UA vs Denpressure

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 12:48:35 AM

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.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 12:48:35 AM

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.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 12:48:35 AM

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.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 12:48:35 AM

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?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 12:48:35 AM

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?

Or here I made a thing for scepti's model.

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density

Area of object - density = volume of object.

What is the radius of the sphere and the weight at sea level, I'll give you a number for the volume.

It won't reflect what the link says however.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 04:30:45 AM

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?

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:50:48 PM

Or here I made a thing for scepti's model.

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density

Area of object - density = volume of object.

What is the radius of the sphere and the weight at sea level, I'll give you a number for the volume.

It won't reflect what the link says however.

Huh?   Let's see if that makes sense. 

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density.
1 kg at sea level and an area of  1000 cm²    -->  density of 0.001 kg/cm²     So you are saying density has the units of pressure,  no reference to volume?

Moving right along.

Area of object - density = volume of object.   
1000 cm²  - 0.001 kg/cm²  = 999.1 cm³   ? sorry your equation can't be correct as written since units don't match,  apart from being obvious nonsense.

Your flawed interpretation of sceptimatics flawed model is flawed.   No surprise.
 

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 04:10:33 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:50:48 PM

Or here I made a thing for scepti's model.

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density

Area of object - density = volume of object.

What is the radius of the sphere and the weight at sea level, I'll give you a number for the volume.

It won't reflect what the link says however.

Huh?   Let's see if that makes sense. 

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density.
1 kg at sea level and an area of  1000 cm²    -->  density of 0.001 kg/cm²     So you are saying density has the units of pressure,  no reference to volume?

Moving right along.

Area of object - density = volume of object.   
1000 cm²  - 0.001 kg/cm²  = 999.1 cm³   ? sorry your equation can't be correct as written since units don't match,  apart from being obvious nonsense.

Your flawed interpretation of sceptimatics flawed model is flawed.   No surprise.
 

I think it worked well, you showed that something with a weight of 1kg at sea level occupying 1m2 has very little density. This is obvious, you then went to show that the object would have a lot of volume.

I think you did well, here, have a star.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 04:25:24 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 04:10:33 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:50:48 PM

Or here I made a thing for scepti's model.

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density

Area of object - density = volume of object.

What is the radius of the sphere and the weight at sea level, I'll give you a number for the volume.

It won't reflect what the link says however.

Huh?   Let's see if that makes sense. 

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density.
1 kg at sea level and an area of  1000 cm²    -->  density of 0.001 kg/cm²     So you are saying density has the units of pressure,  no reference to volume?

Moving right along.

Area of object - density = volume of object.   
1000 cm²  - 0.001 kg/cm²  = 999.1 cm³   ? sorry your equation can't be correct as written since units don't match,  apart from being obvious nonsense.

Your flawed interpretation of sceptimatics flawed model is flawed.   No surprise.
 

I think it worked well, you showed that something with a weight of 1kg at sea level occupying 1m2 has very little density. This is obvious, you then went to show that the object would have a lot of volume.

I think you did well, here, have a star.

I am sensing a growing friction between these two from down under...

Perhaps a battle in a kangaroo lined pit is in the future?

Vegas odds anyone?

My money is on dispute....He looks like a scapper ....Sorry Rab don't get mad


Though...At the same time, it looks like he may have bigger problems with inky after him

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 04:10:33 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:50:48 PM

Or here I made a thing for scepti's model.

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density

Area of object - density = volume of object.

What is the radius of the sphere and the weight at sea level, I'll give you a number for the volume.

It won't reflect what the link says however.

Huh?   Let's see if that makes sense. 

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density.
1 kg at sea level and an area of  1000 cm²    -->  density of 0.001 kg/cm²     So you are saying density has the units of pressure,  no reference to volume?

Moving right along.

Area of object - density = volume of object.   
1000 cm²  - 0.001 kg/cm²  = 999.1 cm³   ? sorry your equation can't be correct as written since units don't match,  apart from being obvious nonsense.

Your flawed interpretation of sceptimatics flawed model is flawed.   No surprise.
 

I think it worked well, you showed that something with a weight of 1kg at sea level occupying 1m2 has very little density. This is obvious, you then went to show that the object would have a lot of volume.

I think you did well, here, have a star.

As much as scepti and myself have had our differences, I believe in this he is being treated unfairly.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 04:25:24 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 04:10:33 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:50:48 PM

Or here I made a thing for scepti's model.

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density

Area of object - density = volume of object.

What is the radius of the sphere and the weight at sea level, I'll give you a number for the volume.

It won't reflect what the link says however.

Huh?   Let's see if that makes sense. 

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density.
1 kg at sea level and an area of  1000 cm²    -->  density of 0.001 kg/cm²     So you are saying density has the units of pressure,  no reference to volume?

Moving right along.

Area of object - density = volume of object.   
1000 cm²  - 0.001 kg/cm²  = 999.1 cm³   ? sorry your equation can't be correct as written since units don't match,  apart from being obvious nonsense.

Your flawed interpretation of sceptimatics flawed model is flawed.   No surprise.
 

