UA vs Denpressure

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2017, 05:40:30 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 31, 2017, 05:14:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2017, 03:04:25 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.

No, not at all. I have the right person.

Quote from: Jane on January 31, 2017, 06:37:42 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.

There pretty clearly is a model Scepti holds to.
When someone is actively working in the wrong order, as that person was, I feel pretty justified in pointing that out.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 31, 2017, 06:40:43 AM

Quote from: Jane on January 31, 2017, 06:37:42 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.

There pretty clearly is a model Scepti holds to.

A model requires, at the very least, some internal coherence.  Scepti's bullshit doesn't even have that, let alone aligning with real world observations.  It's just a collection of childish ad-hoc debating points that have formed into some kind of quasi-religious doctrine. 

When someone is actively working in the wrong order, as that person was, I feel pretty justified in pointing that out.

I'm sure you feel pretty justified, however your objection appeared to be one long strawman.

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

What "hypothetical world" are you referring to?  How are we meant to guess the laws of physics that exist in this pretend world?  A world in which physical laws are mutable according to whichever argument scepti feels he has to win?  Where the hell can anyone go with that?

Which is, however, ignoring the fact that for scepti the entire point is that it isn't hypothetical.  It is all about the "real world" not your "science bullshit con-game".

Anyway, without people arguing there would be no thread, and scepti would be more sad as he'd be ignored.  It's known as the  Bullshit Paradox.

A model requires, at the very least, some internal coherence.  Scepti's bullshit doesn't even have that, let alone aligning with real world observations.  It's just a collection of childish ad-hoc debating points that have formed into some kind of quasi-religious doctrine. 

Any example? More often than not people make claims like that because they just don't know what they're talking about. And sure, Scepti's analogy-heavy method of explanation can be a bit tricky to unpack, but there's plenty of internal coherence. If you don't actively look for what interpretation would net you a contradiction, you might actually have a bit of fun.

What "hypothetical world" are you referring to?  How are we meant to guess the laws of physics that exist in this pretend world?  A world in which physical laws are mutable according to whichever argument scepti feels he has to win?  Where the hell can anyone go with that?

Which is, however, ignoring the fact that for scepti the entire point is that it isn't hypothetical.  It is all about the "real world" not your "science bullshit con-game".

Anyway, without people arguing there would be no thread, and scepti would be more sad as he'd be ignored.  It's known as the  Bullshit Paradox.

You never leap right to the real world. Before you get to that stage you have to analyse what the consequences of a model would be: that's the hypothetical world, constructed purely of the laws as set down. They might be different to RET, no one's denying that, but i haven't seen any instance of laws changing in-model depending on convenience that wasn't clearly just active misinterpretation.
Sure, there are issues about applying it to the real world, but I really couldn't care less about that. I'm not Scepti. I'm not claiming I agree with it, he knows that, most people ought to know that, I just enjoy piecing together FE models.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 30, 2017, 08:29:58 PM

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.

Oh good, I was getting tired with the effort of keeping up such a pretense.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 30, 2017, 08:29:58 PM

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)."

Raw evidence? You mean, the evidence that is rejected out-of-hand a priori by scepti and FE'ers alike? I'm sure you'd agree that, if you could reason with flat earthers, they wouldn't be flat earthers. I mean, how else are you meant to discuss things with these people?

I would say the majority of GE posters on this board are more than reasonable in discussions with FE'ers. You've got A2O, Rab, Rayzor, JB, markjo, MFs, Boots, sok, DS etc all of whom present well thought-out arguments and are usually very patient in the face of the usual slew of ad hominems from FE'ers. Dare I even make a short list of the most prominent FE'ers who post on this board? Because it's not pretty at all and really just demonstrates my point: the quality & integrity disparity between the FE & GE posters is starkly in favour of the GE'ers.

Surely even you would agree with this.

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.

Again, these models are compared to the real world, not hypothetical ones. They're actively trying to replace the working model with ad hoc nonsense. I can hardly understand your objection because, when asked to explain a sunset on a FE, what else are we comparing it to but the real world?? What is your suggestion?

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.

Ideas about a FE deserve ridicule, particularly in this day and age. In fact, FE'ers are lucky people even engage them in discussion about it all. Why should such primitive, backward bullshit be treated with respect especially (as I mentioned before) if such bullshit is disseminated to other ignorant, gullible people? Should people like jeranism be treated with respect?

Raw evidence? You mean, the evidence that is rejected out-of-hand a priori by scepti and FE'ers alike? I'm sure you'd agree that, if you could reason with flat earthers, they wouldn't be flat earthers. I mean, how else are you meant to discuss things with these people?

