Air Pressure vs Gravity

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:04:15 AM

Because for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction. Has to be. No if's of but's.

Action - my finger creates force on object and gives it velocity.
Reaction - my finger is slowed down by pushing the object

Simple. The object is now free to slide along the surface it is on. In a real world example friction with the surface would eventually slow it down. If the surface was perfectly smooth and caused no friction then it would continue to slide at the same velocity until some other force acted on it.

Like I said before, to you. No friction means no existence. You really need to understand this before attempting to use it in any future correspondence.

No friction...no existance....is that you refuting your your love affair with your right hand? Or are you expressing some deeper understanding of physics?

Cut out the stuttering and say what you intend to.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 09, 2017, 02:17:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:04:15 AM

Because for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction. Has to be. No if's of but's.

Action - my finger creates force on object and gives it velocity.
Reaction - my finger is slowed down by pushing the object

Simple. The object is now free to slide along the surface it is on. In a real world example friction with the surface would eventually slow it down. If the surface was perfectly smooth and caused no friction then it would continue to slide at the same velocity until some other force acted on it.

Like I said before, to you. No friction means no existence. You really need to understand this before attempting to use it in any future correspondence.

No friction...no existance....is that you refuting your your love affair with your right hand? Or are you expressing some deeper understanding of physics?

Cut out the stuttering and say what you intend to.

I th..th...th...th...th....think your a de...de....de...de...de...deeply confused m..mmm....mmmm....mmmmm....man.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 10:35:24 AM

Is that why every FEer has to have their own theory? Because above all else they fear that accepting anyone's word for anything will put them in a position where they could be perceived as sheeple or mindless robots?

It makes people individuals in terms of thought. It means that people have the ability to think for themselves.

But the earth is only one shape and things fall down for one reason or combination of reasons.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

You people follow one theory about your Earth system.

Mostly true. But there is only one truth so where we do diverge, someone must be in error.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

You do it without question.

Absolutely false.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

You also join the bandwagon of attempted ridicule, because it's simply much less fuss to do just that.
It's true. It is much less fuss.

You on the other hand, don't so much attempt to ridicule as just blatantly and rudely do so. The only one I've seen who, more arrogantly insults more people more often than you, is Heiwa.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

If someone tells me that a Labrador with a big curly wig on it is a Lion, I'm going to question it.
If I ask to get a closer look and I'm told I can't because it's too dangerous, then I have to make a choice as to what the animal most resembles.
If I call it a Labrador in a wig and get laughed at by a crowd that was told it was a Lion, then I'm already pissing against the wind...but what do I do?
If I can deduce that it's a Labrador in a big curly wig then I have to either stand my ground and be ridiculed or just pretend I made an error and join the masses.

This is what this globe crap is and I stand by my Labrador with a wig on.

Of course, it's a Lion to you. ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR wuff ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. 

Most people questions thing to some degree or other before reaching a conclusion. Many would like to think they have been a little more objective and searched a little further than the next guy. You are not special in this regard. But at the end of the day, it is either a lion or a labrador or a bear or a dingo or ... We can't all come to independent conclusions in order to be "thinking for ourselves. Well we can, but we certainly can't all be right.

Correct, we can't all be right and we could all be wrong in the grand scheme of things.

The thing is, there's being wrong and there's blatant lies.
The globe is blatant lies sold as a truth along with the garbage that goes with it and told to us by paid puppets.

You are welcome to hang onto that of course. I don't have anything against you for thinking along mass opinion lines. I used to do it.

I certainly don't expect you to take notice of me in any shape or form. I always fully expect to be looked upon as a nutter and backward and all the rest of it, so I'm under no illusions about that.

The truth is, I used to be naive. Easily led along with the masses. I was made more backward doing that but I didn't realise until I decided to look at alternatives.

This is where I am now and one thing is certain. I will never accept anything to do with a globe system in how we've been schooled.
It's clear nonsense. Many people know it's nonsense but they are not prepared to step over that line that was drawn between them and those that were left on the other side of it.

Your argument isn't with me. It's with your own conscience and logical mind. Use it before you become a fully automated robot.

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 02:24:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 10:35:24 AM

Is that why every FEer has to have their own theory? Because above all else they fear that accepting anyone's word for anything will put them in a position where they could be perceived as sheeple or mindless robots?

It makes people individuals in terms of thought. It means that people have the ability to think for themselves.

But the earth is only one shape and things fall down for one reason or combination of reasons.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

You people follow one theory about your Earth system.

