UA vs Denpressure

  • 448 Replies
  • 46541 Views
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #90 on: January 29, 2017, 05:04:06 AM »
I've come to the realization that sceptimaniac is either deluded to an extent I would not have believed possible, or the most magnificent troll I've ever seen. His mastery of obfuscation is really something to behold, so while I will refrain from further comment I will continue to follow his insane ramblings with incredulous fascination. Bravo scepti!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #91 on: January 29, 2017, 05:12:39 AM »
I've come to the realization that sceptimaniac is either deluded to an extent I would not have believed possible, or the most magnificent troll I've ever seen. His mastery of obfuscation is really something to behold, so while I will refrain from further comment I will continue to follow his insane ramblings with incredulous fascination. Bravo scepti!
Until you're ready to look foolish, you'll never have the possibility of being great.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #92 on: January 29, 2017, 08:49:42 AM »
Expanding molecules, and if I understood him right he thinks if you went deep enough the water would compress and become as dense as mercury!?

But earlier he agreed with me that fluids don't really compress(significantly). Hydraulic systems wouldn't work very well if they did.

I'm not sure what to think anymore. (You've inspired me to change my sig again)
And don't forget; according to scepti, atoms and/or molecules act like dishwashing soap bubbles.  They change shape to conform to eachother so that there is no empty space between them.  The atoms themselves are completely solid too.  No empty space anywhere.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #93 on: January 29, 2017, 09:49:34 AM »
Denpressure fails to stand up to an evacuation chamber.

Thats false, you misunderstand what an evacuation chamber is.

Also no one has taken the dome into account when discussing both UA or denpressure. It explains why denpressure theory has a stacked atmosphere, and why planes can fly in a UA model.
I don't see how a dome makes denpressure more likely.  Quite the opposite I think.  In a closed system like a dome, the pressure would equalize throughout.  Stacking requires some external force pulling, or pushing things in a single direction.  Pressure doesn't work like that.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #94 on: January 29, 2017, 10:15:08 AM »
Expanding molecules, and if I understood him right he thinks if you went deep enough the water would compress and become as dense as mercury!?

But earlier he agreed with me that fluids don't really compress(significantly). Hydraulic systems wouldn't work very well if they did.

I'm not sure what to think anymore. (You've inspired me to change my sig again)
And don't forget; according to scepti, atoms and/or molecules act like dishwashing soap bubbles.  They change shape to conform to eachother so that there is no empty space between them.  The atoms themselves are completely solid too.  No empty space anywhere.
It requires you to think on it. It seems you are incapable of that.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #95 on: January 29, 2017, 10:23:16 AM »
Expanding molecules, and if I understood him right he thinks if you went deep enough the water would compress and become as dense as mercury!?

But earlier he agreed with me that fluids don't really compress(significantly). Hydraulic systems wouldn't work very well if they did.

I'm not sure what to think anymore. (You've inspired me to change my sig again)
And don't forget; according to scepti, atoms and/or molecules act like dishwashing soap bubbles.  They change shape to conform to eachother so that there is no empty space between them.  The atoms themselves are completely solid too.  No empty space anywhere.
It requires you to think on it. It seems you are incapable of that.
As has been pointed out to you many times, the problem people have with understanding your system is that in every analogy you give there is an outside force required to push, or pull things in a certain direction. 
I know you think you have explained how stacking works without this force, but you have not done so in a way that anyone can understand.  I really don't think you can blame everyone else for there lack of understand on this.  It's a cop out for you to simply say they are brainwashed etc.  I can understand the UA system.  I don't agree with it for lots of reasons but I can understand it.
It seems no one can understand your system but you.  Perhaps there is a different way of explaining it.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #96 on: January 29, 2017, 10:54:14 AM »
Expanding molecules, and if I understood him right he thinks if you went deep enough the water would compress and become as dense as mercury!?

But earlier he agreed with me that fluids don't really compress(significantly). Hydraulic systems wouldn't work very well if they did.

