UA vs Denpressure

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:07:08 PM

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

You don't exactly help by stating this crap.

You are correct. As far as alternate theories to mine, sceptimatics seems to be among one of the better. Yet, I still hold my beliefs, of course - and disagree with its validity.

Also wouldn't denpressure get less and less as you went to the edges of the "dome"?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2017, 12:12:38 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:07:08 PM

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

You don't exactly help by stating this crap.

You are correct. As far as alternate theories to mine, sceptimatics seems to be among one of the better. Yet, I still hold my beliefs, of course - and disagree with its validity.

If you claim that sceptimatics denpressure is any answer, I seriously suggest that you learn some very basic physics.
I'm not talking about any modern physics, it's basic stuff going right back to studying the work of

Early Theories of Gases

• 1660, Robert Boyle:
• 1738, Daniel Bernoulli: The first kinetic theory.
• 1807, Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac:

From History of Kinetic Theory

Those're just names. You need to look up their work.

But the crunch the that completely invalidates denpressure is the basic defining property that differentiates a fluid (including liquids and gases) from other states of matter. This defining property is that a fluid cannot sustain any static shear stress, as in

What is a Fluid?
It is well known that matter is divided into solids and fluids. Fluids can be further divided into Liquids and Gases. It is taught in schools, rightly so, that solids have a definite shape and a definite size, while the liquids have a definite size, but no definite shape. They assume the shape of the container they are poured into. Gases on the other hand have neither a shape nor a size. They can fill any container fully and assume its shape. But we are engineers. We need a more precise definition. This comes when we consider the response of a solid or a fluid to a shear force. A solid resists a shear force while a fluid deforms continuously under the action of a shear force.

From Aerodynamics for Students, What is a Fluid?

Gas at a uniform pressure cannot cause a nett force on any object. Any nett static force due to a pressure gradient.
We call it buoyancy and old Archimedes sorted that out a couple of millennia ago, though he may not have know the reason behind it.

So no, denpressure has absolutely no basis, neither theoretical nor experimental.

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

I don't see how that works.  If they travel in a straight line how is it cyclical?

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:07:08 PM

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

I don't see how that works.  If they travel in a straight line how is it cyclical?

Even better, how does the sun seem to know when to stop spiraling outward, and start going inward as the seasons change? What controls this spiraling in and out and back again?

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:07:08 PM

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

I don't see how that works.  If they travel in a straight line how is it cyclical?

It's a straight line in curved space. 

Meanwhile back in the denspressure world,  the story so far....

We have failed so far to establish the origin of the pressure gradient that is required for denspressure physics to work,  now we are waiting for Jane to respond with more detail of her understanding of the model. 

My contention is that denspressure cannot work without gravity, (or some other property of matter not yet elucidated)   in which case it fails as a self consistent model.

Don't forget about the energy from the whirlpool of whatever he calls it, whirling about the center of the earth way up high, above the central earth sun. Somehow that fits into why things fall down, and no other way.

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:07:08 PM

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

I don't see how that works.  If they travel in a straight line how is it cyclical?

I do not support the non-Euclidean earth of John Davis, this might help follow that and GR. For a start John Davis talks of objects travelling in "straight lines". I find that confusing, but many writers on General Relativity do the same.
Some explain it as the "straightest line possible", in the way that a Great Circle  is the "straightest line possible" on the surface of a sphere. Since this is not a straight line in the Euclidean sense, I, personally, prefer to use a different name and call it a "Geodesic", a term already in use for that in spherical geometry.
But, of course, not everyone follows this, so you just have to be aware and interpret "straight line" appropriately.

So, a geodesic is the path an object will follow with no forces applied.
So often the "trampoline analogy" is used to explain the curvature of spacetime, but that makes us think that it necessarily space that is curved.
Space can certainly be curved but even near the sun it is quite small.

Now in GR it is not simply space, but spacetime that is curved, and that is where it gets hard to visualise.
When Einstein's GR is solved (not by me!), near the earth, what is called the space-like component of spacetime is virtually unchanged (if I remember rightly it leads to an error of something like 1 cm in the earth's radius), while the time-like component is quite measurably changed, both by mass, gravitation, and by velocity.

Enough from me, or I'll confuse things more!

This reference Einstein Online, Einstein's geometric gravity
In fact the whole series it worth a look Welcome to Einstein Online - relativity and more!.

Now, John Davis and I differ on the curvature of space. I claim his "theory", where the flat earth somehow curved to "look like" a sphere is not Einstein's,  but Leo Ferrari's "Ferrari Effect", but that's another story.

They used to say, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
Of course, after Trump that becomes simply "Everyone's entitled to their own Alternate Facts", much simpler.

Just a few random thoughts...

I don't see how trying to mix realities will bring any sort of coherency. We have the heliocentric model and all of its theories and proported "laws" .Then we have denspressure and it's hypothesis..Both is an attempt to describe our visible reality.

