UA vs Denpressure

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 11:40:41 AM

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.

There's really no falling down unless something is pushed up. It takes enough energy to overcome the dense objects push against the atmosphere it displaces.

Quote from: IonSpen on February 07, 2017, 10:32:15 AM

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.

You're still saying the atmosphere is pushing down. Air cannot push things DOWN unless highly compressed and aiming down. Dropping a ball while inside a submarine underwater destroys your theory instantly. Things fall at the same rate inside an underwater sub, and outside under the sky with all its miles of "stacked atmosphere" above it. You can change the subject, call me indoctrinated and brainwashed, put me on ignore, whatever - but denpressure doesn't explain why things fall inside a submarine underwater 2 feet or 500 feet.

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!

Well, expect the pressure is equal on all sides of the brick.  It's a circular argument as usual:

"does not allow atmosphere to squeeze up."

Presupposes that we have an "up" and therefore a "down".  Why isn't it pushed sideways?

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.

We are not "suing" "gravity" in any shape or form!

But we are using gravitation because it has been measured directly well over 50 times.
Not only that, but predictions made using gravitation turn out to be highly accurate, which is more than you can claim for denpressure.

Now I have claimed this numerous times, and you simply refuse to even respond.
I believe that I am quite safe in claiming that
You literally 100% do not know what electromagnetism is and yet you use it without merit.
If I am wrong about this, please explain briefly what is the fundamental cause of magnetic forces, and don't give the "magnetised" atoms lining up explanation! That's true, but is going no further into the fundamental cause than claiming that mass attracts mass.

Or explain briefly what is the fundamental cause of electrostatic forces, and don't give the "unlike charges attract" explanation! Again that's true, but is getting to the fundamental cause no further than claiming that mass attracts mass.

I believe that the only reason that you believe magnetic forces or electrostatic forces is that you can easily demonstrate them.
But there are numerous things than we cannot detect with our unaided senses. It is very close-minded to reject everything that you cannot detect unaided.

Now, to your claim "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."
That simply cannot be correct!
For example take 1 cubic metre of iron (you'll need a crane as it weighs 7,874 kg!) in the form of a cube of side 1 square metre.
In this form it has 1 square metre on top for the atmosphere to press on and 1 square metre underneath "shielded" from the atmosphere.
Of course it presses on the ground with a force of 7,874 kg_force.

Now fix a solid lifting hook to the top of the cube and lift it with a crane. Now the atmosphere can press on all sides of the block,
but the weight will obviously still be 7,874 kg_force, plus a few kg for that hook.

How is this possible with your "denpressure"?

So, what comments? Other than to call me a close minded indoctrinated from childhood fool.

We are not "suing" "gravity" in any shape or form!

I have no intention of suing gravity. I don't believe it exists so I'm not going to take it to court for monetary gains, AM I?

But we are using gravitation because it has been measured directly well over 50 times.
Not only that, but predictions made using gravitation turn out to be highly accurate, which is more than you can claim for denpressure.

Ok then tell me about stuff that uses gravity for highly accurate measurements on Earth that can be tested to prove it exists for that purpose and cannot be construed as something else.

My denpressure can be measured with ordinary man made scales. It's so simple, yet guess what?
It's hidden behind nonsense gravity.

Now I have claimed this numerous times, and you simply refuse to even respond.
I believe that I am quite safe in claiming that
You literally 100% do not know what electromagnetism is and yet you use it without merit.
If I am wrong about this, please explain briefly what is the fundamental cause of magnetic forces, and don't give the "magnetised" atoms lining up explanation! That's true, but is going no further into the fundamental cause than claiming that mass attracts mass.

You won't like what I'm going to tell you but here goes. It's simply trapped pressures.
It's like trapping a little pressure inside a window clamp by pushing away atmosphere. It sticks to a window or a wall or whatever.
Certain metals have the ability to trap atmosphere within.
When trapped, the atmosphere outside of it tries to equalise by pushing in and in doing so, pushes the atmosphere through until it stalls by atmosphere trying to push the other way, but cannot because the metal acts like a diode. One way traffic.

Place a similar metal to it and the atmosphere will clamp one side and repel the other because it will not allow atmosphere into that side and so it pushes back.
The best way to get rid of this trapped atmosphere is to heat the metal and create a huge low pressure kind of void around the metals to allow the expansion of the trapped atmosphere out of the metal, then release the heat

Severe whacks can force out atmosphere and kill off the magnetic effect.

Sounds wacky right?
Can't happen, right?
Suit yourself but you did ask.

Or explain briefly what is the fundamental cause of electrostatic forces, and don't give the "unlike charges attract" explanation! Again that's true, but is getting to the fundamental cause no further than claiming that mass attracts mass.

We could go forever into this stuff and get nowhere.
Let's stick on one topic at a time.