I'm not sure what to think anymore. (You've inspired me to change my sig again)
And don't forget; according to scepti, atoms and/or molecules act like dishwashing soap bubbles.  They change shape to conform to eachother so that there is no empty space between them.  The atoms themselves are completely solid too.  No empty space anywhere.
It requires you to think on it. It seems you are incapable of that.
I did think on it, that's why I ask more questions about how your so called "denpressure" works.  When the questions become too hard, you reply with "blah blah brainwashed blah blah free thinkers blah blah"

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #97 on: January 29, 2017, 11:07:50 AM »
Expanding molecules, and if I understood him right he thinks if you went deep enough the water would compress and become as dense as mercury!?

But earlier he agreed with me that fluids don't really compress(significantly). Hydraulic systems wouldn't work very well if they did.

I'm not sure what to think anymore. (You've inspired me to change my sig again)
And don't forget; according to scepti, atoms and/or molecules act like dishwashing soap bubbles.  They change shape to conform to eachother so that there is no empty space between them.  The atoms themselves are completely solid too.  No empty space anywhere.
It requires you to think on it. It seems you are incapable of that.
I did think on it, that's why I ask more questions about how your so called "denpressure" works.  When the questions become too hard, you reply with "blah blah brainwashed blah blah free thinkers blah blah"
I have to fight fire with fire.
I'm more than willing to engage in a decent manner but only for those that want to do like-wise.
The clever arsed crew will get what they deserve.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #98 on: January 29, 2017, 12:21:37 PM »
I tried engaging you in a calm, rational manner, but you flipped out and called me an alt.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #99 on: January 29, 2017, 12:31:18 PM »
I tried engaging you in a calm, rational manner, but you flipped out and called me an alt.
I had a similar experience.  I'm prettt sure he has me on ignore right now though I never insulted him at all, just asked questions

*

Rayzor

  • 12011
  • Looking for Occam
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #100 on: January 30, 2017, 07:52:21 AM »
I tried engaging you in a calm, rational manner, but you flipped out and called me an alt.
I had a similar experience.  I'm prettt sure he has me on ignore right now though I never insulted him at all, just asked questions

That's just scepti,  he does that same stuff with everybody.   You will never win an argument with him, he has his own private version of reality.

Putting it bluntly,  he's completely insane.   In spite of that he does make you think,

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #101 on: January 30, 2017, 10:47:22 AM »
It seems to me that most posters believe UA to be more accurate than denpressure.

I agree. Denpressure relies upon some fantastic assumptions in order to function. At least UA can accurately model gravity.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #102 on: January 30, 2017, 11:47:37 AM »
I tried engaging you in a calm, rational manner, but you flipped out and called me an alt.
I had a similar experience.  I'm prettt sure he has me on ignore right now though I never insulted him at all, just asked questions

That's just scepti,  he does that same stuff with everybody.   You will never win an argument with him, he has his own private version of reality.

Putting it bluntly,  he's completely insane.   In spite of that he does make you think,
With many years experience of science and technology I have never encountered anyone with the attitude of Scepti in discussions.  Must be hard to maintain his views.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #103 on: January 30, 2017, 12:15:26 PM »
With many years experience of science and technology I have never encountered anyone with the attitude of Scepti in discussions.  Must be hard to maintain his views.
Can't be that hard with the general quality of argument leveled against him, they're generally not much better than the users that insist UA means the Earth'll go faster than the speed of light.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #104 on: January 30, 2017, 03:28:36 PM »
With many years experience of science and technology I have never encountered anyone with the attitude of Scepti in discussions.  Must be hard to maintain his views.
Can't be that hard with the general quality of argument leveled against him, they're generally not much better than the users that insist UA means the Earth'll go faster than the speed of light.

I very much disagree with this. I think the arguments put to sceptimatic are scientifically literate on the whole. Some people arguing with him make mistakes, of course, but mostly it's accurate science, at least within the assumption of Newtonian gravitation, which I would say is fine in the relevant contexts.

Not to mention the enormous amount of patience that his opposition show in the face of repeated and continual accusations of dishonesty, indoctrination and weakness of brain. The irony leaps off the screen.

I do have some sympathy for sceptimatic because it is him against the mob in many ways. But he doesn't seem to accept the concept of experimental investigation into the physical world. His only arguments are from incredulity and his insistence on a model for which he will bring forth no evidence. It's inevitable he's going to get a lot of folks disagree with him.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #105 on: January 30, 2017, 03:43:08 PM »
With many years experience of science and technology I have never encountered anyone with the attitude of Scepti in discussions.  Must be hard to maintain his views.
Can't be that hard with the general quality of argument leveled against him, they're generally not much better than the users that insist UA means the Earth'll go faster than the speed of light.

