Air Pressure vs Gravity

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?

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

Does a barometer measurement change when atmospheric pressure changes?

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

I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

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

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'

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.

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 

To agree to something I'd have to know what that something is to agree with it. I clearly do not know what inertia is as anything. I really don't. I also do not know how you can calculate by using it.

I'd like you to do the simplest calculation to show me you are calculating inertia. No gobbledygook, just a simple explanation as to how this inertia is calculated to come to a real life end figure.

You see, I'm in no way trying to be funny here. It's more like I'm asking something like "so what is a black hole and how do you know." Only for someone to explain it all in detail then turn round and say "well that's the theory." And I say, " well there's no theory, it's imaginary and has no meaning other than a fantasy."...."No, no, no, it's there but it hasn't been discovered" is the reply.

It's bizarre and yet it's all pushed out as a truth, just like gravity is and special relativity and so on and so on. It's all nonsense as a reality but clever as a fantasy thought at the same time.

Baffle the brains of people to a point where they simply cannot argue for the truth until they can find out a falsity.
In cases like this it's easy to see it's meaningless but mass opinion (by severe indoctrination) makes it extremely hard to show people that it's exactly that.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 04:03:27 PM

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.

Could you define this term in bold? How long is an age? Do you imagine the ball will bounce around the walls erratically like a ball in a lottery drawing due to the significant reduction in friction?

Scepti, in short the correlation between what we observe and what gravitational theory predicts is very, very strong.

How did you learn that a hot stove would burn you if you touched it? You discovered that when you touched the stove you got burned. When you didn't touch it you didn't get burned. Sometimes it takes a few incidents before we make that correlation, but we all can do it. Cattle and sheep can do it too, that's why they soon learn to stay away from the electric fence. They don't understand what the cause is, but they sure do know that touching the fence = pain.

In the case of gravity, even though we don't know why masses attract each other, all our observations have indicated that they do. A formula has been derived to predict the effects of this phenomenon,and so far it has proven accurate. That strong correlation does not tell us why masses attract, but it's strong evidence that they do.

Why do you have a problem with this?

Regarding inertia, I really don't understand your problem with that either. It has been observed that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an unbalanced force. It's something we've observed about matter over and over again. So eventually, we realized that it must be a property of matter. (Just like you eventually realized that touching the stove is what caused you to get burned.)Have you made observations that would contradict this conclusion? If not then what's the problem with concluding that this is a property of matter and describing that property as inertia?

Here are some other observations you may or may not have a problem with:

Water is wet. If you jump into it you will get wet and your clothes will get wet as well. Your clothes will take longer to dry than you because they are more absorbent. Have you ever observed anything to the contrary? Do you have a problem with this observation?

Organism are born, they live, reproduce and die. How do we know? Because we've observed this phenomenon over and over. Sometimes this observation is called the circle of life. Do you have a problem with this observation?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 09:53:03 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 04:03:27 PM

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.

Could you define this term in bold? How long is an age? Do you imagine the ball will bounce around the walls erratically like a ball in a lottery drawing due to the significant reduction in friction?

No, I was simply saying that in an environment like that, assuming you could make one over a distance, then it would take an age, as in a longer time. Just a word that's used that means more time.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 10:57:20 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 09:53:03 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 04:03:27 PM

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.

Could you define this term in bold? How long is an age? Do you imagine the ball will bounce around the walls erratically like a ball in a lottery drawing due to the significant reduction in friction?

No, I was simply saying that in an environment like that, assuming you could make one over a distance, then it would take an age, as in a longer time. Just a word that's used that means more time.

Sorry but when you use such vague words it is difficult for me to figure out your meaning. Usually an age means hundreds or thousands of years, so I wanted to clarify.

So what stops the ball once it is set in motion? The barometric pressure inside an evacuated chamber is less than 1% of the outside world. Wouldn't any object moving within such a medium  move at a much greater rate than observed?

Scepti, in short the correlation between what we observe and what gravitational theory predicts is very, very strong.

