UA vs Denpressure

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 05:08:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 02:03:39 AM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 01:02:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 12:21:15 AM

Is 1kg of silver as dense as 1kg of gold?

No. Silver has a density of around 10.5 g/cm³ and gold has a density of around 19.3 g/cm³.

This means that 1kg of silver has a density of 10.5 g/cm³, as does 1 tonne of silver or 1 gram of silver.

Likewise, 1 kg of gold, 1 tonne of gold and 1 gram of gold all have a density of 19.3 g/cm³.

Density is a property of the material. It is independent of how much of the material you are considering.

Quote

If not then just explain why not and let's see where we get to.

It's because equal volumes of different materials don't necessarily have the same mass.

In very basic terms, just explain to me what exactly density is.
I know all about the mass and volume stuff but  to make it easier, explain why 1kg of silver is less dense than 1kg of gold.

Well, I'm not expert in this, but my broad understanding is that there are two main factors that determine density (of metals in particular) : atomic mass, and crystalline structure.

Atomic mass is a measure of how much mass each atom of an element has, in relative terms. Silver has an atomic mass of about 108u, whereas for gold it is about 197u.

The crystalline structure of a metal determines how many atoms are in any given volume. Different crystalline structures can mean the atoms are closer together or further apart.

Thus the density of a metal is broadly determined by how many atoms are in a given volume and how much mass each atom has.

We can see that silver and gold probably have similar crystalline structures since their relative densities are roughly in line with their atomic masses.

Quote

Then after that I'd like you to tell me how density and weight differ with two 1kg blocks of silver and gold.

The densities differ as already explained. The weights are the same. The silver block will have nearly twice the volume of the gold block.

If the weights are the same then they must have the same density in differing mass, right?
If they didn't then they would not weigh the same.

No. They weigh the same because they have the same mass. They have different densities. How many times do I need to say this?

After all, volume is nothing that atmosphere isn't, so we can dismiss volume.

I don't know what you mean by that. Regardless, you can't dismiss volume when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

We can then dismiss the mass because that is simply made up of the volume.

Again, this seems meaningless. And similarly, you can't dismiss mass when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

It leaves just two dense blocks that weight exactly the same.
They weight exactly the same because of what I've just discarded to get to the reality of denpressure rather than use them in a fictional gravity stunt, made possible by bullshitting pseudo-scientists.

Density has nothing to do with gravity. Material has mass and volume independently of gravity.

Scepti has tried to reverse the meanings of density and mass.  Not because he needs to for his "model", he just likes playing silly games.

No. They weigh the same because they have the same mass. They have different densities. How many times do I need to say this?

What is mass?
You say they have the same mass, so what is the same mass?

  you can't dismiss volume when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

Tell me what volume actually is?

you can't dismiss mass when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is. Describe it in simple child like terms.

Density has nothing to do with gravity. Material has mass and volume independently of gravity.

So what does your gravity act on?

so what is the same mass?

Tell me what volume actually is?

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is.

Do you never get bored of this?  You asked these questions and been told 100 times already.  Just playing games.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:52:08 AM

so what is the same mass?

Tell me what volume actually is?

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is.

Do you never get bored of this?  You asked these questions and been told 100 times already.  Just playing games.

I'm not happy with the descriptions.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 11, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:52:08 AM

so what is the same mass?

Tell me what volume actually is?

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is.

Do you never get bored of this?  You asked these questions and been told 100 times already.  Just playing games.

I'm not happy with the descriptions.

Then surely you can understand why people are unhappy with your descriptions

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

No. They weigh the same because they have the same mass. They have different densities. How many times do I need to say this?

What is mass?
You say they have the same mass, so what is the same mass?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

  you can't dismiss volume when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

Tell me what volume actually is?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

you can't dismiss mass when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is. Describe it in simple child like terms.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

Density has nothing to do with gravity. Material has mass and volume independently of gravity.

So what does your gravity act on?

You're clearly trolling now. The answers to these questions are all in the thread. If you don't understand them that's too bad.

Regarding density, the key thing you need to know is that it is a property of the material, not how much you have of it. This means that:

• A gram of gold and a tonne of gold have the same density.
• A gram of gold and a gram of silver have different densities.