I very much disagree with this. I think the arguments put to sceptimatic are scientifically literate on the whole. Some people arguing with him make mistakes, of course, but mostly it's accurate science, at least within the assumption of Newtonian gravitation, which I would say is fine in the relevant contexts.

Not to mention the enormous amount of patience that his opposition show in the face of repeated and continual accusations of dishonesty, indoctrination and weakness of brain. The irony leaps off the screen.

I do have some sympathy for sceptimatic because it is him against the mob in many ways. But he doesn't seem to accept the concept of experimental investigation into the physical world. His only arguments are from incredulity and his insistence on a model for which he will bring forth no evidence. It's inevitable he's going to get a lot of folks disagree with him.

I agree with this post. Some mistakes have been made. There has been some low level correspondence but scepti isn't innocent when it comes to that either. I've seen him insult people who were being nothing but polite, just because they couldn't understand his model.

And most importantly, I agree with this:

 "I think the arguments put to sceptimatic are scientifically literate on the whole."

Edit: I just came from the Air Pressure vs.Gravity thread. They are trying to explain to scepti about how gravitational attraction is calculated. Scepti insists that the experiment he proposes (grain of sand and a big rock or mountain) must yield discernible results or the whole theory of gravity is just a bunch of "claptrap." There is no credible way you can frame that conversation as scepti taking the high road amongst a bunch of ignoramus GEers. No way at all! (This is observation is independent of who is right and who is wrong - I'm talking about the tone of the discussion.)
« Last Edit: January 30, 2017, 03:58:55 PM by Boots »
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #106 on: January 30, 2017, 04:24:24 PM »
I very much disagree with this. I think the arguments put to sceptimatic are scientifically literate on the whole. Some people arguing with him make mistakes, of course, but mostly it's accurate science, at least within the assumption of Newtonian gravitation, which I would say is fine in the relevant contexts.
No, that's fundamentally incoherent. It would be like arguing that gravity can't exist because of UA. If people are explaining the RE model, sure that makes sense, i'm with you, but when people argue against denpressure by just assuming it's wrong and not trying to deal with the answers, that's just idiocy.

Quote
Not to mention the enormous amount of patience that his opposition show in the face of repeated and continual accusations of dishonesty, indoctrination and weakness of brain. The irony leaps off the screen.
It's very rare Scepti's the one that starts that. Look at the at-best patronizing tone REers address him with.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #107 on: January 30, 2017, 04:50:11 PM »
I'm more than happy to answer questions as best as I can. I'm up against many different mindsets and a whole host of different attempts at ridicule from the mild to the silly.
I also deal with those who start off appearing like they want to understand what I'm saying but soon follow the ridicule crew.
Sometimes I respond with a few digs back.
Try 10 or more onto one like this and see how far you would get.

The only person that's grasping my model, is Jane. She isn't agreeing with it, she is merely trying to understand it all in how I'm working it.
She manages to do this because she pushes all other theories to the side for those instances where she's trying to piece together what I'm putting out.

It's far from easy when I have it in my mind and someone has to hit that wavelength.
Jane manages it and it's aiding her into getting that littler bit further as she goes.
She can be thinking I'm totally bat shit crazy and not making any real sense with some but rather than give up the ghost, she tries to feel for that needle in that haystack, if she can't quite see it after looking.

Most others are too focused on mainstream explanations and use them against even trying to understand.
I can tell you right now that you're wasting your time if you continue to think like this whilst trying to get a grip on any of it.

Take a leaf out of Jane's book if you're interested. If not, then just dismiss me as a nutter and a retard and get on with something else you want to discuss. It's not really too hard.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #108 on: January 30, 2017, 05:13:23 PM »
BTW I do mean to get more serious about trying to understand denpressure. I already do understand it a lot better than I did at first. I have even drawn a few sketches which I will probably post eventually. I have to be in the right mood though. Otherwise it just hurts my head.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #109 on: January 30, 2017, 05:56:41 PM »
BTW I do mean to get more serious about trying to understand denpressure. I already do understand it a lot better than I did at first. I have even drawn a few sketches which I will probably post eventually. I have to be in the right mood though. Otherwise it just hurts my head.
If you're trying then persevere. Do it as an exercise for your own mind.
Let's see your sketches tomorrow or whenever and let's see if you're grasping even a tiny part or if a few prompts might be in order.