How did you learn that a hot stove would burn you if you touched it? You discovered that when you touched the stove you got burned. When you didn't touch it you didn't get burned. Sometimes it takes a few incidents before we make that correlation, but we all can do it. Cattle and sheep can do it too, that's why they soon learn to stay away from the electric fence. They don't understand what the cause is, but they sure do know that touching the fence = pain.

In the case of gravity, even though we don't know why masses attract each other, all our observations have indicated that they do. A formula has been derived to predict the effects of this phenomenon,and so far it has proven accurate. That strong correlation does not tell us why masses attract, but it's strong evidence that they do.

Why do you have a problem with this?

Regarding inertia, I really don't understand your problem with that either. It has been observed that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an unbalanced force. It's something we've observed about matter over and over again. So eventually, we realized that it must be a property of matter. (Just like you eventually realized that touching the stove is what caused you to get burned.)Have you made observations that would contradict this conclusion? If not then what's the problem with concluding that this is a property of matter and describing that property as inertia?

Here are some other observations you may or may not have a problem with:

Water is wet. If you jump into it you will get wet and your clothes will get wet as well. Your clothes will take longer to dry than you because they are more absorbent. Have you ever observed anything to the contrary? Do you have a problem with this observation?

Organism are born, they live, reproduce and die. How do we know? Because we've observed this phenomenon over and over. Sometimes this observation is called the circle of life. Do you have a problem with this observation?

What you are explaining is not a reality. You're making it a reality because you've been told that it is.
Mass attracts mass but you don't know why, yet it simply does?....why?
You say we observe it. How?
You will no doubt mention about dropping something and it's hits the ground. This proves nothing.

How about standing next to the bottom of a mountain, say, 5 feet away and place a grain of sand there. Let's watch it adhere to the mountain.
Will we see this by observation or will we have to wait till the wind blows it against it?

Mass does not attract mass and it is not observed, except as stories in supposed science story books as well as the ridiculous reliance on a so called Cavendish experiment that they can't even replicate with the same so called contraption that was made, apparently.

Inertia is a meaningless word that describes nothing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 11:07:20 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 10:57:20 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 09:53:03 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 11, 2017, 04:03:27 PM

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.

Could you define this term in bold? How long is an age? Do you imagine the ball will bounce around the walls erratically like a ball in a lottery drawing due to the significant reduction in friction?

No, I was simply saying that in an environment like that, assuming you could make one over a distance, then it would take an age, as in a longer time. Just a word that's used that means more time.

Sorry but when you use such vague words it is difficult for me to figure out your meaning. Usually an age means hundreds or thousands of years, so I wanted to clarify.

So what stops the ball once it is set in motion? The barometric pressure inside an evacuated chamber is less than 1% of the outside world. Wouldn't any object moving within such a medium  move at a much greater rate than observed?

If you mean move further then I've already said it would.
Like you mentioned with ice. If I tried to skate on concrete with ice skating blades on, I'm not going to go very far as opposed to skating on actual ice.
Less friction, but the operative word is less.

Let's be clear about this. The whole inertia premise is to have us imagine a scenario where friction plays no part in the constant movement of an object UNTIL it's decided that it plays a part to slow it. If it's decided that it isn't to play a part of slowing the object, then the object keeps moving forever.

This is the premise, right?
The reality is that an object is simply not and never will move forever without applied constant energy, so that means there is ALWAYS an unbalanced force acting upon the object in EVERY scenario of reality.

This inertia garbage aids in pushing a fake space where you just float forever once in motion.

Logical thought kills it off but logical thought is scuppered by the higher peers who brainwash people into acceptance of ridiculousness.

We are coaxed into imaginary scenarios, which would be fine if that's what the issue was.the problem is, it isn't. It's told as a reality and that skews people's minds.

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

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.

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 

To agree to something I'd have to know what that something is to agree with it. I clearly do not know what inertia is as anything. I really don't. I also do not know how you can calculate by using it.