Take gravity for example..The know the heliocentric theory on its cause, and we use that to describe what we see, how the atmosphere reacts, buoyancy etc.

However, if we were to truly give denspressure an unbiased look, we would have to truly step into the reality of the model. We cannot expect the atmosphere, and matter in general to have the same cause of its effect. Same outcome, different motivating catalyst.


Secondly, it seems people continually forget that most of the mainstream "facts" in these subjects is just an accepted hypothesis. If we got down to the nitty gritty and foundations, if I said God moved the sun with his hand and another said gravity did it... neither has any more weight that the other.

Same repeatable experiments, different catalyst, both a belief.

Don't forget that when you are calling people dumb for their beliefs...You are not different. A billion people believing the same thing doesn't make them right, just in agreement.

You are correct. As far as alternate theories to mine, sceptimatics seems to be among one of the better.

Truly damning with faint praise.

Wow Rab doesn't quit does he?

Good work.

Rab, proving the earth to be an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun since 2015.

Wow Rab doesn't quit does he?

Good work.

Rab, proving the earth to be an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun since 2015.

Shit balls....They released you!? Or you escaped?

Quote from: disputeone on February 06, 2017, 02:07:39 AM

Wow Rab doesn't quit does he?

Good work.

Rab, proving the earth to be an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun since 2015.

Shit balls....They released you!? Or you escaped?

Escaped, the penguins nearly got me.

Edit. Reenactment.

Wow Rab doesn't quit does he?

Good work.

Rab, proving the earth to be an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun since 2015.

If you disagree, prove me wrong!

Quote from: disputeone on February 06, 2017, 02:07:39 AM

Wow Rab doesn't quit does he?

Good work.

Rab, proving the earth to be an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun since 2015.

How can that be? I thought it was only created only last Thursday, Was The Universe Created Just Last Thursday? 

If you disagree, prove me wrong!

Will a bill sent out prior to last thursdsy suffice?

Last thursdayism is a philosophy and not a hypothesis as it cannot be proven wrong.

And seriously doesn't the big bang theory postulate that everything existed in a singularity? Wouldn't that mean that everything actually exists in one moment in time and space and our concept of time is just entropy and thermodynamics?

I did miss you Rab.

The reality of the model is it doesn't work. 

I asked this in another denpressure post and sceptical couldn't answer it so he blocked me.  If we have two balloons, one filled with atmosphere and one with helium, the helium filled one floats, the other doesn't. If it's denpressure, how does it determines which one to push down and which ones to let rise?

Ttt

  If we have two balloons, one filled with atmosphere and one with helium, the helium filled one floats, the other doesn't. If it's denpressure, how does it determines which one to push down and which ones to let rise?

Ok, the one filled with atmosphere is filled directly with the atmosphere you are in. Basically sea level pressure for instance.
You have now compressed that atmosphere into the balloon, bearing in mind you have compressed ELEMENTS,as in various skins of the molecule at sea level in it's natural form meaning you've squeezed more elements/matter into that balloon and thus made it stretch against the atmosphere pushing back.
You've created an imbalance by making the molecules more dense by compressive force by the energy of your push of air from your mouth.

Because the molecules in the balloon are more compressed, it means there are MORE of them in that area inside the balloon which in turn compressed the atmosphere around it. It's pushing everything away from it and because there is more molecules in the balloon area, the external atmosphere is crushing back but instead of crushing up, it crushes down because the molecules under the balloon cannot resist the crush.

The helium balloon is different because the helium has already been under massive energy change. It's been stripped of elements to leave it naturally more expanded or devoid of certain other elements that were stripped from the molecule.
When this is put into a balloon from the severe compression of a solid tank, it expands into the balloon in much less numbers and obviously much less dense resistance to the sea level atmosphere which tries to crush it down but hits resistance below in doing so which is greater than the density in the balloon and so, it's squeezed UP.

The very same thing can be observed in a car horizontally to show what I'm trying to say.
The only difference here is, the car changes the squeeze to horizontal as well due to slosh motion as it accelerates.

Denpressure at work and absolutely no gravity whatsoever.

Except that crush = gravity. It's that down force you can't seem to explain.

Except that crush = gravity. It's that down force you can't seem to explain.

The downward force is any dense object PUSHING  into the atmosphere which crushes back down because the ground in which the object is on acts like a leverage which does not allow atmosphere to squeeze up.
No gravity needed, just people like you suing it without having a clue what it is you're championing.
You literally 100% do not know what gravity is and yet you use it without merit.

And Ad Hoc strikes again.

Quote from: IonSpen on February 07, 2017, 09:28:22 AM

Except that crush = gravity. It's that down force you can't seem to explain.

The downward force is any dense object PUSHING  into the atmosphere which crushes back down because the ground in which the object is on acts like a leverage which does not allow atmosphere to squeeze up.
No gravity needed, just people like you suing it without having a clue what it is you're championing.
You literally 100% do not know what gravity is and yet you use it without merit.