*

Rayzor

  • 12011
  • Looking for Occam
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #110 on: January 30, 2017, 06:28:45 PM »
Take a leaf out of Jane's book if you're interested. If not, then just dismiss me as a nutter and a retard and get on with something else you want to discuss. It's not really too hard.

I went down that path and I understand the essential parts of the denspressure world, I even tried to formulate some laws of motion from first principles, but there were too many inconsistencies, maybe Jane has managed to formulate some equations? ...  But anyway,  we don't live in that world,  and as the simplest and most basic of experiments show, so neither do you.

By insisting desnpressure somehow reflects objective reality is where you cross the line and enter into the world of the insane.   

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #111 on: January 30, 2017, 06:37:31 PM »
The only person that's grasping my model, is Jane. She isn't agreeing with it, she is merely trying to understand it all in how I'm working it.

I think you wrongly assume that noone else is intelligent or enlightened enough to grasp this utterly ridiculous concept. Maybe some can't get their head around it but I and probably most others commenting here do follow your thought processes for the most part... Things at the top of the stack push down on more dense things lower in the stack and given an infinite range of pressure things would float or sink to their own level, the reason they don't is because the ground gets in the way and that's where weight comes in that we mistakenly call gravity, blah blah... lets not bother elaborating on the utterly insane concept of a giant magic crystal that projects both the sun and moon and creates the tides by heating and expanding the air which is contained inside a dome of frozen hydrogen. Sheer and utter lunacy if you truly believe it, but fascinating fiction to read nonetheless.

People ridicule you and your ideas not because they are brainwashed... but because you are. By your own absolute delusion that all the billions of combined man hours of scientific discovery and experimentation to attain the level of knowledge that we collectively now have and continue to build on, is all meaningless and wrong when stacked again your infinitely superior intellect and wacky alternative theories. It's frightening and sad to see to be honest, I can tell that you're actually probably a decent person, who for the most part does well to keep your cool in the face of ridicule while standing up for what you believe in, and I apologize for any harsh language I've used towards you. But clearly there is absolutely no point in anyone ever trying to get you to see otherwise, such is the extent of your delusion. You live in your own entirely different version of reality where the above things are not only possible, but the irrefutably true and correct depiction of the world around us. I wish you and those who continue to debate with you all the best scepti, but I'm out.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #112 on: January 30, 2017, 08:29:58 PM »
I very much disagree with this. I think the arguments put to sceptimatic are scientifically literate on the whole. Some people arguing with him make mistakes, of course, but mostly it's accurate science, at least within the assumption of Newtonian gravitation, which I would say is fine in the relevant contexts.
No, that's fundamentally incoherent. It would be like arguing that gravity can't exist because of UA. If people are explaining the RE model, sure that makes sense, i'm with you, but when people argue against denpressure by just assuming it's wrong and not trying to deal with the answers, that's just idiocy.

Quote
Not to mention the enormous amount of patience that his opposition show in the face of repeated and continual accusations of dishonesty, indoctrination and weakness of brain. The irony leaps off the screen.
It's very rare Scepti's the one that starts that. Look at the at-best patronizing tone REers address him with.

I honestly think you're causing scepti much more harm than good; certainly in the long run, at least.

By getting him to explain his (delusional) model you are, in a way, reinforcing his belief in it even if he understands you don't accept his ideas critically. In what way is this helpful? You know it has no basis in reality; you're just intellectually curious about the 'model'. Imagine if we all did that, and not just about denpressure but about backward nonsense like FE, too. Would not such bullshit propagate much more rapidly if it wasn't called into question?

Reminds me of religion, to be honest: Don't question the doctrine, just accept it all on faith.

Why do you consider critically challenging such evidence-free opinion so (seemingly) wrong to do so? I know you have issues with the quality of argument from time to time, but these purported models aren't describing a hypothetical world, they're meant to be describing reality, and yet you take exception to bringing up established scientific evidence in a discussion (or what passes for it around here)? You assert people start off thinking that a non-RE/Newtonian model is wrong, and you may be right, but the inference here is that you view skepticism as a bad thing. Do you honestly think such demonstrably and empirically incorrect ideas be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when all of them make fantastic claims with no evidence whatsoever?