If you don't quite understand this, don't worry. Just learn to apply these two examples and you should be fine.

Scepimatic,   I'm serious,  I'll swap you a kilogram of balsa wood for a kilogram of gold whenever you are ready.   

Oh, and stacking still has no preferred direction given your latest circuitous ramblings are taken into account,   the displaced air doesn't provide any negative buoyancy which would be required to move the scales.

In the absence of a gravitational field,  any pressure difference that built up from the central core would result in flow, and eventually the pressure would equalize.   

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

No. They weigh the same because they have the same mass. They have different densities. How many times do I need to say this?

What is mass?
You say they have the same mass, so what is the same mass?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

  you can't dismiss volume when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

Tell me what volume actually is?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

you can't dismiss mass when considering density. Density is mass per unit volume.

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is. Describe it in simple child like terms.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

Density has nothing to do with gravity. Material has mass and volume independently of gravity.

So what does your gravity act on?

You ask these trivial questions:
"You say they have the same mass, so what is the same mass?"
"Tell me what volume actually is?"
"Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is. Describe it in simple child like terms."

Look, if you played hookey from primary school, that's not our fault - go off and get some remedial education and at least learn what these words mean.

Here you are trying to make some of the most brilliant minds in history look ridiculous and you don't know what
For you own sake, run and learn what these terms mean, then if you still want to believe you in your "denpressure" you will have to correct words to describe it to others.

You do have the right to use any words that you like, but then you have no right to get hot under the collar when no-one understands what you are talking about.

Quote from: disputeone on February 11, 2017, 02:56:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 02:03:39 AM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 11, 2017, 01:02:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 12:21:15 AM

Is 1kg of silver as dense as 1kg of gold?

No. Silver has a density of around 10.5 g/cm³ and gold has a density of around 19.3 g/cm³.

This means that 1kg of silver has a density of 10.5 g/cm³, as does 1 tonne of silver or 1 gram of silver.

Likewise, 1 kg of gold, 1 tonne of gold and 1 gram of gold all have a density of 19.3 g/cm³.

Density is a property of the material. It is independent of how much of the material you are considering.

Quote

If not then just explain why not and let's see where we get to.

It's because equal volumes of different materials don't necessarily have the same mass.

In very basic terms, just explain to me what exactly density is.
I know all about the mass and volume stuff but  to make it easier, explain why 1kg of silver is less dense than 1kg of gold.

Now I'm not trying to be funny, so here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to super miniaturise you and put you inside both 1kg block and I want you to come back out and tell me what makes one more dense than the other.

Then after that I'd like you to tell me how density and weight differ with two 1kg blocks of silver and gold.

So density is how solid the object is, if you were super miniaturised you would find that there was more empty space in the silver block and less empty space in the gold block.

Which makes perfect sense.

Silver has a mass of 10.50 grams per cm3

Gold has a mass of 19.28 grams per cm3

So the amount of empty space in an object limits the amount of atmosphere it can displace, a denser object displaces more atmosphere than a less dense object.

Therefore a kg of lead and a kg of balsa wood displace the same amount of atmosphere and thus have the same weight, they have the same density if you compare them as two objects and a different density if you compare them per cm3.

In general this isn't correct.

I know, I'm just trying to learn the model, so far it has been like learning a new language, where I would use english as a kind of logical base to learn the other language.

I know, I'm just trying to learn the model, so far it has been like learning a new language, where I would use english as a kind of logical base to learn the other language.

It's easy enough to understand,  when you get past scepti's silly word games and deliberate misdirection,   what's missing is the underlying cause of the direction implicit in stacking.   

Putting it simply, denspressure relies on gravity or something equivalent in order to make it work,  so as a alternative theory intended to replace gravity it fails ipso facto.

It's not experimental science,  since we aren't even talking about the real world, we are talking about an abstract world, and in that abstract world, gravity is still required.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:55:30 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 11, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:52:08 AM

so what is the same mass?

Tell me what volume actually is?

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is.

Do you never get bored of this?  You asked these questions and been told 100 times already.  Just playing games.

I'm not happy with the descriptions.