Mostly true. But there is only one truth so where we do diverge, someone must be in error.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

You do it without question.

Absolutely false.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

You also join the bandwagon of attempted ridicule, because it's simply much less fuss to do just that.
It's true. It is much less fuss.

You on the other hand, don't so much attempt to ridicule as just blatantly and rudely do so. The only one I've seen who, more arrogantly insults more people more often than you, is Heiwa.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

If someone tells me that a Labrador with a big curly wig on it is a Lion, I'm going to question it.
If I ask to get a closer look and I'm told I can't because it's too dangerous, then I have to make a choice as to what the animal most resembles.
If I call it a Labrador in a wig and get laughed at by a crowd that was told it was a Lion, then I'm already pissing against the wind...but what do I do?
If I can deduce that it's a Labrador in a big curly wig then I have to either stand my ground and be ridiculed or just pretend I made an error and join the masses.

This is what this globe crap is and I stand by my Labrador with a wig on.

Of course, it's a Lion to you. ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR wuff ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. 

Most people questions thing to some degree or other before reaching a conclusion. Many would like to think they have been a little more objective and searched a little further than the next guy. You are not special in this regard. But at the end of the day, it is either a lion or a labrador or a bear or a dingo or ... We can't all come to independent conclusions in order to be "thinking for ourselves. Well we can, but we certainly can't all be right.

Correct, we can't all be right and we could all be wrong in the grand scheme of things.

The thing is, there's being wrong and there's blatant lies.
The globe is blatant lies sold as a truth along with the garbage that goes with it and told to us by paid puppets.

You are welcome to hang onto that of course. I don't have anything against you for thinking along mass opinion lines. I used to do it.

I certainly don't expect you to take notice of me in any shape or form. I always fully expect to be looked upon as a nutter and backward and all the rest of it, so I'm under no illusions about that.

The truth is, I used to be naive. Easily led along with the masses. I was made more backward doing that but I didn't realise until I decided to look at alternatives.

This is where I am now and one thing is certain. I will never accept anything to do with a globe system in how we've been schooled.
It's clear nonsense. Many people know it's nonsense but they are not prepared to step over that line that was drawn between them and those that were left on the other side of it.

Your argument isn't with me. It's with your own conscience and logical mind. Use it before you become a fully automated robot.

You don't by any chance come from Nantucket do you?.....

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:04:15 AM

Because for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction. Has to be. No if's of but's.

Action - my finger creates force on object and gives it velocity.
Reaction - my finger is slowed down by pushing the object

Simple. The object is now free to slide along the surface it is on. In a real world example friction with the surface would eventually slow it down. If the surface was perfectly smooth and caused no friction then it would continue to slide at the same velocity until some other force acted on it.

Like I said before, to you. No friction means no existence. You really need to understand this before attempting to use it in any future correspondence.

Why would friction be required for existence?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:04:15 AM

Because for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction. Has to be. No if's of but's.

Action - my finger creates force on object and gives it velocity.
Reaction - my finger is slowed down by pushing the object

Simple. The object is now free to slide along the surface it is on. In a real world example friction with the surface would eventually slow it down. If the surface was perfectly smooth and caused no friction then it would continue to slide at the same velocity until some other force acted on it.

Like I said before, to you. No friction means no existence. You really need to understand this before attempting to use it in any future correspondence.

Why would friction be required for existence?

The fact that you're asking this question proves to me that you are not in the least bit interested in reality and are simply focused on following mainstream bullshit.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:04:15 AM

Because for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction. Has to be. No if's of but's.

Action - my finger creates force on object and gives it velocity.
Reaction - my finger is slowed down by pushing the object

Simple. The object is now free to slide along the surface it is on. In a real world example friction with the surface would eventually slow it down. If the surface was perfectly smooth and caused no friction then it would continue to slide at the same velocity until some other force acted on it.

Like I said before, to you. No friction means no existence. You really need to understand this before attempting to use it in any future correspondence.

Why would friction be required for existence?

The fact that you're asking this question proves to me that you are not in the least bit interested in reality and are simply focused on following mainstream bullshit.

Asking a question means you aren't interested in finding out something?

As the sole keeper of the theory, you are the only source of the answer. Unless you don't have one.

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 10:35:24 AM

Is that why every FEer has to have their own theory? Because above all else they fear that accepting anyone's word for anything will put them in a position where they could be perceived as sheeple or mindless robots?