No object, no matter the density, is doing any pushing while it's just sitting still. You just made that up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 09:52:06 AM

Quote from: IonSpen on February 07, 2017, 09:28:22 AM

Except that crush = gravity. It's that down force you can't seem to explain.

The downward force is any dense object PUSHING  into the atmosphere which crushes back down because the ground in which the object is on acts like a leverage which does not allow atmosphere to squeeze up.
No gravity needed, just people like you suing it without having a clue what it is you're championing.
You literally 100% do not know what gravity is and yet you use it without merit.

No object, no matter the density, is doing any pushing while it's just sitting still. You just made that up.

How about telling me what a plant does to get into the atmosphere from under the ground.
Have a think about it for a while. Take a few weeks to think so you can grasp it.
Don't rush in with your usual backward answers.

Right, a plant. A living object that over time, slowly grows upward, toward the sun. But see, you are moving the goal posts here, and it's pretty obvious.
Maybe you should've went with bowling ball, or brick, or other inanimate object, not something alive. How is a brick pushing? Explain that with your usual backward thinking. Oh wait, that's your line. Well, whatever clap trap you come up with.

Right, a plant. A living object that over time, slowly grows upward, toward the sun. But see, you are moving the goal posts here, and it's pretty obvious.
Maybe you should've went with bowling ball, or brick, or other inanimate object, not something alive. How is a brick pushing? Explain that with your usual backward thinking. Oh wait, that's your line. Well, whatever clap trap you come up with.

What is a brick made of and how is it made.
Get your head around this and come back in a few weeks so you don't say anything backward like you just have.

Because energy was put into making a brick does not mean it's doing any pushing. Especially not pushing up. Same as a block of ice, or dry ice - a great deal of its energy is slowed way down (hence the freezing) yet it doesn't push. Not at all.

Because energy was put into making a brick does not mean it's doing any pushing. Especially not pushing up. Same as a block of ice, or dry ice - a great deal of its energy is slowed way down (hence the freezing) yet it doesn't push. Not at all.

Let's think about the brick before it became a brick. Where was the brick?
It was just ground, right? Just part of the flat ground or under it.
The atmosphere is pushing on that ground but there is no brick to push into it so the atmosphere simply pushes onto the flat ground.

Now use energy to build the dense brick and place it on the flat ground. The brick is compressing it's own density of atmosphere which is pushing right back onto it  but the ground stops the brick from being pushed under the ground because the ground is more dense than the brick.

Get a mole to dig under the ground, under that brick and the atmosphere will pushing that brick into the ground as the brick creates a leverage but fails to because the ground beneath it has become less dense.

Keep on screaming about your crap gravity. It's finished.
Denpressure is reality.

Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on February 07, 2017, 08:48:21 AM

  If we have two balloons, one filled with atmosphere and one with helium, the helium filled one floats, the other doesn't. If it's denpressure, how does it determines which one to push down and which ones to let rise?

Ok, the one filled with atmosphere is filled directly with the atmosphere you are in. Basically sea level pressure for instance.
You have now compressed that atmosphere into the balloon, bearing in mind you have compressed ELEMENTS,as in various skins of the molecule at sea level in it's natural form meaning you've squeezed more elements/matter into that balloon and thus made it stretch against the atmosphere pushing back.
You've created an imbalance by making the molecules more dense by compressive force by the energy of your push of air from your mouth.

Because the molecules in the balloon are more compressed, it means there are MORE of them in that area inside the balloon which in turn compressed the atmosphere around it. It's pushing everything away from it and because there is more molecules in the balloon area, the external atmosphere is crushing back but instead of crushing up, it crushes down because the molecules under the balloon cannot resist the crush.

The helium balloon is different because the helium has already been under massive energy change. It's been stripped of elements to leave it naturally more expanded or devoid of certain other elements that were stripped from the molecule.
When this is put into a balloon from the severe compression of a solid tank, it expands into the balloon in much less numbers and obviously much less dense resistance to the sea level atmosphere which tries to crush it down but hits resistance below in doing so which is greater than the density in the balloon and so, it's squeezed UP.

The very same thing can be observed in a car horizontally to show what I'm trying to say.
The only difference here is, the car changes the squeeze to horizontal as well due to slosh motion as it accelerates.

Denpressure at work and absolutely no gravity whatsoever.

I'm sorry but this does not explain why the balloon is pushed down.  The pressure below would be slight greater than the pressure above it.  Pressure should push it up

The downward force is any dense object PUSHING  into the atmosphere which crushes back down because the ground in which the object is on acts like a leverage which does not allow atmosphere to squeeze up.

Finally!!!!

I finally get what you are saying causes down!

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 09:52:06 AM

The downward force is any dense object PUSHING  into the atmosphere which crushes back down because the ground in which the object is on acts like a leverage which does not allow atmosphere to squeeze up.

Finally!!!!

I finally get what you are saying causes down!

Actually wouldn't the leverage work the other way?  And this doesn't explain why objects no where near the ground fall down.