle physics.

Regardless, it is something that is observed.

I understand that you claim that you have a model which explains why things resist change in velocity and that mainstream science doesn't. But that doesn't make your model correct. In order to properly assess your model you really need to come up with some ways it predicts stuff that can then be tested out. (In my opinion.)
Fantastic answers. I totally agree with everything you say.

You see, the crux of the matter is, it's about questioning the indoctrinated so called belief's that were bestowed upon us and asking for legitimate answers to what those belief's are and why they become what they are.
The answers are far from satisfactory in many instances in mainstream so called science.
I'm sure you agree with this, judging by this response.

My theory gives me no right to stand on a podium declaring a truth but it does give me a right to keep exploring in that direction.
I have many experiments that people can do, with very little equipment.
The moist expensive is a decent evacuation chamber or basically a bell jar that has the ability to  near freeze a liquid (water).

It has to be big enough to fit in various items, the biggest of the items being a mechanical scale, like a small mechanical kitchen scale.

Once someone has this and can follow instructions to the letter, then we can see some progress  (or not) as to what's what with this Earth and it's ability to do certain things in reality as opposed to what's merely just been said or blatantly and dishonestly mocked up, like the myth-busters did and a certain  kid did on here.

So the top and bottom of it all is simple. If people are genuinely interested in questioning the indoctrinated so called science and want the truth or at least a potential for a truth.

Weirdly though, nobody has come forward to legitimately do any experiments to prove me wrong.
I can only see the reasons for not doing it as being one or two.

1. The experiments will go against their grain and also the official line.

2.Nobody is really interested in following anything because they're here for a joke or to simply just argue against alternative thinkers to the official lines.


?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #650 on: January 08, 2017, 02:20:40 AM »
Why does water run downhill?
Because it was squeezed UP by atmospheric pressure upon expansion of the liquid. Once the expansion has squeezed back together due to force of number after the suns energy has waned, then the water is squeezed back down to the ground.

Yes, but why does this happen?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #651 on: January 08, 2017, 02:21:17 AM »
Well I could say it's because stuff has mass, but then you would probably ask why stuff has mass...
No, it's not a case of why stuff has mass. We're talking about an act upon that mass to change that masses motion.
You're missing the point. That objects resist changes in velocity is an observable phenomenon. You seem to have acknowledged this.
Yes it's observable but what is the cause of the observation?
Mainstream scientists call it inertia but if inertia effects a change then it has to be something other than just a name.

Inertia doesn't effect a change (assuming you didn't mean 'affect'). Inertia is the name given to objects' tendency to resist change.

Quote
Physicists call this property inertia. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but that won't really help communication.
I have called it something else and I've explained why. All I want is an explanation for inertia in terms of what inertia is.

As I said, call it what you like. The tendency of objects to resist change is an observable property that won't change however it is named.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." Romeo and Juliet.
There has to be a reason for inertia.
There has to be a reason for the tendency to resist change, so what is that tendency to resists change.

F=ma

Mass requires a force to change its velocity. That's as simple as it gets.

The product of mass and velocity is momentum or inertia.
Ok, mass requires a force. Tell me what the force is and how you can prove it.

To gain momentum you need applied energy. How is the energy applied and how is it applied as a force?

You see F=ma is basically nothing unless you explain why and how it becomes this.
I've explained mine so you look at mine and explain yours.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #652 on: January 08, 2017, 02:23:39 AM »
Why does water run downhill?
Because it was squeezed UP by atmospheric pressure upon expansion of the liquid. Once the expansion has squeezed back together due to force of number after the suns energy has waned, then the water is squeezed back down to the ground.

Yes, but why does this happen?
How does what happen?

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #653 on: January 08, 2017, 02:28:09 AM »
Why does water run downhill?
Because it was squeezed UP by atmospheric pressure upon expansion of the liquid. Once the expansion has squeezed back together due to force of number after the suns energy has waned, then the water is squeezed back down to the ground.

Why does the atmospheric pressure squeeze the water up upon expansion of the liquid then squeeze the water back down to the ground after the suns energy has waned?

Yes, but why does this happen?
How does what happen?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #654 on: January 08, 2017, 02:42:26 AM »
Why does water run downhill?
Because it was squeezed UP by atmospheric pressure upon expansion of the liquid. Once the expansion has squeezed back together due to force of number after the suns energy has waned, then the water is squeezed back down to the ground.

Why does the atmospheric pressure squeeze the water up upon expansion of the liquid then squeeze the water back down to the ground after the suns energy has waned?

