Air Pressure vs Gravity

Quote from: Mainframes on January 08, 2017, 03:02:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 02:27:46 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 08, 2017, 01:37:40 PM

If you were a true Zeteticist, you would be able to describe an experiment that could verify your thinking that any normal man would be able to perform. You sir are a charlatan and a fraud.

A fraud for what?
I'm not the one that's telling the world to follow lies after lies that are supposedly backed up by experimentation that cannot be shown due to secrecy or simply cannot be explained as to what they are.

I merely question and have my own theories which I'm comfortable with in my own mind as to how much of a better theory they are compared to the many Earth theories told by mainstream so called scientists.
You cannot prove anything and you are Bill Nye who's supposed to be a skinny genius.

I think you may be mistaking things that cannot be explained for things that you are too stupid too understand. The fact that you can't or won't even grasp the most basic concept such as inertia is telling.

Basic concept?
I've asked you to explain inertia and you can't.
You just keep telling me that it's a property of mass.

How about explaining what it is and while you're at it, explain what gravity is, also.
So am I really too stupid to understand or is it that you use this to hide the fact that you cannot explain?

I think it's the latter.

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 08, 2017, 10:59:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 10:43:40 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 10:25:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 07:50:09 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

But without atmosphere in the chamber there is nothing to offer resistance.  That's why the feather doesn't flutter.  Is your only response then that it must be a fake because it doesn't fit your opinion?

I've just explained in my post, earlier.

I'm just not following you.  Are you saying that the few remaining air molecules have expanded to fill the space ?  With virtually no air in the chamber, why do the objects fall at all?  No pressure left to push them down.

Virtually no air?
There's plenty of air in the chamber, it's just more expanded.
It's just a lower pressure that's all.

Meanwhile... the rate of fall of an object is not related to the pressure of the air surrounding it otherwise a bag of sugar would weigh a different amount each day.

The rate of fall is determined by push against resistance to that push, or squeeze if you want to grasp it.

And the formula please, real variables.  Show you understand the science.

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 02:11:49 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 08, 2017, 10:59:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 10:43:40 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 10:25:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 07:50:09 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

But without atmosphere in the chamber there is nothing to offer resistance.  That's why the feather doesn't flutter.  Is your only response then that it must be a fake because it doesn't fit your opinion?

I've just explained in my post, earlier.

I'm just not following you.  Are you saying that the few remaining air molecules have expanded to fill the space ?  With virtually no air in the chamber, why do the objects fall at all?  No pressure left to push them down.

Virtually no air?
There's plenty of air in the chamber, it's just more expanded.
It's just a lower pressure that's all.

Meanwhile... the rate of fall of an object is not related to the pressure of the air surrounding it otherwise a bag of sugar would weigh a different amount each day.

The rate of fall is determined by push against resistance to that push, or squeeze if you want to grasp it.

And the formula please, real variables.  Show you understand the science.

I'm still trying to figure out the formula for your artificial program.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 09, 2017, 02:23:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 02:11:49 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 08, 2017, 10:59:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 10:43:40 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 10:25:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 07:50:09 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

But without atmosphere in the chamber there is nothing to offer resistance.  That's why the feather doesn't flutter.  Is your only response then that it must be a fake because it doesn't fit your opinion?

I've just explained in my post, earlier.

I'm just not following you.  Are you saying that the few remaining air molecules have expanded to fill the space ?  With virtually no air in the chamber, why do the objects fall at all?  No pressure left to push them down.

Virtually no air?
There's plenty of air in the chamber, it's just more expanded.
It's just a lower pressure that's all.

Meanwhile... the rate of fall of an object is not related to the pressure of the air surrounding it otherwise a bag of sugar would weigh a different amount each day.

The rate of fall is determined by push against resistance to that push, or squeeze if you want to grasp it.

And the formula please, real variables.  Show you understand the science.

I'm still trying to figure out the formula for your artificial program.

What do you mean?  Why can you not provide a formula?

What do you mean?  Why can you not provide a formula?

No wonder you people are devoid of basic common sense.
You think a formula will prove or disprove something.
Give your head a shake.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 09, 2017, 02:30:33 AM

What do you mean?  Why can you not provide a formula?

No wonder you people are devoid of basic common sense.
You think a formula will prove or disprove something.
Give your head a shake.

It's you against the world...

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 09, 2017, 02:30:33 AM

What do you mean?  Why can you not provide a formula?