I believe that the only reason that you believe magnetic forces or electrostatic forces is that you can easily demonstrate them.
But there are numerous things than we cannot detect with our unaided senses. It is very close-minded to reject everything that you cannot detect unaided.

I'm opened minded to man y things. I'm closed to a globe and it's crap trimmings for good reason.
The closed mind is your and your like-minded peers.

Now, to your claim "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."
That simply cannot be correct!
For example take 1 cubic metre of iron (you'll need a crane as it weighs 7,874 kg!) in the form of a cube of side 1 square metre.
In this form it has 1 square metre on top for the atmosphere to press on and 1 square metre underneath "shielded" from the atmosphere.
Of course it presses on the ground with a force of 7,874 kg_force.

Now fix a solid lifting hook to the top of the cube and lift it with a crane. Now the atmosphere can press on all sides of the block,
but the weight will obviously still be 7,874 kg_force, plus a few kg for that hook.
How is this possible with your "denpressure"?

Think of the Earth full of sponge balls and think about what you're saying.
Think how those sponge balls are pushed out of the way of the block as it uses the ground as it's leverage.
Now think about the crane pushing up that block to push the sponge balls out of the way so that only a certain amount can accumulate under it. Hardly enough to stop the compressed sponge balls above to resist the crush down, right?

So, what comments? Other than to call me a close minded indoctrinated from childhood fool.

I've said all I need to say for now.

Magnets are trapped atmosphere? Right. So what happens when you demagnetize the metal? And then demagnetize it again? Atmosphere cannot be used here, because if it is trapped (magnetized) and then released (demagnetized) how is it possible to trap it back with remagnetizing? That clearly cannot work.
And then there's electromagnets, which turn on and off with electrical current. Nothing to do with trapping atmosphere.
At this point I can only assume you are trolling as that's the most made up answer I've ever heard. From anyone, ever.

Pretty soon he will give you the 'stick with your globe' response.

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.

But the major flaws in your analogy is without gravity you're depending on surface area of the balloon.  And since they're the same in this scenario the force pushing them in a certain direction is equal.  Your analogy depends on gravity....

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 07, 2017, 12:35:30 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 11:40:41 AM

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.

There's really no falling down unless something is pushed up. It takes enough energy to overcome the dense objects push against the atmosphere it displaces.

Ok so I take this balloon filled with air.  I move it several feet laterally.  I wait several minutes for the air pressure of the room to even out, so to speak.  I release it.  The balloon will fall even though the pressure above it is the same, very slightly less than that below it. Why does it fall down?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2017, 02:17:34 PM

We are not "suing" "gravity" in any shape or form!

I have no intention of suing gravity. I don't believe it exists so I'm not going to take it to court for monetary gains, AM I?

Well why on earth did you insist that  "people like you (are) suing it"? 

Ok then tell me about stuff that uses gravity for highly accurate measurements on Earth that can be tested to prove it exists for that purpose and cannot be construed as something else.

OK, I have a perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock and it is very carefully adjusted to keep perfect time in San Francisco.
Just for interest the effective length of the pendulum turned out to be 0.9929 m.

But when this perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock is taken to the following cities it is found to gain or lose up to 90 seconds a day,

• Mexico City.
• Los Angeles.
• San Francisco - it was adjusted here.
• Vancouver.
• Stockholm.

Please calculate the gain or loss at each city using denpressure. Values to within ±5 secs/day will be close enough.
You can look up the locations of the cities and anything else about them to assist in the calculations, but you, of course, must not refer to gravity.

Let's leave it there for the moment and let you work out some real numbers, because real values are needed the design of aircraft and the like.

We'll worry about your "magnetic" and "electrostatic" forces later!

PS Pendulums work very well in a near vacuum, all it does it to greatly improve their accuracy and was used in the very best pendulum time-pieces.

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

But gravity is the only thing that makes his analogies work.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

But gravity is the only thing that makes his analogies work.

This^

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Quote from: IonSpen on February 07, 2017, 10:32:15 AM

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.

The atmosphere can not push down without equally pushing up....

The atmospheric pressure in the mole tunnel would be higher than the atmosphere at the brick, since the brick is higher in the stack.... if denpressure was possible.

Magnets are trapped atmosphere? Right. So what happens when you demagnetize the metal? And then demagnetize it again? Atmosphere cannot be used here, because if it is trapped (magnetized) and then released (demagnetized) how is it possible to trap it back with remagnetizing? That clearly cannot work.
And then there's electromagnets, which turn on and off with electrical current. Nothing to do with trapping atmosphere.
At this point I can only assume you are trolling as that's the most made up answer I've ever heard. From anyone, ever.

You want an answer and then say I'm trolling.
Just think what you want to because it saves me the effort in explaining anything to people like you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 01:42:46 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 07, 2017, 12:35:30 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 11:40:41 AM

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.