Yes, but why does this happen?
How does what happen?
Ahh ok.
You've watched a kettle boil, right?
You know what happens.
That boiling water is expansion of molecules being pushed up and out of the kettle by the atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water from above as the element creates low pressure pockets at the bottom.
This then pushes out the expanded molecules which are squeezed up by the more dense (amount) of atmospheric molecules, until they become a part of the equally expanded molecules higher up.
They then push into each other which compresses them into each other  and cannot be pushed up any more due to the fact that they no longer expand but condense by mass compression and are pushed through the dense atmosphere which squeezes again and again and again until we feel it as rain or as in mountains...a water fall.


*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #655 on: January 08, 2017, 02:46:58 AM »
Well I could say it's because stuff has mass, but then you would probably ask why stuff has mass...
No, it's not a case of why stuff has mass. We're talking about an act upon that mass to change that masses motion.
You're missing the point. That objects resist changes in velocity is an observable phenomenon. You seem to have acknowledged this.
Yes it's observable but what is the cause of the observation?
Mainstream scientists call it inertia but if inertia effects a change then it has to be something other than just a name.

Inertia doesn't effect a change (assuming you didn't mean 'affect'). Inertia is the name given to objects' tendency to resist change.

Quote
Physicists call this property inertia. If you want to call it something else, then fine, but that won't really help communication.
I have called it something else and I've explained why. All I want is an explanation for inertia in terms of what inertia is.

As I said, call it what you like. The tendency of objects to resist change is an observable property that won't change however it is named.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." Romeo and Juliet.
There has to be a reason for inertia.
There has to be a reason for the tendency to resist change, so what is that tendency to resists change.

F=ma

Mass requires a force to change its velocity. That's as simple as it gets.

The product of mass and velocity is momentum or inertia.
Ok, mass requires a force. Tell me what the force is and how you can prove it.

To gain momentum you need applied energy. How is the energy applied and how is it applied as a force?

You see F=ma is basically nothing unless you explain why and how it becomes this.
I've explained mine so you look at mine and explain yours.



We did this kind of thing in school. You attach a ticker tape timer to a vehicle, send it down a slope, measure stuff. Simple.

Imagine you have a vehicle on a slope where the conditions are that the slope is not steep enough for the vehicle to start moving down it thanks to friction from the wheels on the surface. Everything is in balance. Next to it is a small weight, like the ones added to that car in the video. That also doesn't move.

IN your model, they have weight and are held in place solely because of the atmosphere pushing against them as they displace volume.

Put the weight and the car together.

The weigh no more than they did before. They displace no more volume than they did before.

What do you think will happen?
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #656 on: January 08, 2017, 03:05:03 AM »


We did this kind of thing in school. You attach a ticker tape timer to a vehicle, send it down a slope, measure stuff. Simple.

Imagine you have a vehicle on a slope where the conditions are that the slope is not steep enough for the vehicle to start moving down it thanks to friction from the wheels on the surface. Everything is in balance. Next to it is a small weight, like the ones added to that car in the video. That also doesn't move.

IN your model, they have weight and are held in place solely because of the atmosphere pushing against them as they displace volume.

Put the weight and the car together.

The weigh no more than they did before. They displace no more volume than they did before.

What do you think will happen?
You've just added a small mass to the car. You've just changed the pressure upon the car by displacing more atmosphere.
Don't try and tell me you haven't added anything.

Now then, how about you tell me what inertia is and what force ensures it works to be actually named, inertia.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #657 on: January 08, 2017, 03:41:18 AM »


We did this kind of thing in school. You attach a ticker tape timer to a vehicle, send it down a slope, measure stuff. Simple.

Imagine you have a vehicle on a slope where the conditions are that the slope is not steep enough for the vehicle to start moving down it thanks to friction from the wheels on the surface. Everything is in balance. Next to it is a small weight, like the ones added to that car in the video. That also doesn't move.

IN your model, they have weight and are held in place solely because of the atmosphere pushing against them as they displace volume.

Put the weight and the car together.

The weigh no more than they did before. They displace no more volume than they did before.

What do you think will happen?
You've just added a small mass to the car. You've just changed the pressure upon the car by displacing more atmosphere.
Don't try and tell me you haven't added anything.

Now then, how about you tell me what inertia is and what force ensures it works to be actually named, inertia.
Again, look up the answers you want and then discuss them here.  It seems you just need conversation.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #658 on: January 08, 2017, 03:47:34 AM »
Again, look up the answers you want and then discuss them here.  It seems you just need conversation.
It's a good job I'm not reliant on you for conversation.
However, once I can find answers or get them, I'll be sure to let them be known.
The issue is, I haven't got any legitimate answers for what I asked for.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #659 on: January 08, 2017, 03:54:16 AM »
Again, look up the answers you want and then discuss them here.  It seems you just need conversation.
It's a good job I'm not reliant on you for conversation.
However, once I can find answers or get them, I'll be sure to let them be known.
The issue is, I haven't got any legitimate answers for what I asked for.
You are better looking for eg. the definition of inertia on a professional science site than discussing with random people here.  Why not contact your local university?