No wonder you people are devoid of basic common sense.
You think a formula will prove or disprove something.
Give your head a shake.

Yes you are correct...
A squared + B squared will never equal C squared in a flat earth world.

What have mathematical formulae ever done for us?

V=IR
What ever was Ohm thinking about....he should have stayed at home that day and as for Boyle with his.......
P1 V1 = P2 V2
What a total waste of time that is ......what good has it ever done?

And what about the total rubbish that is.....S=K logW.......where is that ever going to lead To?
......and logs what good are they for?

That logxy = log x + log y.....! Napier what a looser.
And imagine how better the world would have been without having to imagine numbers when we have perfectly good imagined flat ones.

So   That   I squared = -1.    Who cares!

The world would have been a better place if we stopped and listed more to your words of wisdom mr Sceptimatic....oh my head feels all shakey

Yeah that pi r squared shit. what garbage that is...

Builders think their buildings are square just because they used the Pythagorean Theorem and/or cross-squared. What a load of crap. That doesn't prove a thing. There is no way to make a building square. Those stupid formula methods don't mean shit. At the end of the day it boils down to a rough guess at best. The only reason the trusses fit is because they are made of the same material as the walls (often wood) and so have the same density. Because of this, atmospheric pressure guarantees they will fit nicely.

But go ahead and believe the fairy tales you've been brainwashed into believing your whole life. It's all part of a conspiracy and you sheeple happily drink the kool-aid! Pythagorean Theorem! What a laugh!

Give your head a shake.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 07:32:38 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 04:40:38 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 04:27:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 03:30:31 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 03:26:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 10:43:40 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 10:25:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2017, 07:50:09 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 08, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

But without atmosphere in the chamber there is nothing to offer resistance.  That's why the feather doesn't flutter.  Is your only response then that it must be a fake because it doesn't fit your opinion?

I've just explained in my post, earlier.

I'm just not following you.  Are you saying that the few remaining air molecules have expanded to fill the space ?  With virtually no air in the chamber, why do the objects fall at all?  No pressure left to push them down.

Virtually no air?
There's plenty of air in the chamber, it's just more expanded.
It's just a lower pressure that's all.

I suppose plenty is a relative term.  Plenty for what?  It is a much lower pressure, approaching zero.  So what makes the bowling ball drop?

The release bolt on the crane beam, I suppose.

No, that simply releases it.  With nearly no pressure in the room, what pulls the bowling ball, or pushes it, to the ground?

Its own displacement of atmosphere with much less resistance.
Don't pretend a near vacuum in that big numb NASA building with it's shaky pipes. 

Pretty close.  But why does it displace it downward?

Because energy was applied to elevate it and that displaced atmosphere by the object has just become a weaker resistance to it.

Ok, so the pressure all around the ball pushes on it when it is released.  Since it was raised up along that path it has displaced the air along its way, that then becomes its path of least resistance.  So when, even this minimal, pressure around the ball squeezes it it moves along this path of least resistance.  Is that what you're saying?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:25:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

What force would this be?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:37:10 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 09, 2017, 02:30:33 AM

What do you mean?  Why can you not provide a formula?

No wonder you people are devoid of basic common sense.
You think a formula will prove or disprove something.
Give your head a shake.

Yes you are correct...
A squared + B squared will never equal C squared in a flat earth world.

What have mathematical formulae ever done for us?

V=IR
What ever was Ohm thinking about....he should have stayed at home that day and as for Boyle with his.......
P1 V1 = P2 V2
What a total waste of time that is ......what good has it ever done?

And what about the total rubbish that is.....S=K logW.......where is that ever going to lead To?
......and logs what good are they for?

That logxy = log x + log y.....! Napier what a looser.
And imagine how better the world would have been without having to imagine numbers when we have perfectly good imagined flat ones.

So   That   I squared = -1.    Who cares!

The world would have been a better place if we stopped and listed more to your words of wisdom mr Sceptimatic....oh my head feels all shakey

So what are you proving to me?

Yeah that pi r squared shit. what garbage that is...

What is pi r squared in terms of accuracy?

Builders think their buildings are square just because they used the Pythagorean Theorem and/or cross-squared. What a load of crap. That doesn't prove a thing. There is no way to make a building square. Those stupid formula methods don't mean shit. At the end of the day it boils down to a rough guess at best. The only reason the trusses fit is because they are made of the same material as the walls (often wood) and so have the same density. Because of this, atmospheric pressure guarantees they will fit nicely.

