Air Pressure vs Gravity

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:57:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 11, 2017, 12:48:11 AM

Progress, you agree atmospheric pressure has no affect on the weight of an object.

Totally disagree.

Can you demonstrate that?  I would think it would be fairly easy.

How would you demonstrate it with it being (as you say) fairly easy?

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2017, 07:06:16 AM

*sigh*  No, that is not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that property of the ball moving until friction (an external force) slows and eventually stops it is called inertia.

So friction is inertia?

No.  Inertia is why the ball stays in motion after you kick it.  Friction is the force that slows the ball down and eventually stops its motion.

Tell me, why do you think that the ball stays in motion for a while after you kick it?  Shouldn't all of those connected, expanded, stacked air molecules stop the ball dead in its tracks right after it leaves your foot?

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:17:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:57:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 11, 2017, 12:48:11 AM

Progress, you agree atmospheric pressure has no affect on the weight of an object.

Totally disagree.

Can you demonstrate that?  I would think it would be fairly easy.

How would you demonstrate it with it being (as you say) fairly easy?

You have presented no proof that the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.  Are you seriously suggesting that an item stating 1kg on the packet may be a different amount depending on the current atmospheric pressure?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 08:44:31 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2017, 07:06:16 AM

*sigh*  No, that is not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that property of the ball moving until friction (an external force) slows and eventually stops it is called inertia.

So friction is inertia?

No.  Inertia is why the ball stays in motion after you kick it.  Friction is the force that slows the ball down and eventually stops its motion.

Tell me, why do you think that the ball stays in motion for a while after you kick it?  Shouldn't all of those connected, expanded, stacked air molecules stop the ball dead in its tracks right after it leaves your foot?

You've been swimming before, I'm sure.
You understand that the water molecules are more tightly (densely) connected and yet you also understand that when you grab water in front of you, you throw it to the back of you like a scoop, or you throw it to the sides of you in the case of breast stroke.
One scoop of this will move you a small distance and keep you moving, even if you stop pushing any more water with your energy.

So what's happening?
You are compressing the water behind you with the scoop but as you know, water does not readily compress like atmosphere does, so it stacks up behind you.
The problem is, it's out of level, because water must always find its level and that's just what it does. It pushes right back onto you and propels you through the lower pressure water you scooped out of your way to create a channel which is also trying to crush back at you and aids in squeezing you forward with that push from the back.

It's clever isn't it?

So how does this work with the atmosphere and the kicked ball?

To understand this all you have to do is look at the swimming pool explanation and imagining that ball as a boat and the motor being the boys foot kicking that boat forward and looking how it pushes the water out of the way and behind it as well as the squeeze as it does so.
Turn off the motor and watch the boat move until the water friction slows it down.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:14:03 AM

I do want to, and I'm sure I have the ability.  You have lacked in your explaination.  How does stacking happen in such a way as to create a down?  I can understand how a force,  such as gravity could do it. I can't see how pressure would, or why it would push in one direction, or why weight doesn't change depending on said pressure.

Ok then let's see how you fare.
Let's start with your understanding of gravity and how it creates a down that you clearly understand and also makes perfect sense.

Do this and let's see where we get to from this point on.

well, since we are talking about your theory of air pressure holding things down, how about we start there?
How is it that we don't weigh significantly less in significantly less pressure?  Or, how exactly does stacking work in order to help push or pull things down the pressure is greater beneath it than above it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 11:52:20 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:17:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:57:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 11, 2017, 12:48:11 AM

Progress, you agree atmospheric pressure has no affect on the weight of an object.

Totally disagree.

Can you demonstrate that?  I would think it would be fairly easy.

How would you demonstrate it with it being (as you say) fairly easy?

You have presented no proof that the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.  Are you seriously suggesting that an item stating 1kg on the packet may be a different amount depending on the current atmospheric pressure?

Does a barometer keep reading the same measurement when atmospheric pressure changes?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 11:51:14 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:14:03 AM

I do want to, and I'm sure I have the ability.  You have lacked in your explaination.  How does stacking happen in such a way as to create a down?  I can understand how a force,  such as gravity could do it. I can't see how pressure would, or why it would push in one direction, or why weight doesn't change depending on said pressure.

Ok then let's see how you fare.
Let's start with your understanding of gravity and how it creates a down that you clearly understand and also makes perfect sense.