It makes people individuals in terms of thought. It means that people have the ability to think for themselves.
It means that the preferred path that is made available to them does not have to be the chosen path by their own choice, unless forcibly pushed into that path by all means necessary.

You people follow one theory about your Earth system. You do it without question. You also join the bandwagon of attempted ridicule, because it's simply much less fuss to do just that.
It's true. It is much less fuss.

If someone tells me that a Labrador with a big curly wig on it is a Lion, I'm going to question it.
If I ask to get a closer look and I'm told I can't because it's too dangerous, then I have to make a choice as to what the animal most resembles.
If I call it a Labrador in a wig and get laughed at by a crowd that was told it was a Lion, then I'm already pissing against the wind...but what do I do?
If I can deduce that it's a Labrador in a big curly wig then I have to either stand my ground and be ridiculed or just pretend I made an error and join the masses.

This is what this globe crap is and I stand by my Labrador with a wig on.

Of course, it's a Lion to you. ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR wuff ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. 

Nice oversimplified analogy.

Is that what you think about your graphite arc lamp? Everybody else sees an unimaginably vast and complex cosmos when we look through our telescopes, but not you.

For some reason you seem to see tiny lights reflecting off of a dome. How odd. Maybe you should look through a telescope for once in your life and realize how wrong you are about the world around you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:53:52 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:04:15 AM

Because for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction. Has to be. No if's of but's.

Action - my finger creates force on object and gives it velocity.
Reaction - my finger is slowed down by pushing the object

Simple. The object is now free to slide along the surface it is on. In a real world example friction with the surface would eventually slow it down. If the surface was perfectly smooth and caused no friction then it would continue to slide at the same velocity until some other force acted on it.

Like I said before, to you. No friction means no existence. You really need to understand this before attempting to use it in any future correspondence.

Why would friction be required for existence?

The fact that you're asking this question proves to me that you are not in the least bit interested in reality and are simply focused on following mainstream bullshit.

Asking a question means you aren't interested in finding out something?

As the sole keeper of the theory, you are the only source of the answer. Unless you don't have one.

What mainstream/frames said is not about my theory, it's about him having to ask a question as to why no friction can still mean existence.
I shouldn't need to keep answering to that as it should be blatantly obvious.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 10:35:24 AM

Is that why every FEer has to have their own theory? Because above all else they fear that accepting anyone's word for anything will put them in a position where they could be perceived as sheeple or mindless robots?

It makes people individuals in terms of thought. It means that people have the ability to think for themselves.
It means that the preferred path that is made available to them does not have to be the chosen path by their own choice, unless forcibly pushed into that path by all means necessary.

You people follow one theory about your Earth system. You do it without question. You also join the bandwagon of attempted ridicule, because it's simply much less fuss to do just that.
It's true. It is much less fuss.

If someone tells me that a Labrador with a big curly wig on it is a Lion, I'm going to question it.
If I ask to get a closer look and I'm told I can't because it's too dangerous, then I have to make a choice as to what the animal most resembles.
If I call it a Labrador in a wig and get laughed at by a crowd that was told it was a Lion, then I'm already pissing against the wind...but what do I do?
If I can deduce that it's a Labrador in a big curly wig then I have to either stand my ground and be ridiculed or just pretend I made an error and join the masses.

This is what this globe crap is and I stand by my Labrador with a wig on.

Of course, it's a Lion to you. ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR wuff ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. 

Nice oversimplified analogy.

Is that what you think about your graphite arc lamp? Everybody else sees an unimaginably vast and complex cosmos when we look through our telescopes, but not you.

For some reason you seem to see tiny lights reflecting off of a dome. How odd. Maybe you should look through a telescope for once in your life and realize how wrong you are about the world around you.

Whenever you leave your job as a paid presenter of scientific truth's and scientific nonsense, then maybe it would help you to actually really take a look around you and also into what you think is space and evaluate what you thought was logical.

Light year stars seen with the naked eye that you're in acceptance of you seeing them as they were thousands of years ago.

Now this alone should have required you to punch yourself in the face many times at how naive you were/are in believing this utter utter absolute garbage nonsense, cringe-worthy idiocy.

I may be wrong about the world around me in many aspects but I'm not wrong about the nonsense that you people adhere to.
Your visual space is all a reflection in between atmospheric conditions you view it through.
Your outer space is a story that is told to you to make your visual seem real.

It's that simple.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 10, 2017, 12:28:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 10:35:24 AM

Is that why every FEer has to have their own theory? Because above all else they fear that accepting anyone's word for anything will put them in a position where they could be perceived as sheeple or mindless robots?