I'd like you to do the simplest calculation to show me you are calculating inertia. No gobbledygook, just a simple explanation as to how this inertia is calculated to come to a real life end figure.

You see, I'm in no way trying to be funny here. It's more like I'm asking something like "so what is a black hole and how do you know." Only for someone to explain it all in detail then turn round and say "well that's the theory." And I say, " well there's no theory, it's imaginary and has no meaning other than a fantasy."...."No, no, no, it's there but it hasn't been discovered" is the reply.

It's bizarre and yet it's all pushed out as a truth, just like gravity is and special relativity and so on and so on. It's all nonsense as a reality but clever as a fantasy thought at the same time.

Baffle the brains of people to a point where they simply cannot argue for the truth until they can find out a falsity.
In cases like this it's easy to see it's meaningless but mass opinion (by severe indoctrination) makes it extremely hard to show people that it's exactly that.

I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?

I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?

I've answered questions related to what you said and will only do exactly the same.

How about you calculate how inertia works on the simplest form of an object.
Just let me know exactly what I'm dealing with in real science terms because I'm seriously none the wiser in knowing what inertia actually is.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 12, 2017, 12:10:00 AM

I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?

I've answered questions related to what you said and will only do exactly the same.

How about you calculate how inertia works on the simplest form of an object.
Just let me know exactly what I'm dealing with in real science terms because I'm seriously none the wiser in knowing what inertia actually is.

Debate tactics again. Deflecting. Avoiding. Shifting the burden.

Yawn.

Anyway, you agree with the premise of inertia as discussed which is: an object subjected to less external force will continue moving longer than one that is subject to more external force. It's as simple as that. If you agree with this you agree with inertia. No denpressure needed.

God, I'm talking like such a dullard just so you can understand... and desperately not trying to introduce more variables into picture so you can try and muddy the waters further.

So, please explain what denpressure has to do with any of this. It's completely redundant in the examples I've hypothesized because the law of inertia explains it simply and completely.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 12, 2017, 12:10:00 AM

I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?

I've answered questions related to what you said and will only do exactly the same.

How about you calculate how inertia works on the simplest form of an object.
Just let me know exactly what I'm dealing with in real science terms because I'm seriously none the wiser in knowing what inertia actually is.

I know I've asked this before....but I'll ask again just in case you missed it....
Could you reccomend a good text book on denpressure I could read as it would save you quite a bit of time from having to explain all those ins and all those other outs.

My next question is how does it affect all the scientific formulae that people having been incorrectly using all these years, no wonder things fall down.

For example when calculations potential energy and force etc...I along with a lot of other confused people used these......

Pe = M x G x H
F = M x G
F = Gm1 X m2/r X r

I really look forward to your learned response.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 12, 2017, 12:10:00 AM

I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?

I've answered questions related to what you said and will only do exactly the same.

How about you calculate how inertia works on the simplest form of an object.
Just let me know exactly what I'm dealing with in real science terms because I'm seriously none the wiser in knowing what inertia actually is.

Suppose an object of mass m = 1 kg is moving at a velocity v = 20 ms^-1.

If a force F = 5 Newtons is applied to the object opposite to its direction of travel then it will come to a stop in t = v.m/F = (20 x 1)/5 = 4 seconds.

If the force applied is F = 2 N then the object will be stopped in t = (20 x 1)/2 = 10 seconds.

The question is, if inertia is nonsense, why does the object need a force applied to be stopped? Why doesn't it just stop?

Mass attracts mass but you don't know why, yet it simply does?....why?

Why is water wet? Why does electricity shock us?Why don't magnets shock us? Why do we have to die? Why do objects in motion slow down faster when more opposing force is applied? Why can't we see in the dark? Why can owls and cats see in the dark? Why can birds fly? Why can't I?Why does two plus two equal four? Why can we hear between 20Hz and 20kHz? Why not higher frequencies? Or lower? Why can dolphins hear up to 100kHz? Why don't cats like water? Do you know the answers to each and every one of these questions?