Do this and let's see where we get to from this point on.

well, since we are talking about your theory of air pressure holding things down, how about we start there?
How is it that we don't weigh significantly less in significantly less pressure?  Or, how exactly does stacking work in order to help push or pull things down the pressure is greater beneath it than above it?

Read the topic title.
It's Air pressure verses gravity.

I've asked you to explain your gravity that you said you can clearly understand in how it works in terms of keeping a down.
Once you explain this in your clear way so that it makes sense, then we can go on from there.

Over to you.

Turn off the motor and watch the boat move until the water friction slows it down.

But why does the boat keep moving after you turn the motor off?

Could it be because an object in motion just naturally stays in motion until an external force like friction slows it down?

Assuming the boy could kick the ball with the same amount of force as he did the first time around the ball pressure was as equal as it was 1000m lower, then I would think the ball, would travel quite a bit further.

Yes, exactly right. With less friction acting upon the ball as it sails through the air, more of the kinetic energy from the initial kick remains in the ball, and for a longer period of time. The end result is, the ball travels further.

This is why more home-runs are hit in Denver's Mile High Stadium than any other arena in baseball. It is also why pitchers there can throw faster, but with less curve.

Anyway, back to the boy with his ball.

Suppose Superman, with his immense strength, kicks a different ball, made of some super alloy that is nigh-unbreakable. Superman kicks this new ball straight up, perpendicular to the field, with all his strength. He kicks the ball with such immense force that it shatters straight through the dome at mach 7, hurtling it through the vacuum of space at incredible speed. What happens to that ball?

Of course this is all theoretical. No person or machine could ever launch an object with such force. Furthermore, we as humans have no idea just how thick the dome might be.  For the sake of argument, let us assume that the above scenario possible.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 11:52:20 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:17:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:57:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 11, 2017, 12:48:11 AM

Progress, you agree atmospheric pressure has no affect on the weight of an object.

Totally disagree.

Can you demonstrate that?  I would think it would be fairly easy.

How would you demonstrate it with it being (as you say) fairly easy?

You have presented no proof that the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.  Are you seriously suggesting that an item stating 1kg on the packet may be a different amount depending on the current atmospheric pressure?

Actually, objects' weights do change with atmospheric pressure, though admittedly not by much. Lower air pressure means less buoyancy from the air which means objects are slightly heavier. (And vice-versa).

For very accurate weighing this needs to be corrected for: http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/buoycornote.pdf

Edit: spelling

Quote from: inquisitive on January 11, 2017, 11:55:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 11:52:20 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:17:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:57:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 11, 2017, 12:48:11 AM

Progress, you agree atmospheric pressure has no affect on the weight of an object.

Totally disagree.

Can you demonstrate that?  I would think it would be fairly easy.

How would you demonstrate it with it being (as you say) fairly easy?

You have presented no proof that the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.  Are you seriously suggesting that an item stating 1kg on the packet may be a different amount depending on the current atmospheric pressure?

Actually, objects' weights do change with atmospheric pressure, though admittedly not by much. Lower air pressure means less buoyancy from the air which means objects are slight heavier. (And vice-versa).

For very accurate weighing this needs to be corrected for: http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/buoycornote.pdf

Quite the opposite of what Scepti seems to be suggesting.

I would assume that, under his model, an increase in barometric pressure would result in more weight, not less.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:08:14 PM

Turn off the motor and watch the boat move until the water friction slows it down.

But why does the boat keep moving after you turn the motor off?

Could it be because an object in motion just naturally stays in motion until an external force like friction slows it down?

No. not quite as you say it and this is the crux of the problem you seem to have in your hypothesis, or basically the imaginary scenario

What you say appears to be a real answer but it masks the true answer. I'll explain by bringing back your sentence.
"Could it be because an object in motion just naturally stays in motion until an external force like friction slows it down?"

The large bold is the key. Why?

Because it isn't until friction slows it down. Friction acts immediately on it to slow it down, unless energy keeps a constant motion to overcome it.

You are implying that an object in motion  will simply stay in that motion....UNLESS another force acts upon it, like friction. It's as if the saying is, waiting on a force to act and if that force doesn't act then the object does not change it's constant.

So tell me what inertia is in reality.