It makes people individuals in terms of thought. It means that people have the ability to think for themselves.
It means that the preferred path that is made available to them does not have to be the chosen path by their own choice, unless forcibly pushed into that path by all means necessary.

You people follow one theory about your Earth system. You do it without question. You also join the bandwagon of attempted ridicule, because it's simply much less fuss to do just that.
It's true. It is much less fuss.

If someone tells me that a Labrador with a big curly wig on it is a Lion, I'm going to question it.
If I ask to get a closer look and I'm told I can't because it's too dangerous, then I have to make a choice as to what the animal most resembles.
If I call it a Labrador in a wig and get laughed at by a crowd that was told it was a Lion, then I'm already pissing against the wind...but what do I do?
If I can deduce that it's a Labrador in a big curly wig then I have to either stand my ground and be ridiculed or just pretend I made an error and join the masses.

This is what this globe crap is and I stand by my Labrador with a wig on.

Of course, it's a Lion to you. ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR wuff ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. 

Nice oversimplified analogy.

Is that what you think about your graphite arc lamp? Everybody else sees an unimaginably vast and complex cosmos when we look through our telescopes, but not you.

For some reason you seem to see tiny lights reflecting off of a dome. How odd. Maybe you should look through a telescope for once in your life and realize how wrong you are about the world around you.

Whenever you leave your job as a paid presenter of scientific truth's and scientific nonsense, then maybe it would help you to actually really take a look around you and also into what you think is space and evaluate what you thought was logical.

Light year stars seen with the naked eye that you're in acceptance of you seeing them as they were thousands of years ago.

Now this alone should have required you to punch yourself in the face many times at how naive you were/are in believing this utter utter absolute garbage nonsense, cringe-worthy idiocy.

I may be wrong about the world around me in many aspects but I'm not wrong about the nonsense that you people adhere to.
Your visual space is all a reflection in between atmospheric conditions you view it through.
Your outer space is a story that is told to you to make your visual seem real.

It's that simple.

You said 'we need to explain it with real life observations and senses'

And we have a round earth, satellites for communication and nuclear power stations.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 10, 2017, 12:22:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:53:52 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 09, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 11:04:15 AM

Because for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction. Has to be. No if's of but's.

Action - my finger creates force on object and gives it velocity.
Reaction - my finger is slowed down by pushing the object

Simple. The object is now free to slide along the surface it is on. In a real world example friction with the surface would eventually slow it down. If the surface was perfectly smooth and caused no friction then it would continue to slide at the same velocity until some other force acted on it.

Like I said before, to you. No friction means no existence. You really need to understand this before attempting to use it in any future correspondence.

Why would friction be required for existence?

The fact that you're asking this question proves to me that you are not in the least bit interested in reality and are simply focused on following mainstream bullshit.

Asking a question means you aren't interested in finding out something?

As the sole keeper of the theory, you are the only source of the answer. Unless you don't have one.

What mainstream/frames said is not about my theory, it's about him having to ask a question as to why no friction can still mean existence.
I shouldn't need to keep answering to that as it should be blatantly obvious.

If it was blatantly obvious people wouldn't be asking. Duh.

Yea, more of the same crap. Endless blathering; avoiding answering meaningful questions; more 'requests' to explain inertia/gravity.

Fellas, please stop falling for his obvious debate tactics. He's got half a dozen of you stuck in a never-ending tautology. In how many more ways do you think you can explain Newton's laws of motion and that inertia is a property of mass? No matter how succinct, factually-correct or eloquent you are in answering his questions about the aforementioned, the response is almost exactly the same every time.

I'd love to explain it to you but from what you've just said there, considering the years I've spent explaining and using all kinds of analogies and you haven't grasped any of it.

It feels like I'm talking to programmed robots.
Come back to me when you can show the ability to think away from your program.

Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.

Anyway, there's a very good reason why I'm not grasping the shit you're shoveling scepti and that's because it's empirically, demonstrably incorrect. You haven't provided any experiments or evidence of denpressure. None. If we all simply took your word for it, we'd be guilty of the exact thing you accuse everyone of every second goddamed post: that being an ability to swallow whatever we're told without question.

Essentially, you are asking that we throw out all the known laws of geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology all on the basis of your word alone. You. A proven liar. Some guy... on an anonymous internet forum. Yea, we're really the programmed robots you blather on about.

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?

Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason? 

Quote from: markjo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:53 AM

Have you ever heard of the idea of starting simple and then adding to it?