But go ahead and believe the fairy tales you've been brainwashed into believing your whole life. It's all part of a conspiracy and you sheeple happily drink the kool-aid! Pythagorean Theorem! What a laugh!

Give your head a shake.

It seems weird how you people have went into mental overdrive over me asking you to explain gravity and inertia as to what they ARE.
You then go into builders building houses and such and make out I'm arguing against it.
How odd.
It's as if you people actually have no clue what you're talking about but need to show the onlookers that you are smart by parroting. 

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:25:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

What force would this be?

Any force.

If you want to change the velocity of something with mass then a force must be applied.

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 05:53:55 AM

Builders think their buildings are square just because they used the Pythagorean Theorem and/or cross-squared. What a load of crap. That doesn't prove a thing. There is no way to make a building square. Those stupid formula methods don't mean shit. At the end of the day it boils down to a rough guess at best. The only reason the trusses fit is because they are made of the same material as the walls (often wood) and so have the same density. Because of this, atmospheric pressure guarantees they will fit nicely.

But go ahead and believe the fairy tales you've been brainwashed into believing your whole life. It's all part of a conspiracy and you sheeple happily drink the kool-aid! Pythagorean Theorem! What a laugh!

Give your head a shake.

It's as if you people ... need to show the onlookers that you are smart by parroting. 

It actually doesn't take a lot of smarts.  I thought it was fairly accurate though. LOL

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:23:55 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:25:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

What force would this be?

Any force.

If you want to change the velocity of something with mass then a force must be applied.

Correct it should. But what is that force?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:31:28 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 05:53:55 AM

Builders think their buildings are square just because they used the Pythagorean Theorem and/or cross-squared. What a load of crap. That doesn't prove a thing. There is no way to make a building square. Those stupid formula methods don't mean shit. At the end of the day it boils down to a rough guess at best. The only reason the trusses fit is because they are made of the same material as the walls (often wood) and so have the same density. Because of this, atmospheric pressure guarantees they will fit nicely.

But go ahead and believe the fairy tales you've been brainwashed into believing your whole life. It's all part of a conspiracy and you sheeple happily drink the kool-aid! Pythagorean Theorem! What a laugh!

Give your head a shake.

It's as if you people ... need to show the onlookers that you are smart by parroting. 

It actually doesn't take a lot of smarts.  I thought it was fairly accurate though. LOL

Try thinking for yourself instead of acting like a robot among robots under mass programming.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 07:41:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:23:55 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:25:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

What force would this be?

Any force.

If you want to change the velocity of something with mass then a force must be applied.

Correct it should. But what is that force?

Depends on the situation. Physical interaction with another object, EM repulsion or attraction, gravitation, strong or weak nuclear force. Take your pick.

The type of force is not important. An object with mass requires force to change its velocity. This is inertia.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:52:14 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 07:41:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:23:55 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:25:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

What force would this be?

Any force.

If you want to change the velocity of something with mass then a force must be applied.

Correct it should. But what is that force?

Depends on the situation. Physical interaction with another object, EM repulsion or attraction, gravitation, strong or weak nuclear force. Take your pick.

The type of force is not important. An object with mass requires force to change its velocity. This is inertia.

I think the force is important in both ways.
The force creating a resistance of a mass against a force applied to that mass.

So what is the force?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 08:00:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:52:14 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 07:41:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:23:55 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:25:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

What force would this be?

Any force.

If you want to change the velocity of something with mass then a force must be applied.

Correct it should. But what is that force?

Depends on the situation. Physical interaction with another object, EM repulsion or attraction, gravitation, strong or weak nuclear force. Take your pick.

The type of force is not important. An object with mass requires force to change its velocity. This is inertia.

I think the force is important in both ways.
The force creating a resistance of a mass against a force applied to that mass.

So what is the force?

The only thing that is important is the magnitude of the force and the mass as per F=Ma

There is no force creating a resistance unless you are trying to describe net force. In case it is just the combination of all the different forces acting on an object. A typical example being a coin pushed on a table. The net force would be the force from the push less force due to friction with the table.

The only thing that is important is the magnitude of the force and the mass as per F=Ma

There is no force creating a resistance unless you are trying to describe net force. In case it is just the combination of all the different forces acting on an object. A typical example being a coin pushed on a table. The net force would be the force from the push less force due to friction with the table.