I'm sorry, but I think your objections are flat-out wrong. Why shouldn't idiocy like denpressure be patronized, especially when its creator is one of the most patronizing individuals on this board?

edit: grammar

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #113 on: January 31, 2017, 03:04:25 AM »
Take a leaf out of Jane's book if you're interested. If not, then just dismiss me as a nutter and a retard and get on with something else you want to discuss. It's not really too hard.

I went down that path and I understand the essential parts of the denspressure world, I even tried to formulate some laws of motion from first principles, but there were too many inconsistencies, maybe Jane has managed to formulate some equations? ...  But anyway,  we don't live in that world,  and as the simplest and most basic of experiments show, so neither do you.

By insisting desnpressure somehow reflects objective reality is where you cross the line and enter into the world of the insane.
No problem but as you know, there's a mighty fine line between genius and insanity.
There's also a might fine line between what constitutes a level of genius by simplistic means or complex.
Your world appears to be done and dusted. It was made for your mind by design from minds, not physical proof of showing.
You bought into it and feel that you want your money's worth.
You bump into alternate thinkers and you feel superior because you are a paid up member of the mass indoctrination club and this alone (in your mind) entitles you to be thought of as correct, no matter what.

It makes you wonder who's really insane and who is bordering it. Is a mimicking parrot classed as a genius? Intelligent? or is is no more than a living tape recorder and play back system?

The real genius parrots are those that can actually learn without waiting for the prompter.
Which one are you?


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #114 on: January 31, 2017, 04:25:14 AM »
I think you wrongly assume that noone else is intelligent or enlightened enough to grasp this utterly ridiculous concept.
Not at all. I'm well aware that I'm dealing with many very intelligent people. I don't doubt that I'm dealing with some fantastic minds. I see it in some and potential of it in others. I also see a lot of a mixture of all other mindsets that come here to debate or fight or hit and run a sentence of worthlessness.
However, I'm not about to put an intelligent person upon any pedestal, who sets out to put me below that pedestal.

Maybe some can't get their head around it but I and probably most others commenting here do follow your thought processes for the most part... Things at the top of the stack push down on more dense things lower in the stack
You don't quite get it at all. You think you do but this alone tells me you're not understanding it.


and given an infinite range of pressure things would float or sink to their own level, the reason they don't is because the ground gets in the way and that's where weight comes in that we mistakenly call gravity, blah blah...
Not sure what you're trying to get at here.


lets not bother elaborating on the utterly insane concept of a giant magic crystal that projects both the sun and moon and creates the tides by heating and expanding the air which is contained inside a dome of frozen hydrogen. Sheer and utter lunacy if you truly believe it, but fascinating fiction to read nonetheless.
It does require a very deep thinking mind. I agree it's best left to those who are willing to actually visualise it and even try and make some sense of it. Not easy even for me.

People ridicule you and your ideas not because they are brainwashed... but because you are. By your own absolute delusion that all the billions of combined man hours of scientific discovery and experimentation to attain the level of knowledge that we collectively now have and continue to build on, is all meaningless and wrong when stacked again your infinitely superior intellect and wacky alternative theories.
Science is the entire Earth. Scientists are every creature that takes part on it that look for easier ways to live and be safe and comfortable.
In our own human world, we have managed to do just that. We created homes and warmth and clothing as well as all the other stuff that is welcome, needed or merely cosmetic.
We also tell stories as how how they came about. Reasons for why we see what we see.
The story tellers who are stand out narrators are allowed to tell their stories and sell them to the minds of the masses.

These stories can hide reality inside a fantasy word, in plain sight but only to those who are not mind blind.



It's frightening and sad to see to be honest, I can tell that you're actually probably a decent person, who for the most part does well to keep your cool in the face of ridicule while standing up for what you believe in, and I apologize for any harsh language I've used towards you.
No problem.