Well, that's what I'm trying to do with you.  I'm trying to explain using examples that are as simple as possible.  I agree that these over simplified examples do not reflect the real world.  Guess what.  They aren't supposed to.  They are an attempt to get the basic idea of inertia across.  That's why inertia is Newton's first law - because the second law builds on the first and the third builds on the second.

Mainstream can have the word, inertia but it has to be explained as to what it is an d not just passed off as a property of mass that means absolutely nothing.
You can build on something that does not exist as anything meaningful.

But inertia does have a meaning.  You're just refusing to grasp it.  Maybe you've been brainwashed by your own "theory" so that you can't see beyond it any more.

Quote from: markjo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:53 AM

In order to understand inertia in its simplest form, you have to strip away everything until you get to the simplest example - an object at rest with no forces acting upon it.  It doesn't matter that this can never happen in the real world.  It only matters that you can picture it in your mind and understand that if no forces are applied to that object, then the object will not change what it's doing (just sitting there).

It does matter. It matters a great deal.
It only doesn't matter if we use it as mere fantasy and keep it as that, without even trying to bring any of it into a real life theoretical scientific context.
The fact that we require it to be in real time, means we need to explain it with real life observations and senses.
Now you need to understand that there is never an instance in our lives on/in Earth where we can experience anything completely at rest, because everything is vibrating and vibration is friction.

Yes, at an atomic level everything is vibrating and there are countless internal forces acting between those atoms, but that's a different branch of physics and a different discussion.  What we're discussing here is the object as a whole and external forces that may or may not be acting upon it.  Again, for educational purposes, it is perfectly acceptable to start out with a purely hypothetical idealized scenario to get the basic idea across before adding extraneous real world forces that greatly complicate the situation.

Quote from: markjo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:53 AM

The same idea for the object in motion.  If an imaginary object is in motion and there are no forces acting on it, then why should it stop moving?

If there are no forces acting up on anything then there is no movement or vibration/friction meaning no life, meaning no Earth cell. Nothing.

Calm down Scepti.  A bowling ball doesn't have much of a life, so I don't think that it would mind much if we put it into an environment devoid of any external forces for educational purposes.

Quote from: markjo on January 09, 2017, 11:55:53 AM

I think that we may be using different definitions of the word "resistance".  To me (and most of the rest of the world), resistance is a force that opposes motion.  For example, friction is a common force of resistance.  As I said earlier, it is quite common to imagine an environment where there is no friction or any other type of resistance in order to simplify the situation and get the basic point across.

You can't simplify the situation to that extreme fantasy, as I mentioned above.
Friction is resistance no matter how it's brushed up.
One objects resistance is another objects friction.

Yes, I already said that friction is one form of resistance.  Please try to keep up.

Energy is friction and vibration and to make energy, something has to be resisted.

No, energy is not friction and friction is not energy.  However, friction can help convert one form of energy into another form.  For example, friction can convert mechanical energy into heat energy.

For every action no matter what, no matter where...there is always an equal and opposite reaction to that action. Always equal and never more nor less.

Yes, yes.  Newton's third law, conservation of energy, yadda, yadda.  All of that builds on inertia as a starting point.

Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.

Nope. I'm a fan of Newcastle United football club, though, if that helps.

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?

I never said that at all. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this.
Are you mixing it up with me saying that the ball is under maximum acceleration once the club stops making contact?

Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason? 

It will still drop because the ball was lifted unnaturally, meaning it's raised and held by an energy force.
It's now potential energy as we perceive it.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.

Nope. I'm a fan of Newcastle United football club, though, if that helps.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?

I never said that at all. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this.
Are you mixing it up with me saying that the ball is under maximum acceleration once the club stops making contact?

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason? 

It will still drop because the ball was lifted unnaturally, meaning it's raised and held by an energy force.
It's now potential energy as we perceive it.

If air pressure isn't pushing the ball down then what is?

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.

Nope. I'm a fan of Newcastle United football club, though, if that helps.

That's nearly as tragic as this denpressure bullshit you keep trying to sell.

But inertia does have a meaning.  You're just refusing to grasp it.  Maybe you've been brainwashed by your own "theory" so that you can't see beyond it any more.

I couldn't see it in the first place due to it being a load of old cack.
Inertia and gravity cannot be explained as anything worthwhile, knowing.
My theory aids me in understanding just what a bogus set of words inertia and gravity, are.