Then surely you can understand why people are unhappy with your descriptions

I'm not here to make people like you happy.
Either try and understand my thoughts or don't. It's simple enough.
If you never type another word to me ever again, it's not a problem to me.
If you actually do attempt to understand what I'm saying, then you at least add something to your thought process.
Nobody as forcing you to believe anything.
You people think I'm after grabbing your trusted sweets and replacing them with sweets you've never sampled, but heard about from the masses as being untrustworthy.
Keep your sweets but try and learn about the one's you were told about as being untrustworthy to find out why.
If you are happy with that then you have no further need to correspond with me. Simple.

You're clearly trolling now. The answers to these questions are all in the thread. If you don't understand them that's too bad.

Regarding density, the key thing you need to know is that it is a property of the material, not how much you have of it. This means that:

• A gram of gold and a tonne of gold have the same density.
• A gram of gold and a gram of silver have different densities.

If you don't quite understand this, don't worry. Just learn to apply these two examples and you should be fine.

I do understand what you're saying but you don't understand what I'm saying. And this is the key.

Scepimatic,   I'm serious,  I'll swap you a kilogram of balsa wood for a kilogram of gold whenever you are ready.

Just one question before the transaction.
If the balsa became a scarce wood and each piece preserved for infinite time and more scarce than gold but was worth more per kg, would you still swap?   
And also the balsa is crushed down to the same compactness as the gold, just for your ease of storage.

Oh, and stacking still has no preferred direction given your latest circuitous ramblings are taken into account,   the displaced air doesn't provide any negative buoyancy which would be required to move the scales.

The space the object takes up is the displacement of it's own density of atmosphere that is pushed away and is compressed right back onto the object and this creates the weight measurement on a scale plate if that plate is used a a substitute for the ground resistance.
Don;t worry if you never grasp it. I'm still going to be explaining it for those that will eventually grasp it.

In the absence of a gravitational field,  any pressure difference that built up from the central core would result in flow, and eventually the pressure would equalize.   

How can the pressure equalise in a stack?
That's like saying the bottom of the sea is the same as the top.
Turn the sea bowl upside down and you have a dome.
Is that equal pressure?

You ask these trivial questions:
"You say they have the same mass, so what is the same mass?"
"Tell me what volume actually is?"
"Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is. Describe it in simple child like terms."

Look, if you played hookey from primary school, that's not our fault - go off and get some remedial education and at least learn what these words mean.

I know what they mean. I'm not happy with how they're used.
Understand that and then look back on what I'm saying.
The empty vessel will go to school and allow the paid indoctrinators to fill that empty vessel with what they had their vessels filled with.
It does not make you correct...it makes you a parrot.

Here you are trying to make some of the most brilliant minds in history look ridiculous and you don't know what

"mass", "weight", "volume", "density" and I dare say "speed" and "velocity", "acceleration", "force", "inertia", "pressure", "pressure gradient", "power" and "energy" mean.

For you own sake, run and learn what these terms mean, then if you still want to believe you in your "denpressure" you will have to correct words to describe it to others.

I understand what they mean, once again. You think I have to follow them when they are intentionally mean't to confuse.
Ask about weight and mass and "ohhh it's complex. It's not as simple as you might think."
Yes it effing is but it's made not to be to hide the reality of what's really happening, whether you like it or not.

You do have the right to use any words that you like, but then you have no right to get hot under the collar when no-one understands what you are talking about.

If I'm hot under the collar then you are glowing at the neck.
You don't understand because your head is crammed full of crap.

It's easy enough to understand,  when you get past scepti's silly word games and deliberate misdirection,   what's missing is the underlying cause of the direction implicit in stacking.   

There's nothing missing. The socks have fell behind the drawer. Just because you didn't think to pull out the drawer, doesn't mean the socks are missing.
Everything is missing of you don't look for it.

Putting it simply, denspressure relies on gravity or something equivalent in order to make it work,  so as a alternative theory intended to replace gravity it fails ipso facto.

Denpressure relies on any object/material to displace the atmosphere it is pushed into.
There is no gravity involved anywhere in that and no magical stuff needed.
The fact that people like you mention gravity, is weird when you have absolutely no clue what the hell it is.
All you know is you drop something and it's gravity.
This is the nonsensical crap that makes people like you accept it...for no reason whatsoever.
All the rest of it is text book historical nonsense told by people who have been pushed to the forefront as some kind of genius scientists that apparently back up any arguments.