But clearly there is absolutely no point in anyone ever trying to get you to see otherwise, such is the extent of your delusion.
I haven't spend all this time going through this stuff just to throw it all aside to go right back to the very thing that pushed me into looking for the reality of the fantasy we're sold.
I'm open to any reason but I'm not open to being bullied out of my own thoughts if I don't see an advantage.
There's a lot about my Earth that requires deep thought by those willing to try. I've said many times that all alternate theories can hold a few pieces of a realistic (potentially) jigsaw that may never be anywhere near finished, yet could spawn a picture that can be more close to a potential reality and also add people in to the mix who believe they have one piece of that jigsaw that fits.

All this has to be done amid people who are deliberately jamming pieces into the puzzle to skew the picture and those who shuffle up the pieces that are being turned over onto the picture side.




You live in your own entirely different version of reality where the above things are not only possible, but the irrefutably true and correct depiction of the world around us. I wish you and those who continue to debate with you all the best scepti, but I'm out.
To have alternate thoughts requires a person to discard other thoughts for the time being, at the very least.
As far as going against a rotating globe is concerned, it's plainly obvious that I must change my world to one that best fits my reality from a basic common sense point of view, against what I believe to be utter nonsense that is sold to us.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #115 on: January 31, 2017, 05:14:43 AM »
No problem but as you know, there's a mighty fine line between genius and insanity.
Not really.  Some geniuses may have been insane,  but most aren't.  Most insane people aren't geniuses. 


You're neither insane or a genius, though definitely closer to the former.


You just like playing silly debating games on the only forum that will give you the time of day.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #116 on: January 31, 2017, 05:40:30 AM »
No problem but as you know, there's a mighty fine line between genius and insanity.
Not really.  Some geniuses may have been insane,  but most aren't.  Most insane people aren't geniuses. 


You're neither insane or a genius, though definitely closer to the former.


You just like playing silly debating games on the only forum that will give you the time of day.
And you spend your time typing nothing of any value.
Shape up crabby and take part instead of popping up from behind the skirt to shout "nah nah."

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #117 on: January 31, 2017, 05:54:58 AM »
No problem but as you know, there's a mighty fine line between genius and insanity.
Not really.  Some geniuses may have been insane,  but most aren't.  Most insane people aren't geniuses. 


You're neither insane or a genius, though definitely closer to the former.


You just like playing silly debating games on the only forum that will give you the time of day.
And you spend your time typing nothing of any value.
Shape up crabby and take part instead of popping up from behind the skirt to shout "nah nah."
I think you must be confusing me with someone who gives a shit.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #118 on: January 31, 2017, 06:37:42 AM »
I honestly think you're causing scepti much more harm than good; certainly in the long run, at least.
...
I'm sorry, but I think your objections are flat-out wrong. Why shouldn't idiocy like denpressure be patronized, especially when its creator is one of the most patronizing individuals on this board?
Yeah, you can stop pretending you actually care.

Quote
Why do you consider critically challenging such evidence-free opinion so (seemingly) wrong to do so? I know you have issues with the quality of argument from time to time, but these purported models aren't describing a hypothetical world, they're meant to be describing reality, and yet you take exception to bringing up established scientific evidence in a discussion (or what passes for it around here)? You assert people start off thinking that a non-RE/Newtonian model is wrong, and you may be right, but the inference here is that you view skepticism as a bad thing. Do you honestly think such demonstrably and empirically incorrect ideas be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when all of them make fantastic claims with no evidence whatsoever?
I think that if you're going to mount an argument against a model, it needs to be an informed argument. I also think that if you're going to object to a model, you need to provide raw evidence rather than "It's not the same as (completely different model literally no one's claiming it's the same as)."
Walk before you can run. If you don't put any effort into understanding how the model applies to a hypothetical world, there's no purpose in trying to leap ahead and apply it to reality, you're doomed before you even start. There's no point in asking for evidence if you have no idea what the evidence is meant to be for.
I only ever object to the standard of so-called arguments, more often than not they're just insults masquerading as an argument that doesn't hold when any kind of actual knowledge about the model in question is applied.

I went down that path and I understand the essential parts of the denspressure world, I even tried to formulate some laws of motion from first principles, but there were too many inconsistencies, maybe Jane has managed to formulate some equations?
It's basically buoyancy. The precise definitions of a couple of terms have to change, but that's the gist.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #119 on: January 31, 2017, 06:40:43 AM »
Walk before you can run. If you don't put any effort into understanding how the model applies
There is no model.  Stop being so patronising.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.