Yes, at an atomic level everything is vibrating and there are countless internal forces acting between those atoms, but that's a different branch of physics and a different discussion.  What we're discussing here is the object as a whole and external forces that may or may not be acting upon it.  Again, for educational purposes, it is perfectly acceptable to start out with a purely hypothetical idealized scenario to get the basic idea across before adding extraneous real world forces that greatly complicate the situation.

Never mind for educational purposes. It cannot be done. It cannot happen for any purpose, so how in the hell can it be educational?
The reason why people believe all this bullshit is because so called scientists say the very same thing.
"Imagine a black hole."  "Imagine the big bang starting from nothing."
The truth is, none of it can be imagined because there's nothing to imagine...because it's a nothing.

  A bowling ball doesn't have much of a life, so I don't think that it would mind much if we put it into an environment devoid of any external forces for educational purposes.

It can't be done marky lad. It can't be done.

No, energy is not friction and friction is not energy.  However, friction can help convert one form of energy into another form.  For example, friction can convert mechanical energy into heat energy.

You cannot have friction without having energy and you cannot have energy without creating friction. Energy is friction and/or vibration depending how you want to envision it.
Mechanical energy does not convert into heat energy. It is heat energy. All energy is heat.
All friction is heat.
All vibration is heat.

Yes, yes.  Newton's third law, conservation of energy, yadda, yadda.  All of that builds on inertia as a starting point.

Conservation of energy is an Earth entirety. Everything works under that premise.
What does that have to do with anything?
If anything it destroys your globe theory.
I bet you can't guess why it destroys your globe theory?

I'll be sure to let you know if you can't reason it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2017, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.

Nope. I'm a fan of Newcastle United football club, though, if that helps.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?

I never said that at all. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this.
Are you mixing it up with me saying that the ball is under maximum acceleration once the club stops making contact?

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason? 

It will still drop because the ball was lifted unnaturally, meaning it's raised and held by an energy force.
It's now potential energy as we perceive it.

If air pressure isn't pushing the ball down then what is?

Atmospheric pressure is still doing it, only it's against less resistance.
The mere fact that you believe there's a vacuum involved means you will never get it.
Once you understand that there's no such thing as a vacuum and there is always atmospheric pressure, the sooner you have a chance to grasp what's happening.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 10, 2017, 12:28:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2017, 10:55:49 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 09, 2017, 10:35:24 AM

Is that why every FEer has to have their own theory? Because above all else they fear that accepting anyone's word for anything will put them in a position where they could be perceived as sheeple or mindless robots?

It makes people individuals in terms of thought. It means that people have the ability to think for themselves.
It means that the preferred path that is made available to them does not have to be the chosen path by their own choice, unless forcibly pushed into that path by all means necessary.

You people follow one theory about your Earth system. You do it without question. You also join the bandwagon of attempted ridicule, because it's simply much less fuss to do just that.
It's true. It is much less fuss.

If someone tells me that a Labrador with a big curly wig on it is a Lion, I'm going to question it.
If I ask to get a closer look and I'm told I can't because it's too dangerous, then I have to make a choice as to what the animal most resembles.
If I call it a Labrador in a wig and get laughed at by a crowd that was told it was a Lion, then I'm already pissing against the wind...but what do I do?
If I can deduce that it's a Labrador in a big curly wig then I have to either stand my ground and be ridiculed or just pretend I made an error and join the masses.

This is what this globe crap is and I stand by my Labrador with a wig on.

Of course, it's a Lion to you. ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR wuff ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. 

Nice oversimplified analogy.

Is that what you think about your graphite arc lamp? Everybody else sees an unimaginably vast and complex cosmos when we look through our telescopes, but not you.

For some reason you seem to see tiny lights reflecting off of a dome. How odd. Maybe you should look through a telescope for once in your life and realize how wrong you are about the world around you.

Whenever you leave your job as a paid presenter of scientific truth's and scientific nonsense, then maybe it would help you to actually really take a look around you and also into what you think is space and evaluate what you thought was logical.

Light year stars seen with the naked eye that you're in acceptance of you seeing them as they were thousands of years ago.

Now this alone should have required you to punch yourself in the face many times at how naive you were/are in believing this utter utter absolute garbage nonsense, cringe-worthy idiocy.

I may be wrong about the world around me in many aspects but I'm not wrong about the nonsense that you people adhere to.
Your visual space is all a reflection in between atmospheric conditions you view it through.
Your outer space is a story that is told to you to make your visual seem real.

It's that simple.

Look through a telescope. That's all I ask of you.