It's clear clap trap and you should really know this because you literally are not even in the special category in terms of 800 packs of card memorising.

It's not experimental science,  since we aren't even talking about the real world, we are talking about an abstract world, and in that abstract world, gravity is still required.

No it's not.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 05:15:54 PM

Here you are trying to make some of the most brilliant minds in history look ridiculous and you don't know what

"mass", "weight", "volume", "density" and I dare say "speed" and "velocity", "acceleration", "force", "inertia", "pressure", "pressure gradient", "power" and "energy" mean.

For you own sake, run and learn what these terms mean, then if you still want to believe you in your "denpressure" you will have to correct words to describe it to others.

I understand what they mean, once again. You think I have to follow them when they are intentionally mean't to confuse.
Ask about weight and mass and "ohhh it's complex. It's not as simple as you might think."
Yes it effing is but it's made not to be to hide the reality of what's really happening, whether you like it or not.

You claim "I understand what they mean."

OK, please define:
"mass",
"weight",
"volume",
"density",
"speed",
"velocity",
"acceleration",
 "force",
"inertia",
"pressure",
"pressure gradient",
"power",
"energy".

And it seems so strange that your wonderful ideas can never come up with any numerical values and
these are essential for thereal life design of everything from vacuum and pressure pumps to bridges, cars and aircraft.
But these things are successfully designed and work according to Newton's Theories of Motion and Gravitation.

Isn't that a clue that something is right with "Newton's Theories of Motion and Gravitation" and wrong with your ideas.

In my book, a correct theory is one that works in real life and you will never prove that yours will work.
I and others have asked you to do calculations that are easy using "Newton's Theories", but you simply refuse and say that you are not interested.

Do you honestly think scepti couldn't google those terms and give you a definition you like more Rab?

I can do it if you like.

Do you honestly think scepti couldn't google those terms and give you a definition you like more Rab?

I can do it if you like.

He could, but then he goes on and uses those term to mean something quite different.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:17:32 AM

Do you honestly think scepti couldn't google those terms and give you a definition you like more Rab?

I can do it if you like.

He could, but then he goes on and uses those term to mean something quite different.

He does, but what's the other option, invent new words just for his model?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 02:24:29 AM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:17:32 AM

Do you honestly think scepti couldn't google those terms and give you a definition you like more Rab?

I can do it if you like.

He could, but then he goes on and uses those term to mean something quite different.

He does, but what's the other option, invent new words just for his model?

Like 'denspressure' maybe?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 02:24:29 AM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:17:32 AM

Do you honestly think scepti couldn't google those terms and give you a definition you like more Rab?

I can do it if you like.

He could, but then he goes on and uses those term to mean something quite different.

He does, but what's the other option, invent new words just for his model?

That would be preferable to arbitrarily swapping round existing words, such as density and mass.   Only confusion lies that way.  Which is the idea, if you hadn't worked it out yet.

The fact is he perfectly well understands that density refers to how compact a substance is, rather than the amount of substance, he just likes playing silly games.   

Quote from: Rayzor on February 11, 2017, 04:59:42 PM

Scepimatic,   I'm serious,  I'll swap you a kilogram of balsa wood for a kilogram of gold whenever you are ready.

Just one question before the transaction.
If the balsa became a scarce wood and each piece preserved for infinite time and more scarce than gold but was worth more per kg, would you still swap?   
And also the balsa is crushed down to the same compactness as the gold, just for your ease of storage.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 11, 2017, 04:59:42 PM

Oh, and stacking still has no preferred direction given your latest circuitous ramblings are taken into account,   the displaced air doesn't provide any negative buoyancy which would be required to move the scales.

The space the object takes up is the displacement of it's own density of atmosphere that is pushed away and is compressed right back onto the object and this creates the weight measurement on a scale plate if that plate is used a a substitute for the ground resistance.
Don;t worry if you never grasp it. I'm still going to be explaining it for those that will eventually grasp it.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 11, 2017, 04:59:42 PM

In the absence of a gravitational field,  any pressure difference that built up from the central core would result in flow, and eventually the pressure would equalize.   