There's really no falling down unless something is pushed up. It takes enough energy to overcome the dense objects push against the atmosphere it displaces.

Ok so I take this balloon filled with air.  I move it several feet laterally.  I wait several minutes for the air pressure of the room to even out, so to speak.  I release it.  The balloon will fall even though the pressure above it is the same, very slightly less than that below it. Why does it fall down?

The balloon itself is the key. That's the density holding in the compressed air.
The amount it holds is greater than the resistance below it, so it's pushed down or squeezed down, depending on how you want to picture it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 02:51:33 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2017, 02:17:34 PM

We are not "suing" "gravity" in any shape or form!

I have no intention of suing gravity. I don't believe it exists so I'm not going to take it to court for monetary gains, AM I?

Well why on earth did you insist that  "people like you (are) suing it"? 

Quote from: sceptimatic

Ok then tell me about stuff that uses gravity for highly accurate measurements on Earth that can be tested to prove it exists for that purpose and cannot be construed as something else.

OK, I have a perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock and it is very carefully adjusted to keep perfect time in San Francisco.
Just for interest the effective length of the pendulum turned out to be 0.9929 m.

But when this perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock is taken to the following cities it is found to gain or lose up to 90 seconds a day,

no good for a high-quality pendulum clock!

• Mexico City.
• Los Angeles.
• San Francisco - it was adjusted here.
• Vancouver.
• Stockholm.

Please calculate the gain or loss at each city using denpressure. Values to within ±5 secs/day will be close enough.
You can look up the locations of the cities and anything else about them to assist in the calculations, but you, of course, must not refer to gravity.

Let's leave it there for the moment and let you work out some real numbers, because real values are needed the design of aircraft and the like.

We'll worry about your "magnetic" and "electrostatic" forces later!

PS Pendulums work very well in a near vacuum, all it does it to greatly improve their accuracy and was used in the very best pendulum time-pieces.

Grab the time frames and all the cities you can think of. Add in various clocks of known accuracies then compresses them all as much as you can, then shove the lot right up your bum.
Do you seriously think I want to go into this nonsense?

If you get excited by this then take your beautiful mind into it all and enjoy it.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Stacking.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 10:40:06 AM

Quote from: IonSpen on February 07, 2017, 10:32:15 AM

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.

The atmosphere can not push down without equally pushing up....

The atmospheric pressure in the mole tunnel would be higher than the atmosphere at the brick, since the brick is higher in the stack.... if denpressure was possible.

I'm talking about resistance of the ground the mole is under.....oh forget it.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 07, 2017, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Stacking.

Stacking can't exert a force without weight.    Without gravity everything is weightless.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 07, 2017, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Stacking.

Stacking can't exert a force without weight.    Without gravity everything is weightless.

Weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure upon density of mass which reads a scale measurement by the push against resistance.

No such thing as gravity and everything to do with denpressure.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2017, 06:31:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic

Ok then tell me about stuff that uses gravity for highly accurate measurements on Earth that can be tested to prove it exists for that purpose and cannot be construed as something else.

OK, I have a perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock and it is very carefully adjusted to keep perfect time in San Francisco.
Just for interest the effective length of the pendulum turned out to be 0.9929 m.

But when this perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock is taken to the following cities it is found to gain or lose up to 90 seconds a day,

no good for a high-quality pendulum clock!

• Mexico City.
• Los Angeles.
• San Francisco - it was adjusted here.
• Vancouver.
• Stockholm.

Please calculate the gain or loss at each city using denpressure. Values to within ±5 secs/day will be close enough.
You can look up the locations of the cities and anything else about them to assist in the calculations, but you, of course, must not refer to gravity.

Let's leave it there for the moment and let you work out some real numbers, because real values are needed the design of aircraft and the like.

We'll worry about your "magnetic" and "electrostatic" forces later!

PS Pendulums work very well in a near vacuum, all it does it to greatly improve their accuracy and was used in the very best pendulum time-pieces.

Grab the time frames and all the cities you can think of. Add in various clocks of known accuracies then compresses them all as much as you can, then shove the lot right up your bum.
Do you seriously think I want to go into this nonsense?
If you get excited by this then take your beautiful mind into it all and enjoy it.

In other words you admit that your "denpressure" cannot make real calculations in the real world!
You ask "Do you seriously think I want to go into this nonsense?" No, you don't want to because you can't and your denpressure is completely useless.

Now for your information, that problem of the pendulum period varying with latitude and altitude was part of the research done Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke leading up to the development of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

You see, they did not dream up Gravitation like you have done with "denpressure". They did real investigation and real measurements.
Bye bye, complete loser!

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 11:51:53 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 07, 2017, 06:31:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic

Ok then tell me about stuff that uses gravity for highly accurate measurements on Earth that can be tested to prove it exists for that purpose and cannot be construed as something else.