Go to an observatory and actually LOOK AT the moon. It is not a reflection, it is a 3 dimensional object with shadows cast upon it. If you ever took the time to actually observe the world around you there is no way you could possibly come to such an idiotic conclusion.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 10, 2017, 07:46:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2017, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.

Nope. I'm a fan of Newcastle United football club, though, if that helps.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?

I never said that at all. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this.
Are you mixing it up with me saying that the ball is under maximum acceleration once the club stops making contact?

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM

Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason? 

It will still drop because the ball was lifted unnaturally, meaning it's raised and held by an energy force.
It's now potential energy as we perceive it.

If air pressure isn't pushing the ball down then what is?

Atmospheric pressure is still doing it, only it's against less resistance.
The mere fact that you believe there's a vacuum involved means you will never get it.
Once you understand that there's no such thing as a vacuum and there is always atmospheric pressure, the sooner you have a chance to grasp what's happening.

No, you're the one that doesn't grasp anything. The chamber had been reduced to a vacuum (yes, yes not a perfect vacuum - but as close to as to be able to assume it). There is a negligible amount of air in the chamber to exert any force on the bowling ball. That is why the feather falls with no air resistance at all.

Care to explain how in your model if the air molecules expand, why they don't impede the feather falling?

Look through a telescope. That's all I ask of you.

Go to an observatory and actually LOOK AT the moon. It is not a reflection, it is a 3 dimensional object with shadows cast upon it. If you ever took the time to actually observe the world around you there is no way you could possibly come to such an idiotic conclusion.

If you actually took the time to observe, you would not be jumping about championing a globe with light year stars...or maybe you would, assuming you are the real Bill Nye.

No, you're the one that doesn't grasp anything. The chamber had been reduced to a vacuum (yes, yes not a perfect vacuum - but as close to as to be able to assume it). There is a negligible amount of air in the chamber to exert any force on the bowling ball. That is why the feather falls with no air resistance at all.

Care to explain how in your model if the air molecules expand, why they don't impede the feather falling?

They do impede the feather falling except that it's minimal when compared with the resistance offered by sea level atmospheric pressure.

As for your expansion.
What would resist you more if you fell in.

 A container full of sand or a equal sized container  full of beach balls?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 10, 2017, 08:25:11 AM

Look through a telescope. That's all I ask of you.

Go to an observatory and actually LOOK AT the moon. It is not a reflection, it is a 3 dimensional object with shadows cast upon it. If you ever took the time to actually observe the world around you there is no way you could possibly come to such an idiotic conclusion.

If you actually took the time to observe, you would not be jumping about championing a globe with light year stars...or maybe you would, assuming you are the real Bill Nye.

That's the thing, though, I have done a lot of observing, especially through a telescope. The cosmos is an infinitely amazing thing, and to sum it all up as simple reflections is shortsighted and foolish.

Again, look at the moon through a telescope. It is clearly a 3-dimensional object, not a reflection. Anybody with eyes and a telescope can see that plainly.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 10, 2017, 08:40:45 AM

No, you're the one that doesn't grasp anything. The chamber had been reduced to a vacuum (yes, yes not a perfect vacuum - but as close to as to be able to assume it). There is a negligible amount of air in the chamber to exert any force on the bowling ball. That is why the feather falls with no air resistance at all.

Care to explain how in your model if the air molecules expand, why they don't impede the feather falling?

They do impede the feather falling except that it's minimal when compared with the resistance offered by sea level atmospheric pressure.

As for your expansion.
What would resist you more if you fell in.

 A container full of sand or a equal sized container  full of beach balls?

Depends on the amount of pressure the beach balls are under. If the beach balls are packed tightly as to prevent movement, I imagine it would be around the same.

My question is, if the feather is under almost zero pressure, why does the feather fall faster in an evacuat I on chamber than at sea level? Since the air molecules are expanded and exert close to zero force upon objects in the chamber, shouldn't they exert less force upon any object inside an evacuated chamber?

Also, what happened to the many simple, repeatable experiments that verify denpressure? You kept going on and on about simple experiments that prove your line of thinking, but you consistently fail to give any details.

Face it. You don't have any experimental evidence supporting your theory.

Quote from: markjo on January 10, 2017, 07:21:50 AM

But inertia does have a meaning.  You're just refusing to grasp it.  Maybe you've been brainwashed by your own "theory" so that you can't see beyond it any more.

I couldn't see it in the first place due to it being a load of old cack.
Inertia and gravity cannot be explained as anything worthwhile, knowing.
My theory aids me in understanding just what a bogus set of words inertia and gravity, are.