How can the pressure equalise in a stack?
That's like saying the bottom of the sea is the same as the top.
Turn the sea bowl upside down and you have a dome.
Is that equal pressure?

The reason the pressure is higher at the bottom of the sea than the top is because of gravity.   But I doubt you will ever be able to grasp that fact.

Without gravity there would be no pressure gradient. 

Quote from: Rayzor on February 12, 2017, 05:04:47 PM

It's easy enough to understand,  when you get past scepti's silly word games and deliberate misdirection,   what's missing is the underlying cause of the direction implicit in stacking.   

There's nothing missing. The socks have fell behind the drawer. Just because you didn't think to pull out the drawer, doesn't mean the socks are missing.
Everything is missing of you don't look for it.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 12, 2017, 05:04:47 PM

Putting it simply, denspressure relies on gravity or something equivalent in order to make it work,  so as a alternative theory intended to replace gravity it fails ipso facto.

Denpressure relies on any object/material to displace the atmosphere it is pushed into.
There is no gravity involved anywhere in that and no magical stuff needed.
The fact that people like you mention gravity, is weird when you have absolutely no clue what the hell it is.
All you know is you drop something and it's gravity.
This is the nonsensical crap that makes people like you accept it...for no reason whatsoever.
All the rest of it is text book historical nonsense told by people who have been pushed to the forefront as some kind of genius scientists that apparently back up any arguments.

It's clear clap trap and you should really know this because you literally are not even in the special category in terms of 800 packs of card memorising.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 12, 2017, 05:04:47 PM

It's not experimental science,  since we aren't even talking about the real world, we are talking about an abstract world, and in that abstract world, gravity is still required.

No it's not.

Ok,  here's your chance to set the record straight,   explain in simple words that a child could understand what causes the pressure gradient in denspressure. 

I'll listen.

You claim "I understand what they mean."
OK, please define:

"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
 "force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power",....  Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.

There you go. I took the time out to answer them in my own words. Sit and argue them all you want by looking in your, all knowing no wrong science book of mainstream answers to any questions that you follow without question.

And it seems so strange that your wonderful ideas can never come up with any numerical values and
these are essential for thereal life design of everything from vacuum and pressure pumps to bridges, cars and aircraft.
But these things are successfully designed and work according to Newton's Theories of Motion and Gravitation.

I could quite easily bring up numerical values for them. All I need to do is to change the meanings and do a little bit of tweaking.
Will I do that?
Not a chance. there's absolutely no need, because anything said or numbers given would be denied or jumped on as gravity and all the rest of the pure crap that you people adhere to.

Isn't that a clue that something is right with "Newton's Theories of Motion and Gravitation" and wrong with your ideas.

Not at all, so take of your "I love Isaac Newton".scarf.

In my book, a correct theory is one that works in real life and you will never prove that yours will work.

Well you are certainly not proving any of your rigidly stuck to bullshit, are you?

I and others have asked you to do calculations that are easy using "Newton's Theories", but you simply refuse and say that you are not interested.

Well, if you are not interested in how your theory works in real life, you do not have a useful theory - end of story!

Ok, end your story. I've tried to help you end it but you keep piping in, so basically you cannot end the story, can you?

The reason the pressure is higher at the bottom of the sea than the top is because of gravity.   But I doubt you will ever be able to grasp that fact.

Without gravity there would be no pressure gradient.

Care to explain how that works when the ocean can apparently be pulled up by the little rocky muwn?

Ok,  here's your chance to set the record straight,   explain in simple words that a child could understand what causes the pressure gradient in denspressure. 

I'll listen.

Stacking, like you've been told.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 11, 2017, 12:12:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:55:30 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 11, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:52:08 AM

so what is the same mass?

Tell me what volume actually is?

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is.

Do you never get bored of this?  You asked these questions and been told 100 times already.  Just playing games.

I'm not happy with the descriptions.