We (And that includes you whether you want to admit it or not) make conclusions about a lot of things based on observation.

Inertia is a meaningless word that describes nothing.

Inertia describes the observation that a soccer ball will just sit there and not move unless a force acts on it. Likewise, once it is moving it will continue to move unless a force acts on it. The more opposing force applied, the sooner it will stop. This is not some complicated theory, it's about as simple as it gets.

Anyway, you agree with the premise of inertia as discussed which is: an object subjected to less external force will continue moving longer than one that is subject to more external force. It's as simple as that. If you agree with this you agree with inertia. No denpressure needed.

Yes I absolutely agree with that and if this is what inertia means then I am close to understanding it. All I need to know from this point is, what exactly is, inertia as a force.

As you say, I understand that an object subjected to less external force will continue moving longer than one that is subject to more external force.

All I need to know is where inertia comes into it, because to me it appears to be saying that friction is the key and if friction is the key to this then it explains my denpressure acting upon any object in motion or actually stationary to our perception.
This makes inertia into a new, realistic word. The new word is DARBEA which explains the displaced atmospheric resistance by energy applied.

God, I'm talking like such a dullard just so you can understand... and desperately not trying to introduce more variables into picture so you can try and muddy the waters further.

Well you could write down a large equation for your inertia and explain it all...but you won't do that because you know it cannot be explained in a real life scenario and your equation is rendered gobbledegook like many abstract ideas are from the so called genius select few.

Your heads full of nonsense and is the reason why you cannot logically see things that are simple.

So, please explain what denpressure has to do with any of this. It's completely redundant in the examples I've hypothesized because the law of inertia explains it simply and completely.

Of course it's redundant in your examples. It's because your examples do not fit reality.

Pe = M x G x H
F = M x G
F = Gm1 X m2/r X r

How about you take me through that formulae and explain it all in simple terms so it can be clearly understood to be what it says on the tin as a direct correlation with reality.

Over to you.

As for the book on denpressure, I haven't wrote it yet and seeing as it's my theory then it makes sense that you cannot get it anywhere else.

Maybe in time I'll write one. Don't hold your breath though.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 12:28:39 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 12, 2017, 12:10:00 AM

I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?

I've answered questions related to what you said and will only do exactly the same.

How about you calculate how inertia works on the simplest form of an object.
Just let me know exactly what I'm dealing with in real science terms because I'm seriously none the wiser in knowing what inertia actually is.

Suppose an object of mass m = 1 kg is moving at a velocity v = 20 ms^-1.

If a force F = 5 Newtons is applied to the object opposite to its direction of travel then it will come to a stop in t = v.m/F = (20 x 1)/5 = 4 seconds.

If the force applied is F = 2 N then the object will be stopped in t = (20 x 1)/2 = 10 seconds.

The question is, if inertia is nonsense, why does the object need a force applied to be stopped? Why doesn't it just stop?

I've already said there's always a force on any object. Have you been reading?

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?

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

Clearly no.  We are discussing weight.

Is this your way of seeking attention.  Sad.

Why is water wet?

Densely packed more compressed molecules.

Why does electricity shock us?

Just a natural reaction to the quarterly winter bill. We get over the shock after a bit of bickering.

Why don't magnets shock us?

They do. I was hit on the head with one when I was walking to the shops. It shocked the hell out of me.

Why do we have to die?

Cell decay just like the Earth.

Why do objects in motion slow down faster when more opposing force is applied?

More densely packed/compressed matter in it's way.


 

Why can't we see in the dark?

we lose the ability to distinguish the colour spectrum which is absorbed and appears black or dark, which means no reflection back to us.

Why can owls and cats see in the dark?

Their pupils can open up much wider than ours can which means they can catch waves of light that we can't.

Why can birds fly?

Because their wings drag air from above and compress it below them which makes them buoyant.

Why can't I?