Or, you're so deluded by your "theory" that you've closed your mind to any other possibility.

Quote from: markjo on January 10, 2017, 07:21:50 AM

Yes, at an atomic level everything is vibrating and there are countless internal forces acting between those atoms, but that's a different branch of physics and a different discussion.  What we're discussing here is the object as a whole and external forces that may or may not be acting upon it.  Again, for educational purposes, it is perfectly acceptable to start out with a purely hypothetical idealized scenario to get the basic idea across before adding extraneous real world forces that greatly complicate the situation.

Never mind for educational purposes. It cannot be done. It cannot happen for any purpose, so how in the hell can it be educational?

You have to learn to walk before you can run.  If you can't grasp fundamental principles like inertia in their simplest forms, then there really isn't any way that you can properly apply it to the real world.

The reason why people believe all this bullshit is because so called scientists say the very same thing.

No, people believe in inertia is because it has been experimentally demonstrated for hundreds of years.

"Imagine a black hole."  "Imagine the big bang starting from nothing."
The truth is, none of it can be imagined because there's nothing to imagine...because it's a nothing.

Why don't we try to get a grasp on inertia before we try to tackle black holes and the origin of the universe.  Remember, learn to walk before you try running a marathon.

Quote from: markjo on January 10, 2017, 07:21:50 AM

  A bowling ball doesn't have much of a life, so I don't think that it would mind much if we put it into an environment devoid of any external forces for educational purposes.

It can't be done marky lad. It can't be done.

Honestly, do you have the ability to grasp abstract concepts?  I'm becoming more and more convinced that you can't and that's probably why you have such a hard time with mainstream science and seem to avoid math like the plague.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2017, 09:10:06 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 10, 2017, 08:25:11 AM

Look through a telescope. That's all I ask of you.

Go to an observatory and actually LOOK AT the moon. It is not a reflection, it is a 3 dimensional object with shadows cast upon it. If you ever took the time to actually observe the world around you there is no way you could possibly come to such an idiotic conclusion.

If you actually took the time to observe, you would not be jumping about championing a globe with light year stars...or maybe you would, assuming you are the real Bill Nye.

That's the thing, though, I have done a lot of observing, especially through a telescope. The cosmos is an infinitely amazing thing, and to sum it all up as simple reflections is shortsighted and foolish.

Again, look at the moon through a telescope. It is clearly a 3-dimensional object, not a reflection. Anybody with eyes and a telescope can see that plainly.

The moon is not a 3 dimensional object. It's a hologram reflection.
There's a reason why we only see one side of the supposed moon. It's because it isn't a physical body in the sky.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 10, 2017, 09:24:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2017, 09:10:06 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 10, 2017, 08:25:11 AM

Look through a telescope. That's all I ask of you.

Go to an observatory and actually LOOK AT the moon. It is not a reflection, it is a 3 dimensional object with shadows cast upon it. If you ever took the time to actually observe the world around you there is no way you could possibly come to such an idiotic conclusion.

If you actually took the time to observe, you would not be jumping about championing a globe with light year stars...or maybe you would, assuming you are the real Bill Nye.

That's the thing, though, I have done a lot of observing, especially through a telescope. The cosmos is an infinitely amazing thing, and to sum it all up as simple reflections is shortsighted and foolish.

Again, look at the moon through a telescope. It is clearly a 3-dimensional object, not a reflection. Anybody with eyes and a telescope can see that plainly.

The moon is not a 3 dimensional object. It's a hologram reflection.
There's a reason why we only see one side of the supposed moon. It's because it isn't a physical body in the sky.

Go and boil your head I'm looking right at tthe moon just now.
The bloody ancients seen the moon just like this...how can it possibly be a projection?
There were no f in projectors in the Stone Age.
My god you are such an arse!

Depends on the amount of pressure the beach balls are under. If the beach balls are packed tightly as to prevent movement, I imagine it would be around the same.

I used the sand and the beach balls as analogies for sea level atmospheric pressure and evacuated pressure, respectively.
And you come out with that sidestep.

My question is, if the feather is under almost zero pressure, why does the feather fall faster in an evacuat I on chamber than at sea level? Since the air molecules are expanded and exert close to zero force upon objects in the chamber, shouldn't they exert less force upon any object inside an evacuated chamber?

You want an answer to this. You'll get one when you can understand what's been said.
The above answer shows me that you are devoid of common sense.