Suppose Superman, with his immense strength, kicks a different ball, made of some super alloy that is nigh-unbreakable. Superman kicks this new ball straight up, perpendicular to the field, with all his strength. He kicks the ball with such immense force that it shatters straight through the dome at mach 7, hurtling it through the vacuum of space at incredible speed. What happens to that ball?

Of course this is all theoretical. No person or machine could ever launch an object with such force. Furthermore, we as humans have no idea just how thick the dome might be.  For the sake of argument, let us assume that the above scenario possible.

But this is the problem.
I understand what you're trying to say in the hypothetical imaginary department. the what if this and that.
The point I'm trying to make is, inertia is meaningless as a saying because it represents nothing in reality.
Let me put this before you to counteract your imaginary scenario.

Your imaginary deep space away from your imaginary gravity. Which is up and which is down? What about horizontal?
How can anything move in any direction if there isn't a direction, nor a force or matter to effect any of it?
All we can do is play the imagine scenario, which is fine if we simply want to talk about what if's.
The problem is we are talking about something that is said to exist in reality and yet the very explanation of the word, inertia, does not marry up with any real life scenario. It marries up with the what if scenario.

But this is the problem.
I understand what you're trying to say in the hypothetical imaginary department. the what if this and that.
The point I'm trying to make is, inertia is meaningless as a saying because it represents nothing in reality.

So you can use Superman in your explanations but I can't? Why can't you just answer my hypothetical question as it applies to your denpressure theory? Humor me. What would happen if Superman kicked a ball so hard it burst through the dome and kept going?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 02:34:39 PM

But this is the problem.
I understand what you're trying to say in the hypothetical imaginary department. the what if this and that.
The point I'm trying to make is, inertia is meaningless as a saying because it represents nothing in reality.

So you can use Superman in your explanations but I can't? Why can't you just answer my hypothetical question as it applies to your denpressure theory? Humor me. What would happen if Superman kicked a ball so hard it burst through the dome and kept going?

I'd like to humour you but the truth is I can't imagine what would happen because it couldn't happen.
I think it would be best to simply accept that inertia is meaningless. It's got no practical real life use.
Surely you have to agree.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 03:08:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 02:34:39 PM

But this is the problem.
I understand what you're trying to say in the hypothetical imaginary department. the what if this and that.
The point I'm trying to make is, inertia is meaningless as a saying because it represents nothing in reality.

So you can use Superman in your explanations but I can't? Why can't you just answer my hypothetical question as it applies to your denpressure theory? Humor me. What would happen if Superman kicked a ball so hard it burst through the dome and kept going?

I'd like to humour you but the truth is I can't imagine what would happen because it couldn't happen.
I think it would be best to simply accept that inertia is meaningless. It's got no practical real life use.
Surely you have to agree.

Sadly, I cannot agree. If the dome is thin and "breathing" as you frequently say, then why would it be impossible to shatter it?

Why is it impossible to think about what could be beyond your dome?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 03:18:02 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 03:08:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 02:34:39 PM

But this is the problem.
I understand what you're trying to say in the hypothetical imaginary department. the what if this and that.
The point I'm trying to make is, inertia is meaningless as a saying because it represents nothing in reality.

So you can use Superman in your explanations but I can't? Why can't you just answer my hypothetical question as it applies to your denpressure theory? Humor me. What would happen if Superman kicked a ball so hard it burst through the dome and kept going?

I'd like to humour you but the truth is I can't imagine what would happen because it couldn't happen.
I think it would be best to simply accept that inertia is meaningless. It's got no practical real life use.
Surely you have to agree.

Sadly, I cannot agree. If the dome is thin and "breathing" as you frequently say, then why would it be impossible to shatter it?

Why is it impossible to think about what could be beyond your dome?

It would be impossible to shatter it because it's impossible to reach.

Ok fine. Let's go back before the Superman analogy, and keep this inertia discussion within the realm of possibility.

You have agreed that as one lowers air pressure, the ball kicked by the boy would travel further, assuming the boy could kick the ball with the same force, correct?

Well, what would happen in an evacuation chamber? With all the air molecules expanded to their maximum size, the effect friction would have on the ball should be minimal.

What happens a ball that is kicked by some mechanism inside of an evacuated chamber?

Ok fine. Let's go back before the Superman analogy, and keep this inertia discussion within the realm of possibility.