Depends on the situation. Discussing the tides following the moon, the existence of eclipses... A lot of that kind of thing isn't rejected out of hand, so you ought to be able to get them to address it.
Yes, there's some conspiracy-ing, but I'm not interested in that topic so I don't really bother with it.

I would say the majority of GE posters on this board are more than reasonable in discussions with FE'ers. You've got A2O, Rab, Rayzor, JB, markjo, MFs, Boots, sok, DS etc all of whom present well thought-out arguments and are usually very patient in the face of the usual slew of ad hominems from FE'ers.

You're kidding right? JB, MFs and DS I can't recognize from the acronyms, and of those I'd say Markjo's probably the best, maybe A2O but they fluctuate. Rabinoz generally rants, Sokarul's barely capable of an argument, Rayzor has a pretty distinct arrogant streak. And sure, maybe they're not up against the best people, but I'm just judging by quality of argument, and more often than not once you get past the basics everyone either sticks to repeating themselves rather than dealing with responses, straw men, asserting RET, or insults.

In general REers and FEers are similar when it comes to being able to mount a good argument. Note, that's purely down to quality of argument. You can argue poorly for something self-evident. Sure, i think REers are right, but that doesn't mean I think the lack of logical implication and lack of informed rebuttals are in any way meaningful. look how often the "But completely unrelated objects in space are round!" and "UA means we go faster than the speed of light," arguments make the rounds.

Again, these models are compared to the real world, not hypothetical ones. They're actively trying to replace the working model with ad hoc nonsense. I can hardly understand your objection because, when asked to explain a sunset on a FE, what else are we comparing it to but the real world?? What is your suggestion?

Focus on one topic at a time. If you want to deal with sunsets, the look at the mechanism they're proposing, and if you think it fails do something to explain why. And, as they answer, don't leap around to other areas of the model, even if it seems what they're saying has strange consequences. Focus until you have that one issue sorted, no matter how ad hoc you think it gets, then when you're agreed you have a solution, consider the consequences then.
And forget the ad hoc, you can't even begin to address that topic until you have a full view of their whole model, so you can accurately gauge just how much of that there is, and how much are just consequences of something separate. More often than not FET seems to just have one or two 'ad hoc' components, it just seems like more when you're dealing purely with consequences.

Ideas about a FE deserve ridicule, particularly in this day and age. In fact, FE'ers are lucky people even engage them in discussion about it all. Why should such primitive, backward bullshit be treated with respect especially (as I mentioned before) if such bullshit is disseminated to other ignorant, gullible people? Should people like jeranism be treated with respect?

If you don't want to engage with them, leave the site whose entire purpose for existing is to engage with them. You can't call FEers out for poor logic when you can't make even that simple deduction.
Youtube's different, but if you're going to come to a site dedicated to one specific point of view, especially one that's basically harmless, for no other reason than to call it all bullshit and mock everyone, you're a moron.

One can not simple understand denpressure when it's just ad hoced.

One can not simple understand denpressure when it's just ad hoced.

For the most part, I didn't have too much trouble. At a certain point you need to acknowledge you're at least partly a factor.

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 10:11:07 AM

One can not simple understand denpressure when it's just ad hoced.

For the most part, I didn't have too much trouble. At a certain point you need to acknowledge you're at least partly a factor.

You weren't around for day one of pressure which then turned into denpressure since it needed to be self aware to accelerate object of the same size but different mass, at the same rate.

Quote from: Jane on January 31, 2017, 10:44:42 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 10:11:07 AM

One can not simple understand denpressure when it's just ad hoced.

For the most part, I didn't have too much trouble. At a certain point you need to acknowledge you're at least partly a factor.

You weren't around for day one of pressure which then turned into denpressure since it needed to be self aware to accelerate object of the same size but different mass, at the same rate.

As far as I'm aware it's been pretty consistent for a while now. As far as 'day one' goes, I'd be more worried if it had stayed the same.

Does air still go through solid objects, thus destroying the entire food preservation industry?

Does air still go through solid objects, thus destroying the entire food preservation industry?

Some parts of molecules can go inside objects (don't think it goes all the way through). It's worth pointing out you wouldn't get oxygen etc going through many solids. It's too large a molecule.

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 11:00:06 AM

Does air still go through solid objects, thus destroying the entire food preservation industry?

Some parts of molecules can go inside objects (don't think it goes all the way through). It's worth pointing out you wouldn't get oxygen etc going through many solids. It's too large a molecule.

Strange, I thought we were talking about denpressure.

Quote from: Jane on January 31, 2017, 11:08:54 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 11:00:06 AM

Does air still go through solid objects, thus destroying the entire food preservation industry?

Some parts of molecules can go inside objects (don't think it goes all the way through). It's worth pointing out you wouldn't get oxygen etc going through many solids. It's too large a molecule.