I think it worked well, you showed that something with a weight of 1kg at sea level occupying 1m2 has very little density. This is obvious, you then went to show that the object would have a lot of volume.

I think you did well, here, have a star.

Actually I showed that something weighing 1kg and occupying zero volume has infinite density.  You need volume,  not area,  to have density.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 06:36:31 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 04:25:24 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 04:10:33 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 02:50:48 PM

Or here I made a thing for scepti's model.

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density

Area of object - density = volume of object.

What is the radius of the sphere and the weight at sea level, I'll give you a number for the volume.

It won't reflect what the link says however.

Huh?   Let's see if that makes sense. 

Weight at sea level ÷ area of object = density.
1 kg at sea level and an area of  1000 cm²    -->  density of 0.001 kg/cm²     So you are saying density has the units of pressure,  no reference to volume?

Moving right along.

Area of object - density = volume of object.   
1000 cm²  - 0.001 kg/cm²  = 999.1 cm³   ? sorry your equation can't be correct as written since units don't match,  apart from being obvious nonsense.

Your flawed interpretation of sceptimatics flawed model is flawed.   No surprise.
 

I think it worked well, you showed that something with a weight of 1kg at sea level occupying 1m2 has very little density. This is obvious, you then went to show that the object would have a lot of volume.

I think you did well, here, have a star.

Actually I showed that something weighing 1kg and occupying zero volume has infinite density.  You need volume,  not area,  to have density.

You are using the orthodox meaning of those terms, I don't know what you expect tbh.

Here, have a link that explains the terms how you are familiar with.

www.google.com

Entirely my fault...Though is rayzor from Australia too?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 07:06:09 PM

Entirely my fault...Though is rayzor from Australia too?

Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

I am saddened to see he's back to name calling. However not surprised.
Apart from that there's no history.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 08:02:43 PM

I am saddened to see he's back to name calling. However not surprised.
Apart from that there's no history.

Who said I was talking about you,  are you a flat earther?  I just thought you were a regular conspiracy looney.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 08:05:53 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 08:02:43 PM

I am saddened to see he's back to name calling. However not surprised.
Apart from that there's no history.

Who said I was talking about you,  are you a flat earther?  I just thought you were a regular conspiracy looney.

If you want to insult me I will buy you a beer and we can talk.

Otherwise stay on topic please.

Edit.

There are some very intelligent people who aren't satisfied with that particular story Rayzor.

Just a heads up.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 08:09:52 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 08:05:53 PM

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 08:02:43 PM

I am saddened to see he's back to name calling. However not surprised.
Apart from that there's no history.

Who said I was talking about you,  are you a flat earther?  I just thought you were a regular conspiracy looney.

If you want to insult me I will buy you a beer and we can talk.

Otherwise stay on topic please.

Edit.

There are some very intelligent people who aren't satisfied with that particular story Rayzor.

Just a heads up.

So are you a flat earther or not?  You seem to think that was an insult?

And you still haven't  addressed the problem I raised with your definition of volume.   Stop derailing,   or don't you have a clue?

I don't know what is worse.... Two Aussies getting worked up or two Texans.

Either way the friction can lead to some serious implosions lol ..About as friendly as a Neutron and plutonium butting against each other.

Oh stuff it, here you are.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Density+define
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Volume+define

There you go.

Oh stuff it, here you are.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Density+define

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Volume+define

There you go.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 08:37:26 PM

I don't know what is worse.... Two Aussies getting worked up or two Texans.

Either way the friction can lead to some serious implosions lol ..About as friendly as a Neutron and plutonium butting against each other.

I think aussies and texans are similar in the sense that we can have a heated disagreement and still respect each other.

I believe I only really started to respect you after you schooled me on theism in that thread so long ago :-).

@BHS me and Rayzor had a disagreement about the fall acceleration of building 7 on 9/11/01.

I'll let scepti decide the new words, being his idea and all.

Remember that kid who didn't think he would need calculus in highschool then instead of doing something constructive he goes on to disrupt the whole class and pick on the kids who are trying to learn?

You are being that kid.

So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 09:27:01 PM

So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'd  take that challenge,  but I don't want to derail this thread.    Keep your stick on the ice champ,  we'll get back to you about fairy tales in due course.

There are still many places in Texas you can get in a fight (physical or verbal) and the winner buys the beer. That is how you meet the friends that are loyal and stay for the long haul. Two of my longest standing friends I met in a physical fight. Others through verbal confrontation...

Life before liberalism

You never owned up to being a flat earther,  so I'll assume you aren't  unless you want to correct me and claim otherwise.

I think the earth is most likely an oblate spheroid and that modern science is for the most part correct.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 09:27:01 PM

So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'd  take that challenge,  but I don't want to derail this thread.    Keep your stick on the ice champ,  we'll get back to you about fairy tales in due course. 

My major was maths and physics,  Also I happen to like calculus.

You never owned up to being a flat earther,  so I'll assume you aren't  unless you want to correct me and claim otherwise.

I think the earth is most likely an oblate spheroid and that modern science is for the most part correct.

Turns out the earth really is flat.