You have agreed that as one lowers air pressure, the ball kicked by the boy would travel further, assuming the boy could kick the ball with the same force, correct?

Well, what would happen in an evacuation chamber? With all the air molecules expanded to their maximum size, the effect friction would have on the ball should be minimal.

What happens a ball that is kicked by some mechanism inside of an evacuated chamber?

The same type of thing as at higher elevation.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 03:29:17 PM

Ok fine. Let's go back before the Superman analogy, and keep this inertia discussion within the realm of possibility.

You have agreed that as one lowers air pressure, the ball kicked by the boy would travel further, assuming the boy could kick the ball with the same force, correct?

Well, what would happen in an evacuation chamber? With all the air molecules expanded to their maximum size, the effect friction would have on the ball should be minimal.

What happens a ball that is kicked by some mechanism inside of an evacuated chamber?

The same type of thing as at higher elevation.

Could you bother posting more than 1 sentence? We are having an open, honest discussion and I don't exactly know what you mean.

If the molecules in an evacuated chamber don't even have enough energy to provide any significant reading on a barometer, how could they possibly provide enough friction to cause a ball to stop moving?

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 10, 2017, 09:58:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2017, 09:47:01 AM

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!

Who told you there was no projections in the stone age?
There's a massive projector in the centre of the cell you are existing in. It's called the sun and it also aids in projecting lesser light known to you as the moon.
The moon you see, you only see one side. You only see one side because it's a projection. A hologram. Not a real sky/space, body.

Your stars are reflected light. Everything you see in that sky in terms of so called stars or so called planets, etc are images.
Your telescope sees images because your telescope isn't as powerful as you think it is and does not see light year stars or distant planets. It sees dots of light more clearer.

You need to wake up.

I have always been open minded about your theory.
I am still sceptical about the official globalist indoctrination.

I really dont give a shit if you are trolling, because in the end you are making people think for themselves, and think outside the box. And that can't be a bad thing.

You are implying that an object in motion  will simply stay in that motion....UNLESS another force acts upon it, like friction. It's as if the saying is, waiting on a force to act and if that force doesn't act then the object does not change it's constant.

By George, I think you got it. 

So tell me what inertia is in reality.

It's what you just described.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:17:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:57:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 11, 2017, 12:48:11 AM

Progress, you agree atmospheric pressure has no affect on the weight of an object.

Totally disagree.

Can you demonstrate that?  I would think it would be fairly easy.

How would you demonstrate it with it being (as you say) fairly easy?

It seems like it would be easy to demonstrate that a change in atmospheric pressure changes the weight of an object.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 12:08:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 11:51:14 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 11:14:03 AM

I do want to, and I'm sure I have the ability.  You have lacked in your explaination.  How does stacking happen in such a way as to create a down?  I can understand how a force,  such as gravity could do it. I can't see how pressure would, or why it would push in one direction, or why weight doesn't change depending on said pressure.

Ok then let's see how you fare.
Let's start with your understanding of gravity and how it creates a down that you clearly understand and also makes perfect sense.

Do this and let's see where we get to from this point on.

well, since we are talking about your theory of air pressure holding things down, how about we start there?
How is it that we don't weigh significantly less in significantly less pressure?  Or, how exactly does stacking work in order to help push or pull things down the pressure is greater beneath it than above it?

Read the topic title.
It's Air pressure verses gravity.

I've asked you to explain your gravity that you said you can clearly understand in how it works in terms of keeping a down.
Once you explain this in your clear way so that it makes sense, then we can go on from there.

Over to you.

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you

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.

You state inertia doesn't exist. I'm asking why the ball keeps moving after the club makes contact with it if inertia is simply a hoax/lie.

Still on the golf ball in an evacuated chamber hypothetical, with such a low-pressure environment, we know there will be very minimal resistance/friction to stop the ball moving. Thus we know that, absent any outside forces, the ball will keep moving indefinitely. This is a logical deduction, which you purport to be fond of, is it not? We observe the ball slowing down much more quickly in an environment where resistance/friction is high, and we observe the ball being able to travel much much further in an environment where resistance/friction is low. Ergo, is it not logical to conclude that, absent any outside forces, the ball will continue to move indefinitely?