Then surely you can understand why people are unhappy with your descriptions

I'm not here to make people like you happy.
Either try and understand my thoughts or don't. It's simple enough.
If you never type another word to me ever again, it's not a problem to me.
If you actually do attempt to understand what I'm saying, then you at least add something to your thought process.
Nobody as forcing you to believe anything.
You people think I'm after grabbing your trusted sweets and replacing them with sweets you've never sampled, but heard about from the masses as being untrustworthy.
Keep your sweets but try and learn about the one's you were told about as being untrustworthy to find out why.
If you are happy with that then you have no further need to correspond with me. Simple.

And yet you complain that you are unhappy with descriptions people here give you.
I am trying to understand your model but the logic of it seems to fail when you remove some force that determines down.  Notice how that is the sticking point for everyone here?  I can understand UA.  I can even, to a certain extent understand the duel earth theory.  They are logical within themselves.  Granted you have to ignore a great deal of facts but they are relatively consistent. 
So the problem isn't me.  The problem is in your explanation.  So I will ask again, without some kind of downward force, what causes things to fall down?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 12, 2017, 11:53:27 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 11, 2017, 12:12:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:55:30 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 11, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:52:08 AM

so what is the same mass?

Tell me what volume actually is?

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is.

Do you never get bored of this?  You asked these questions and been told 100 times already.  Just playing games.

I'm not happy with the descriptions.

Then surely you can understand why people are unhappy with your descriptions

I'm not here to make people like you happy.
Either try and understand my thoughts or don't. It's simple enough.
If you never type another word to me ever again, it's not a problem to me.
If you actually do attempt to understand what I'm saying, then you at least add something to your thought process.
Nobody as forcing you to believe anything.
You people think I'm after grabbing your trusted sweets and replacing them with sweets you've never sampled, but heard about from the masses as being untrustworthy.
Keep your sweets but try and learn about the one's you were told about as being untrustworthy to find out why.
If you are happy with that then you have no further need to correspond with me. Simple.

And yet you complain that you are unhappy with descriptions people here give you.
I am trying to understand your model but the logic of it seems to fail when you remove some force that determines down.  Notice how that is the sticking point for everyone here?  I can understand UA.  I can even, to a certain extent understand the duel earth theory.  They are logical within themselves.  Granted you have to ignore a great deal of facts but they are relatively consistent. 
So the problem isn't me.  The problem is in your explanation.  So I will ask again, without some kind of downward force, what causes things to fall down?

I've already told you many times. Either understand it or don't. Either way with you, I don't honestly give a rats arse.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 13, 2017, 09:20:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 12, 2017, 11:53:27 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 11, 2017, 12:12:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:55:30 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 11, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 11:52:08 AM

so what is the same mass?

Tell me what volume actually is?

Tell me what mass is and then tell me what density is.

Do you never get bored of this?  You asked these questions and been told 100 times already.  Just playing games.

I'm not happy with the descriptions.

Then surely you can understand why people are unhappy with your descriptions

I'm not here to make people like you happy.
Either try and understand my thoughts or don't. It's simple enough.
If you never type another word to me ever again, it's not a problem to me.
If you actually do attempt to understand what I'm saying, then you at least add something to your thought process.
Nobody as forcing you to believe anything.
You people think I'm after grabbing your trusted sweets and replacing them with sweets you've never sampled, but heard about from the masses as being untrustworthy.
Keep your sweets but try and learn about the one's you were told about as being untrustworthy to find out why.
If you are happy with that then you have no further need to correspond with me. Simple.

And yet you complain that you are unhappy with descriptions people here give you.
I am trying to understand your model but the logic of it seems to fail when you remove some force that determines down.  Notice how that is the sticking point for everyone here?  I can understand UA.  I can even, to a certain extent understand the duel earth theory.  They are logical within themselves.  Granted you have to ignore a great deal of facts but they are relatively consistent. 
So the problem isn't me.  The problem is in your explanation.  So I will ask again, without some kind of downward force, what causes things to fall down?

I've already told you many times. Either understand it or don't. Either way with you, I don't honestly give a rats arse.

That's the thing though.  I know you think you have explained it but you haven't.  All of your examples require a separate force.  Pressure within the dome would even out without it.  Things fall at a predictable rate regardless of air pressure, you claim the molecules expand but this too would result in an equalizing of the actual pressure.