Strange, I thought we were talking about denpressure.

Yep. Amazingly, the version you constructed off a handful of skimmed posts and very little effort for the express purpose of discrediting it isn't completely accurate. Who'd have thought?
Do you know the mechanism by which molecules pass into solid objects?

Jane, please put your mathematical genius to one side for a second an look at a little physics.

Fluids cannot sustain any static shear stress. If you don't know what that means, you are hardly in a position to be discussing this topic.

But the implication of that is that uniform pressure cannot produce a force in any direction.
Static pressure can only produce a force if their is a pressure gradient and that force is in the opposite direction to the pressure gradient.

Even Sceppy admits that atmospheric pressure reduces with altitude, so the force is up, not down This force is what we call buoyancy.

The whole idea of atmospheric pressure causing a downward force is built on a complete fallacy.

Jane, please put your mathematical genius to one side for a second an look at a little physics.

Fluids cannot sustain any static shear stress. If you don't know what that means, you are hardly in a position to be discussing this topic.

But the implication of that is that uniform pressure cannot produce a force in any direction.
Static pressure can only produce a force if their is a pressure gradient and that force is in the opposite direction to the pressure gradient.

Even Sceppy admits that atmospheric pressure reduces with altitude, so the force is up, not down This force is what we call buoyancy.

The whole idea of atmospheric pressure causing a downward force is built on a complete fallacy.

I'm looking at the in-model physics. That's all that matters, here; what makes logical sense within the model put forward.
We are dealing with a kind of buoyancy, really. It functions very similarly, it's just based on Scepti's model of expanding molecules. The higher you are, the less force acts downward. There's no uniform pressure: pressure varies with how many molecules are there and how much energy they have. The pressure gradient, ultimately, is a consequence.

If you feel as though the in-model physics are at odds with observations we make, then great, but it's not exactly a good argument to just insist it's not the same as what you'd expect in a completely different model.

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 11:16:16 AM

Quote from: Jane on January 31, 2017, 11:08:54 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 11:00:06 AM

Does air still go through solid objects, thus destroying the entire food preservation industry?

Some parts of molecules can go inside objects (don't think it goes all the way through). It's worth pointing out you wouldn't get oxygen etc going through many solids. It's too large a molecule.

Strange, I thought we were talking about denpressure.

Yep. Amazingly, the version you constructed off a handful of skimmed posts and very little effort for the express purpose of discrediting it isn't completely accurate. Who'd have thought?
Do you know the mechanism by which molecules pass into solid objects?

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm working off what sceptic says.

One way molecules can pass through a solid is if the electromagnetic force doesn't stop them. He has claimed many times that molecules pass freely through solids to cause gravity in closed objects. Recently he claims its from pours, he didn't always add that.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 31, 2017, 01:00:44 PM

Jane, please put your mathematical genius to one side for a second an look at a little physics.

Fluids cannot sustain any static shear stress. If you don't know what that means, you are hardly in a position to be discussing this topic.

But the implication of that is that uniform pressure cannot produce a force in any direction.
Static pressure can only produce a force if their is a pressure gradient and that force is in the opposite direction to the pressure gradient.

Even Sceppy admits that atmospheric pressure reduces with altitude, so the force is up, not down This force is what we call buoyancy.

The whole idea of atmospheric pressure causing a downward force is built on a complete fallacy.

I'm looking at the in-model physics. That's all that matters, here; what makes logical sense within the model put forward.
We are dealing with a kind of buoyancy, really. It functions very similarly, it's just based on Scepti's model of expanding molecules. The higher you are, the less force acts downward. There's no uniform pressure: pressure varies with how many molecules are there and how much energy they have. The pressure gradient, ultimately, is a consequence.

If you feel as though the in-model physics are at odds with observations we make, then great, but it's not exactly a good argument to just insist it's not the same as what you'd expect in a completely different model.

I should remind you that the topic is "UA vs Denpressure" and not whether the denpressure model is internally consistent.

So whether denpressure fits observations is highly relevant.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm working off what sceptic says.

One way molecules can pass through a solid is if the electromagnetic force doesn't stop them. He has claimed many times that molecules pass freely through solids to cause gravity in closed objects. Recently he claims its from pours, he didn't always add that.

I'm going from what I've heard most recently. It's no surprise that a model's been refined (at worst) or clarified (at best). From what I've seen he's just said there's interaction between the inside and the outside, which is down to smaller molecules being able to get into solid objects.
Do you know what molecules are under his model? Complex molecules would take a lot of energy to compress, simple ones wouldn't.

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 01:49:31 PM

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm working off what sceptic says.

One way molecules can pass through a solid is if the electromagnetic force doesn't stop them. He has claimed many times that molecules pass freely through solids to cause gravity in closed objects. Recently he claims its from pours, he didn't always add that.