Too many fry ups but also you do n ot possess the wings and strength to overcome your own mass.

Why does two plus two equal four?

Because that's what we were indoctrinated into as part of existing in a world of counting.

Why can we hear between 20Hz and 20kHz? Why not higher frequencies? Or lower?

Ear drums and hammer detection.

Why can dolphins hear up to 100kHz?

Good ears.

Why don't cats like water?

It messes their fur up and they look stupid when walking past dry cats who naturally call them anorexic.

Do you know the answers to each and every one of these questions?

Yes but they may not necessarily be the correct answers as well as the questions may not have exact correct answers.

We (And that includes you whether you want to admit it or not) make conclusions about a lot of things based on observation.

We all do and we all make conclusions based on being told about observation  by people who will not allow us to observe.

Inertia describes the observation that a soccer ball will just sit there and not move unless a force acts on it. Likewise, once it is moving it will continue to move unless a force acts on it. The more opposing force applied, the sooner it will stop. This is not some complicated theory, it's about as simple as it gets.

You're right, it's not. It's called friction as is acting at all times.

DARBEA, which means displaced atmospheric resistance by energy applied. This is the real word for real time.

Your inertia relies on constant motion without applied energy until some force arrests that motion. This is what you push as inertia but it doesn't happen in reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 12:09:47 PM

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?

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

Clearly no.  We are discussing weight.

Is this your way of seeking attention.  Sad.

What do you think a barometer is measuring?
And also; why are you giving me the attention if you're whining about me seeking it?

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 12, 2017, 01:09:04 AM

Pe = M x G x H
F = M x G
F = Gm1 X m2/r X r

How about you take me through that formulae and explain it all in simple terms so it can be clearly understood to be what it says on the tin as a direct correlation with reality.

Over to you.

As for the book on denpressure, I haven't wrote it yet and seeing as it's my theory then it makes sense that you cannot get it anywhere else.

Maybe in time I'll write one. Don't hold your breath though.

Oh it's your own pet theory!
Where have you published it yet?.....what a joke

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 01:49:49 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 12, 2017, 01:09:04 AM

Pe = M x G x H
F = M x G
F = Gm1 X m2/r X r

How about you take me through that formulae and explain it all in simple terms so it can be clearly understood to be what it says on the tin as a direct correlation with reality.

Over to you.

As for the book on denpressure, I haven't wrote it yet and seeing as it's my theory then it makes sense that you cannot get it anywhere else.

Maybe in time I'll write one. Don't hold your breath though.

Oh it's your own pet theory!
Where have you published it yet?.....what a joke

Yeah it's my own theory.
I haven't had it published anywhere because I haven't wrote a book on it.
What's your theory on gravity and inertia?

Also, would you like to explain these?
Pe = M x G x H
F = M x G
F = Gm1 X m2/r X r

Scepti, it seems like you finally grasped the concept of inertia.  Would you care to explain why what you describe here isn't what's really happening?

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.

Scepti, it seems like you finally grasped the concept of inertia.  Would you care to explain why what you describe here isn't what's really happening?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 02:25:39 PM

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.

How about you explain to me how an object stays in motion once put into motion, without  any force acting upon it?

Just tell me exactly where there is an environment that can actually produce this is reality.

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why is water wet?

Densely packed more compressed molecules.

But why are the molecules more densely packed? And how do you know? Have you seen them?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why does electricity shock us?

Just a natural reaction to the quarterly winter bill. We get over the shock after a bit of bickering.

Good one!! Finally something we can agree on!

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why don't magnets shock us?

They do. I was hit on the head with one when I was walking to the shops. It shocked the hell out of me.

Was it after this event that you decided gravity was a joke and that the sun was actually a reflection of some big earthbound lamp?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why do we have to die?

Cell decay just like the Earth.

But why?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why do objects in motion slow down faster when more opposing force is applied?

More densely packed/compressed matter in it's way.

Close enough.