What force is upon the coin that creates the resistance to the push?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 08:20:25 AM

The only thing that is important is the magnitude of the force and the mass as per F=Ma

There is no force creating a resistance unless you are trying to describe net force. In case it is just the combination of all the different forces acting on an object. A typical example being a coin pushed on a table. The net force would be the force from the push less force due to friction with the table.

What force is upon the coin that creates the resistance to the push?

In the example I just gave if you read it.

Force 1: a push e.g. My finger
Force 2: friction with table.

If force 1 is greater than force 2 the coin accelerates.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 08:00:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:52:14 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 07:41:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 07:23:55 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:25:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 02:14:20 AM

And I have explained inertia perfectly well along with a few others. A mass requires force to change its velocity. This is what inertia is and it is a basic inherent property of mass.

If it's a basic inherent property of mass then what is that basic inherent property?

The property is that it requires force to change its velocity.

What force would this be?

Any force.

If you want to change the velocity of something with mass then a force must be applied.

Correct it should. But what is that force?

Depends on the situation. Physical interaction with another object, EM repulsion or attraction, gravitation, strong or weak nuclear force. Take your pick.

The type of force is not important. An object with mass requires force to change its velocity. This is inertia.

I think the force is important in both ways.
The force creating a resistance of a mass against a force applied to that mass.

So what is the force?

Scepti, you're trying to make inertia more complicated than it really is.

Inertia is not a force.  Inertia is simply the property of mass to resist change in motion.

It's like asking "why is milk wet?"  Does not having a fundamental understanding of wetness stop anyone from pouring milk on their breakfast cereal or using it in their cake mix?

I think he struggles with real world examples where drag and friction are present.

I think he struggles with the real world.

Fixed that for you.

It seems weird how you people have went into mental overdrive over me asking you to explain gravity and inertia as to what they ARE.

Your delusions are showing again, Scepti.

No one is going into 'overdrive' because of your regurgitated drivel; if anything, it's more a long-winded sigh.

You have been asking the same questions about inertia and gravity for literally years verbatim. It's nothing but a debate tactic to both try to deflect the burden of proof which sits squarely on your shoulders (you're the one making the claim that air pressure is gravity after all) and avoid actually answering questions put to you in any meaningful way. It goes something like this:

Q: What causes this stack to push down in the first place?
You: <Gives a vague, hand-waving analogy with a healthy dash of ramblings about indoctrination/brainwashing/peer pressure> But what causes gravity?
Q: <Multiple people give reasonable explanations about gravity, usually with references/sources, freely acknowledging the exact underlying cause is unknown>
You: Not good enough. Explain in your own words.
Q: <Explains in his/her own words> Now, can we go back to the original question which you didn't answer satisfactorily?
You: No, because you're not telling me what gravity actually is. <More ramblings about lies/programming and further insistence no one has explained themselves properly>

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

Then we have your go-to card which is to run away from people asking follow up questions to the 'answers' you give them. If they don't agree with your given verbose, labored analogies, they're just too indoctrinated/brainwashed/scared of what others think of them to accept your evidence-free ramblings on an internet forum.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

As fun as it is to read your, errr- um, thoughts, about things, it doesn't stop you being a dishonest charlatan which you have demonstrated countless times on this forum alone.

I'd suggest to others to stop falling for his stalling/debate tactics and start to nail him down to his assertions. Any explanation he asks for from you concerning a scientific theory has already been explained to him dozens of times before and you know he's going to reject it a priori anyway.

Because energy was applied to elevate it and that displaced atmosphere by the object has just become a weaker resistance to it.

I've asked you this before, but why only in the downward direction? Am I not displacing atmosphere by walking forward? Clearly I am in your model because all molecules are stacked in every direction from the dome, yet the atmosphere doesn't push me back like it does when I jump up. Why? What's the difference here? This of course applies to any direction that isn't up, too. For instance, I can throw a ball at say a 45^o angle which is again displacing atmosphere but it doesn't come back to me, it just keeps on going as far as its momentum will take it whilst eventually falling to the earth.

In your above response to the evacuated chamber experiment, what if the balls weren't directly hoisted up like they were and instead they were vertically lifted from, say, 10m from where they will ultimately be dropped? What would happen here? To elucidate, this would mean they haven't displaced any atmosphere directly below them, they've been taken to that spot from a horizontal position several meters away. What happens when they're let go?

Also, another question: Let's say we're in the same evacuated chamber with the pressure extremely low (eg. 1x10^-10pa). We've set up a golf ball on a tee with an automated swinging arm holding a golf club. What happens to the ball when the club/arm makes contact?