I'm going from what I've heard most recently. It's no surprise that a model's been refined (at worst) or clarified (at best). From what I've seen he's just said there's interaction between the inside and the outside, which is down to smaller molecules being able to get into solid objects.

Or like I said, Ad Hoc.

Do you know what molecules are under his model? Complex molecules would take a lot of energy to compress, simple ones wouldn't.

Except that I'm a chemist and know for a fact there is nothing he says that is correct.  Not that you need a degree to know that...or for that matter even if you were above 5 years in age you would know nothing he says is correct.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 30, 2017, 06:28:45 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 04:50:11 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.

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?

But the thing is what you're saying here isn't true.  You are the one who never shows any physical proof or evidence or experiments.  When you are shown evidence you dismiss it as fake.

The whole thing is bollocks. I want the numbers. I can't admit more strongly that the feeling is there - but come on guys. Its a plane, its a shame, and we deal we with it.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 30, 2017, 03:28:36 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.

Well, yes, I was referring to people explaining the RE model. Sceptimatic dismisses out of hand the RE model and much mainstream science. As a result it gets discussed quite a lot with him, and I think explained pretty well on the whole. That was my objection to your criticism of the arguments levelled against him.

I take your point, that denpressure defines its own physics and shouldn't be judged using the physics of other models, but in that case it needs to be tested against the real world through observation and experimentation. That doesn't seem to happen much.

I'm looking at the in-model physics. That's all that matters, here; what makes logical sense within the model put forward.
We are dealing with a kind of buoyancy, really. It functions very similarly, it's just based on Scepti's model of expanding molecules. The higher you are, the less force acts downward. There's no uniform pressure: pressure varies with how many molecules are there and how much energy they have. The pressure gradient, ultimately, is a consequence.

Therein lies the internal contradition in denspressure,  what determines  higher or lower?

In scepti's world there can be no up and down.   If you think you have a handle on it,  then give me an equation that describes the force on an object that is the equivalent of weight in a gravitational field.   

Putting it another way,  what creates the pressure gradient.  Without that pressure gradient there can be no buoyancy change with density  ( sort of analogous to gravitational field in the real world)

As Sokarul has observed the theory changes in unpredictable ways every time you ask a question.   Then when the contradictions become too glaring, he retreats to the "you've all been indoctrinated"  and "his ideas are only accessible by free thinkers".   

While we can all agree that it's a theory that doesn't apply to objective reality. It's an abstract world view that might have some interesting physics, but it needs more clarity and rigour.

In scepti's world there can be no up and down. 

And this is why it fails out of the gate and UA doesn't (it fails just after the gate!).  Denpressure is predicated on having either UA or gravity.  Otherwise, as you say, there is no down.

Do you know what molecules are under his model?

Beech balls?  Soap suds?  A ball pit?  Rigidly stacked all the way the dome?

You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Except that I'm a chemist and know for a fact there is nothing he says that is correct.  Not that you need a degree to know that...or for that matter even if you were above 5 years in age you would know nothing he says is correct.

Hardly that simple but, yeah, sure, the evidence seems to be more against than in favor. But the only convincing case I've seen made for that was by someone who took the time to actually hear what the hell was going on, rather than pronouncing victory based on, well, nothing.

Therein lies the internal contradition in denspressure,  what determines  higher or lower?

In scepti's world there can be no up and down.   If you think you have a handle on it,  then give me an equation that describes the force on an object that is the equivalent of weight in a gravitational field.   

Putting it another way,  what creates the pressure gradient.  Without that pressure gradient there can be no buoyancy change with density  ( sort of analogous to gravitational field in the real world)

As Sokarul has observed the theory changes in unpredictable ways every time you ask a question.   Then when the contradictions become too glaring, he retreats to the "you've all been indoctrinated"  and "his ideas are only accessible by free thinkers".   

While we can all agree that it's a theory that doesn't apply to objective reality. It's an abstract world view that might have some interesting physics, but it needs more clarity and rigour.

The density of the air times the volume displaced (taking into account pores) multiplied by some constant of denpressure (which would vary with altitude). That'd be related to the volume of an object (taking into account the pores) and its density, multiplied by a likely somewhat adjusted constant.
Like I said, buoyancy.
Pretty sure the vertical bias and meaning of higher/lower's been gone into over and over.

You know I made three videos that showed zero denpressure, right?

You know I made three videos that showed zero denpressure, right?

If memory serves, they were three videos you said showed zero denpressure, and then ignored literally every explanation and elaboration offered to you because you wanted to have disproven a model.

Pretty sure the vertical bias and meaning of higher/lower's been gone into over and over.

With zero results.  It's never explained, it just is.