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why can't we see in the dark?

we lose the ability to distinguish the colour spectrum which is absorbed and appears black or dark, which means no reflection back to us.

But why is this?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why can owls and cats see in the dark?

Their pupils can open up much wider than ours can which means they can catch waves of light that we can't.

But why?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why can birds fly?

Because their wings drag air from above and compress it below them which makes them buoyant.

But why?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why can't I?

Too many fry ups but also you do n ot possess the wings and strength to overcome your own mass.

Why don't we possess the strength?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why does two plus two equal four?

Because that's what we were indoctrinated into as part of existing in a world of counting.

I suspect you came to this conclusion after the magnet incident. Let's leave it at that.

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why can we hear between 20Hz and 20kHz? Why not higher frequencies? Or lower?

Ear drums and hammer detection.

But why is this the case?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why can dolphins hear up to 100kHz?

Good ears.

Why do they have good ears?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Why don't cats like water?

It messes their fur up and they look stupid when walking past dry cats who naturally call them anorexic.

LOL. Ok that seems reasonable.

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Do you know the answers to each and every one of these questions?

Yes but they may not necessarily be the correct answers as well as the questions may not have exact correct answers.

But until corrected we will base our conclusions on what we believe to be the case based on our observations so far.

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

We (And that includes you whether you want to admit it or not) make conclusions about a lot of things based on observation.

We all do and we all make conclusions based on being told about observation  by people who will not allow us to observe.

I agree that we make conclusions based on other's observations but who is stopping us from making any particular observation? Some observations require expensive equipment which we don't all have access to. Is this what you are referring to?

Quote from: Boots on January 12, 2017, 01:32:02 AM

Inertia describes the observation that a soccer ball will just sit there and not move unless a force acts on it. Likewise, once it is moving it will continue to move unless a force acts on it. The more opposing force applied, the sooner it will stop. This is not some complicated theory, it's about as simple as it gets.

You're right, it's not. It's called friction as is acting at all times.

DARBEA, which means displaced atmospheric resistance by energy applied. This is the real word for real time.

Your inertia relies on constant motion without applied energy until some force arrests that motion. This is what you push as inertia but it doesn't happen in reality.

Since in every situation you have observed there has been friction involved, how do you know this wouldn't happen in reality?

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2017, 06:19:27 AM

Scepti, it seems like you finally grasped the concept of inertia.  Would you care to explain why what you describe here isn't what's really happening?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 02:25:39 PM

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.

How about you explain to me how an object stays in motion once put into motion, without  any force acting upon it?

If there are no forces acting on an object, then why should the object change it's motion?

Just tell me exactly where there is an environment that can actually produce this is reality.

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

Let's be clear about this. The whole inertia premise is to have us imagine a scenario where friction plays no part in the constant movement of an object UNTIL it's decided that it plays a part to slow it. If it's decided that it isn't to play a part of slowing the object, then the object keeps moving forever.

This is the premise, right?
The reality is that an object is simply not and never will move forever without applied constant energy, so that means there is ALWAYS an unbalanced force acting upon the object in EVERY scenario of reality.

You're finally getting it. Even in the deep vacuum of space, there will still be stray particles exerting friction. There is nowhere in the universe you can push a ball and it will keep moving forever in that same direction. That's why inertia is a concept. An idea. Abstract.

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

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

Tell me, what causes momentum in your model?

Quote from: markjo on December 13, 2016, 09:05:43 AM

Scepti, do you believe in acceleration?

Does acceleration produce a force?

Could this force be commonly referred to as g-forces?

Yes acceleration produces a force. And yes you commonly call it a g-force.
Why do you call it a g-force?

Acceleration is typically measured in terms of fractions or multiples of g or gravity. E.g. A fighter pilot pulling a 5g turn.

Why do you call it a g-force?

Because 1g is approximately equal to the acceleration of an object under the effects of Earth's gravitational pull.

This rate of acceleration is usually 9.8 m/s/s but it can vary slightly.