Since I can see your response coming a mile away, I'll address it here: I know such an environment absent of any outside influences is not theoretically possible, but that isn't the point here. The above deduction is a great illustration of Newton's first law of motion ie. the law of inertia. Evacuation chambers are a fantastic confirmation of this also since we can very effectively reduce external influences for the experiment.

To put the experiment another way, let's imagine we have a car traveling down a stretch of road at constant velocity of 60km/h. Now imagine the driver takes his foot off the accelerator. We know what will happen from here: the car will eventually come to a stop due to the friction force of the road on the tires, atmospheric drag etc. This can be easily calculated if we knew the variables. Now imagine the same car traveling at the same speed this time on a stretch of very slick ice. Again, the driver stops applying gas and lets the car continue on from its initial speed of 60km/h. What happens this time? Since we know the friction force between the ice and the tires is significantly less than the force between the road and the tires, the car will continue moving much, much further than it did on the road. Is this not a perfect illustration of Newton's first law? It seems we don't need to denpressure to explain any of this. In fact, we can make predictions because we can use calculations (gasp) based on the law of inertia!!

What calculations could we use for denpressure to make predictions about any of the above?

It seems to me that you actually agree with the above to a certain extent with that extent being that the less resistance/friction an object encounters, the further it will travel. To my indoctrinated eye, it seems you agree with the concept of inertia! We don't require denpressure to explain any of it! Hooray!

Glad you could join us in reality for perhaps the first time in your life, scepti 

I interrupt this conversation to announce that your sig caused me to watch Billy Madison over the holidays. I predict that every viewer is now dumber for having watched it. I award it no points and may God have mercy on our souls!

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 11, 2017, 07:35:17 PM

I interrupt this conversation to announce that your sig caused me to watch Billy Madison over the holidays. I predict that every viewer is now dumber for having watched it. I award it no points and may God have mercy on our souls!

I apologize good sir. I'm sorry you subjected yourself to such dross. However, surely you knew it was only directed toward FE'ers, right?!?

Given that, I can't take on full responsibility... as much as I'd like to 

Quote from: Boots on January 11, 2017, 07:43:47 PM

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 11, 2017, 07:35:17 PM

I interrupt this conversation to announce that your sig caused me to watch Billy Madison over the holidays. I predict that every viewer is now dumber for having watched it. I award it no points and may God have mercy on our souls!

I apologize good sir. I'm sorry you subjected yourself to such dross. However, surely you knew it was only directed toward FE'ers, right?!?

Given that, I can't take on full responsibility... as much as I'd like to 

LOL. Saul Goodman.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 03:37:42 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 03:29:17 PM

Ok fine. Let's go back before the Superman analogy, and keep this inertia discussion within the realm of possibility.

You have agreed that as one lowers air pressure, the ball kicked by the boy would travel further, assuming the boy could kick the ball with the same force, correct?

Well, what would happen in an evacuation chamber? With all the air molecules expanded to their maximum size, the effect friction would have on the ball should be minimal.

What happens a ball that is kicked by some mechanism inside of an evacuated chamber?

The same type of thing as at higher elevation.

Could you bother posting more than 1 sentence? We are having an open, honest discussion and I don't exactly know what you mean.

If the molecules in an evacuated chamber don't even have enough energy to provide any significant reading on a barometer, how could they possibly provide enough friction to cause a ball to stop moving?

Because there's still pressure inside the chamber which still acts on the ball. It might be only weak resistance and it might take an age to slow the ball down but it's still there as a resistance.

The problem people make with so called vacuum chambers is, they think they are devoid of air or so close to it as to negate it altogether.
That's not the case and I'm not trying to be funny but most people don't even know what's really happening when vacuum chambers are evacuated.

I have always been open minded about your theory.
I am still sceptical about the official globalist indoctrination.

I really dont give a shit if you are trolling, because in the end you are making people think for themselves, and think outside the box. And that can't be a bad thing.

Well, I believe that I'm closer to a truth on many thoughts. There's a lot that needs tweaking and I'm actually relying on people like you to keep that open mind in the hope than some of you grasp bits of it and think "ahhhh, I see what he's saying" and then add to it. This way we get closer to a potential reality, or at least closer to putting this globe nonsense to bed, because it is nonsense.

I'm 100% sure about that and I was indoctrinated just like everyone else at one stage in life.