OK, I have a perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock and it is very carefully adjusted to keep perfect time in San Francisco.
Just for interest the effective length of the pendulum turned out to be 0.9929 m.

But when this perfectly temperature compensated pendulum clock is taken to the following cities it is found to gain or lose up to 90 seconds a day,

no good for a high-quality pendulum clock!

• Mexico City.
• Los Angeles.
• San Francisco - it was adjusted here.
• Vancouver.
• Stockholm.

Please calculate the gain or loss at each city using denpressure. Values to within ±5 secs/day will be close enough.
You can look up the locations of the cities and anything else about them to assist in the calculations, but you, of course, must not refer to gravity.

Let's leave it there for the moment and let you work out some real numbers, because real values are needed the design of aircraft and the like.

We'll worry about your "magnetic" and "electrostatic" forces later!

PS Pendulums work very well in a near vacuum, all it does it to greatly improve their accuracy and was used in the very best pendulum time-pieces.

Grab the time frames and all the cities you can think of. Add in various clocks of known accuracies then compresses them all as much as you can, then shove the lot right up your bum.
Do you seriously think I want to go into this nonsense?
If you get excited by this then take your beautiful mind into it all and enjoy it.

In other words you admit that your "denpressure" cannot make real calculations in the real world!

Thanks for that now we know for sure what we have guessed for a long time, you're a useless bag of hot air.

You ask "Do you seriously think I want to go into this nonsense?" No, you don't want to because you can't and your denpressure is completely useless.

Now for your information, that problem of the pendulum period varying with latitude and altitude was part of the research done Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke leading up to the development of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

You see, they did not dream up Gravitation like you have done with "denpressure". They did real investigation and real measurements.

So, I will stick to gravitation that does allow real calculations in the real world.

Bye bye, complete loser!

Bye bye dipshit.

Bye bye dipshit.

Yes, your usual response when proved completely useless.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 12:47:36 AM

Bye bye dipshit.

Yes, your usual response when proved completely useless.

Act like a little prick and I'll treat you like one.
Learn denpressure first before you go into your Russell Crowe induced, beautiful mind bollocks.
I told you what you were. You are devoid of the ability to use basic logic because your rancid but beautiful mind is crammed full of effing numbers.
No humour and no ability to see analogies for what they throw out.
Basically speaking you are as backward as they come in the basic world but a total memory gymnast.

Now either get back to trying to understand denpressure or don't even bother trying.
Coming at me with your usual clap trap will render this a game of tit for tat which nobody can win.

Now stop being a total and utter knob end and wake up to some basic reality if you can.
If your syndrome does not allow you to stretch that far, then let's call it a day, as I have no more intention of wanting to  have a dig at special people like yourself.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 08, 2017, 12:14:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 07, 2017, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Stacking.

Stacking can't exert a force without weight.    Without gravity everything is weightless.

Weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure upon density of mass which reads a scale measurement by the push against resistance.

No such thing as gravity and everything to do with denpressure.

What's the definition of density in your world?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 12:37:34 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 08, 2017, 12:14:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 07, 2017, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Stacking.

Stacking can't exert a force without weight.    Without gravity everything is weightless.

Weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure upon density of mass which reads a scale measurement by the push against resistance.

No such thing as gravity and everything to do with denpressure.

What's the definition of density in your world?

Any mass,
Density is only really required to set a man made weight measurement of a mass by the amount of atmospheric pressure that mass can displace.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 08, 2017, 01:05:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 12:37:34 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 08, 2017, 12:14:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 07, 2017, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Stacking.

Stacking can't exert a force without weight.    Without gravity everything is weightless.

Weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure upon density of mass which reads a scale measurement by the push against resistance.

No such thing as gravity and everything to do with denpressure.

What's the definition of density in your world?

Any mass,
Density is only really required to set a man made weight measurement of a mass by the amount of atmospheric pressure that mass can displace.

So,  a more dense object can displace more pressure?   Doesn't volume come into the calculation of density?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 01:11:05 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 08, 2017, 01:05:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 12:37:34 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 08, 2017, 12:14:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2017, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 07, 2017, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 07, 2017, 05:59:30 PM

I think his theory depends on more than just the pressure of atmospheric molecules. I think it is the compression of all matter.

Also need to quit trying to add heliocentric gravity to the denspressure model.

What causes the compression?    Therein lies the contradiction at the center of the denspressure model.

Stacking.

Stacking can't exert a force without weight.    Without gravity everything is weightless.

Weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure upon density of mass which reads a scale measurement by the push against resistance.

No such thing as gravity and everything to do with denpressure.

What's the definition of density in your world?

Any mass,
Density is only really required to set a man made weight measurement of a mass by the amount of atmospheric pressure that mass can displace.

So,  a more dense object can displace more pressure?   Doesn't volume come into the calculation of density?

Describe volume and then describe mass, then let's see where we go.